India: Karnataka state approves anti superstition bill - Press release by MANS (27 Sep 2017)

Press release by Maharashtra Andhshraddha Nirmulan Samiti (MANS) regarding efforts to get proposed Karnataka Prevention of Superstitious Practices Bill passed in the state cabinet on 27 September 2017 SEE: http://www.sacw.net/article13497.html

Civil Society Groups Reject NAC Draft of Communal Violence Bill, Spell out Key Features For A New Bill

Recognizing the urgent and dire need for a law against communal and targeted violence, once again civil society activists called for a National Consultation on April 21, 2012. We, the undersigned, secular and civil liberty activists, women’s rights activists, legal experts, academicians, organizations, while rejecting the NAC draft bill, demand from the Government to draft a new legislation, the primary focus of which should be to secure accountability of public servants and to hold them responsible for communal and targeted violence, as well as make provision for providing reparative justice to the victims and survivors of such violence.

SEE FULL TEXT OF STATEMENT
http://www.sacw.net/article2648.html

Crimes Against Women: The Communal Violence Bill' / Chennai Meeting on 8 August

Discussion-Meeting on

Mass Crimes Against Women: The Communal Violence Bill

Date & day: 8 August 2008, Friday

Time: 4 p.m. 6 p.m.

Venue: Additional Library Hall,
High Court Buildings, Chennai 600014

The demand for a law on communal violence emerged from a brutal record of recurring violence in our country, the increasing occurrence of gender-based crimes in communal attacks, and complete impunity for mass crimes. The reasons are many - lack of political will to prosecute perpetrators, state complicity in communal crimes, lack of impartial investigation and a lack of sensitivity to victims' experiences. But there is also, crucially, the glaring inadequacy of the law. Today, despite huge strides in international jurisprudence, India continues to lack an adequate domestic legal framework, which would allow survivors of communal violence to seek and to secure justice. In addition, there had been a historic neglect in making persons accountable for mass crimes against women in contexts of communal violence in India.

The UPA government, in its National Common Minimum Programme issued in May 2004, promised to enact a comprehensive legislation on communal violence. While the country does need a strong law on communal violence, the Bill - named Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005 - drafted by the government, is a dangerous piece of legislation that would strengthen the shield of protection enjoyed by the State, its political leaders and its officials for their acts of omission and commission in these crimes. In particular, the Bill mentions sexual violence in the context of communal attacks in a cursory manner, without any acknowledgment of the fact that sexual violence is increasingly playing a fundamental role as an engine for mobilizing hatred and destruction against religious minorities.

After intensive pressure on the present government through delegations, public meetings, signature campaigns and a successful media campaign that reflected the civil society's lack support for the Bill, the government shelved its version of the Bill and asked for a new draft from members of the civil society who have been active on the issue. A new draft was submitted to the government on 24 January 2008, incorporating important international standards, new concepts and procedures that are absent in Indian law, in order to make accountability of perpetrators of communal violence a reality. The UPA government is determined to pass a law on the issue during its tenure, and hence the Bill is likely to be introduced in the Parliament shortly.

This discussion-meeting, co-organized by Women Lawyers' Association, High Court, Chennai and Women's Research & Action Group, Mumbai, is intended to

· Disseminate information on the present status of this law and the contents of the new draft, with a particular reference to issues of gender-based and sexual violence;

· Build consensus and support among like-minded lawyers, other individuals and groups to extend solidarity to the issue; and

· Discuss and share strategies for advocacy initiatives in future.

The event will be chaired by Adv. Bader Sayeed, (renowned women's rights advocate and activist) and have speakers including Adv. Sheila Jayaprakash (women's rights advocate), Ms. Vahida Nizam (State Secretary of Working Women's Forum, Chennai) and Ms. Saumya Uma (Advocate and Co-Director of Women's Research & Action Group, Mumbai, who has been engaged with the issue for the past four years). Attached please find a schedule of the event. We look forward to your participation at this event. A line of confirmation of participation to iccindiacampaign@gmail.com would be appreciated.

