Bill Against Communal Violence not good enough; aicc says PM must re draft it
cathol...@gmail.com
violence
The following is the text of the letter
Dr. Manmohan Singh
The Prime Minister of India
Your Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh:
Greetings from the All India Christian Council.
We applaud your government for its desire to protect the idea of India
– a secular government with equality for all. We welcome the intention
to pass a Bill on
communal violence which will add to India’s strong body of laws.
However, the Christian community has deep concerns about the Communal
Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill,
2009, from the drafts we’ve
read. We humbly request a serious re-write of this legislation. Our
main concerns:
1. The Bill doesn’t adequately address the question of hate campaigns
and the “communalisation process” (i.e. hate speech published in local
language media) that
precede communal violence. This well-studied phenomenon of activities,
some already illegal but not often prosecuted, is a root issue.
2. The Bill doesn’t take into account the demography and pattern of
living of various communities. Specifically, anti-Christian violence
is normally dismissed by
public officials as “sporadic” (although there may be a serious
incident daily in some areas). Because other minorities live in
concentrated or contiguous areas, those
“communally disturbed areas” are more easily identified. In Orissa,
Kandhamal would likely not fit the Bill’s definition but we know what
happened there in 2007-2008.
3. The Bill doesn’t give States guidelines on reparations and
compensation. We need a uniform national policy as well standards on
the assessment of damages after
riots in order to prevent ghettoisation.
4. The Bill doesn’t fully address police and administrative impunity
properly or adequately. The “good faith” clause, which exempts police
and public servants from
prosecution unless there is permission from the executive branch, is a
major concern.
We share concerns, especially voiced by Muslim groups, that the Bill
doesn’t fully acknowledge the individual victim, treats communal
violence as spontaneous rioters
versus rioters (instead of acknowledging the possibility of
premeditated or state-sponsored violence), and gives much power to
state
governments which, historically, have occasionally acted in a biased
manner. We need to see stronger checks and balances.
Also, we acknowledge that some shortcomings are systemic legal issues
better addressed by your government in separate legislation or orders.
The most important, in our
humble opinion, include:
• Establishing witness protection programs and guidelines
• Strengthening of National Commission for Minorities and state
minority commissions
• Action against police who refuse to register FIRs
• Permanently debarring government officials guilty of involvement in
communal violence – or any crime – from government jobs and from
contesting any office
• The rights of “internally displaced persons” in relief camps should
mirror UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement e.g. including
immediate education
for displaced children
Many provisions of the current version of the Bill are acceptable. But
we request you to consider the input above so that a weak Bill is not
passed which requires the
almost impossible process of securing future amendments.
Our community has learned from recent waves of communal attacks in
Orissa and Karnataka as well as ongoing onslaught on house churches,
individual pastors/priests and
nuns, and the terrible hate campaigns in newspapers which are
officially sponsored by several state governments. Our suggestions are
rooted in the reality of rural
India where the vast majority of our members – thousands of
Protestant, Catholic, and independent Christian organisations – live
and work to improve our beloved
society.
Yours Sincerely and Most Respectfully,
Dr. Joseph D’souza, President, aicc, Hyderabad, dso...@aiccindia.org
John Dayal, Secretary General, aicc, New Delhi, john....@gmail.com
C.C.:
Shri M. Veerappa Moily, Union Cabinet Minister for Law & Justice
Shri P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of Home Affairs
Shri Salman Khurshid, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for
Minority Affairs
Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, Indian National Congress Party
-------------------
Hindustan Times report today:
Amended law to let Centre take charge in riot-hit states
Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Time
r
New Delhi, March 17, 2010
The government’s final version of the communal violence law empowers
the Centre to take charge of an area where riots have broken out once
it sends in central forces,
if it finds the state government concerned reluctant to act against
the rioters.
The new law still does not allow the Centre to send armed forces on
its own to a riot-hit spot. But once a state has asked for central
forces to quell violence, the
Centre will have the right — under certain circumstances — of setting
up a unified command, comprising these forces and the local police.
The amendment was cleared by the Cabinet last December and is expected
to come for parliamentary approval next month.
The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of
Victims) Bill, however, says the Centre can declare an area
“communally disturbed” and take direct
charge only if the state concerned refuses to act against the violence
being perpetrated to such an extent that the secular fabric of the
country, or internal
security, is endangered.
To guard against political misuse, the law stipulates that the Centre
must
draw the attention of the state government to the deteriorating state
of affairs, and set a deadline for it to take necessary steps to
suppress the violence.
Until now, central forces deployed in a state worked under the control
of the local district administration. But henceforth, in special
circumstances, it will work
under the unified command, which will report to the Centre.
The amendment was conceived of in the backdrop of the 2002 Gujarat
riots, when it was widely believed the state government had done
little to discourage the rioters.
Even so, it is bound to anger state governments who will see it as an
encroachment on their powers. Eight of 12 states that responded to a
survey by a parliamentary
panel had even opposed an earlier, milder version.