Indian State Places New Restrictions On Religious Conversion

On Nov. 27, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 (full text) (section-by-section explanation). It outlaws religious conversions entered solely for the purpose of marriage, as well as religious conversions by means of misrepresentations, force, coercion, undue influence, allurement or fraud. Violations are punishable by imprisonment of 1 to 5 years, and a fine of up to $200(US)-- with higher punishments where a minor, a woman or member of a Scheduled Caste are involved, or a mass conversion. 

The new law also sets out an elaborate procedure for anyone who wishes to change his or her religion. The procedure includes a 60-day advance notice to the District Magistrate, followed by a police investigation, and a post-conversion filing. The clergy planning to conduct a conversion must file a notice 30 days in advance. The Hindu reports on the new law.

Time reports on the "love jihad" conspiracy theory that has given impetus to laws such as this one:

Love Jihad is a baseless conspiracy theory that Muslim men are attempting to surreptitiously shift India’s demographic balance by converting Hindu women to Islam through marriage. The narrative has been pushed by Hindu nationalist groups close to India’s ruling BJP since Prime Minister Narendra Modi was first elected in 2014....

The new law comes just two weeks after judges in Uttar Pradesh’s high court overturned a previous decision that religious conversions for the sake of marriage are unacceptable....

The high court case referred to is Priyanshi @ Km. Shamren and others v. State of U.P. and Another, (Allahabad High Court, Nov. 11, 2020). The court said in part:

Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion, is inhered under right to life and personal liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9th Circuit Upholds California School Curriculum On Hinduism

 In California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (9th Cir., Sept. 3, 2020), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit claiming that California's History-Social Science Standards and Framework incorrectly describe Hinduism and treat it negatively in relation to the treatment of other religions. Rejecting plaintiffs' free exercise claims, the court said in part:

Appellants allegations suggest at most that portions of the Standards and Framework contain material Appellants find offensive to their religious beliefs. .... Offensive content that does not penalize, interfere with, or otherwise burden religious exercise does not violate Free Exercise rights. 

The court also rejected equal protection, due process and establishment clause challenges. Education Week reports on the decision.

Kamala Harris Has Varied Religious Background

 Religion News Service reports on the broad exposure to various religious faiths experienced by Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee for vice-president. Her mother was Hindu, but she grew up attending predominately Black churches. She now considers herself a Black Baptist. Her husband Douglas Emhoff is Jewish.

Suit Says Chicago Schools Program Promoted Hindu Beliefs

Organizations comprised of parents, students and churches this week filed suit in an Illinois federal district court challenging on Establishment Clause and free exercise grounds the "Quiet Time" program that has been implemented in a number of Chicago public schools. the complaint (full text) in Separation of Hinduism From Our Schools v/ Chicago Public Schools, (ND IL, filed 8/3/2020), alleges in part:

3. Although all named Defendants have made statements to the contrary, the “Quiet Time” program is based in Hindu beliefs and the practice of “Transcendental Meditation” is fundamentally religious in nature.

4. Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment were violated when Defendants created environments within public schools where Hindu beliefs and the practice of “Transcendental Meditation” were being endorsed and students were coerced to engage in religious practices against their wills.

Christian News reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Hears Arguments In Hindu Challenge To California Curriculum Standards

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson. In the case, a California federal district court dismissed the claim that California public schools' History-Social Science Content Standards adopted in 1998 and its History-Social Science Framework adopted in 2016 violate the Establishment Clause by demonstrating hostility toward Hinduism. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on yesterday's oral arguments.

California Sues Cisco Alleging Caste-Based Discrimination

In a June 30 press release, the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing announced the filing of an unusual employment discrimination lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. and two of its managers:

The lawsuit alleges that managers at Cisco’s San Jose headquarters campus, which employs a predominantly South Asian workforce, harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against an engineer because he is Dalit Indian, a population once known as the “untouchables” under India’s centuries-old caste system....

The lawsuit alleges that Complainant was expected to accept a caste hierarchy within the workplace where he held the lowest status within a team of higher-caste colleagues, receiving less pay, fewer opportunities, and other inferior terms and conditions of employment because of his religion, ancestry, national origin/ethnicity, and race/color.

The Print reports on the lawsuit.

