Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Implications of the Communal Violence Bill - CIPL, Dec '11
1. On the Implications of the
Communal Violence Bill
Shantanu Bhagwat
24th December ’11
Chanakya Institute of Public Leadership
Satyameva-Jayate.org
1
2. Background/ Reasons
To protect the “minorities”
“A polity which is just, fair and equitable needs to protect
the weaker sections, minorities, SCs and STs” – Hon Sh
Kapil Sibal
Is the way to achieve this ad-hoc laws or an efficient
judicial system?
To correct “systemic bias in the administrative &
criminal justice machinery against disadvantaged
groups” – John Dayal
What is the basis of this assertion?
Can a “systemic bias” be really corrected with a law?
Satyameva-Jayate.org
Source: Communal Violence Bill divides society by Prof Hilda Raja
2
3. Background/ Reasons
Unstated underlying assumption that the majority
community are the perpetrators of violence in case
of communal clashes
Contrary to facts?*
In a study of 74 communal riots between 1953 – 1977 in
Gujarat and Rajasthan, 75 per cent were found to have been
instigated by wayward members of the minority community
This study was done by a member of the “minority”
community, Ms Zenab Banu (Politics of Communalism: a
Politico-historical Analysis of Communal Riots in postIndependence India with Special Reference to the Gujarat and
Rajasthan Riots (1989))
Satyameva-Jayate.org
Source: Communal Violence Bill divides society by Prof Hilda Raja
3
4. The Motives
Who is this meant for?
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes already have a fullfledged Commission with powers of civil courts to take care of
their problems
Linguistic Minorities?
Even though one of the conclusions of the Ranganath Misra
commission was that their situation differs from state to state
..and that they are neither a caste, class or a religious community
“…assistance in identification and reburial of the bodies in
accordance with the cultural practices of the families and
communities*” (at Pg 50, under “Guarantee of non-repetition”)
A pathetic vote-pulling tactic?
Satyameva-Jayate.org
Source: http://blog.offstumped.in/2011/05/26/nacs-draft-communal-violence-bill-an-analysis/
4
5. Fundamental Flaws
Under clause 73, presumption of guilt unless proven to the
contrary*
All offences cognisable and non-bailable (clause 58)
The special public prosecutor to conduct proceedings under this
act shall not act in aid of truth but ‘in the interest of the victim’
Communal and targeted violence means violence which destroys
the ‘secular fabric of the nation’
No definition of “secular fabric”
Creation of an over-arching institution (complete with communal
quota) with draconian powers
Right to enter properties (clause 33[4]), control “media content”
(clause 8 and 67[1]), inquire into the conduct of the armed forces
“more powerful than any authority created since adoption of
Constitution in 1950” – John Dayal
Satyameva-Jayate.org
* Sources: Swapan Dasgupta in The Pioneer; Sh Arun Jaitley in Rediff
5
6. The Implications
Frighteningly broad-based
Sweeping in scope
Even crimes that may have nothing to do with religion are now being
sought to be defined on communal grounds (e.g. sexual offences)
Similarly A shopkeeper or a businessman from the minority
community can always allege that his partners from the majority
community have cheated him because of his community and religion
and the law will have to take notice of his complaint.
Under Clause 14, office bearers of organisations will be held
responsible for any offence committed wittingly or unwittingly by a
member of the organisation
And ambiguous..
Can a Hindu criticize burqa without worrying about being sued
under this law on charges of spreading hate?
Can a Hindu landlord be charged with "depriving place of living“
(under Article 3(F)) if he asks his Muslim tenant to vacate?
Satyameva-Jayate.org
Source: “Hole in the Bucket” Prof Rakesh Sinha, India Policy Foundation
6
7. The Implications
Section 120 makes it almost impossible for state
administrations to demolish illegal Muslim or Christian
religious structures
Lop-sided
“Attempt to spread hatred and tension” one-sided;
If “minorities” make such attempts, they will not be considered
offensive under the new law
Permanent “victimhood”
According to the Bill the “victim” will under all circumstances
belong to the minority community in case of riots/ violence
No member of the majority community can ever be a
“victim”
Conversely, no member of the “minority” community can ever be
charged under this draconian law
Satyameva-Jayate.org
Source: “Hole in the Bucket” Prof Rakesh Sinha, India Policy Foundation
7
8. The Implications
The section 2 (6) of the Bill says that the punishment under
this Bill would be separate and in addition to the SC and ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989
Does this mean that an offence would be dealt with under two
legal and criminal laws and procedures and that there would be
two kinds of punishment for the same crime?
Against federal structure; Interference in state affairs
This bill - if passed into law - will allow the Centre to interfere in
cases of communal violence even though they are primarily a
matter of law and order (and thus under State jurisdiction)
From an implicit assumption of bias it is a short distance to an
explicit statement about the incompatibility between a
“minority” and majority. What happens then?
Satyameva-Jayate.org
Source: “Hole in the Bucket” Prof Rakesh Sinha, India Policy Foundation
8
9. Concluding Points
Not just a flawed bill but positively dangerous
The psychological partition of India
Deepening of existing fault lines
Further alienation
..and another dent in the edifice of a national identity
In extremis, further disintegration of the Union
Satyameva-Jayate.org
Source: “Hole in the Bucket” Prof Rakesh Sinha, India Policy Foundation
9