|
New Delhi:
Should the draft bill on communal violence be recast to obviate
fears that it will encroach on the rights of states?
Analysts differ on the specifics of the draft, but many said that
it should be framed in a way that it is broadly acceptable to
political parties and honours public opinion.
Civil rights activist Colin Gonsalves said the proposed bill was a
huge step forward, though the current draft needed improvement.
"Communalism is a national conspiracy," Gonsalves told IANS. "It
hits at the basic tenets of the constitution, undermines the
nation state. A law is needed at the national level."
The proposed bill, as drafted by the National Advisory Council (NAC),
was discussed at a meeting of the National Integration Council (NIC)
earlier this month and evoked sharp reaction from the main
opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Even United Progressive Alliance (UPA) constituent Trinamool
Congress expressed reservations.
Gonsalves felt communalism, like terrorism, could not be seen only
as a law and order problem. "A hate speech, like a terror
incident, may happen in a taluka but the (communal) conspiracy has
to be uncovered nationally," he said.
Gonsalves called for improvement in the existing draft, saying
that politicians and policemen continued to have immunity.
"There should be a special section for catching chief ministers,
home ministers and DGPs (Directors General of Police), Gonsalves
said. "If a riot continues for a sustained period, the chief
minister of the state should be held criminally responsible."
Former Lok Sabha secretary general Subash C. Kashyap said that the
draft communal violence bill went considerably against the
distribution of powers between the centre and states.
"It is an affront to federal principles and goes against
fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination on grounds
of religion. To that extent, it is divisive," he said.
"The proposed bill seeks to make a distinction between violence by
one group and another group," Kashyap added. "Disturbance of peace
is unlawful and should be equally punishable."
Political analyst S. Nihal Singh said the bill had been opposed by
not only the BJP but even the Left parties and needed to be
restructured for broader acceptance.
He said the government had also recognised the need to rework the
draft. "It has not been thought through properly," Singh said. "It
has to be recast. There is a problem with the definition (of) who
is communal."
Aditya Mukherjee, Professor of Contemporary Indian History at
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), said a separate bill was
necessary to contain communal violence but more thinking was
needed.
"The focus is on minorities," Mukherjee said. "Normally, it is the
minority which is subjected to violence."
However, he added, there were many issues that needed to be ironed
out in consultation with civil society and political parties.
BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said the draft was
unconstitutional as it "divides Indian citizens". She also felt it
was against the country's federal structure.
"Tell me one chief minister belonging to (a party in) the United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) who has spoken in favour of the
proposed bill," Sitharaman told IANS.
Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) leader Basudeb Acharia
said that provisions of the draft were against a federal
structure. "The central government can intervene, send forces," he
said.
Acharia said that there was a need for separate legislation on
communal violence but it should broaden itself to other forms of
violence.
Congress spokesman Raashid Alvi said the government wanted to
build a broad consensus on the draft before it was introduced in
Parliament.
He defended the draft, saying its provisions did not violate the
federal structure and there was no discrimination between
communities.
Asked if the bill could be introduced in the winter session of
parliament, Alvi said, "It is too early to say."
Several parties with governments in states -- including Biju
Janata Dal, AIADMK, Janata Dal-United and Shiromani Akali Dal --
have expressed reservations.
The draft bill says that public servants who fail to exercise
authority or fail to prevent offences or act with prejudice shall
be held guilty of dereliction, with penal consequences.
The bill also seeks creation of the National Authority for
Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation (NACHJR) and
corresponding state authorities for grievance redressal.
(Prashant Sood can be contacted at prashant.s@ians.in)
|
Comments
|
Quick links