India's Supreme Court Awards Disputed Ayodhya Site To Hindus

In M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, (India Supreme Court, Nov. 9, 2019), in an opinion that spans 1,045 pages, the Supreme Court of India ruled on a decades-old dispute over a piece of land claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.  BBC summarized the decision:

India's Supreme Court has ruled that the disputed holy site in Ayodhya in northern India should be given to Hindus who want to build a temple there.

The case, which has been bitterly contested for decades by Hindus and Muslims, centres on the ownership of the land in Uttar Pradesh state.

At the centre of the row is the 16th Century Babri mosque which was demolished by Hindu mobs in 1992, sparking riots that killed nearly 2,000 people.

Muslims would get another plot of land to construct a mosque, the court said.

In its opinion, the court explained:

The disputed land forms part of the village of Kot Rama Chandra or, as it is otherwise called, Ramkot at Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, of Tehsil Sadar in the District of Faizabad. An old structure of a mosque existed at the site until 6 December 1992. The site has religious significance for the devotees of Lord Ram, who believe that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site. For this reason, the Hindus refer to the disputed site as Ram Janmabhumi or Ram Janmasthan (i.e. birth-place of Lord Ram). The Hindus assert that there existed at the disputed site an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram, which was demolished upon the conquest of the Indian sub-continent by Mughal Emperor Babur. On the other hand, the Muslims contended that the mosque was built by or at the behest of Babur on vacant land. Though the significance of the site for the Hindus is not denied, it is the case of the Muslims that there exists no proprietary claim of the Hindus over the disputed property.

Reuters has more extensive reporting on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Indian Court Says Hindu Marriage Act Covers Marriage Involving Transgender Woman

A trial court in India has held that a marriage between a man and a transgender woman, both of whom profess the Hindu religion, is valid under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Registrar of Marriages is required to register the marriage. In Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration, (Madras High Ct., April 22, 2019), the court said in part:

For too long, the transgender persons/intersex people have been languishing in the margins. The Constitution of India is an enabling document. It is inviting them to join the mainstream. Therefore, it would be absurd to deny the transgenders the benefit of the social institutions already in place in the mainstream....

When the right of the transgender persons to marry has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the very nature of things, they cannot be kept out of the purview of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Deccan Herald reports on the decision.

New Trial Ordered After Juror Questions Defendant's Taking of Oath

In Davis v. Husain, (NJ App., March 1, 2019), a New Jersey state appellate court, in a hostile work environment case that has already wound its way to the state Supreme Court once, ordered a new trial.  At issue is a statement that was made by one of the jurors raising a question about the testimony of the defendant. The juror noted that defendant, a Hindu, had not placed his hand on the Bible when taking the oath. In earlier proceedings, it was shown that the defendant had acted in this way, at least in part, because of his religious belief that the left hand should never be placed on a holy book.  In ordering a new trial, the appeals court said in part:

The juror's comment regarding the Bible raises the specter of religious bigotry. Whether that concern colored the view of the other jurors is still unknown, with the exception of the juror who appeared. This is a peculiar situation. The Law Division judge said the juror who made the observation was only concerned with Husain's credibility, i.e. that a person who refused to place his hand on the Bible was incapable of taking the oath seriously and was therefore incredible. He contrasted this with out-and-out religious bigotry. But if he was correct, that too is simply impermissible. The exercise of a person's religion should not make him or her per se incredible.

NJ.com reports on the decision.

Challenge To Treatment of Hinduism In California Curriculum Fails

In California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (ND CA, Feb. 28, 2019), a California federal district court dismissed the claim that California public schools' History-Social Science Content Standards adopted in 1998 and its History-Social Science Framework adopted in 2016 violate the Establishment Clause by demonstrating hostility toward Hinduism.  Plaintiffs contended that the discussion of Hinduism only from a secular perspective, over-emphasis on the caste system, adoption of the Aryan Invasion Theory and the description of Hinduism's treatment of women all denigrate Hinduism. They also object to the input of SAFG, a group of academics who they describe as anti-Hindu. The court concluded however:

[E]ven if there is some evidence by which a reasonable person could infer a disapproval of Hindu religious beliefs—an excessive discussion of caste, for example, or a failure to be fully transparent about coordination with SAFG—that is not enough to conclude that the primary message of the Standards and Framework is disparagement.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Indian Supreme Court's Ruling On Temple Access By Women Meets Resistance

As previously reported, last month India's Supreme Court struck down a ban on women between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Temple.  However, yesterday's New York Times reports that implementing the Court's ruling has been difficult:

When the temple reopened for six days on Wednesday, for the first time since the court’s decision, the pilgrimage path became a kind of conflict zone, pitting traditionalists against police officers who vowed to enforce the law and protect any woman who wished to visit.

