|
The Government has got clearance from
the Cabinet for introducing the Communal Violence Bill in the coming
session of parliament. The Bill was drafted originally in 2005 after
2004 elections in view of the Gujarat carnage of 2002 under the BJP
Government headed by Narendra Modi. It was because of Gujarat
carnage that Muslims voted for the Congress massively as a result of
which NDA was defeated.
The Congress party had promised in its
manifesto that it would bring the bill to prevent Gujarat like
carnage against minorities. It did draft the Bill in 2005 which we,
along with several other NGOs, human rights activists and legal
experts, studied and found it wanting in many respects. We organized
number of consultations and suggested number of amendments to make
it really serve the purpose for which the Bill was drafted.
Mr. Shivraj Patil, the then Home
Minister also held number of consultations in few cities and
promised to consider various suggestions given by various NGOs and
individuals but he did not incorporate these suggestions when final
draft was presented. The present draft after going through standing
committee and Cabinet too, is hardly better than the original draft.
One wonders what Government wants. I would say this cure suggested
is worse than the disease.
The present Bill already cleared by the
Cabinet, seeks to give more power to the police. In fact police has
always been the part of the problem, rather than part of the
solution. Had police been fair and impartial, no communal riot can
last for more than 24 hours. Those governments which have intended
to control communal violence do nothing but ask the police to
control violence within 24 hours else office in charge would be
suspended. And communal violence stops before 24 hours.
All those who have investigated communal
riots know what role police plays in communal riots from remaining
spectators to actively helping the rioters instead of controlling
it. In Gujarat and Kandhamal, to give two latest examples, but for
the role of police, communal violence would have been controlled in
no time. In all major riots police have played openly partisan role.
In some cases they have even led rioting mobs.
And if you empower police more in such
circumstances, as the present Bill seeks to do, one can very well
imagine what havoc it is going to cause. It is victims who need to
be empowered, not the police. In a consultation held in Delhi on
12-13 February by ANHAD, Institute of Peace Studies and Conflict
Resolution, Mumbai (part of CSSS) and several other organizations.
They all unanimously rejected the present draft.
Also, another provision of the present
draft Bill is to declare an area as disturbed area, if communal
riots are not controlled. This is even worse than giving the police
more power. It means to give police absolute power. Even when curfew
is declared, it is enforced only in minority areas and police hardly
enforces its provision in majority areas. Vibhuti Narain’s writings
and his novel Shahar Mein Curfew brings this in sharp focus. Vibhuti
Narain was a top police officer in the U.P. cadre.
If an area is declared disturbed area
police will have powers to shoot anyone at its will. In Kashmir and
in North Eastern states people have demanded repeal of disturbed
areas act. The victims, instead of getting relief, would feel
totally helpless. Any law which gives police more powers without
making it accountable cannot be acceptable to those who care for
human rights of victims.
Like any other official Bill, there is
not a single clause to make administration, police or politicians
accountable for their failure to control communal violence. If so,
you don’t need any fresh law at all. Human rights activists have
always maintained that present laws, if enforced sincerely, can very
well take care of any situation. After all the Left Front Government
in West Bengal and the RJD in Bihar successfully prevented and
controlled communal riots for more than three decades in WB and one
and half decade in case of Bihar.
If only state governments enforces
section 153-A of Indian Criminal Code in right earnest and arrests
all those who make hate speeches and vitiate communal amity, there
will be no communal disturbances. No politician would like to go to
jail for three years. My experience shows that right from Jabalpur
riot in 1961 to Gujarat riots in 2002 to anti-Christian riots in
Kandhamal, Orissa, not a single politician was arrested for openly
and blatantly provoking communal violence.
Also, no standard and objective method
has been laid down for working out reparations and relief measures.
It all depends on the whims of chief minister today. Narendra Modi
Government offered ridiculous amounts of Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- for
houses completely damaged and defying public opinion closed down
relief camps much before any concrete measures to rehabilitate the
victims were made. Thanks to the private agencies that these camps
could be run for a longer period.
Also, there is not much in the present
Bill for investigations and successful trial of cases and launching
of FIRs. It is well known that police is extremely reluctant to
register FIRs and even when it does, it refuses to enter the names
of the accused. And less said about the subsequent investigations,
the better. The investigation is so shoddy that courts often dismiss
the cases against the accused.
In most of the cases the police close
them down saying not much evidence is available. In the case of
Gujarat the police closed down hundreds of cases which could be
reopened only under the Supreme Court orders. Despite all this the
present Bill supposedly drafted to help the victims, make no
provisions for all this.
It is, therefore, highly necessary to
make drastic changes in the present Bill before it is discussed in
the Parliament and if the Government is unwilling to introduce
necessary changes, the MPs should study the Bill carefully and
force the Government to bring about necessary amendments in the
Bill. All the eminent participants of consultation in Delhi felt
that the 59 amendments proposed by the government are nothing but
mere tinkering.
The participants felt that neither do
the proposed amendments make any structural changes to the Bill nor
has the government factored in any of suggestions made by the civil
society. The national consultation in Delhi on 12-13 February found
fault even with the definition of the communal violence in the Bill.
The consultation suggested the definition as “any targeted attack
committed on the persons and property of individual or a group of
persons on the basis of their religious identity, which can be
inferred directly or from the nature or circumstances of the attack.
The consultation also felt that the
government’s proposal to declare certain areas as “communally
disturbed” was rejected. In fact it demanded that the Chapter II of
the Bill be dropped completely arguing that the State already has
sufficient powers vested in it by law and further empowering the
State and Central governments would, therefore not remedy the
situation. The Consultation felt that co-relation between crimes and
disturbed area is false, dangerous and untenable, and must not find
place in a law on communal violence.
The consultation also felt that instead
of doubling the punishment which courts would be reluctant to apply
anyway, it noted that other forms of punishment - disqualification
from public office, debarring from professional associations or
running from public office – should be included in the case of
culpability of public officials.
The good example of such
disqualification form contesting elections etc. is from Mumbai High
Court Judgment delivered by Justice Suresh in late nineties when Bal
Thackeray of Shiv Sena made provocative speech in Vile Parle and won
the seat for his candidate. Justice Suresh disqualified him for 6
years from voting in any election or contesting any election or even
campaigning for his party.
It had restraining effect on him. But
this was one instance which was exceptional. If politicians are made
to meet such punishment, it would indeed have great effect on them
and would desist from temptation to provoke communal violence to win
elections in an easy way. The reason why some political leaders are
tempted to provoke communal violence, more than ideological reasons,
is to win elections by polarizing the voters.
It takes us to yet in another field i.e.
that of electoral reforms. In highly diverse country like India with
so much religious, linguistic and cultural diversity, the first past
the post method which we have blindly copied from England which was
then a mono-religious and mono-linguistic society, is highly
problematic. We need to either introduce 51% votes for winning or
proportional voting or combination of both to remedy the situation.
Such electoral method would lead to inclusive rather than exclusive
as it is today. Candidates win elections by excluding certain class
of people rather than including everyone.
Well until then this Bill needs to be
drastically amended to give relief from communal violence.
|
'Reservation is the right of Muslims'
Bureaucrats in Gujarat working like BJP workers, says Ahmad Patel: 
Sibal, Khurshid pat Jamia students for spirit of peace:
Pune
Blast:
Coincidence again?:
After facing humiliations first by the
Rahul Gandhi’s startling Mumbai visit and the latest by the
Mumbaikars who defying its dictates
Comment on this article