Abrahamic religions are exclusive, Hinduism is inclusive: Why Madras High Court denied FCRA registration

The Madras High Court recently observed that organisations engaged in religious conversion shall be denied registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) [Kanzeon v. Union of India].

A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi made the observations while upholding the Central government's decision to deny FCRA registration to Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust, which runs a Zen meditation centre in Kodaikanal.

The Court said that Section 12(4)(a)(ii) of the FCRA, which deals with religious conversion, applies across religions.

“A fundamentalist Hindu Organisation engaged in Ghar Wapsi cannot be registered under FCRA.”

The Bench added that if foreign funds were freely permitted to facilitate religious conversions, “the sovereignty of the nation would be imperilled”.

In the same passage, the Court remarked that “radical Christian Institutions are notorious for indulging in such activities”, while immediately clarifying that it was not accusing the appellant trust of having any conversion agenda.

The Court also referred to recent friction between Christians and Muslims in Kerala and said that India's plural character could be disturbed if one religious group gained ascendancy.

"We are a pluralist nation. Unlike USA, we are not a melting pot but a salad bowl, a beautiful metaphor credited to Justice Ruma Pal. This status quo would be upset, if one religious group gains ascendency."

The trust had argued that Zen meditation belonged to India's Dhyana tradition and that its activities should not be classified as religious. The Centre maintained that the trust was engaged in religious programmes.

While examining the trust, the Bench noted that its founder and “moving spirit”, Rev Fr Ama Samy SJ, was an ordained Christian priest.

The Court then invoked the saying “a leopard will not change its spots” and observed:

“Unlike Hinduism which is inclusive, the Abrahamic religions are inherently exclusive.”

It said that devout Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that theirs is the “one true and complete revelation”.

The judgment also recorded an argument that “native and local motifs” are sometimes appropriated by messianic religions to prepare the ground for an “eventual take over”.

"It is not for us to doubt if the said claim is genuine or spurious. A strong argument is being made that the native and local motifs are appropriated by the messianic religions so that the ground is prepared for eventual take over. It is not within our province to engage in such debates. They have to be waged elsewhere."

On the facts of the case, the Court held that Zen Buddhism is a variant of the Mahayana Buddhist school and that the trust should have disclosed itself as a religious organisation while seeking FCRA registration.

“The appellant need not have been so coy...One cannot keep any card up one’s sleeve. This is no game of hide and seek.”

The Bench further said that Zen philosophy was of Chinese origin and reiterated that there is no vested or absolute right to receive foreign contributions. Receipt of foreign contribution, it said, could at best be considered a privilege.

At the same time, the Court distinguished religious activity from the teaching of Indian Knowledge Systems. Organisations teaching Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Yoga and allied subjects should ordinarily be treated as educational or cultural bodies rather than religious institutions, it said.

The judgment ended with a play on the priest's name. Holding that the trust had wrongly projected itself as non-religious, the Bench said the authority had to say:

“Illa Samy’ (No Sir) to Rev.Fr.Ama Samy (which name literally translates as ‘Yes’).”

The appellant was represented by Advocate G Baskar.

Central Government Senior Standing Counsel G Thalaimutharasu appeared for the Union of India.

[Read Judgment]