At least 12 women attempted the journey. Each was met with a mob that variously shouted in her face, pummeled the police, set vehicles on fire, hurled rocks and blocked the steep, three-mile trail leading to the temple by lying on its slippery stones. All of the women were forced to turn back. One was so overwhelmed that she fainted.

India's Supreme Court Invalidates Ban On Women In Temple

In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (India Sup. Ct., Sept. 28, 2018), the Supreme Court of India by a vote of 4-1 struck down a rule of the Sabarimala Temple that prevents women between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering. Four separate opinions spanning 411 pages were filed. Chief Justice Misra, who began his plurality opinion by quoting Susan B. Anthony, said in part:

The exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabrimala temple by virtue of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules violates the right of Hindu women to freely practise their religion and exhibit their devotion towards Lord Ayyappa. This denial denudes them of their right to worship. The right to practise religion under Article 25(1) is equally available to both men and women of all age groups professing the same religion.  

Economic Times reports on the decision.

NYT Profiles Wealthy Hindu Holy Man With Rising Political Power In India

Today's New York Times Magazine carries a lengthy profile of Baba Ramdev, holy man and billionaire who has increasing political power in India. Here is an excerpt:

Ramdev has been a prominent voice on the Hindu right, and his tacit endorsement during the landmark 2014 campaign helped bring Prime Minister Narendra Modi to power.... Although Modi campaigned heavily on promises to reform India’s economy and fight corruption, there were frequent dog whistles to the Hindu nationalist base, some of them coordinated with Ramdev. A month before Modi’s landslide victory, a trust controlled by Ramdev released a video in which senior leaders of Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.) ... appeared alongside him with a signed document setting out nine pledges. These included the protection of cows — animals held sacred in Hinduism — and a broad call for Hindu nationalist reforms of the government, the courts, cultural institutions and education....

But Ramdev is far more than a useful holy man. Even beyond his political patrons, Ramdev is the perfect messenger for a rising middle class that is hungry for religious assertion and fed up with the socialist, rationalist legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first post-independence leader. Ramdev has led vastly popular campaigns against corruption, donning the mantle of swadeshi, or Indian economic nationalism, to cast foreign companies as neocolonial villains. In a sense, Ramdev has changed Hinduism itself. His blend of patriotic fervor, health and religious piety flows seamlessly into the harder versions of Hindu nationalism, which are often openly hostile to India’s 172 million Muslims. Although Ramdev prefers to speak of Indian solidarity, his B.J.P. allies routinely invoke an Islamic threat and rally crowds with vows to build temples on the sites of medieval mosques.

In his own way, Ramdev is India’s answer to Donald Trump, and there is much speculation that he may run for prime minister himself.

Fair Housing Suit Filed Over Condo Rule Barring Toran

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on a federal Fair Housing Act religious discrimination lawsuit filed on Wednesday in a Pennsylvania federal district court. Filed by a Hindu condo owner in an upscale high-rise Philadelphia building, the suit challenges a new rule adopted by the condo association which bars resident Akhilesh Tripathi from keeping a toran on his door.  The Hindu toran, made of chains, bells and balls of fabric, and blessed by a Hindu priest, has hung across his door frame since 2009.  The condo association's new rules permit certain religious symbols, particularly mezuzahs, to be attached to door frames, but does not allow Tripathi's toran.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and damages.

Indian State Moves To Grant Minority Religion Status To Lingayats

In the Indian state of Karnataka, the cabinet (on the recommendation of the State Minorities Commission)  has voted to grant the status of a separate religious minority to Lingayats, instead of treating them as a Hindu sect.  More controversially, the cabinet also voted to include Veerashaivas as part of the same community.  Lingayats, and Veerashaivas constitute 17% of the state's population.  India West and The Mirror report that the move is seen as an attempt by the ruling Congress party to attract the sect's votes away from the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party in the state assembly elections that will be held in April and May. The cabinet recommendation now goes to the central government for approval under §2(c) of the Central Minority Commission Act.

