Communal Violence Bill 2011- Comments

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by GPM, Jun 25, 2011.

  1. GPM

    GPM Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    506
    NAC, though pompously called National Advisory Council, is in effect Not Accountable Cabinet has perfected a PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011. The draft can be accessed at Communal violence bill

    My partial comments, more might follow. Members are requested to look at the draft and then offer comments, if so desired.



    S 3(j) “victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or her property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate

    Section 3 (e) states that “group” means a religious or linguistic minority, inany State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses(24) and (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. This means that if a person belongs to any of the above groups as mentioned under this bill, then he can be subjected to violence. Hostile environment can only be created for these groups under Section 3 (f) of this Bill.

    Comment

    Reading both these sections together brings out the following:

    1. The “group” can only be muslims, Christians and SC/ST.
    2. That apart them there cannot be any victims of targeted violence. It is clear that Hindus just cannot complain if they are victims of targeted violence, ie, those who died in torchinf S-6 coach cannot be victims in terms of this bill. Question is how will they be categorized? How will they get compensations? Who will compensate them? Sadly they would be left out in the cold.
    3. The “group” is defined on statewise basis. What about local groups? For example, there are districts in W. Bengal where Hindus are a MINORITY, hence a GROUP. But in termas of definitions of the bill, Hindus are a majority in W. Bengal. Hence they CANNOT be victims!!
    Read further

    S 2, providing for extra territorial jurisdiction.
    2. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India.- Any person liable under any Indian law including this Act, to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt in accordance with the provisions of this Act for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India.

    Examine in the light of Article 14, then it would be very difficult to understand as to why only a particular group of Indian society is included under the act.

    Christians in Egypt qualify to a “group”. Anti Christian violence by Egyptian muslims seems to be punishable under this bill. But question is how those Egyptians can be brought to justice in India? No way.


    Section 4 - Knowledge.- A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person’s membership of that group where:(a) he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group; or,(b) with the knowledge that the person belongs to a group, he or she means to cause injury or harm to such person because of the membership of such person to that group.
    At the risk of sounding stupid, how do you prove this ? This will require the services of a clairvoyant who can read the minds

    13. Dereliction of duty.- When any person who is or was a public servant not removable from his or her office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, authorized to act under any provision of this Act:(a) exercises the authority vested in him or her colourably or in a manner otherwise than provided under law for the time being in force, which causes or is likely to lead to an offence of communal and targeted violence or by which he or she intends to screen or knowing it to be likely that he or she will thereby screen any person from legal punishment; or, (b) omits to exercise lawful authority vested in him or her under law, without reasonable cause, thereby fails to prevent the commission of communal and targeted violence, breach of public order or disruption in the maintenance of services and supplies essential to a group, shall be guilty of dereliction of duty.

    Wow – how do you prove colourable. Colour can cover a lot of territory, but mostly it will cover saffron colour.
     
    maomao likes this.
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,162
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Before I respond, I would like to quote the Indian Constitution:

    Note, the proposed bill is called 'PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011' and hence gives the impression it is designed to protect all the victims. However, the paraphrasing of some of the clauses inherently disqualifies potential victims on grounds including, but not limited to, them belonging to a non-religious-minority group on a state level.

    Personally, I have absolutely no problem if there is a law specifically designed to protect minorities. We definitely need that. However, to give a generic name to a bill and assume the premise that such a bill (proposed law) shall only be applicable to victims of a select demographic group fails to address the provisions, if not directly violates, Sections 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, confuses people and is exemplary of poor and non-intuitive nomenclature of proposed laws.

    It is therefore essential for the opposition to challenge the government, initiate a public debate and include all victims, whether majority or minority under the purview of the law and uphold Sections 14 and 15 in-letter. Eventually, the opposition will have the opportunity to amend the text in the bill and present it or table a new bill altogether to protect persons of religious-majority from attacks by persons of a religious-minority, caste-based minority et al.

