ITANAGAR, Feb 7: The Arunachal Christian Forum (ACF), the apex Christian body in the border state, announced on Thursday its decision to launch a series of protests against the state BJP government’s move to implement the 46-year-old Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1978.
ACF President Tarh Miri stated that the Christian community would go on a week-long fast beginning on February 10, followed by a mass prayer calling for the repeal of the controversial law. Miri added that the ACF would also stage a demonstration by gheraoing the state Assembly on March 6, when the Act is likely to be discussed before its implementation.
Despite the law’s name suggesting protection of religious freedom, Miri claimed that the Act would, in fact, curb the freedom to practice their religion. “We have chalked out the protest programme to demonstrate our opposition to the Act that has been dormant for four decades,” Miri said. He further pointed out that the state government had shown indifference to the ACF’s concerns and objections regarding the 46-year-old law.
The ACF had previously raised the issue with the Chief Secretary in November last year and submitted a letter to Chief Minister Pema Khandu. The Chief Minister had advised them to meet his advisor, Alo Libang. Miri emphasized that the move to implement the law was against the spirit of secularism in the state.
In December 2024, Chief Minister Khandu had announced that the Freedom of Religion Act would be implemented once its rules were framed. This announcement came after a directive from the Itanagar bench of the Gauhati High Court, which ordered the state government to finalize the draft rules for the Act within six months starting from September 2024.
The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act was passed by the state Assembly during the Janata Party-led government, headed by Chief Minister P.K. Thungon, and received presidential assent on October 25, 1978. The Act seeks to ban religious conversions through force, inducement, or fraudulent means. It was reportedly enacted in response to concerns about the perceived threat to indigenous religions in the state. However, successive state governments have chosen to sideline the Act for decades.
