Two anti-conversion bills were proposed this year. One, drafted by the government and misleadingly named the 'Bill for the Protection of Religious Freedom', stated that 'No person shall convert nor attempt to convert... another to a different religion'. The other, proposed by the National Sinhala Heritage party (JHU), bans so-called 'forced conversions'. There is also a proposal to amend the Constitution, making Buddhism the state religion and prohibiting the conversion of Buddhists to another religion.

Sri Lanka is a nation which, although divided ethnically between the Tamils and Sinhalese, has an overwhelming Buddhist majority. Its Constitution accords to Buddhism ‘the foremost place’, but it is not the state religion. Recently, however, the nationalist and Buddhist agendas have gained influence with the rise of the Jathika Hela Uramaya party (JHU; translated ‘National Sinhala Heritage’ party), which in the Parliamentary elections held in April won nine seats and thus alongside the Tamil National Alliance now holds the balance of power. This development exacerbates religious tensions, alongside existing linguistic, ethnic and political divisions.

Regarding the recently-proposed anti-conversion legislation and Constitutional amendment, it appears that these are aimed particularly at Christians, although they will technically apply to all religions.The government's bill has not been tabled and is unlikely to proceed.

The Christian community and civic groups launched a legal challenge in the Supreme Court against the JHU Bill, arguing that it was unconstitutional and a violation of Sri Lanka’s international obligations.

Two clauses, on the need to report conversions to a Divisional Secretary, and the punishment stipulated for failure to comply with this, were deemed to violate Article 10 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The JHU is faced with two alternatives: either to amend their Bill in accordance with the Constitution, or proceed without amendments, which would necessitate a two-thirds parliamentary majority, and a referendum. The Sri Lankan press indicated in September that the JHU may re-draft the bill.

These bills threaten to violate Article 18 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights which protects a person’s ‘freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom … to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’

Recent violence against Christians

Until four years ago, there was little history of religious conflict in Sri Lanka. Since 2000 there has been a sharp escalation of violence against Christians, with churches attacked and congregations subjected to physical beatings. In 2001-02, 26 such incidents were reported by the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka; in 2003 the total rose to 91 reported attacks. So far in 2004, 66 churches have reportedly been attacked, while 140 have been forced to close due to intimidation and threats. The violence has affected all denominations, including evangelicals, mainstream Protestants and Catholics.

A further worry arises from the promise of the Minister for Buddha Sasana to create ‘Sanghadikarana’ courts, which would function as mechanisms for local discipline. These courts would be presided over by Buddhist monks, without involvement of police or law courts. There are fears that this could adversely affect victimised minorities.

Christian response

The National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka (NCEASL) has protested about several aspects of the proposed legislation. In the first place, the legislation is regarded as unconstitutional, hence the Supreme Court challenge. Secondly, certain textual ambiguities have been highlighted in the JHU Bill: the word ‘allurement’ in particular is thought to be open to subjective interpretation, which may ‘seal the fate of Christian humanitarian assistance’ (NCEASL). Such a loose definition of proselytism effectively disallows the performance of ‘good works’ on the basis that it allegedly amounts to ‘coercion.’ As NCEASL itself notes, this damages the capacity for humanitarian and welfare activities within all religious groups, and accordingly certain Sri Lankan churches have suspended their social action programmes.

Buddhists accuse Christians of using ‘unethical’ inducements to convert people. The NCEASL and the Catholic bishops and National Christian Council in a joint statement have reacted strongly against this, upholding the need for freedom of choice in religion. It is feared that this may represent the first stage in a more widespread legislative programme of restricting religious and personal freedom.

Accordingly, the NCEASL has been very active in confronting the problem, not only through the Supreme Court challenge but also in lobbying and in providing humanitarian assistance to the churches that were attacked.

While the churches oppose legislation, they would accept that mistakes have been made by some Christians, and are actively developing alternative proposals for ways of addressing Buddhist concerns.

Wake-up call

Although there is a general feeling that the Bills represent a divisive move, which would be deeply damaging for the country, the present situation has fused the church into a united front: ‘This has been a wake-up call for the fragmented and divided Church in Sri Lanka… It has also made us rethink our methods of mission, made us more culturally sensitive, accountable and responsible in the way we have gone about our ministry. God has permitted this situation to purge and purify us. ’ (NCEASL)