My previous post regarding the Communal Violence Bill was felt to have had a strong communal overtone. It is still there in public domain as I stand by what I said then. Yet I decided to take a more moderate stand to convey the information in the Bill properly.
I AM SORRY IF SENTIMENTS HAVE BEEN HURT.
So here is the moderate and a more informative version of what I intended to convey then.
I have avoided using names of religions as far as possible.
Well it is a nice gesture and a very important duty of the Government of india to protect the interests of minorities. Yet this bill is a mere mockery of the federal system of which we are proud part of.
This Bill, if ever enacted as a Law, will intrude into the power domain of both the State and the Centre and develop an imbalance in the inter community relationship in India.
Objectionable Dynamics of the Bill
"Violence Creation Bill” instead :- The Bill suggests that when a ‘group’ consisting of religious or linguistic minority comes under attack, the Centre must intervene to solve the law and order crisis. Well, its a nice gesture of goodwill but with repercusions all over the country.
Hypothetically a member of the minority community is attacked over a land issue/property issue in Uslampaati. The Centre then intervenes to imprison the offenders.
This action will grab the spotlight in public domain immediately so as the reaction to this event the whole of Haridwar shall burn in communal riots so the members of majority community comes under attack.
An offence is an offence irrespective of origin of the offender. Here is a proposed law being legislated in the 21st century where caste and religion of an offender wipe out the culpability under this law.
Offences which are defined under the bill have been deliberately left vague. Communal and targeted violence means violence which destroys the ‘secular fabric of the nation’. There can be legitimate political differences as to what constitutes secularism.
The phrase secularism can be construed differently by different persons. Which definition is the judge supposed to follow? Similarly, the creation of a hostile ‘environment’ may leave enough scope for a subjective decision as to what constitutes ‘a hostile environment’.
Social entrepreneurs in the National Advisory Council can be expected to draft such a dangerous and discriminatory law. One wonders how the political head of that body cleared this draft. When some persons carried on a campaign against the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act — an anti-terrorist law, the members of the UPA argued that even terrorists should be tried under the normal laws. A far more draconian law is now being proposed.
The states will be watching hopelessly when the Centre goes ahead with this misadventure. Their power is being usurped. The search for communal harmony is through fairness — not through reverse discrimination.
What about the regional/linguistic and ideological minorities??
For example, the Brahmins in South India or Theists in Tamil Nadu. Dont they need the same pampering care as well??
Brahmins have been attacked , criticized and discouraged in Tamil Nadu as a matter of Government Policy for the past 35 years (reservations, ect…). As a matter of fact theists are and ideological minority too. So as to seek the common fabric of equality any person (Ex. M.K Karunanidhi) who offends a Theist should be charged and tried under this law. As far as equality to Brahmins, we need not worry the shine like diamonds abroad.
A clear political mandate (that’s bound to fail)
Well then the Communal Violence Bill is just a humbuk or pre election (2014) stunt by the Congress, hoping to tilt their fortune post the ‘era of scams’. The most suspicious factor is the time of legislating this bill, when we have slept over Lok-Pal for the past 40 years. what is the need of such a bill in such short notice? It is truly mysterious (my suspicions are increased because of Digvijay Singh’s anti-RSS chant all the time)
So what is the intention of the legislature ? To promote and uphold the constitutional virtues or to denigrate them on grounds of religion and linguistic demarcation? The question is left for us, THE PEOPLE to answer.