In solidarity,

Mrs. K. Santhakumari Ms. Saumya Uma
Advocate & President, Advocate & Co-Director
Women Lawyers' Association Women's Research & Action Group
High Court, Chennai Mumbai

Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh a 'Special Religious Zone'

Tirupati gets Special Religious Zone status

by Shwetal Kamalapurkar / CNN-IBN
on Monday , August 20, 2007

Special VIP darshans, a possible dress code and now the Special Religious Zone status - the Tirupati Tirumala temple has drawn as much controversy as the wealth that it invites in its coffers.

One of the most popular Hindu pilgrimage sites in the country, Tirupati and 19 other temple towns in Andhra Pradesh have a special religious status thanks to the AP government's order number 747.

And the state law - that prevents the propagation of any religion other than Hinduism within 110 kilometres from the identified temples - has left many Christian groups feeling alienated.

Says National Coordinator, Global Council for Indian Christians, C Francis, "This is worse than our anti-conversion laws."

The law was passed last month by a Congress government led by a Christian Chief Minister, YSR Reddy, but many in Andhra Pradesh feel the legislation has no place in a secular country.

People say that it is not possible to implement something like this for the government is secular and it cannot divide on the basis of religion.
[. . . ].

Sectarian Violence in Plural Society

Issues in Secular Politics
July 2007 I

Sectarian Violence in Plural Society
by Ram Puniyani

The present UPA government came to power in the aftermath of Gujarat carnage of 2002. This carnage intensified the wedge between major religious communities like never before. It was the horrific violence and immunity and the protection which the rioters got from the state government duly approved by central government, was one of the factors that prompted a section of population to ensure that the NDA government, is defeated at the hustings. Also the other political force, which was giving electoral fight to the BJP, Congress, promised the nation that when elected it will take suitable measures, including the introduction of new legislation, which will ensure that the violence is prevented in the future. In this direction, this government came with a draft bill circulated by the Home ministry, Communal Violence /Prevention bill in 2005. The circulation of that draft resulted in an intense discussion amongst the social action groups, including the socially committed legal minds, who felt that the draft bill hardly addresses the issues and on the contrary it will potentially result in worsening the scenario.

This proposed bill of 2005 further empowered the state machinery to deal with the situation. The civic action groups correctly pointed out that the carnage takes place and continues not because there are no provisions in the law to prevent or deal with it but because the political leadership wants the violence to continue and the police and bureaucratic machinery is communalized to the hilt because of which it plays an ideal foil to the political powers spearheading the violation of rules of the land. At the same time the experience of last fifty odd years is that the perpetrators of communal violence have not only gone unpunished, many a times they have even been rewarded administratively and benefited politically.

It was pointed out that there are live examples of the role of political leadership in such situations. The case of Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav and the West Bengal under the Left front are there to prove the point. Lalu Yadav, not only arrested the main instigator of violence Lal Krishna Advani when the rath Yatra entered Bihar but also instructed all concerned officials that if violence takes place in their areas, the concerned officials will be suspended. It also confirmed the major observation by the scholar and top police official Vibhuti Narayan Rai. Rai has done commendable research on the communal violence and the role of officials and leadership. He concludes that no violence can continue beyond 48 hours unless there are political/bureaucratic elements, which are providing shelter, encouragement and umbrella to the perpetrators of the violence. There could not have been better validation of Rai’s thesis than the case of Bihar, which had earlier seen the dastardly Bhagalpur riots.

The government did realize that the draft introduced by it has too many holes. The pressure of opinion of activists/scholars led it to revise the same. Unfortunately the revised draft does not go far in addressing the issues raised by the human rights groups. This bill, which is due for introduction in the next session of parliament, is again far from what can curb the violence. A group of leading jurists/scholars and activists deliberated on this (mid June 2007) and came to the conclusion that the treatment offered through this bill will worsen the disease rather than mitigating it. In a public statement they outright rejected this bill and pointed out that, “What we have before us today is a dangerous piece of legislation called the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control & Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005, which will not only fail to secure justice for communal crimes, but will actually strengthen the shield of protection enjoyed by the State, its political leaders and its officials for their acts of omission and commission in these crimes. It is a Bill, which conceives of communal violence as a ‘one time’ event rather than as a long-term politically motivated process, and seeks to prevent it only by giving greater powers to (often communally tainted) State governments. Further, it continues to perpetuate the silence around gender-based crimes.” (From the Public statement issued by the group in Delhi)

