Anti-Hindu Congress Leader Misrepresents ‘Ramcharitmanas’

Congress attempts to deter the passing of the law against the conversion of religion, terming it as against the Constitution

Mumbai – ‘The Freedom of Religion Bill 2026’ passed by the Mahayuti Government was opposed by the Congress party. Congress secretary Sachin Sawant exhibited his ignorance by claiming that there is a contradiction in the name of the law itself, and it is against the Constitution. He tried to prevent the Bill from being passed. He also misrepresented the lines in ‘Ramcharitmanas’ while criticising that the provisions of the law would lead to the polarisation of religion. (Congress leader Sachin Sawant, who keeps mum on open conversions of Hindus through ‘Love Jihad’ and other means, has no right to speak on the Freedom of Religion Bill. – Editor)

Mr Sawant further claimed that the BJP is not only playing politics of appeasement for votes by targeting minorities but is now underlining its pro-Manu ideology. He also alleged that the BJP’s attitude towards women and scheduled caste-tribes is against the ‘Varnas’.

Congress leader Sachin Sawant argued on ‘the Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026’ saying, “BJP is openly assuming that women and people from scheduled caste-tribes fall prey to the conversions taking place through allurement or  ‘Love Jihad’.  In fact, as per  ‘Manu-Smruti’, ‘Dhol (drum), ‘Ganwaar (uneducated)’, ‘Kshudra (inferior)’, and women are fit to be beaten up. (This line is not in ‘Manu-smruti’, but is in ‘Sundarkand’ from ‘Ramcharitmanas’ composed by Goswami Tulsidas. When the ocean doesn’t make a way for Prabhu Shriram, and later surrenders to Him, the ocean makes this statement about its own inertia as ‘Dhol, Ganwaar, Sudra, Pasu, Nari; Sakal Tadana ke Adhikari’. Here, the word ‘Tadan’ means to punish or to argue. The scholars on the subject also take the other meaning of ‘Tadan’ as to take care, to guide. Attention is required while playing ‘Dhol’ to get the right sound; similarly, these factions have to be attended to, guided and looked after; therefore, according to even Sawant’s meaning, the Government is preventing ‘Tadan’ of these factions and taking care of them.) 

This bill robs citizens of the right to choose their own life partner. A person above 18 years of age has the right to vote, so it is wrong to prevent them from making their own decisions. Opposition should be to forced conversions; however, the term ‘naive person’ used in this bill is vague. The government should clarify its definition. It is inappropriate to label one person a criminal merely for receiving guidance on conversion, while another is not. If the government claims that “individuals and families fall prey to conversion due to economic vulnerability,” what steps will it take to address this vulnerability? This question was raised by Sawant. (‘Instead of creating technical disputes over the term “naive person,” it is more important to stop the conversion of Hindus through enticement and deception. Labelling decisions taken for the protection of Hindus as “religious polarisation” is part of Congress’s old strategy – Editor)

Editorial Perspective

To accuse the law against conversion of religion as against the Constitution is, in a way, supporting the forces engaged in forceful conversions, which is actually against the Constitution; but why will the Congress leaders understand the pain of forcefully converted Hindus since the Congress has appeased the fanatics right from its inception?