Why the BJP faces an uphill battle next general elections...

The recent U.P. poll results have come somewhat as a jolt to the BJP. UP sends 85 seats to the 543 member Lok Sabha and is thus the key swing state. Here, people have favoured local politicians irrespective of how corrupt they are. The face saving explanation from the BJP (and indeed the CONgress) has been that people voted for the best alternative replacement to Mayawati and we did not instil confidence that we would win.

The scary explanation is that people are turning parochial and voting their own, almost back to the dark ages of caste-ism. A less scary explanation is accepting the one by the BJP and CONgress. Even assuming the second explanation to be correct, BJP facing an uphill task in 2014 (or is it 2012?) elections.

Politicians are a rare breed of individuals who are driven solely by greed for money and power, some might say. If this is true, then ‘ideology’ is nothing more the thin veil than hides the ugly nakedness underneath. If the BJP is unable to assert its electoral supremacy, there is no reason why parties such as the Janata Dal (United) of Nitish Kumar and Sharad Yadav will stick with it. Similarly, the Akali Dal may decide to break away. These local outfits have never stopped dreaming of a grand third front which will represent local interests and IMHO be little more than a jirga of the sort we see in the wild north west regions of Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Short of another CONgress government, there can be nothing worse for India. Nitish appears to fancy himself as the Prime Minister, so does Jayalalitha, so does Biju Patnaik to name a few that immediately come to mind. There can be no stability where a clear leader does not exist.

The BJP is clearly contributing to the issue by its own ego clashes and leadership issues. The tallest leader in the party is clearly Narendra Modi, but Nitin Gadkari and his band of merry men (and women?) are doing their utmost to insult Modi. Narendra bhai was also deliberately kept away from campaigning in all election states (and also Bihar when hustings were underway there). I have little doubt that he alone could have converted 50 seats for the BJP, but Nitin in all is wide wisdom has chosen to put ego in front of the country. Which isn’t surprising, given my base assumption of politicians being a rare breed indeed.

So BJP is not going to be a serious contender in Bihar, where Nitish will take over as many seats as he can from their coalition and may even contest separately when the time comes. Punjab with the reduced tally of the national party faces the same issue. So where does the BJP compete on its on terms and with some sort of a toe-hold in the state? I have identified the following: Goa (2), Gujarat (26), Haryana (10), Himachal (4), Karnataka (28), Madhya Pradesh (40), Maharashtra (48), Rajasthan (25), Uttar Pradesh (85) and Delhi (7). Therefore, if the BJP still harbours dream of forming a majority government, it has to win 272 seats of the 275, maybe 285 seats that it has atleast some fighting chance in. I am including UP, assuming what Gadkari says is correct ie people vote for a viable alternative, in state elections that alternative was Samajwadi Party so at the national level it will be the BJP. Bihar will be dominated by Nitish, Southern states by local parties, north-eastern states by local parties and Congress. Punjab by the Badals. W. Bengal by Mamta-didi, who baulks at even sharing the dias with BJP at neutral events. Already people in SAD are hinting at trying to make a third front. Nitish appears as if he is almost out of the door (Sharad Yadav virtually distanced himself from the NDA already). We all know Mamta is a loose canon who feels strait-jacketed in the Congress-led UPA.

The likelihood of BJP making it to even 200 seats after competing in 275-odd is slim at best. BJP has what…116 seats in the Lok Sabha now? If things continue in this vein, it will be reduced to below 100 for sure in the next elections. Even if the BJP still manages to become the biggest party in the NDA (assuming the NDA still does exist) its margin with no.2 will be much slimmer and its room to get its policy and ideology through non-existent.

It is perhaps time for BJP to take a leaf out of Rahul Gandhi’s book and instead of concentrating on ridiculing him, start to build a credible base in even ‘friendly’ states where it seems to have become lazy and left winning up to the coalition partner (Punjab being the case in point). To be fair, BJP had decided to go it alone in UP and that was an eye opener for it, lets hope it learns fast and builds a base again before its partners that are firmly behind it now, stab it in the back.

Whats reluctance got to do with it?

I find it surprising that all of Congress' popular leaders have been projected as reluctant to lead. I dont know about Indira Gandhi, but perhaps she was also projeected as an obedient daughter reluctantly taking up her fathers' duties?

