Itanagar, Feb 17 (IANS): Members of the Arunachal Christian Forum (ACF) on Monday observed an eight-hour-long hunger strike to protest against the implementation of the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), 1978.
Hundreds of Christians across various denominations, led by the ACF, have gathered in the hunger strike from different parts of the state at NIIS Nyokum Ground in Borum in Naharlagun Circle against the APFRA, 1978.
ACF Secretary General James Techi Tara, President Tarh Miri and other leaders of the forum addressed the gathering and explained how the act, when implemented, would harm the Christians.
Some legislators belonging to the Christian community also participated in the hunger strike organised by the ACF from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The ACF earlier this month announced their series of agitations after Chief Minister Pema Khandu said that the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978 – dormant until now – would soon have its rules framed and implemented in the state.
Khandu’s declaration comes after the directive from the Itanagar bench of the Gauhati High Court to the state government to finalise the draft rules of the Act within six months from September 2024.
After the ACF announced its agitation against the implementation of the law, the Chief Minister also said that the state government is ready to hold discussions on the issue and reassured that the proposed rules under the Act are not against any religious community.
ACF President Miri had earlier said that they are planning to gherao the state Assembly on March 6, when the Act is likely to be discussed in the house before its implementation.
The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act was passed by the state Assembly during the erstwhile Janata Party-led government headed by then Chief Minister P.K. Thungon. The act, which got the presidential assent on October 25, 1978, seeks to ban conversions from one religion to another by force, inducement, or fraudulent act.
The law was reportedly enacted in response to concerns about the perceived threat to indigenous religions in the state. Successive governments, however, chose to sideline the Act.