|
Justice has been an eternal quest of human
society. Need for justice is undeniable. Need to provide justice
was foremost in the minds of framers of our Constitution. They
beautifully incorporated this lofty goal in the Preamble to the
Constitution. The Preamble not only shows that first and foremost
aim of the Constitution is providing justice but also shows how
this aim is to be achieved and also shows why this is necessary
and what would be the end result of this lofty object.
The Preamble to the Constitution declares
providing justice, ensuring liberty and equality and promoting
fraternity. The object also amplifies this grand object stating
that justice would encompass social, economic and political
aspects and shall also ensure liberty of thought, expression,
belief, faith and worship and equality of status and of
opportunity. The Preamble also sets forth promotion of fraternity
assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity
of the Nation.
The Preamble sets out the guiding purpose and
principles of the Constitution. The normative framework set out in
the Preamble is our guide and lack of progress in achieving the
same is our problem. Quest for attaining the lofty objects set out
in the Preamble to the Constitution has brought us together here.
We propose to discuss situation of our country,
especially of the weaker sections and minorities, in the light of
these objects. In doing so, our yardsticks are the same which have
been set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution.
What is the status of social, economic and
political justice? Whether we have been able to achieve liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship to all? Whether we
can be certain that everyone of us has been assured equality of
status and opportunity? How about the promotion of fraternity and
unity and integrity of the nation?
Undoubtedly, answers to these questions are
disturbing to every justice-loving person. Despite passage of more
than 60 years, the dream of the framers of the Constitution looks
far away from realization. The situation in our country shows that
all weaker sections of our society are still far from achieving
even a fraction of what we may call social, economic and political
justice. Absence of justice is the cause and result of inequality
of status and opportunity which makes all the liberties,
fundamental rights and freedoms meaningless and hollow. Absence of
justice also deprives a large segment of Indian society of basic
human dignity.
Judged on the above-mentioned parameters, Muslims
are the most deprived among the Indian society. Long-taunted as
perception, not the reality, and used by various political parties
for their narrow political ends, the fact is well-established by
various studies, including the ones conducted by various
government bodies, committees, commissions, etc.
Representation, or lack of it, in Parliament, is
the stark symbol of the failure of Indian society to provide
justice to Indian Muslim community.
While Muslims have remained under-represented in
all the Lok Sabhas, present 15th Lok Sabha is one of
the most non-representatives in terms of Muslim members. There are
28 Muslim MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha while there should have been
72 members in terms ratio of Muslim population in the country.
There is an urgent need of electoral reforms to provide
representation in this supreme body of our democracy. Importance
of such representation needs no emphasis.
The issues facing the community are known. They
are: social and educational backwardness, political and economic
deprivation, attacks on the identity and culture, discrimination
in almost every sphere of life, communal violence and targeting of
youth on false terror charges.
One wonders why Muslims and other weaker sections
like Dalits, Tribals, etc., only become the target of draconian
laws. Our experiences with TADA, POTA and, now with Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) have been of extreme pain
and anguish. The data shows that majority of the accused are
Muslims, who after going through trauma and sufferings were let
off due to lack of evidence.
TADA and POTA had to go because of evidence
surfacing with regard to targeting of Muslims and slapping false
terror cases on them. The sad part is that, this politics of
targeting minority youths still continues unabated by applying
UAPA which is even more draconian.
A cursory observation of this phenomenon reveals
that the tactics involved in targeting of youth belonging to
Muslim community and other weaker sections of Indian society has
been greatly polished and refined in the last two decades.
During early nineties, Muslims and other weaker
sections of the society like tribals, Dalits and other minorities,
were targeted by applying infamous Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). Besides being violative
of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, this black
law was misused on a massive scale.
Realising the dark implications for the community,
All India Milli Council raised its voice on this issue and
initiated a countrywide campaign in 1993 demanding its repeal. The
campaign received massive public support, forcing the then P.V.
Narasimha Rao government to abandon this black law by allowing it
to lapse in 1994.