The major flaws of the old bill continue. Rather than strengthening the people, the community in dealing with such a situation, it further strengthens the police and bureaucracy. The appeal further calls for a total redrafting of the bill in consultation with the jurists and social groups who have been working on different aspects of the violence. What does the present bill aim at? It states that its aim is to, ”to empower the State Governments and the Central Governments to take measures to provide for prevention and control of communal violence...”. What should be the premise of the bill? From where should it take off? It is very clear that India’s communal violence, which began from early sixties, Jabalpur violence being the first one, can teach us as to in which direction we should draft our legislations. To begin with the core cause of violence is the prevalence of notions about minorities, which are going on increasing with time, there is demonization of minorities, lots of biases prevail about the religious minorities, to the extent that some people have started believing that they are foreigners and should leave the country.
It is precisely these ideas, the communal common sense, which is the base on which ethno-preneurs, the leaders who misuse community identity to instigate violence, like Bal Thackeray and Narendra Modi, build up their sectarian politics with ease. If the bill is to aim at the comprehensive prevention of violence, this issue has to be the starting point of the bill. It should be mandatory for state to propagate the values of freedom movement, the values of fraternity, and the essential contents of Indian constitution giving all of us equal status irrespective of our religion, caste or gender. Whether it should be part of the bill or should be made the directive principle of state policy is a matter of technicality but without this no measures will succeed whatever be the other situations.

Bill should also talk of training of the concerned authorities in the values of national integration. This training, which is the regular one for these officers should have this ingrained in that in addition to occasional ones’. This should derive its contents from the values of Indian nationalism and not sectarian, religion based nationalism. Coming to pre violence situation there is a need to curb the hate speech, the communal propaganda which precedes the violence. The civic action groups and individual have been breaking their heads against the wall but the hate propaganda through word of mouth and section of media keeps going on fracturing the community bonds. As an example lets recall how in Mumbai Bal Thackeray went scot free despite spewing poison in his mouth piece Saamna, as a build up to the violence of 92-93.

The positive experience of inter-religious committees initiated by the valiant police officer Suresh Khopde, which worked well in Bhiwandi (1980s), near Mumbai has been lost on the policy makers. Should it not be obligatory on the authorities to be consulting with people from all religions before, during and after the violence? It is quite likely that if the bridges between communities are kept live the chances of violence will diminish despite the worst intentions of those wanting to bake their bread in the fire of sectarianism.

During the violence, it is mandatory that once the violence threatening the lives of people and spirit of amity, all the provisions of criminal law are seriously implemented, in addition the political and civic auditing of the actions of police should become part of the law. The highest political authorities have to be duty bound to respond to the violence by ensuring that officers abide by the law. This is easier said than done. During Gujarat violence as RSS combine was on the killing spree, all the authorities from bottom to top ,Gujarat home minister, Chief minister, Central home minister and the prime minister himself, were those who were trained in the RSS shakhas, were trained in hating minorities. What precious little can be done to save democracy in such situation? We have to constantly remember that implementation of law is in the hands of authorities and we need to devise a mechanism of auditing their actions on continuous basis.

The inquiry committees. Madon, Vithayathil, Reddy, Shrikrishna, Bhagalpur and many others have demonstrated the role of communal organizations in instigating and planning the violence. Can we as a democracy put a break on these organizations and their activities? Tall order! There has to be a legal provision that no organization can preach divisiveness and hate in their literature. The registering of FIRs and investigation of incidents has to be immediate. We perhaps need a more active Human Rights commission, with powers to intervene suo motto or in response to complaints to pull up the highest of authorities once the violation of basic laws is taking place. Riot investigation, special courts, justice to the victims needs to be put in proper and suitable place. The compensation mechanism is not in order and ridiculously low amounts have been paid to the victims who have suffered the loss of their near and dear one’s, who have lost all they had for their livelihood. The rehabilitation process is conspicuous by its absence, as the case of Gujarat demonstrates again. There is a need fro empowering Human Rights commission on the lines of Election Commission. As the victim minorities are deprived of equal opportunities, it is important that an Equal Opportunities Commission also formed to empower the minorities.

