"Maybe because he wants people to be free to convert, regardless of legal standing?"
In India they would still be free to convert even with the anti-conversion laws enforced. The laws are meant to stop organized proselytization activity.
"What does this "legal standing" amount to, anyway? Is it that in some countries (Italy? or Russia?), you can't vote, or hold office, or get a passport, or immigrate, or emigrate, or teach in a public school or something, if you don't have the "right" religious credentials?"
It may not personally affect anyone so much especially the economically influencial Indians but morally it still amounts to unequal treatment. That you can deny. Just because you are not an Hindu and you are not sensitive to such issues that does not mean Hindus too will have none.
There you go, denial of another fundamental human right -- freedom of speech.
You wrote: "It may not personally affect anyone so much especially the economically influencial Indians but morally it still amounts to unequal treatment."
I think you misunderstood me. I was asking a sincere question: what does the "legal standing" of a religion mean in the countries we are talking about? If any of these penalties were applied to people anywhere because of their adherance to a disfavored religion, I would say such discrimination is unjust.