BJP, non-Congress states to oppose Communal Violence Bill

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by Ray, Dec 4, 2013.

  1. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    BJP, non-Congress states to oppose Communal Violence Bill in Parliament

    NEW DELHI: Keen to bring the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill in the winter session of Parliament beginning December 5, the Union home ministry on Tuesday tried to bring the states on board, but countered opposition from BJP and non-Congress-ruled states over its "anti-federal" provisions.

    According to sources, the Union home secretary discussed the Bill clause-by-clause with the state home secretaries as well as secretaries of Central ministries of law, social justice, minority affairs and department of personnel, in a bid to address their concerns over the proposed anti-riots mechanisms. However, the home secretaries of BJP-ruled states like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, apart from Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Odisha sought to throw a spanner in the Centre's project to push the anti-riots Bill, terming its provisions as contrary to the federal mechanism enshrined in the Constitution.

    The Centre, which has given some more time to the relevant ministries and states to submit their views, is planning to move ahead on the Bill. Once the comments come in, the home ministry will take a call on tweaking the Bill and then send it to the Union Cabinet for approval. Sources indicated that the government is looking at introducing the Bill mid-way through the winter session.

    With the BJP and many regional parties questioning the Centre's wisdom in enacting a law dealing with "law and order" and "public order" — both state subjects — home ministry officials conceded that it may be tough to muster the numbers in Parliament. "Though the communal violence Bill is being taken up on a priority basis, tabling it in Parliament is more a statement of intent by the ruling dispensation. The government wants to showcase its commitment to enacting a tough law against communal violence, whether or not it gets the support of other parties," said a home ministry official.

    Soon after the home ministry wrote to the state governments calling their home secretaries for consultations on the draft Bill, AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa and senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley came forward to slam the timing of the move, with the latter dismissing it as a pre-poll gimmick to "polarize the country on communal lines".

    According to Jaitley, the draft Bill - based on a version submitted by the Sonia Gandhi-headed National Advisory Council (NAC) in 2011 - was skewed against the majority community as it only recognized religious and linguistic minorities as "groups" victimized by communal violence. Another contentious provision related to holding government officials and bureaucrats accountable for dereliction of duty in case they failed to take measures to prevent/control riots.

    The provision in the 2011 draft for creation of a National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation to monitor communal build-ups and response of the state governments, also had the states and parties like the BJP up in arms. Critics interpret this as interference with functioning of the state governments, and consequently undermining relevance of elected governments.

    However, minorities affairs minister K Rahman Khan on Tuesday rejected the "interference" charge, saying that it was for the states to declare the competent authority and disturbed areas under the measure.

    "The objections are just for objections sake....Why should we not have the bill? If we talk about rape, it is a state subject. Then why did you want a central legislation? This (the communal violence bill) is therefore the need of the hour," said Khan.

    BJP, non-Congress states to oppose Communal Violence Bill in Parliament - The Times of India

    *********************************************************************

    There is no doubt that something must be done so that communal violence is not forgiven, forgotten and instead punishment is fast tracked.

    Yet the Constitution makes 'law and order' and 'public order" as state subjects.

    And it has been seen that since they are State subjects, the State conveniently overlooks the errors for political expediency as also not get blamed for their omissions.

    At the same time, the Bill is not equitable in that, in its present form, is skewed against the majority community as it only recognized religious and linguistic minorities as "groups" victimized by communal violence.

    Another contentious provision related to holding government officials and bureaucrats accountable for dereliction of duty in case they failed to take measures to prevent/control riots.

    It is high time politics with one eye on the vote is removed from governance and all are treated as one.

    Commununal violence is a bane on this country.

    Anyone guilty must be punished and keel hauled, tarred and feathered - his or her political affiliation, community, religion, caste or her/ his connections playing no role in the dispensation of justice.
     
    sob, pkp8n and TrueSpirit1 like this.
  2.  
  3. Twinblade

    Twinblade Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    This move is going to bomb, badly. Law and order is a state subject and the Parliament can pass laws on state subjects only in the following conditions:
    1. In national interest, if Council of States (Rajya Sabha) passes the bill with 2/3rd majority. (Article 249)
    2. Under proclamation of National Emergency. (Article 250)
    3. When two or more states make a joint request to parliament (concerning inter state disputes)(Article 252)
    4. On matter concerning international relations (Article 253)
    5. Under proclamation of President's rule (Article 356).

    That being said, several sections of the current draft of communal violence bill itself are in direct violation of the constitution (Article 14).
     
    TrueSpirit1 and A chauhan like this.
  4. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    If it were applied without the communal baggage, will anyone get away with their objections?

    I am sure the Nation is fed up with all these communal riots.
     
  5. dhananjay1

    dhananjay1 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    india
    In language of seculars, communal just means Hindu. They have constructed "Hinduism" as another Abrahamic religion, against which other "minority" religions must be protected. As if Hindus go around converting others to something called "Hinduism". This bill should be called "protection of violence against Hindus" bill.
     
  6. Vishwarupa

    Vishwarupa Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2,206
    naming the bill as Communal Violence Bill is utter non-sense. Why cant UPA name it as ANTI-HINDU BILL?
     
    A chauhan likes this.
  7. A chauhan

    A chauhan "अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,925
    Likes Received:
    4,556
    Location:
    Raipur
    Can someone give me the pdf link for the draft of the proposed bill ?
     
  8. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    The bill is flawed in construction.
     
  9. northernarunachalpradesh

    northernarunachalpradesh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2013
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    276
    Location:
    Lhasa
    Congress Govt days are numbered ,If they bring this bill their Lives will be Numbered.
     
  10. sob

    sob Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    3,661
    Location:
    New Delhi
    During discussion on Times Now, Arnab did have an interesting question to the Congress Spokesperson-- If a majority community member loses a member of the family or damage to his property will he seek redressal under the old IPC while a member of the minority community in same violence would seek redressal under the new law.

    Plus IMO the whole idea behind the law is flawed. It is being pushed for electoral reasons and not for justice. Existing Laws under IPC are more than enough to deal with any violence. The problem as usual lies with the implementation of the law.
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  11. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,935
    Likes Received:
    10,277
    Location:
    India
    I saw that debate on TimesNow and the Congress dalla Sanjay Jhalla was THRASHED badly by Arnab,BJP,Shahid Siddqi for his double standards.

    Not able to give any proper answer Sanja Jhalla got furious and agitated and started blabbering anf blabbering and not letting anyone talk by crapping from his mouth.
     
  12. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    The Bill is flawed &politically dangerous.

    It is incorrect to believe that only one community is guilty of organising riots.

    Totally stupid & fooling the Nation!
     

Share This Page