Why do we Need the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill? by Ambrose Pinto

Mainstream, VOL LI, No 47, November 9, 2013

Why do we Need the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill?

Tuesday 12 November 2013, by Ambrose Pinto

If media reports are right, then the UPA Government is likely to table the Communal Violence Bill in the winter session of Parliament. There has been wide opposition to the Bill. The media has alleged that the Bill is for appeasement of minorities and a vote-catching device for the UPA in the elections of 2014. Even the Centrist forces have accused the UPA for planning to introduce the Bill just prior to the coming elections while the Congress party had promised to enact it in their manifesto as soon as they took over power.
The prime opposition to the Bill has, of course, been from the Bharatiya Janata Party. The party has argued that the Bill is aimed against the Hindus and is biased with a tilt towards the minorities. Enlightened citizens are unlikely to be surprised by such an argument of the BJP given its anti-minority stance. To some others in the party the Bill is divisive in nature since it is aimed at the protection of the minorities against the majority. There are others who have repeated the same arguments without being aware of the content of the Bill.

Most of the accusations against the Bill are of a propagandist nature and that is why citizens need to examine the Bill critically and clearly.

Is there a Bias in the Bill?

The Bill is accused of bias. Is there any fault of being positively biased? A positive bias is different from prejudice. When the system favours the majority, it is necessary and essential for a Bill to protect the weaker and discriminated communities with a positive bias to correct the majoritarian bias.

Those who accuse the Bill of bias fail to see the reality. The Bill is to deal with Muslims who are the largest single community to be the target of major communal violence, groups like the Kashimiri Pandits who have been ousted from their birth-place, SCs/STs who are condemned to slavery, linguistic minorities who have been targeted for their language, Christians, Sikhs and others linguistic and religious minorities, all those who suffer targeted violence. Several commissions of enquiry have confirmed institutional bias and prejudicial functioning of state bodies against non-dominant groups.

Though all the communities mentioned in the list are not minority communities, an impression is created that the Bill is meant to protect religious minorities. Given the increasing number of cases of communal violence, people of goodwill surely hold that the country needs special laws. Communal violence is a special kind of violence and cannot be treated as any other kind of violence. In recent months violence has been generated purely with an intention of consolidating vote-banks.

The Muzaffarnagar violence, that does not seem to subside, is a case in point. Those who have been to the spot and met people are aware of the forces behind that violence. Attempts are also made in Karnataka and the neighbouring State of Kerala to incite violence for political consolidation in spite of secular governments in place. And what is becoming more and more clear is that the forces of the state are very often aligned with the forces of violence. Dr Vibhuti Nariain Rai, a police officer, Ashutosh Varshney and Steven Wilkinson had opined that no act of communal violence can go on beyond 48 hours unless the administration is complicit in the violence. The Bill therefore attempts to address this delicate area of our political and administrative reality and ensures the account-ability of the officials.

Very often it is the act of commission and omission of the officers of the state who are in nexus with the political leaders that is at the root of the continuation of targeted violence. Why should such a practice of nexus between politicians and bureaucrats be allowed to continue? Whatever may be the directives of the elected representatives, the bureaucrats must be made to adhere to constitutional norms and not the wishes and desires of politicians.

Riots are Political

Those who have researched on communal riots boldly without any doubt say that most riots in independent India have been political with the complicity of the elected representatives. There are political parties which, as a part of their hidden ideology, actively or in a hidden manner, engage in violence to further their political agenda. Given the connectivity between votes and violence there are times when even the secular parties have resorted to it. The anti-Sikh riots were of the Congress’ making while the BJP has ruled over some of the worst riots in the country from partition to Ayodhya, Gujarat to Orissa.

The smaller regional parties in different parts of the country have also been accused of bias against minorities. When the leadership is made up of dominant communities in the States, it is the SCs/STs that become the target of attack. Dharmapuri in Tamil Nadu is a good example of how the PMK party, headed by Ramdas, has caused havoc to the lives of the Dalits. In Punjab, in spite of the Akalis being in power, Dalit Sikhs and other splinter groups like the Dera Saccha Sauda have experienced intolerance.

What is unfortunate in all these cases is that justice takes time and those in power, in spite of being the kingpins, escape the rule of law. Those in power have always escaped being targeted owning no moral responsibility for the crimes. The country is aware that L.K. Advani was the leader of the Ayodhya agitation and Modi presided over one of the worst riots in 2002. And yet they are not only not taken to task, they are unlikely to be taken to task given the functioning of laws in the country.

Hate Language

The other issue in communal violence is the use of the language of hate. It is normal and customary for groups involved in communal violence to make use of the language of hate prior to the actual violence. Words are manipulated, expre-ssions are twisted and slogans are created. It is these words of hate through the propaganda machinery that finally provoke or add to the quality and quantity of violence.

