Anti conversion legislations

Quite often I find bunch of interesting people criticising any legislation passed by any state of India aiming to prevent conversion of Hindus. They call such legislations unconstitutional. The basis of this arguement is Article 25 which guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion to all citizens. Along with that, the clause 25(1) says that this freedom is subject to restrictions based on public health, order and morality.
Let's shift our focus on the phrase "Freedom of conscience". That means the person has to have a free will and right to decide by himself about his religious denomination, "free will" being the operative part. Allurement of a person into a religious denomination on the pretext of economic benefits is blatant misuse and exploitation of his poor economic condition. Simultaneously it is also a failure on the part of a so called  "socialist state" in ensuring enough economic opportunities for an individual or a group of individuals, cuz of which they were forced to compromise with their conscience.
Indian society from its origin has been pluralistic, that means there can be no place here for religious intolerance. Organised and systematic attempts of religious conversions are nothing but blatant show of religious intolerance, cuz at the heart of mass conversions is the thinking that "my way is the only right one and your way is not". This mindset is the height and the root of religious intolerance it's just that some organizations and religious communities propagate it via guns,  others do it via economic clout. The so called liberal voices, also ignore that truth that en mass conversion in any region or any locality of India, of Hindus, to other religions, does create a law and order problem. Thus, if a state legislature endeavours to prevent such situation, it is completely in concurrence with clause 25(1).
Those bunch of interesting people, also seem to have misunderstood the freedom gauranteed under Article 25.
The freedom to propagate/profess/practice religion doesn't include the freedom/right to convert other individuals to one's own religion, and never so in an en mass, organized, systemic way. Now those interesting people will demand proof. They always do. Progressive people you know. So here's the proof.
In the case Rev Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 SCR (2) 611, Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of five judges, headed by Chief Justice A.N. Ray, observed that, "We have no doubt that it is in this sense that the word `propagate' has been used in Article 25(1), for what the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets " . "By an exposition of its tenets " is the emphasised part here.
Thus any attempt, by any state, to prevent conversions through fraudulent ways, grooming, allurement (economic or emotional), can not be dubbed unconditional solely by citing freedom of religion.

Besides everything, the very edifice, of this gauranteed freedom to monotheistic Abrahamic faiths to practice and propagate their religion is, that once they enter the territory of India, they will have to forego or shun the philosophy/right to convert others into their faith as a cornerstone of their religious practices, because if they don't then this entire provision places the Hindus on a disadvantageous position as they don't have a proselytising spirit, atleast in the current times, and thus denies them a level playing field.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe to my blog by clicking sidebar icon and entering email on the top left corner of the main menu (where all the articles are listed)