    Pro tempore, we need this debate.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2011
    sayareakd likes this.
  4. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    well can anybody write/explain in simple lay men terms
    thanking u
     
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,162
    Location:
    EST, USA
    What do you want explained? There is a lot of text in the two previous posts and then the bill. If it is one or two sentences, I can. If it is the entire chunk of texts, I am sorry I cannot, but would have had I more time.
     
  6. GPM

    GPM Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    506
    pmaitra

    Congi repealed the TADA and POTA on the grounds:
    1. All the offences of terrorism etc are already adequatelyb covered by the existing laws.
    2. Specious argument that they operate against the muslims.

    #1 is equally applicable to this bill too. As for #2, it is clearly designed to work against Hindus by perpetually denying that they CAN be victims of riots.

    Art of Const permits laws "for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes" but does not exempt these classes from criminal laws, or assymetrical application of other laws.
    ******
    Further comments.





    What constitutes “Hostile Environment”:


    S 3(f) “hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:
    (i) boycott of the trade or businesses of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or,
    (ii) publicly humiliate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation or any act of indignity; or,
    (iii) deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights; or,
    (iv) force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livelihood without his or her express consent; or,
    (v) any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.


    The clause lays down that it would include any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. This clearly brings in a state of ambiguity as to which acts would precisely fall under the ambit of this Act. Therefore it may also include a speech, a work of art like a picture, music or video clippings which may have the capability of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. Some likely scenerios where it can be invoked.

    1. Any public demand for constructing of a Ram mandir at Ayodhya can be punished under this act, though such a demand is NOT illegal. That the court has judged that there was a temple there which WAS demolished has no meaning and protection for such a demand.

    2. Denial of entry to non Hindus to Hindu temples falls in the scope of this bill. They after all are sought to be restrained on the basis of being the members of a group.

    3. The passengers of S-6 torched at Godhra cannot claim to be victims of any violence. But identifying the culprits can definitely be punished, as they belonged to a group [protected].
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2011
  7. Rahul Singh

    Rahul Singh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    In one sentence, peoples offended with first pic, riot victims in second pic and relatives of Hindu-tandoori in third pic don't have any right to claim themselves as riot victims and ask for legal aid with compensations because they are Hindu and rioters were Muslims, while lady in last pic has every right because she is a muslim and rioters were Hindus.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2011
  8. GPM

    GPM Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    506
    :nono: First picture wallahs are not even humans.
     
  9. Rahul Singh

    Rahul Singh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    Earlier i did not bothered to find out who is the chairman of the drafting committee, but when things started to get scummy, i looked for it. And bang! Mrs Antonia Manio(Sonia Gandhi to many), everything became as clear as it could ever get.
     
  10. Rahul Singh

    Rahul Singh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    That means, when this Bill becomes law i will be thrown behind bars for Post-06. Or they will delete first three pics and leave my with just a warning because of fourth pic. They might also give me ladoos for posting last(pic).
     
  11. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Another viewpoint

    The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A bill to settle a terrible debt
    Siddharth Varadarajan
    [​IMG]
    This October 21, 2008 photo shows a taxi damaged during a protest by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena supporters in South Mumbai against the arrest of their chief Raj Thackeray for his alleged involvement in the attack on Biharis. File Photo: Vivek Bendre


    For decades, the victims of communal and targeted violence have been denied protections of law that the rest of us take for granted. It's time to end this injustice.

    In a vibrant and mature democracy, there would be no need to have special laws to prosecute the powerful or protect the weak. If a crime takes place, the law would simply take its course. In a country like ours, however, life is not so simple. Terrible crimes can be committed involving the murder of hundreds and even thousands of people, or the loot of billions of rupees. But the law in India does not take its course. More often than not, it stands still.

    If the Lokpal bill represents an effort to get the law to change its course on the crime of corruption, the new draft bill on the prevention of communal and targeted violence is a modest contribution towards ensuring that India's citizens enjoy the protection of the state regardless of their religion, language or caste.