One hopes that the present government does not present this shoddy bill in the parliament and evolves a suitable advisory committee drawn from those working with victims of violence at social and legal level to prepare a fresh draft bill for discussion in the parliament. Further controlling the sectarian violence goes much beyond just laws. Law can just be an adjunct to the whole social-political process of the concept of national integration. But all the same law has its own place and importance in that direction, one will urge upon the government not to bring a remedy which is worse than the disease.

Text of The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005

THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS) BILL, 2005

National consultation on The Communal Violence Bill, 2005 - A Concept Note

NATIONAL CONSULTATION
ON
The Communal Violence
(Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005

Conference Room, 1st Floor, India International Centre
New Delhi
June 16, 2007


A Concept Note

Three years of the UPA government is an opportune moment to take stock of just what the government has achieved in terms of justice for communal crimes. The demand for a law on communal violence emerged from a brutal record of recurring violence in our country, the increasing occurrence of gender-based crimes in communal conflagrations, and complete impunity for mass crimes. The Common Minimum Programme (CMP) had thus promised the citizens of this country a ‘comprehensive legislation’ that would finally challenge the decades of impunity for communal crimes; which would strengthen our hands in the struggle against communalism; which would allow us to prosecute for mass crimes committed with political will and intent. Unfortunately what we have been offered is a cynical, shoddy, and dangerous piece of legislation, whose first version was The Communal Violence (Suppression) Bill, 2005. This was then replaced but not vastly improved by The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005.

The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005 (hereafter referred to as the Bill) has been drafted in bad faith and represents nothing less than a complete betrayal of the promise of the CMP. Indeed the very process, which the Bill has followed, indicates bad faith. If the new statute was sincere about addressing gaps in criminal jurisprudence, it should have based itself on the documented experiences of victims over the last two decades. There is no dearth in India of eminent jurists, civil society activists, academics and legal experts who have engaged on the ground and in court rooms with communal violence and communal crimes; they could and should have been actively consulted to ensure that any bill purporting to deal with communal violence would first and foremost strengthen the ordinary citizens of India in seeking justice. Yet, a Bill of such fundamental importance in addressing the challenges posed to the secular character of our society and polity was drafted without any real consultative process (barring a few seminars which were hurriedly called with less than 48 hours notice to civil society activists).

The Bill introduced in Parliament on December 5, 2005, was then sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs for its review and recommendations. The Standing Committee called in those experts it saw fit, but again did not open its doors wide in what should have been a public, transparent and inclusive process. Except for one group of women’s rights activists who managed to seek time for a formal deposition before the Standing Committee, few civil society activists were invited to give comments.

The report of the Standing Committee tabled in Parliament on December 13, 2006 fails to make any correctives which would retrieve the Bill; it does not make any structural changes in the framework of the Bill towards strengthening citizens as opposed to further strengthening the hands of (communally motivated) state governments; it fails to address impunity for mass crimes; it does not take on board any substantive recommendations related to gender-based crimes; nor does it address the severe lacunae in terms of seeking accountability for the inaction and complicity of state officials in communal violence. The response of the Government of India, contained in the Standing Committee’s report, indicating complete satisfaction with the basic structure of the existing Bill, is truly a betrayal of people’s faith.

There is every danger that the UPA government will reintroduce some version of the Communal Violence Bill, 2005 in the coming monsoon session of parliament and usher it through. Before that happens, a daylong national consultation is being organized in Delhi to evolve a consensus and plan ahead. The foundation of the Bill is so flawed that it cannot be remedied by improvements in specific components. The government must be urged to begin afresh the process of drafting a new Bill on communal violence. They must be urged to give the citizens of this country a law which can finally deliver justice for communal crimes; which can hold the State accountable for acts of omission and commission; a law which for once strengthens the hands of the citizens and not the State.


NATIONAL CONSULTATION ORGANISED BY ANHAD, DELHI
With inputs from
Justice Ahmadi, Farah Naqvi & Gagan Sethi (Centre for Social Justice)
Partial resource support provided by BMMA (a project of Action Aid)
Contact details: anhad.delhi@gmail.com/ 011 23070740