I know Rajiv Gandhi was projected like this, son not wanting power, but thrust into the national arena and finally agreeing to lead this country out of sheer magn...animity for its poor people.

I know Sonia Gandhi was projected like this. Desh ki bahu, not wanting power, does everyone remember all the CONgress' MP's lining up first at her door and then making speeches one by one in the parliament wasting the tax payers money. I remember Govinda's speech: aapke netrutva mein matrutva hain. Not sure she understood, but then again stranger things have happened.

Rahul Gandhi's entry into politics was on expected lines. He was expected to take the gaddi just like Mukesh Ambani was after Dhirubhai. This took away his chance to be the 'reluctant'leader in the image of his brilliant family members. Perhaps this was the reasong for his failure (amongst many,many, many others)?

Now I see the CONgress spin machine and the 'free' and 'independent' media is projecting Priyanka Gandhi as the reluctant leader. Only there to help her brother handling the responsibilities of home and taking her of her husband and children like a good Indian bahu. I am waiting for the lines to come up outside her house begging her to lead the CONgress. If the 'reluctance' factor has anything to do with the Gandhi victories (and it may because God knows I cant see any other positives),Priyanks many just end up heading the next Indian govt.

 

There is a simple (hence possibly wrong) answer for this studied projection of the first family. It is to do with their understanding of one vital bit the Indian culture. We place the value of sacrifice above all else. The Rai Bahadur's and Sir's and other such title holders during the British Raj are vilified but people who gave their life to the freedom struggle with nothing to show for it are glorified. This not a recent phenomenon, Lord Ram who gave up the world to honour his father's wish is glorified. His brother Bharat who ruled, but reluctantly, and as a steward, is glorified. Karna and Eklavya who gave up divine protection and his right thumb respectively are glorified as is Harishchandra as is Buddha as is Mahavira. The Congress has this pulse of the public and the public has little time for someone who wants to barge into positions of power. It almost seems orchastrated how each member of the first family is cajoled into taking power (with no responsibility) and wielding it as they see fit. Its about time India sees the reality, that only TRUE sacrifice is to be honoured, not a well dramatised sequence for mass consumption.

 

 

 

Ahimsa is not a universal truth

Gandhi’s insistence for the principal of non-violence (ahimsa) and his experiments with the concept are well known. To be fair they inspired people such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela who once remarked “At a time when Freud was liberating sex, Gandhi was reining it in, when Marx was pitting workers against capitalists, Gandhi was reconciling them; when the dominant Europe thought had dropped God and Soul out of the social reckoning, he was centralising society in God and the Soul; and when the ideologies of the colonised had virtually disappeared, he revived them and empowered them with a potency that liberated and redeemed”

That Gandhi was a pioneer in his style of resistance is of no doubt to anyone, but his apparent insistence on a “one size fits all” was the bone of contention of many. I am reading an excellent book “The untold story of India’s partition” by Narendra Singh that chronicles the period leading upto the tragic date of rending India, beginning with the duration of the second world war. While Narendra’s book seems to squarely place the blame for the partition on the British and the Muslim League (which at every point appeared to advance British interests over India’s) this is for you folks to decide on reading this book, that I highly recommend. Narendra also blames the Congress for its haphazard policies, no clear stand, knee jerk moves and divergent opinions on hastening the process of division. But personally, I think while the Congress may have been guilty of incompetence, their intent (at least in those days) was not malicious to India’s detriment. The book also suggests the gradual side-lining of the great Subhash Chandra Bose by Gandhi and the rest of Congress as his popularity soon over shadowed those of the Grand Old Party’s tallest leaders! It also hints at how Gandhi’s ahimsa was extremely irritating for even members of the Congress, a charge that they now conveniently hurl at only the RSS.

It is interesting to note that Britain’s insistence for partition came from its desire to have troops stationed on the subcontinent to counter any Russian adventure in the region. The British knew that an independent India would not allow for foreign troops to be stationed on its soil if India become independent. The next thing was the use their good offices with the Muslim League and a rabidly ambitious Jinnah (who knew he was dying anyway) to conspire for the division of the country so get a base in North West India (now known as Pakistan) for their troops. This is also evident from the fact that soon after partition Pakistan did join with Britain in a couple of cooperation and military pacts. The book also identifies the Aga Khan as one of the persons responsible for the flowering of the idea that hindus and muslims are different nations.

