In a strongly worded open letter to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, prominent Christian leader and former President of the Bombay Catholic Sabha, Raphael D’Souza, has urged the government to withdraw its proposed Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill. D’Souza warns that the legislation contains “draconian provisions” that could erode constitutional freedoms, disrupt communal harmony, and disproportionately target minority communities.
The letter underscores that the Christian community in Mumbai has already publicly opposed the bill, asserting that matters of faith fall within the private domain of individual conscience. “Religion is a matter of personal belief — the form of God one worships is sacred and personal,” D’Souza notes, stressing that the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to practice, preach, and propagate their faith, subject only to reasonable limits meant to prevent public disorder.
Reviewing the historical trajectory of anti-conversion laws in India, D’Souza points out that Odisha enacted the first such law in 1967, and since then, 11 states have introduced similar legislation, many with increasingly harsh penalties. Despite frequent allegations of forced conversions and several FIRs filed over the years, D’Souza highlights that conviction rates remain “virtually zero.” This, he argues, suggests that these laws are often used to intimidate Christian institutions engaged in education, healthcare, and social upliftment, especially among marginalized communities.
The letter further challenges the need for such a bill by examining demographic trends. Citing census data, D’Souza notes that the proportion of Christians in Maharashtra has steadily declined—from 1.42% in 1961 to 0.96% in 2001—even as the Hindu population has grown. A similar pattern is evident nationally, where the Christian share dropped from 2.44% in 1961 to 2.30% in 2011. “Do statistics warrant such legislation?” he asks, questioning claims of mass religious conversions.
Contrasting the shrinking Christian population with rising hostilities, D’Souza cites a significant increase in violence against Christians, with incidents reportedly jumping from 147 in 2014 to 840 in 2024. Such figures, he warns, indicate growing vulnerability rather than expanding influence.
For decades, Maharashtra refrained from enacting anti-conversion laws, earning recognition for its secular governance and inclusive social ethos. D’Souza expresses disappointment that the state is now considering a measure that he believes could “obstruct acts of charity, compassion, and peaceful coexistence.”
Addressing Fadnavis as the “CEO of this great state,” the letter appeals to the Chief Minister to safeguard the constitutional rights of all citizens—Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians alike—and to prevent the misuse of legal provisions for ideological or political objectives. D’Souza concludes with a plea that “wisdom prevails” during the upcoming Nagpur session of the legislature, urging the government to reject the bill and uphold Maharashtra’s long-standing tradition of pluralism and brotherhood.