Immediately after the Bharatiya Janata Party’s
ascent to power in 1999, insidious propaganda was unleashed
against Madarsas accusing them of being “Taliban factories”,
“indoctrination centres”, “shelters for terrorists”, etc. No
evidence was provided to sustain any of these allegations.
Thereafter, the tactics was changed and the
Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) incorporating all the
menacing features of the TADA was promulgated in 2001. All India
Milli Council again took up cudgels and mobilized public opinion
against this black law. All the non-NDA parties were approached
and persuaded to oppose the POTO. The efforts were successful, the
then NDA government was isolated and forced to call a joint
session of Parliament to pass Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2202 (POTA)
as all the non-NDA parties, including the Congress, opposed this
law.
However, the NDA government, disregarding
overwhelming public sentiment, the POTA was enacted. This black
law was again used against Muslims and other weaker sections on a
massive scale in unabashed manner.
Besides, many fake encounters were also executed.
Further, no case arising out of the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom was
prosecuted under this law.
The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
government repealed the POTA in 2004. However, the UPA government
incorporated most of the provisions of the POTA in the Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA).
It was hoped that the amended UAPA would not be
used against Muslims and other weaker sections of the society as
the UPA had come to power on the plank of secularism and social
justice.
The more things change, the more they remain the
same. Experience shows that the UAPA has also been misused on a
massive scale against tribals, Muslims, Sikhs other weaker section
of society.
The UAPA has been used to target educated Muslim
youth and the areas having substantial Muslim population without
justification. Many areas having substantial Muslim population,
like Hyderabad, Malegaon, Azamgarh, Bhatkal, North Bihar, etc.,
have been demonized and called “Aatankgarhs” (fortresses of
terrorism).
Hundreds of innocent Muslim youth have been
subjected to illegal arrests, detentions, fake encounters,
fabrication of evidence, media trial, etc in same manner as was
the routine during the days of the TADA and the POTA.
It is significant that many of these terrorist
attacks have been found to have been executed by Hindutva terror
networks, nevertheless, innocent Muslim youth have been made to
pay a heavy price before real culprits were found. Some of these
terrorist attacks include bomb explosion at Ajmer Dargah, Makkah
Masjid Hyderabad, Malegoan, Samjhota Express blast, etc. while
many other incidents and attacks have not been properly
investigated despite clear indications of involvement of these
networks.
The modus operandi is almost on the following
lines. Various law enforcement agencies keep on fabricating cases
against Muslim youth alleging their involvement in alleged
activities of banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). As
such, continous ban on SIMI has become a tool in the hands of
communal police and intelligence officials to target innocent
Muslim youth.
A large number of innocent Muslim youth are
implicated in these cases. These cases drag on for years. Such
youth spend lengthy periods in jail, lose prospect of any
government job, denied passports, etc.
Every false implication means allowing the real
perpetrators to go scot-free. Such perpetrators execute further
attacks. We believe that false implication of innocents also means
denial of justice to the victims of terrorist attacks.
In complete disregard for justice, both for the
victims of terrorist attacks and the innocent youth, communal
elements in the law enforcement agencies have been pursuing their
fascist agenda.
When a Muslim youth is arrested, charges of
carrying out terrorist activities at various places are slapped on
him without going through a fair and deeper investigation. For
instance, in 1998 one Mohammad Aamir Khan, aged 18 years, was
arrest in Delhi and was accused of 20 terror cases. It took 14
years to be acquitted and released from these cases. In January,
2011, he walked out of jail only to find his mother paralyzed.
One Qateel Ahmad Siddiqui of Darbhanga was killed
inside Pune Jail before any of the charges being established
against him. No accountability has been fixed for his illegal
arrest and murder.
In another glaring instance, 70 Muslim youths were
picked up and charged for carrying out Mecca Masjid blasts in 2007
at Hyderabad. After five long years, they were all acquitted and
the government gave them compensation as well as character
certificates.