Anyway coming back to, the failure of Gandhi to apply his one size fits all philosophy that eventually saw his get assassinated is evident from a few instances mentioned in the book. The first example is the conversation that took place with Lord Linlithgow, the viceroy, in the summer of 1940 soon after Hitler had overrun France. In a chat that left the Lord white in the face with no words, Gandhi said:

“Let them (Germans) take possession of your beautiful island, if Hitler
chooses to occupy your homes, vacate them, if he does not give you
free passage, allow yourself man, woman and child, to be slaughtered”

This outburst led many in the British establishment question Gandhi’s sanity. This is also the moment perhaps that endeared the British to the Muslim League and away from the Congress. On the other hand I cannot help but note with sarcasm how many more lives Gandhi was willing to sacrifice for his Ahimsa instead of a resistance, which in this case, almost certainly would have cost fewer lives!

Anyway, the next para that I pick verbatim from the book, highlights what I have always felt about the concept of Ahimsa and other means of non-violent protests:

“At the core of the great mans confusion at this stage of his life was whether or not or how far to continue to adhere to the policy of non-violence in a situation that was changing grom a purely colonial struggle to something different, more akin to one faced by independent states in their dealings with other states. The true power of the satyagraha lay in provoking deep moral stirrings in the oppressor by the willingness of the oppressed to withstand all atrocities even to the extent of calmly facing self-annihilation. It is a tenet for action by individuals who risk their lives or those of their near and dear ones. It cannot be a gospel for leaders of sovereign states to fight aggression by another country.

No leader of a country can afford to turn the other cheek to an invading army and risk defeat of his country and annihilation of perhaps millions. Non violence could be used to fight racism (as in S. Africa) or colonialism (as in India) practiced by people who are capable of doubting the morality of their own policies and actions. It cannot be a policy to fight pressures exerted by people with totally different ethical or moral values or by fundamentalists or jihadis”

This is a most succinct exposition of what I believe of the principal of non-violence and I am sad that I am not as articulate as the author!

Gandhi’s own doubts are evident from his statement to Vincent Sheen, his biographer, two days before his death. He said “Mind you, no ordinary government can get along without the use of force”. Or his statement on 29th October 1947 that the Indian army would have to “do or die” in Kashmir. This from a man who very recently had advocated a genocide of British in their own country rather than a armed resistance to an invader!

But much as it may surprise readers, I actually admire this about Gandhi. As a staunch believer of the premise “when the facts change, I change my mind” Gandhi’s doubt was a sign of intelligence that he himself doubted the veracity of his belief that non-violence could be applied to any and all situations. However, the interim doubt and contradictory positions he took often, especially during the religious riots leading up to the partition of India was what takes some sheen off MK Gandhi, in my humble view. If he had started with the thought “Ahimsa is a great idea, but it will not work all the time and will need pragmatic application”, he, in my view, would not have stoked the mentality that eventually led to his tragic assassination.

It also brings us to a bigger question. That Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare fasted against the Indian government with no success. So is one correct in assuming that the Indian government lacks the ability to doubt the morality of their own actions? If so, then it would squarely put the Indian government in the league of fundamentalists and jihadis, would it not?

Once again all credit (and source reference) to this excellent book I mentioned earlier and I recommend it to all Indians.

Introduction to Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy…

(no intention to copyright infringement, only a translation to the best of my abilities of this brilliant, brilliant, brilliant play)

Nathuram Godse is a much derided figure in India because he is only projected as a one-dimensional personality. Someone who was a killer, a clinically mad person, who took a gun and shot Gandhi. Its never as simple as that…or as Nathuram says in the play, “murders can be simple…but never assassinations. I assassinated Gandhi”. Society has since ensured that Nathuram’s point of view was never brought to light, that no one was able to hear both sides of the story and the concept of natural justice in society’s eyes, basically died.

The play “Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy…” is a landmark play in that it attempts to bring out Nathuram’s point of view on the assassination. He highlights how in his view the assassination of Gandhi was inevitable and necessary for India to move ahead. It highlights how he had tried all other non-violent means endlessly before taking this route. While the play itself is unparalleled in artistic and ideological terms, just the introduction at the beginning of the play, given by Nathuram’s character, gives the viewer a good insight into context of the play. Whether one agrees or not with Nathuram, atleast he was a person who deserves more than to be written off by a politicians hand.