A significant point in the Bill is action to bring to book hate propagandists against vulnerable communities, and prevention of their economic and social boycott so that the 2002 Gujarat riots, post-Babri riots, the 1983 Nellie massacre, Kandhamal violence of 2007, anti-Sikh genocide of 1984, the Hashimpura communal and custodial killings by the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in 1987, the communal flare-up in 2012 in Assam and the 2013 communal violence in Muzaffarnagar do not recur. Prior to the actual violence, there were groups which were involved in hate campaigns in all these cases. The hate campaign and aggressive language among some groups is further aggravated to capture power in the general elections of 2014.

Collective Violence

The Bill attempts to curb collective violence. There are clear laws in this country for violence against individuals. However, in spite of being a country of communities, we have not evolved laws for protection of communities. When violence turns out to be against a community, members of the community are killed, butchered and the women of the community are raped.

We have witnessed this in incidents against the communities of SCs/STs/minorities and others. These incidents of collective violence are not incidents of spontaneous outbreak of passions but organised violence by organsised groups against communities. In Mumbai the Shiv Sainiks, in many parts of the country the affiliates of the Sangh Parivar, in Assam the Bodos against the Adivasis have targeted their audience for what they are. For Shiv Sainiks, the Biharis are outsiders and they have no right of existence in Mumbai. The Bodos in Assam have treated the Adivasis hailing from Bihar and Chhattisgarh and working in the plantations and other places for the prosperity of Assam as their enemies.

These violent attacks against communities are attacks on their being who they are and what they are. The SCs/STs have borne the brunt of violence in this country. Given the urgency of the need to protect the weaker sections of our society, one wonders why the Bill should be opposed by any party other than parties with vested interests.

National Identity

Another challenge that the country is facing is its very identity as a plural and diverse nation. There are political parties that are determined to define India’s unity in uniformity than in diversity, trying to change the very character of the country. These attempts have made the minorities insecure. Attacks on them are on the increase. Since the majoritarian communities are at an advantage given their numerical numbers, it is the minority communities that need protection.

India cannot be defined in terms of uniformity given the fact there is no singly major community in the country. We have hundreds of communities even in Hinduism. All these communities have their right to existence on their own terms without disturbing peace and co-existence. The danger parties like the BJP and others pose is to destroy the caste and class consciousness of people who are organising themselves for participating in the assets of the state and society. The BJP would also like the minorities to give up their specific ways of life that has enriched the multi-cultural life of India.

The other propaganda of the BJP against the Bill is that it would make the majority community insecure. One is amused at the low levels to which the BJP can take an argument for its own vested interests. Because the law is positively biased on behalf of the minorities, is violence on the majority community to be justified or will it make the majority community insecure? Not at all. Any violence on any community should be firmly and comprehensively dealt with. All violence has to be punished while violence against discriminated communities needs stronger laws. It is easier to quell violence against the majority communities given their dominance and power. Power comes both from numbers, representation in the offices of the state, economic wealth and social power. But the minorities suffer much more due to the minority nature of the communities and lack of representation in the institutions of the state.

No Additional Powers to the Centre

The Bill does not seek to give additional powers to the Centre as made out by some parties and individuals. The Bill does not take over any existing powers of any public official or institution, nor supersede the existing law enforcement machinery. All powers and duties of investigation, prosecution, and trial remain with the State governments. Those opposing the Bill have made the argument that it impinges upon the federal structure of the country which may not be totally true. On the other hand, individuals cannot be made prisoners of state ideology anymore. Right to life for the communities is a basic right and even if the Central Government has to make an intervention, it must be recommended. One does not speak of bossing over or taking over power when the state needs to protect citizens. The role of the Central Government is to intervene if there are any violations of rights by the States. Even the international community is permitted to make intervention for human life protection.

Another accusation that is hurled against the Bill is that it can be used to blackmail communities. In the past accusation has been made against some parties that they have been asked to vote for them or they may not be safe in the hands of the Opposition. From experience we know that those fears have been largely unfounded. Even the minorities have not voted for specific parties if alternatives were offered. If the law is misused, it is more misused by the dominant groups than the weaker sections since they hardly have access to the institutions of the state.

Equality, the right to life, freedom to live with dignity and the right to justice are rights guaranteed to all citizens. Experience in the decades past, however, reveals that these rights are often diminished, even denied, to victims and survivors of communal and targeted violence. The Bill therefore needs to be welcomed.

Even those who dub the Bill as election gimmick have felt the need for the Bill. The UPA may have its designs in enacting the Bill so late in its term of office. Even if the Bill is late and going to be enacted with the elections in view, it needs support. If enacted, the Bill will also communicate to the BJP and the likes of Modi that the ruling dispensation is not afraid to take on the saffron brigade when its comes to the safety and security of the citizens.

Dr Ambrose Pinto SJ is the Principal of St. Aloysius Degree College, Bengaluru.