However, after recent bomb blasts in Dilsukhnagar,
Hyderabad, many of these youth were subjected to harassment and
illegal detention.
It would not be out of place to state that none of
the persons belonging to Hindutva terror networks was interrogated
in this connection despite involvement of these networks in past
in carrying terror acts in Hyderabad.
Recent instances also include the cases of Deccan
Herald journalist Mutiur Rahman Siddiqui and Defence Research and
Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist Aijaz Ahmed Mirza, who
were arrested and maligned but ultimately discharged. During
their, both of them lost their jobs.
It is pertinent that Aijaz Ahmad Mirza, upon his
arrest, was dismissed from DRDO and has not been reinstated
despite his discharge. On the contrary, Lt. Col. Purohit, facing
charges of bomb-blasts in Malegaon, continues to be in service and
receive his full salary from Indian Army. This discriminatory
conduct is by the organizations who are under the same Union
Ministry of Defence.
In the meanwhile, many other youth continue to be
under detention and suffer of the stigma of ‘terrorist’ tag. Their
ultimate acquittal, after years of trauma, cannot return the
youthful years wasted in the confines of the jails.
This phenomenon has put educated Muslim youth under
constant fear that any of them on any day any day can be thrown
behind bars under false terror charges only to be released after
years, with their aspirations and dreams crashed.
For ending this phenomenon, it is necessary that
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, is repealed and suitable
legislation providing for compensation for innocents incarcerated
on false terror charges, prosecution of police and intelligence
officials responsible for false implication of innocent Muslim
youth is enacted. Further, considering the role of intelligence
agencies in these frame-ups, it is also necessary that all central
intelligence agencies are brought under Parliamentary control by
enacting effective legislation.
Further, it is also necessary that police reforms
are carried out on the basis of recommendations of Dharamvir
Commission and Supreme Court directives in Prakash Singh case. As
a first step, Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
which has been repeatedly used to block prosecution of police
officials guilty of offences concerning violation of human rights,
must be repealed immediately. Similarly, there is also urgent need
to implement recommendations of Justice J.S. Varma Committee
regarding sexual offences committed by security officials in
so-called disturbed areas. In fact, it is long overdue that Armed
Forces Special Powers Act is repealed as per recommendations of
Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee.
Besides, the issue of targeting of Muslim youth,
the community has been facing many other challenges. These
challenges include educational and economic backwardness,
political disempowerment, communal violence, lack of
representation in public and organised private sector jobs, and
many more.
The first and foremost document establishing these
issues is the Report of the Prime Minister’s High Power Committee,
headed by Justice Rajinder Sachar, better known as the Sachar
Committee.
The report prepared by this seven-member committee,
set up by UPA-I in March 2005, established that India’s Muslim
minority faces massive and appalling socio-economic deprivation.
The report also showed that the Muslim community is frequently
subjected to police harassment and violence.
It would be useful to recount some of the important
findings and observations of this committee to put the present
situation in perspective. This is also necessary to assess the
measures taken by the central government under the same UPA, in
its second stint, for implementation of the recommendations this
committee.
The Sachar Committee report recognized that Muslims
face “deficits and deprivation in practically all dimensions” of
socio-economic development. The report also showed that social
deprivation of Muslims, in some measures, as a group fell below
the Dalits.
The report found that the head count ratio (HCR) of
poverty among Muslims was 31 percent—second only to the SC/ST
communities whose HCR is 35 percent. The poverty figure among
urban Muslims was higher, with 38.4 percent living in poverty, as
compared with 36.4 percent of urban Dalits and Scheduled Tribes.
The report found that the share of Muslims in
government jobs was just 4.9 percent. It also showed that only 4.5
percent of railway workers were Muslim, and of these, 98.7 percent
occupied lower-level positions. The findings of the report found
that the deprivation was appalling in the prestigious and powerful
civil services with Muslims constituting just 3.2 percent.