Despite violent protests by Gandhians, the play has done more than 600 shows in the last ten years, all of which were houseful. The play has been performed at various places ranging from metros to naxal affected places such as Chandrapur. The lead character (Nathuram) is played by Sharad Ponkshe who I believe is easily one of the best actors in India…and also the bravest. He once started the 2-2.5 hour play at 9 PM, but could finish it only at 6.30 the next morning. Reason, Congress that defended MF Hussain’s right to draw whatever he pleased, sent 150 goons to disrupt his show. Sharad stood his ground (unlike Hussain who fled from a mere court hearing and accepted citizenship of a country that has NO freedom of speech) and completed his show at the risk of death, and seeing this, none of his audience members retreated either. I am translating to English the introduction to the play so make it accessible to everyone who does not speak or understand Marathi.

…

“All your faces are unknown to me. Frankly speaking, the word ‘unknown’ itself is wrong as in the word itself, the presence of ‘knowing’ is felt. You faces are new to me. New…not unfamiliar. The young among you may not have been born then and the state regulated school textbooks have since described me to you as nothing more than a ‘hindu madman’. The middle aged among you may remember that period through which their parents that were fleeing the massacre of Maharashtrian Brahmins, wondered “who is this Nathuram? Why are our houses being burnt because of him?” Yes, but the very old among you must remember me. Many may have read my articles in newspapers, my editorials (and Nana Apte’s) in the Agarani newspaper, heard my speeches and even met me in person. But that meeting and this acquaintance, they have consistently denied since 30th January 1948!

But will they be here? Who will bring such old people here? So old?! My age-group? Do you know my age? I am 93. You will say I am lying…that I look much younger! But the secret of my ever-lasting youth is my death, untimely death. Don’t you think death is actually a boon that gives one ever lasting youth? Try thinking about someone close to you who is no more, someone who has died 20-25 years ago. Can you see wrinkles on her face? Her teeth must still be intact, her jet black hair must still be flowing in the wind…and your hair? Uh Uh…don’t touch your head…you may not find anything there at all!So your friend is young, because your friend is dead! The curse of old age is only for a living body.

This blessing of ever lastng youth was bestowed upon me by Tatyarao Savarkar (Veer Savarkar).

Tatyarao, I bow to you. The brilliance of the sun, the force of the wind, tenacity that would made an armour jealous and sharpness of intellect that will shame even Brihaspati (divine teacher of sciences and arts), the human personification of all these is the form of Tatyarao Savarkar.

I still remember that day, I was in jail and the enquiry was on. And without any proof or linkage, and with the sole purpose of harassment, this Bheeshmacharya (Savarkar) was arrested and brought to Delhi. I stood up the moment I saw him, I touched his feet. He blessed me saying “live forever”. I said…forgive me Tatyarao, but I don’t think I will be able to follow this order of yours! Tatyarao said, you don’t understand Nathuram, my blessing was not that you live a 100 years, my blessing is that you will live forever. And you have become immortal. The instant you pressed the trigger and Gandhi fell dead, that instant your name became immortal. Whether you killed Gandhian thoughts or not, is an issue open for debate, but you killed Gandhi and have yourself survived. Gandhi’s detractors, those hoping for a true Hindu Rashtra will place you on the thrones of their hearts, but even Gandhi’s supporters will make you immortal in his biographies. Just like no biography of Gandhi can begin without the mention of his parents, in the same way none of his biographies can be completed without mentioning you.

These were Tatyarao’s words…like etchings on a stone. Every word he spoke was an arrow that pierced souls and every word he wrote was like the Vedas, how could this blessing of his be wrong? So thus I am, a 93 year old, sent to the gallows at age 39, an untimely death. Untimely, but something that I had invited myself, something that I completely agreed with. But this everlasting youth…its like Ashwatthama’s. Ashwatthama is wandering till today looking for medicines to heal the deep wound on his forehead…my wound is in my heart, in my mind. How many blows I have taken, the riots in my country, the rapes of my mothers and sisters who are now refugees, the Rs550 million that we had to give away to Pakistan solely due to Gandhi’s childish tantrums and…the breaking up of my undivided Bharat and gifting of my Sindhu river to Pakistan. Ashwatthama wants medicines, all I want is to touch the pure water of the Sindhu. The longing for that touch is in my existence…for the last 50 years. I have written in my will, that my ashes should be handed down through generations, but unless all of the Sindhu river comes back into undivided Bharat, my ashes should not be immersed into the Ganga. (I want my soul to be tormented till then).

