Itanagar: The Arunachal Christian Forum (ACF), an apex Christian body in the border state, on Thursday announced to launch series of protests against the state BJP government’s move to implement a 46-year-old anti-conversion law.
ACF President Tarh Miri said that they would go on a week-long fast from February 10 followed by a mass prayer demanding repeal of the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1978.
While talking to the media, Miri said that they are planning to gherao the state Assembly on March 6, when the Act is likely to be discussed in the house before its implementation.
He claimed that though the law has freedom in its name but it has been intended to curb the freedom of practising their religion.
“We have chalked out the protest programme to demonstrate our protest against the Act that has been dormant for four decades,” Miri said, adding that the state government was virtually indifferent to the ACF’s concerns and objection about the 46-year-old law.
He said that earlier they discussed the matter with the Chief Secretary in November last year and submitted a letter to the Chief Minister Pema Khandu.
The Chief Minister had advised them to meet his advisor Alo Libang.
Miri said that the move to implement the Act was against the spirit of secularism.
In December last year, the Chief Minister had said the Freedom of Religion Act would be implemented after its rules were framed.
The Chief Minister’s announcement comes after the directive from the Itanagar bench of the Gauhati High Court to the state government to finalise the draft rules of the Act within six months from September 2024.
The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act was passed by the state Assembly during the erstwhile Janata Party-led government headed by then Chief Minister P.K. Thungon.
The act, which got the presidential assent on October 25, 1978, seeks to ban conversions from one religion to another by force, inducement, or fraudulent act. The law was reportedly enacted in response to concerns about the perceived threat to indigenous religions in the state. Successive governments, however, chose to sideline the Act.