Situation is no different in other institutions. It
is even worse in judiciary-both in subordinate and higher. In
fact, it would not be wrong to say that the judiciary
is the most unrepresentative state institution in the country.
The discrimination in security-related jobs --
defence, police and security forces – seems to be the most
pronounced as no data about the percentage and number of Muslims
employed in these services has not even been provided.
It is also a matter of public knowledge that many
findings of the Sachar Committee were withheld. According to the
Indian Express, a draft of the Sachar Committee report also
contained statistics establishing that Muslims were
disproportionately high among the jail inmates in all parts of
India. These figures were excluded from the final version of the
report.
According to the Indian Express, the Sachar
Committee report showed that in Maharashtra, Muslims constituted
32.4 percent out of all inmates even though Muslims were just 10.6
percent. In Gujarat, Muslims were more than a quarter of all
prison inmates although their population was just 9.06 percent of
the total population. In Delhi, Muslims account for 11.7 percent
of the population but 29.1 percent of prison inmates.
As per the statistics of the National Crime Records
Bureau pertaining to the year 2008, among the undertrial or
pre-trial inmates, 22.5 percent belonged to the Muslim community,
Situation is no different among the convicted prisoners.
Classification of convicts showed that 18.5 percent were from the
Muslim community, among the detenues, 30.3 percent were from
Muslim community, and under the category of others, 45.9 percent
were from Muslim community.
Muslims are only 13.4 percent of the total
population of India. The high presence of Muslims in Indian
prisons is a product of their miserable socio-economic condition
as well systematic anti-Muslim bias present in all organs of the
state machinery.
Anti-Muslim bias is substantiated by the Sachar
Committee report. The report stated, “Concern was expressed over
police highhandedness in dealing with Muslims. Muslims live with
an inferiority complex as ‘every bearded man is considered an ISI
[Pakistan’s foreign spy agency] agent’; ‘whenever any incident
occurs Muslim boys are picked up by the police’ and fake
encounters [between security forces and alleged Muslim terrorists]
are common. In fact, people argued that police presence in Muslim
localities is more common than the presence of schools, industry,
public hospitals and banks. Security personnel enter Muslim houses
on the slightest pretext. The plight of Muslims living in border
areas is even worse as they are treated as ‘foreigners’ and are
subjected to harassment by the police and administration.”
While insecurity has been forcing the Muslim
community into impoverished ghettos, the administration uses this
getttoisation for further neglect by depriving the Muslim
dominated localities of Water, sanitation, electricity, schools,
public health facilities, banking facilities, roads and transport
facilities, etc.
To make the situation worse, the unspoken housing
apartheid in urban India is well known. It is very difficult for a
Muslim find a house in the localities dominated by non-Muslim
communities. This has contributed to ghettoisation.
The Sachar Committee report showed that
getthoisation has further contributed to systematic deprivation of
Muslims from institutional credit as the banks, both public and
private, use the practice of identifying ‘negative geographical
zones’.
Similarly, the Sachar Committee report has also
brought out educational deprivation of Muslims in India. According
to the report, Muslim’s less access to education has been very
less as compared to other religious groups. Consequently, the
literacy rate among Muslims is only 59.1 percent while the
national average is 64.8 percent. School enrollment among urban
Muslim boys is only 80 percent, as compared with 90 percent of
SC/ST boys. Only 68 percent of Muslim girls attend schools, while
the figures for Dalit girls and girls categorised as non-Dalit are
72 percent and 80 percent, respectively.
In the higher education, the Muslim participation
is negligible. According to the report, Muslims constitute only
1.3 percent and 1.7 percent only in the Indian Institutes of
Management (IIMs) and Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs),
respectively.
Treatment of Urdu is another important issue that
has contributed to deprivation of Muslims. Sachar Committee
Report substantiates this fact.
Another important report on the condition of Indian
Muslim community is by the National Commission for Religious and
Linguistic Minorities (NCRLM), better known as Justice Ranganath
Misra Commission.