    The draft law framed by the National Advisory Council and released earlier this month for comment and feedback is a huge improvement over the bill originally drawn up by the United Progressive Alliance government in 2005. The earlier version paid lip service to the need for a law to tackle communal violence but made matters worse by giving the authorities greater coercive powers instead of finding ways to eliminate the institutional bias against the minorities, Dalits and adivasis, which lies at the heart of all targeted violence in India.

    The November 1984 massacre of Sikhs provides a good illustration of how the institutionalised “riot system” works. Let us start with the victim. She is unable to get the local police to protect the lives of her family members or property. She is unable to file a proper complaint in a police station. Senior police officers, bureaucrats and Ministers, who by now are getting reports from all across the city, State and country, do not act immediately to ensure the targeted minorities are protected. Incendiary language against the victims is freely used. Women who are raped or sexually assaulted get no sympathy or assistance. When the riot victims form makeshift relief camps, the authorities harass them and try to make them leave. The victims have to struggle for years before the authorities finally provide some compensation for the death, injury and destruction they have suffered. As for the perpetrators of the violence, they get away since the police and the government do not gather evidence, conduct no investigation and appoint biased prosecutors, thereby sabotaging the chances of conviction and punishment.

    With some modifications here and there, this is the same sickening script which played out in Gujarat in 2002, when Muslims were the targeted group. On a smaller scale, all victims of organised, targeted violence — be they Tamils in Karnataka or Hindi speakers in Maharashtra or Dalits in Haryana and other parts of the country — know from experience and instinct that they cannot automatically count on the local police coming to their help should they be attacked.

    If one were to abstract the single most important stylised fact from the Indian “riot system”, it is this: violence occurs and is not immediately controlled because policemen and local administrators refuse to do their duty. It is also evident that they do so because the victims belong to a minority group, precisely the kind of situation the Constituent Assembly had in mind when it wrote Article 15(1) of the Constitution: “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”.

    How are policemen and officials able to get away with violating the Constitution in this manner? Because they know that neither the law nor their superiors will act against them. What we need, thus, is not so much a new law defining new crimes (although that would be useful too) but a law to ensure that the police and bureaucrats and their political masters follow the existing law of the land. In other words, we need a law that punishes them for discriminating against citizens who happen to be minorities. This is what the draft Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011 does.

    The CTV bill sets out to protect religious and linguistic minorities in any State in India, as well as the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, from targeted violence, including organised violence. Apart from including the usual Indian Penal Code offences, the NAC draft modernises the definition of sexual assault to cover crimes other than rape and elaborates on the crime of hate propaganda already covered by Section 153A of the IPC. Most importantly, it broadens the definition of dereliction of duty — which is already a crime — and, for the first time in India, adds offences by public servants or other superiors for breach of command responsibility. “Where it is shown that continuous widespread or systematic unlawful activity has occurred,” the draft says, “it can be reasonably presumed that the superior in command of the public servant whose duty it was to prevent the commission of communal and targeted violence, failed to exercise supervision … and shall be guilty of the offence of breach of command responsibility.” With 10 years imprisonment prescribed for this offence, superiors will hopefully be deterred from allowing a Delhi 1984 or Gujarat 2002 to happen on their watch.

    Another important feature is the dilution of the standard requirement that officials can only be prosecuted with the prior sanction of the government. The CTV bill says no sanction will be required to prosecute officials charged with offences which broadly fall under the category of dereliction of duty. For other offences, sanction to prosecute must be given or denied within 30 days, failing which it is deemed to have been given. Although the bill says the reasons for denial of sanction must be recorded in writing, it should also explicitly say that this denial is open to judicial review.

