By- Thasni Hussine
Religion, caste, and class are specific concepts closely intertwined in our Indian society. People think they are their pride and belief and actively represent these views when a person converts or changes from one religion to another, the state customs, beliefs, and values reflect the values of other religions. In this case, the problems that may arise during the conversion and re-conversion process will be considered. Keeping the caste of the convertor reconverted in a problematic situation.1
Devarajan (also known as the defendant) was born to converted parents and was baptized seven months after his birth. Still, it should be noted that Devarajan has never been to church and has been doing so throughout his education and training. He is considered a Hindu. A political career, and therefore never professed to be Christian. In addition, the interviewee’s parents belonged to Hindu AdiDravida and consequently belonged to the project’s caste. Another outstanding situation is that voters in the reserved caste area of the plan accepted his candidacy for reserved seats. He was chosen twice as the People’s Chamber; in the 1980 election, he campaigned on the seat reserved for the programmatic box. He was elected to the LokSabha with a clear majority. The basis of the election was that the defendant did not belong to the Hindu AdiDravida’s programmatic caste and used this to gain certain advantages. Bunal believes that the defendant’s option to reserve seats is valid because the defendant is a Hindu and AdiDravida caste, so he appealed to challenge the electoral court’s decision and overturn his election. This case involved the complainant’s appeal to the Supreme Court of India, requesting the overturn of the defendant’s election in the Rasipuram parliament constituency, which was also reserved for the designated constituency.
The Supreme Court’s main question is whether a person has converted to Hinduism, and if other caste members accept them, they can return to their original caste. The emphasized theme is that people born into a converted religion but converted to a primitive religion belong to the same primitive caste. If the defendant of the programmatic caste, in this case, is Hindu AdiDravida, it is the opposite of Hinduism. Another issue to consider is whether specific measures need to be taken to return to Hinduism.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the election court’s decision was incorrect and that the defendant and his parents and sisters had been informed of Christians. The applicant also claimed that the defendant was a Christian and presented the baptismal certificate and other documents to the court. This confirms the accusation that the defendant and his parents and sisters were born Christians, and they only1 Raj S. Gandhi, From Caste to Class in Indian Society. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol 7, No.2. pretended to be members of the programmed caste to obtain certain benefits. Therefore, the plaintiff ruled that the defendant could not get a caste or become an AdiDravida Hindu. The defendant’s argument supports the fact that he was treated as an Indian student and therefore received a scholarship. The defendant’s lawyer also submitted acceptable evidence to the court, such as school records, which confirmed that the defendant had never been to church and worshipped Hindu gods in Hindu temples. They also argued that the defendant’s marriage was also concluded following Hindu customs and rituals. In summary, the defendant provided all the evidence that proves that the defendant is related to Hinduism to some extent rather than Christianity.
The Supreme Court judge rejected the complainant’s complaint because there was no clear and accurate evidence that the defendant was a Christian. The court also established the principle that a person can never lose caste status. When converting or reconverting to their religion, the court ruled that the caste will never disappear from the inherent nature of human beings but only disappear and reappear through repeated conversions. Even after several non-generations after conversion, the caste mark disappears. He also pointed out that in this case, he is said not to believe that any other principle applies when a person whose ancestors left Hinduism and converts to another religion converts to Hinduism and any other principle that applies to the conversion situation. In Hinduism, one person renounces Hinduism and accepts different religions.
Conversion and re-conversion may be sensitive topics. If it is also viewed in the box dimension, it can become more multifaceted, and it has also been resolved in this particular case. The first question answered by the court is why and to what extent caste membership has become an essential concept for individuals and communities. In this case, the court made a clear and concise judgment. The court understands the importance of caste to society; he recognizes that caste has become a human instinct, and merely converting or returning to religion will not lose his caste roots. From the southern states of India, there are some Christian families whose ancestors became Christians. They believe in Christianity but follow caste customs. The court ruled on the defendant’s reasons for converting to Hinduism and cited
similar cases in this regard. In the case of Muthusami Mudaliar & Anr. 2 Masilamani and others concluded that conversion or conversion to a Hindu caste is a simple process. If the lower castes require recognition and the Hindu community recognizes them, they are considered Hindu castes. Therefore, it is only recognized by the community.
Caste and religion are closely linked, so Hinduism is considered a non-converted religion. When a person converts to Hinduism, the question arises which caste the convert belongs to. Since the national policy is for specific castes, this issue has become more complicated. Therefore, the proposal stands out because it represents the interests of lower castes and the interests of communities and their religions and declares that no one is in the interests of others.
- MuthusamiMudaliarAndAnr. vsMasilamani And Ors, IndCas 42