The Ranganath Misra Commission was entrusted by
the Government of India to suggest practical measures for the
upliftment of the socially and economically backward sections
among religious and linguistic minorities and to include the
modalities of implementation for the same.
The final report of the Ranganath Misra
Commission (NCRLM) was submitted to the government in May 2007 but
it was not tabled in the Parliament until it got leaked to the
media. Amidst sustained pressure from Members of Parliament the
NCRLM Report was finally tabled in the Lok Sabha on Friday, Dec
18, 2009, more than two years after its submission.
The Ranganath Misra Commission recommended that at least 15
percent of seats in all nonminority educational institutions
should be earmarked by law for the minorities as with 10 percent
for the Muslims and the remaining 5 percent for the other
minorities.
The Ranganth Misra Commission also recommended earmarking of 15
percent share in all government schemes like Rural Employment
Generation Programme, Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojna, Grameen
Rozgar Yojna, etc. for for the minorities – with a break-up of 10
percent for the Muslims and also recommended that 15 percent of
posts in all cadres and grades under the Central and State
Governments should be earmarked for the minorities – with a
break-up of 10 percent for the Muslims.
Another important recommendation of the
Commission demanded amendment of the
Para 3 of the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. This Constitutional Order deprives
dalits belonging to the Muslim, Christian communities of the
benefit of reservation.
The recommendations of the Ranganath Mishra
Commission report (2007) for 10 percent reservation for Muslims in
central and state government jobs and 6 percent within OBC quotas
for Muslim OBCs, and the inclusion of Muslim and Christian dalits
in the scheduled castes list, are yet to be implemented.
De-linking of religion from the discriminatory
Constitutional Order has not been done despite the fact that
twelve States Government and Union Territories have recommended to
Union of India for granting the SC status to Muslim and Christian
Dalits.
Situation has not changed even now when the
government claims that the most of the recommendations of the
Sachar Committee have been accepted.
Human Development Report-2011 of the Planning
Commission has noted only a very minute improvement in the
socio-economic status of Muslims in India.
The rate of decline in poverty has also been the
slowest among the Muslim community (from 1993-4 to 2007-8): urban
poverty has only declined 1.7 points, whereas for the SC/ST
community urban poverty has declined by 28.2 points and 19.5
points respectively.
The most advertised programme launched by the
government, ostensibly upon recommendation of the Sachar Committee
report, is the Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MSDP) -- in
2008. The programmed aimed at upgrading infrastructure in 90
minority concentration districts (MCDs) where minorities comprise
25 percent or more of the population.
However, the basic flaw in the programme is that
the government failed to make Muslims a target group and
brought the scheme in under the larger umbrella of “minorities.
This is an open dishonesty. The Sachar Committee had recommended
the Muslim community needed targeted interventions to bring it
socially and economically on a par. Therefore, talking about
minorities has no connection with the Sachar Committee
recommendations.
Furthermore, the design, planning and
implementation of this Multi-Sectoral Development Programme have
been such that Muslims have been excluded from its benefits.
It is also obvious that the MSDP is flawed for the
simple reason that as does not cover a large number of Muslims by
concentrating only on districts which have a minority
concentration. Most of the districts in these 90 MCDs have a
Muslim concentration of less than 25 percent. Further, over 70
percent of Muslims live in the non-MCD districts who are
completely ignored.
Another major shortcoming is that it takes the
district as the unit of planning rather than villages or blocks
with minority concentrations. This flaw has been exploited by
biased bureaucracy in a manner that even for the small percentage
of Muslims who are covered under the MSDP programme, there have
not been very positive outcomes. In order deprive Muslims of
the benefits of the MSDP projects they have been located in the
areas that are away from Muslims localities.
An important study by the Centre for Equity Studies
(CES) in 2011, entitled ‘Promises to Keep’, that evaluated
‘flagship programmes’ for minority development initiated
ostensibly upon the recommendations by the Sachar Committee has
also exposed biased delivery mechanisms.