    Another lacuna the bill fills is on compensation for those affected by communal and targeted violence. Today, the relief that victims get is decided by the government on an ad hoc and sometimes discriminatory basis. Section 90 and 102 of the CTV bill rectify this by prescribing an equal entitlement to relief, reparation, restitution and compensation for all persons who suffer physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm as a result of the violence, regardless of whether they belong to a minority group or not. While a review of existing state practice suggests victims who belong to a religious or linguistic ‘majority' group in a given state do not require special legal crutches to get the police or administration to register and act on their complaints, the CTV bill correctly recognises that they are entitled to the same enhanced and prompt relief as minority victims. The language of these Sections could, however, be strengthened to bring this aspect out more strongly.

    The CTV bill also envisages the creation of a National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation. The authority's role will be to serve as a catalyst for implementation of the new law. Its functions will include receiving and investigating complaints of violence and dereliction of duty, and monitoring the build up of an atmosphere likely to lead to violence. It cannot compel a State government to take action — in deference to the federal nature of law enforcement — but can approach the courts for directions to be given. There will also be State-level authorities, staffed, like the National Authority, by a process the ruling party cannot rig. The monitoring of relief and rehabilitation of victims will be a major part of their responsibilities.

    On the negative side of the ledger, the NAC draft makes an unnecessary reference to the power of the Centre and to Article 355 of the Constitution. The aim, presumably, is to remind the Centre of its duties in the event of a State government failing to act against incidents of organised communal or targeted violence. But the Centre already has the statutory right to intervene in such situations; if it doesn't, the reasons are political rather than legal. The draft also unnecessarily complicates the definition of communal and targeted violence by saying the acts concerned must not only be targeted against a person by virtue of his or her membership of any group but must also “destroy the secular fabric of the nation.” Like the reference to Art. 355, this additional requirement can safely be deleted without diluting what is otherwise a sound law.

    The BJP and others who have attacked the bill by raising the bogey of “minority appeasement” have got it completely wrong again. This is a law which does away with the appeasement of corrupt, dishonest and rotten policemen and which ends the discrimination to which India's religious and linguistic minorities are routinely subjected during incidents of targeted violence. The BJP never tires of talking about what happened to the Sikhs in 1984 when the Congress was in power. Now that a law has finally been framed to make that kind of mass violence more difficult, it must not muddy the water by asking why it covers “only” the minorities. In any case, the Bill's definition covers Hindus as Hindus in States where they are in a minority (such as Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland), as linguistic minorities in virtually every State, and as SCs and STs. More importantly, persons from majority communities who suffer in the course of communal and targeted incidents will be entitled to the same relief as minority victims. If someone feels there is any ambiguity about this, the bill's language can easily be strengthened to clarify this.

    At the end of the day, however, we need to be clear about one thing: India needs a law to protect its most vulnerable citizens from mass violence, its minorities. This is a duty no civilised society can wash its hands of.
     
  12. Adux

    Adux Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    4,020
    Likes Received:
    1,695
    This is the most dangerous bill ever to be presented in India, As a staunchly secular Indian, this really saddens me.
     
    maomao, A chauhan and LurkerBaba like this.
  13. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    the only problem is this bill doesn't work real time and will get the majority community eventually to the right wing opinion.They have zero idea how a riot starts and how a riot commences and how it concludes.When drafting bills such as these it is not the jurists who should be the architects of the bill.Nobody cares this bill during a riot and no one will care this after a riot.This bill is too cosmetic and i don't think this get through in the current format
     
    maomao and sayareakd like this.
  14. GPM

    GPM Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    506
    For jazzr
    Karan Thapar is not a BJP member. Hindustan Times, Times of India, Indian Express are not BJP/RSS mouthpices. The Hindu is strictly anti Hindu and Muslim appeaser. All of them have criticised this bill.
    **

    PR
    The bill is un-implementable once it is passed. But it gives draconian powers to Centre. A little riot in a small place, and Govt can declare emergency in the conrcerned state.