Valentine's Day Remains Controversial In Some Conservative Muslim and Hindu Areas

Again this year, Valentine's Day is countering opposition from conservative religious leaders in some nations.  Voice of America reports that Pakistan's  Electronic Media Regulatory Authority sent instructions to radio and television stations based on a ruling last year by the Islamabad High Court that Valentine's Day is un-Islamic, spreading immorality, nudity and indecency.  PEMRA told its licensees:

Respondents are directed to ensure that nothing about the celebrations of Valentine's Day and its promotion is spread on the Electronic and Print media," PEMRA's directive stated. "No event shall be held on an official level and at any public place. PEMRA is directed to ensure that all the TV channels shall stop the promotion of Valentine's Day forthwith."

Meanwhile, the Indonesian province of South Sulawesi has also continued its ban of the celebration of Valentine's Day. (Jakarta Post). And in the Indian state of  Karnataka, Shri Ram Sena pro-Hindu activists have been burning Valentines in effigy, claiming Valentine's Day as anti-Hindu. (MeriNews). Arab News reports however that Valentine's Day has become one of the most celebrated events in Egypt.

Wife's Religious Convictions Do Not Override Vermont Divorce Law

In Maghu v. Singh, (VT Sup. Ct., Jan. 12, 2018), the Vermont Supreme Court rejected a wife's attempt to obtain dismissal of a no-fault divorce petition filed by her husband.  The couple was married in India and, among other contentions, the wife argued that Vermont's courts should defer to Indian divorce law. In rejecting that contention, the court said in a footnote:

We reject wife’s argument that the court’s grant of a no-fault divorce contrary to India’s Hindu Marriage Act, and the religious requirements reflected therein, impinges on wife’s free exercise of religion in violation of Chapter I, Article 3 of the Vermont Constitution. Quite the opposite, it would be constitutionally problematic, to say the least, if we began to decline access to a divorce from an otherwise qualified domiciliary on the basis of the religious convictions of the other party. 

India's Chief Justice Tells Authorities To Rein In Cow Protection Vigilantes

According to Reuters, India's Supreme Court last week ordered both the federal and state governments to appoint police officers to stop cow protection groups from taking the law into their own hands. Chief Justice Dipak Misra told governments to take this step after a hearing on three public interest lawsuits. There has been a wave of attacks by Hindu activists on Muslims accused of killing cows or eating beef. Police have processed over three dozen cases in the past two years. Several Indian states impose criminal punishment for slaughtering cows, which are sacred to Hindus.

Establishment Clause Challenge To Portrayal of Hinduism In California Schools May Proceed

In California Parents for the Equalization of  Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (ND CA, July 13, 2017), plaintiffs challenge the treatment of Hinduism in the Standards and the Framework for history and social science courses taught in the California public schools.  They claim discrimination against Hinduism as compared to the treatment of other religions.  A California federal district court last week held that plaintiffs had stated a claim under the Establishment Clause.  The court relied on impressions of one sixth-grader to support its conclusion that the curriculum may have favored other religions over Hinduism:

The primary message that sixth grade student received was that her teacher and classmates considered Hinduism “cruel,” “primitive and unjust,” and that Hinduism had not been treated with “fairness and dignity.” ... The student formed this impression based in large part on the Framework’s content, which emphasized that the caste system was a part of Hinduism. 

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, holding that the equal protection clause may not be used to challenge the content of school curriculum.  The court also rejected plaintiffs' claims of discrimination in the process of adopting the curriculum Framework, as well as free exercise and substantive due process challenges. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Treatment of Hinduism In California School Curriculum

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds the treatment of Hinduism in the California public school curriculum.  The complaint (full text) in California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (N CA, filed 2/8/2017), contends:

Defendants have adopted and are implementing content standards and a curriculum framework that are the foundation of the history-social science education provided to all California public school students. The content standards, adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) in 1998, explain the teachings of major world religions, their virtues and central figures, and the belief of adherents in the divine origins of their faiths. This is true for all religions covered except Hinduism, which is not portrayed as virtuous, does not include mention of religious figures, and is described as an “intellectual tradition” without reference to a belief in divine origins....

East Bay Times reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]