The CES study selected three districts in three
states -- South 24 Parganas in West Bengal, Darbhanga in Bihar,
and Mewat in Haryana. The study found that the Muslim community
was not benefiting much as the officials excluded Muslim villages,
hamlets or urban settlements in plans designed for MSDP project.
Citing Mewat district in Haryana – having a Muslim
concentration of about 80 percent, the study pointed out that
there were less than 5,000 Muslim students in secondary school.
The study reported that a primary school located in a Muslim
village found in “a dilapidated building, barren courtyard and
dingy classrooms”. The lamented that the government had not spent
MSDP funds to upgrade this school but the funds were spent on a
neighbouring wealthier non-Muslim village. The study found that
this pattern was common in many other districts their team
visited.
The study said that the Mewat case showed that even
when funds do go to a district with a high concentration of
Muslims, the money failed to reach the community as the biased
authorities diverted funds to non-Muslim villages.
Giving another instance, the CES study found that
in Darbhanga, under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in 2009-10,
Muslim-concentrated areas got only seven out of 66 new primary
schools were opened ostensibly to enhance access for children from
minority backgrounds.
Interestingly, even selection of monitors for
monitoring implementation of the minorities’ welfare schemes also
showed bias and discrimination. It is relevant that the central
government, in 2010 appointed 90 national-level monitors to
monitor implementation; they could find only seven Muslim monitors
out of the 90. So much so that Uttar Pradesh, which has the
largest Muslim population in the country and the largest number of
minority-concentrated districts, had only one Muslim monitor.
This is despite the fact that the appointments were
made to address the complaints received from the 90
minority-concentrated districts on ineffective implementation and
the biased attitude of government officials.
Clearly, every attempt to address issues facing
Muslim community has been defeated- by design, not by default. It
is ironic that this bias was well exposed by the Sachar Committee
when it talks about discrimination and practices of exclusion in
government structure.
One of the major recommendations of the Sachar
report pertaining to the establishment of an Equal Opportunities
Commission, with a structure and membership along the lines of the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to examine and analyse the
grievances of deprived groups, and making equal opportunities a
legal right, has not yet been implemented. Further, developing a
‘diversity index’, a statistical tool to measure exclusion in
specific areas like education, housing, etc for using it to
compare inter-institutional inadequacies and assess patterns for
policy formulation for enhancing Muslim participation in
governance remain in limbo.
Similar is the fate of other minority-related
schemes. The most important among such schemes is the
Prime Minister’s 15-Point Programme which covers issues of
education, employment, housing and credit.
This programme is clubbed with existing welfare
schemes like the Indira Awas Yojna, Integrated Child Development
Scheme, Sarv Siksha Abhiyan, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act, etc. It is said that a certain
proportion of development projects in minority concentration areas
and, wherever possible, earmark 15 percent of target and outlays
under these schemes to minorities.
Clearly, this suffers from the same drawbacks as
the MSDP. Additionally, use of terms like “certain portion” and
“wherever possible” allows ample room for perpetuation of biases
and discrimination.
The National Commission for Minorities (NCM),
constituted by the Government of India to monitor the development
of minorities in India, has been ineffective. It has not been able
to address the grievances and deprivation of the Muslim minority.
The NCM lacks both the financial and political
autonomy needed for independent and effective functioning. The
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and National Human Rights
Commission have more power than the NCM, and they are more
independent. Reports from the NCM are not binding on the
Government of India and are never tabled in Parliament.
Similarly, we see the limitations of the Ministry
of Minority Affairs (MoMA) in delivering its mandate. Though, MoMA
has taken some important and innovative steps like identifying
minority-concentration districts, launching schemes like the MSDP,
scholarships for minorities, reviving the Prime Minister’s
15-Point Programme, etc. However, it has failed to address the
issues facing the Indian Muslim community. The major reason for
this failure is lack of control over identification, formulation
and delivery of the schemes and funds.