    Bill was drafted by a committee having a majority of members from the minorities. Those from "majority" are too hard core secular to be objective.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2011
    maomao likes this.
  15. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Bills regarding law and order must have ex cops in the committee not jurists and minorty community representatives .The bill is anything but implementable
     
  16. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    Congress people also street smart ,they are doing this for the UP elections

    If Congress can get Muslim votes in The Next UP state elections then only it can come to power

    Law and Order is a state subject. State govts are the implementing authorities ; whether it is Anti Naxal operations or the deployment of Central forces

    No state government can go out of its way to appease minorities in the event of a local and minor communal riot which do happen and which will continue to happen in India for ever

    It is only designed to prevent the recurrence of Delhi 1984 and Gujarat 2002

    This bill is designed to provoke the BJP to go on a warpath

    If BJP goes on a warpath on this bill the Congress hopes to consolidate its position in UP

    The Central govt can only use issue a directive under Article 355 to the state to maintain peace failing which Article 356 can be used

    If article 356 is used casually then ruling party at the Centre will SUFFER There will be a backlash because people dont like a popular state govt to be dismissed

    Congress didnt dare use Article 356 recently in Karnataka

    Neither in Bengal when political violence was at its peak ; Article 356 wasnt used

    When it was used in Bihar in 2005 and Nitish was prevented from coming to power ,Then he came back with a greater majority in 2006
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2011
    maomao likes this.
  17. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    In simple terms, this seems to be anti-blasphemy law against Hindus. It infringes on freedom of speech directly, but that seems to be of little concern. If there is a riot, according to this preposterous draft, it is being assumed that it is the Hindus alone who are always instigators and perpetuators of riot. In short, it incentivizes the riots for minority and punished the Hindus regardless of provocation.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2011
    A chauhan, maomao, Adux and 1 other person like this.
  18. Rahul Singh

    Rahul Singh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    This is how congress rules. How can someone forget how Congress party - which champions democracy and secularism - imposed political emergency, shamefully watched slaughter of Hindus in Punjab and went on slaughtering Sikhs in Delhi.

    I was just watching Star news on LPG price rise etc. Data shown amazed me, since 2004 the prices of almost all essential commodities have doubled, some are even at 300-400%. Yet, how shamelessly Congress yells "Garibo Ki Sarkar Chalate Hai Hum". Wonder what happened to PM's promise to bring down prices in 100 days? Whatever the answer is congress doesn't cares a damn. Congress knows very that Indians have short memory and Sickular card with support of paid media two-three months before GE is suffice for win.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2011
    maomao likes this.
  19. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    This is a bill of convenience in most respect,for the congress is well aware that a communally discriminatory bill as this will never see its way through the houses of parliament,esp in the Rajya sabha where the UPA doesn't have the numbers to push it through.However the bill itself and ensuing uproar will come in handy for the congress as it tries to resurrect its image among the minorities and if and when the bill is rejected,will be conveniently be blamed on communal forces.......

    No bill has ever offered protection to any victim of a communal riot,we are seriously deluding ourselves if we buy this canard.
     
    A chauhan, maomao, sob and 1 other person like this.
  20. GPM

    GPM Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    506
    SATA, Congi might get it passed in a joint session.
    ***

    33. Powers of the National Authority.- (1) The National Authority in the fulfillment of its objectives and in furtherance of its functions shall have the following powers, namely:-

    (b) appointing any person to observe, gather facts and information, inquire on its behalf;

    Quite a vague provision. What is an any persons? Can such a person be a foreigner? Can ISI of Pakistan be appointed for this task? Can Teestas make such a demand and get away with it? Sadly, the answer is YES.


    (3) The National Authority shall have power to require any person, subject
    to any privilege which may be claimed by that person under any law for the time being in force, to furnish information on such matters as, in the opinion of the Authority, may be useful or relevant to, the inquiry and any person so required shall be deemed to be legally bound to furnish such information within the meaning of section 176 and section 177 of the Indian Penal Code.


    Any law also includes International laws, conventions, treaties etc. Any privelege also includes diplomatic priceleges too. Certain Constitutional,office holders enjoy certain immunities. Will they too be covered? Seems YES to both.


    Can it be workable?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2011

Share This Page