Search This Blog

Monday 30 April 2012

THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE BILL IS ITSELF COMMUNAL - R. JAGANNATHAN

The Bill is itself communal in nature. According to a key definition of the people who are presumably the focus of targeted violence, "Group" means a religious or linguistic minority, in any state in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ ST)...." If one takes away the fact that religious minorities and the SC/STs between them account for over 40% of the total population, the Bill cleverly posits that the other 60% (which may include upper castes Hindus, other backward castes and some miscellaneous groups) are the only people capable of targeted violence. Are we saying 40% can never target 60%, given that these numbers are distributed all over the country?
  • The NAC draft is clearly driven by just one case of communal violence: Gujarat in 2002. Any law that is drawn up on the basis of one incident is draconian and foolish. The Bill is clearly targeted against the Sangh Parivar, whereas the objective should be to prevent communal violence of any kind. But were the 1992 riots in Mumbai and the 1993 blasts the result of Hindu conspiracy? Were all the blasts that took place in India in the last decade the result of "majority violence against the minorities" or the reverse?
  • One should not forget that the country's worst communal riots did not happen during BJP regime. Gigantic ethnic cleansing in India happened in Kashmir, where the majority (Muslims) drove out the minority (Kashmiri Hindus), with help from across the border.
  • The "secular" activists of the NAC have realized that since they can't get rid of inconvenient governments at will due to the lack of a Rajya Sabha majority, the Communal Violence Bill should come in handy. This draft bill tries to avoid all centre- state issues by pretending that communal violence is beyond the law.
  • The Bill puts civil servants in the firing line. Clause 13 betrays the intent of this bill by listing a whole host of crimes that civil servants may be hauled up for under the head "Dereliction of duty." They do not even have the defence of saying they were following orders, because they have to judge if the orders were lawful or not. How many can make such decisions in the thick of a crisis?

WHY THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE BILL IS FLAWED - ARUN JAITLEY

  • The Bill is a dangerous and discriminatory bill which presumes that the majority community is always to blame for communal violence.
  • The most vital definition of the bill is of the expression 'group'. A 'group' means a religious or linguistic minority and in a given state may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
  • The bill creates a whole set of new offences in Chapter II. Clause 6 clarifies that the offences under this bill are in addition to the offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Can a person be punished twice for the same offence?
  • This draft bill however presumes that communal trouble is created only by the majority community and never by the minority community. Thus, while offences committed by the majority community against the minority community are punishable, identical offences committed by the minority against the majority are not deemed to be offences at all!
  • The legislative intent of this law is that only majority community members commit offences. Therefore, culpability and punishment should only be confined to them. 
  • If implemented, this bill opens up a huge scope for abuse. It can also be incentive for the members of certain communities or even terrorists to commit communal offences encouraged by the fact that they would never be charged under the act. 
  • The procedures to be followed for investigations under this act are extraordinary. Statement cannot be recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, but only under Section 164 (before courts). The government will have powers to intercept and block messages and telecommunications under this law. Under Clause 74 of the bill, an allegation is presumed equivalent to proof. Public servants under this bill under Clause 67 are liable to be proceeded against without any state sanction. 
  • The special public prosecutor to conduct proceedings under this act shall not act in aid of truth but 'in the interest of the victim'. The name and identity of the victim complainant will not be disclosed. Progress of the case will be reported by the police to the victim complainant.
  • In its politically motivated campaign against the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - an anti-terrorist law - the UPA argued that even terrorists should be tried under normal laws. But for the citizens of the majority community, a far more draconian law is now being proposed.