Biased and ineffective implementation of policies
delivery of central schemes aimed for welfare of Muslims and other
weaker sections brings forth issue of representation of Muslims
and other minorities in the government bodies. However, this is
not possible without their presence in the selection panels and
bodies at all levels. Such institutional mechanisms, coupled with
properly defined, guided and restricted discretion, are must to
effectively deal with the individual biases against Muslims.
Absence of such mechanism has led to injustices
against Muslims and other weaker sections. One such recent
instance pertains to unjust denial of chairpersonship of the
University Grants Commission to Prof. Syed E. Hasnain, despite
being a Padma Awardee and having excellent academic and
administrative record. Similarly, Dr. Nilaufar Kazmi was denied
regular appointment to the post of secretary of the UGC despite
having worked on the post for more than two years.
Neglect and mismanagement of Awqaf is another area
of concern for Muslims. The approximate number of registered Waqf
properties in India is around 3,00,000 and account for 4 lakh
acres of land. The awqaf is the third-largest landholder after the
railways and defence. Institution of Awqaf has potential to
address socio-economic needs of the community. However, state of
this institution itself is a great cause of concern. Many of the
prime waqf properties are under illegal occupation by various
government departments and agencies. Many of the prime properties
have been encroachment or illegally alienated. While retrieval of
such properties has been made next to impossible, even protection
of remaining properties poses a great challenge.
Apart from abysmally low on development indicators,
Muslims face identity-based targeted and communal violence on a
regular basis, and day-to-day discrimination in accessing rights
and entitlements.
Muslims have faced communal violence since
Independence. In most of these cases of communal violence, they
have not been able to secure justice and reparation and the
perpetrators have never been held accountable. This is mainly for
the reason that existing IPC provisions have proven inadequate and
there is no strong and exclusive legislation to address this
violence.
Though, Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council
has attempted to address these limitations by proposing Communal
and Targeted Violence (Prevention) Bill. The bill has many
positive aspects.
The proposed legislation holds public servants
accountable for their negligent behaviour or willful failure in
controlling riots. An officer can be prosecuted if he fails to act
without adequate reason. Not only the complicit officer, his
superior officer too can be punished for the omissions/commissions
of his subordinate, if it can be proved that the superior had
information about the situation and he failed to issue appropriate
orders and directions to his subordinate.
The bill will also give due rights to victims to be
heard during the trial, and make the trial procedure more flexible
and victim-friendly. The bill provides for witness protection.
Relief, reparation, restitution and compensation become the right
of every victim of communal and targeted violence.
The bill has been opposed mainly on two grounds
both of them are untenable and unfounded. The bill has been dubbed
“anti-Hindu” by Hindutva groups. The claim is false. The Bill
actually addresses identity-based violence against all
non-dominant groups, including Muslims, in different parts of the
country. This is clear from the definition of the ‘group’ in the
Bill. It has been defined as religious or linguistic minorities in
any State in the Union of India, and the SCs and the STs.
Therefore, in addition to Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and Parsis,
the definition also includes Tamils in Karnataka, Biharis and UP
wallas in Maharashtra, Hindi-speaking people in Northeast, etc.
The definition is wide enough to include Hindus
also as a religious minority if they are non-dominant in a
particular state or union territory like Punjab, Lakshadweep, and
several states of the Northeast.
Even from a ‘Muslim-centric’ perspective, there is
enough justification for the Bill. Several inquiry commission
reports and studies establish that overwhelming majority of the
victims -both in terms of lives and properties- of ‘communal
riots’ have been Muslims. Many inquiry commissions have
established that planners, perpetrators and beneficiaries of the
violence were never brought to book despite specific indictment by
various inquiry commissions. Some of the notable examples include
like Justice Madon Commission on Bhiwandi riots (1970) Justice J.
Narain, S.K.Ghosh and S.Q.Rizvi Commission on Jamshedpur riots
(1979), Justice Ram Chandra Prasad and Justice Shamsul Hasan’s
Commission on Bhagalpur riots (1989) and Justice Srikrishna
Commission on Mumbai riots (1992-93).
Contrary to the contentions by its opponents, the
Bill does not offend against federal structure of the country. All
references to Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution have been
removed after public debate. It recognises that law and order
remains entirely with the state governments. It entrusts all
powers and duties of investigation, prosecution, and trial to the
state governments. The appointments of authorities at the state
level are in the hands of state governments.
The bill only seeks to correct institutional bias
that is invariably found in the functioning of state machinery in
cases of violence against minorities and Dalits so that there may
be impartial enforcement of law for prevention, investigation and
prosecution of communal and targeted violence.
The Bill seeks to ensure that non-dominant group in
states or union territories are provided additional protection to
prevent bias in law enforcement, and seek to ensure that there is
uniformity in the matters of restitution and reparation in cases
of violence against these vulnerable groups. This is not an
unprecedented legislation. Our legal system has laws for
protection of specific groups. The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Scheduled Castes and Schedules
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 exist for women and
Dalits respectively.
The Bill seeks to make certain, in the words of
Harsh Mander, that “the law takes its own course and does not
stand still” when violence is perpetrated against minorities,
Dalits and tribals.
It is obvious clear that a specific bill to address
communal violence is urgently needed. Another important aspect is
that enactment of such legislation must be simultaneously followed
by proper representation of all stakeholders i.e. Muslims and
other minorities as the current government and police machinery,
institutions and actors have a deeply entrenched bias against
Muslims.
The Sachar Committee report mentions
identity-related discrimination practiced against Muslims on
day-to-day basis. The report shows that Muslims are
constantly looked upon with suspicion not only by certain sections
of society but also by public institutions and governance
structures.
There are no legal mechanisms to address such a
dehumanising process. Dalits and adivasis in India are protected
by a strong legislative tool like the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Despite lopsided implementation, the SC/ST Act has,
at least, provided a legal instrument to deal with various forms
of exclusion and discrimination by bringing them under the term
“atrocities”.
It is ironic that Muslims, despite facing all forms
of discrimination, marginalization and insecurity, have no legal
mechanism to deal with the situation. It would have been desirable
to enlarge the definition of communal and targeted
violence under the Communal Violence Bill to cover day-to-day
forms of identity-based discrimination.
Many of the problems faced by Muslims are
complicated, if not actually generated, by the lopsided projection
by influential sections of media, both electronic and print. For
many such channels and newspapers, Muslim life in India seen
worthy of discussion is when there is any terrorist attack or
some insignificant but “interesting” event fitting the stereotype
takes place like so-called fatwa by self-styled Mufti-e-Azam to
ban all-girls band, etc.
Such discussions further reinforce stereotypes
either by the ignorance or prejudice of the anchors. The prejudice
and ignorance deeply permeated among the mainline English and
Hindi channels about the lives of some 130 million Indians have
caused great damage to the cause of harmony and fraternity in the
country.
We are aware that Indian Muslim community too shall
have to exert to put its own house in order and strive for its own
empowerment. However, it is undisputed that the community’s own
efforts cannot lead to any substantial improvement in their
condition unless the obstacles put by various state and non-state
factors are effectively removed. We must appreciate that
deep-rooted bias, discrimination and prejudices perpetuated by
various exclusionary forces in the systems and mechanisms need to
be addressed for pulling the Muslims out of the fringes of the
development process and democratic fabric of this country.
Further, there is an urgent need to recognise that
although these issues directly face Muslim community but their
impact affects whole of the Indian society. Such recognition is
necessary for effective realisation of the dream of the framers of
the Constitution of India- the dream of an India that has justice
for all and harmony among all Indians, irrespective of their
diversities, based on solid foundations of equality and
fraternity.
The writer is General Secretary
of the All India Milli Council. The article was published in the
form of a booklet by the All India Milli Council for distribution
in a public gathering/Convention on 'Movement for Justice'
on April 6, 2013 at Ramlila
Ground, Delhi.
|
Comments
Delhi's Shame
|
Quick links