After reading my will, TS said, excellent Nathuram, you are the Dadhichi of modern India. Your ashes will become weapons. I said, Tatyarao, please don’t compare me to such a powerful person. It is true that Shivaji’s Bhavani sword was made of iron, but every piece of iron cannot become the Bhavani. But would he be Tatyarao if he could be rendered speechless by anyone?! He always had answers, not questions, he said, Nathuram, because the Maharaja touched the sword it become the Bhavani, the importance lies in the fist the wields the iron, not the iron itself. You aren’t keeping your ashes behind…you are keeping behind your thoughts and your intentions, these will evolve into weapons.

The only good thing in my life was that I went as iron to Tatyarao, and the alchemy of his touch made me into gold. All the bad habits, mistakes in my life are my own, but whatever good I have done is solely due to Tatyarao’s grace. He has no responsibility in anything wrong I have done. If gold ornaments go from a temple deity to a thief, it is not the fault of the gold is it?

So such as I am, Nathuram Vinayak Godse. My birth was in the first decade of the last century, 19^th May 1910. My father worked in the postal deparment, my mothers name is Lakshmi. You may have heard of several of Vishnu’s avatar’s, but Lakshmi’s avatar only for efforts and poverty, was in the Godse household. She died suffering from separation from her Son. Like Dasharatha, the same love, the same suffering, the same separation. But her Ram wasn’t going to the forest, he was ready for his journey to the next world.  Her Lakshman was rotting in another jail.

My fathers monthly wages were Rs15/-, in Rs10, he used to run to household and send Rs5 to his father. My parents had three children, none survived…they conducted prayers for a child, and I was born. I lived, to fulfil the both destinies, that of my parents not having a child and that of Gandhi getting assassinated.

After that my life was straight forward. I never stole in my childhood, so the question of asking forgiveness from my parents never arose. I never took the oath of celibacy…that, I was doing anyway. I wandered tirelessly among refugees and destitute. I helped them with food and clothes, but because they did not have enough clothes did not mean that I wanted to strip. I did not spin the charkha, I did not clean toilets, I never took a vow of silence till the day I was hung. In that sense, there is only one common point between Gandhi and me, I killed him, and because of that, I was killed. But there is a massive difference, he was willing to live for his ideals, but I was willing to die for mine.

Albeit, there is no reason for you to be interested in this life of mine is there? Who was Hirkani before she climbed the fort? Babu Genu lived in your memory only in the moment of his death where he stood in front of a truck carrying foreign goods. In that sense, Nathuram’s true biography starts from 30^th January 1948, after the assassination of Gandhi.

Frankly speaking, Nathuram’s life was only 655 days 30^th Jan 1948 to 15^th November 1949. My birth then happened on the day when the Indian cabinet agreed to give Pakistan Rs550 million…”

The Violent Communal Bill?

Communal violence of any sort is to be abhorred. The loss of even one life is a loss of one too many. Communal violence in India has always had a historic context beginning with the brutal colonisation of the country beginning with the first Arab invasion. However, communal tensions have escalated much more in these supposedly secular and sophisticated times. Its not just in India but across the world that religious terrorism has reared its ugly head. India has in the past attempted to put into a strong legal system in place to tackle this new crusade, however her plans have always been scuttled with the compulsions of vote-bank politics. However, the new salvo by jhola brigade in cahoots with the minority friendly government in India is indeed taking things too far. The ambitiously titled “Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparation) Bill, 2011” is perhaps one of the most blatantly communal laws I am guessing the world has ever seen. Its is of side-interest to note that the bill has been tabled by the National Advisory Council chaired by Sonia Gandhi. So on one hand the woman who opposes the presence of civil society in framing the Lokpal Bill saying that such intervention subverts the democratic process is ok with such suggestions coming from what are perhaps private bodies with no legal accountability to the parliament?

Whether the Bill is eventually passed or not is a different matter (and I hope it is not passed in its current form), the fact that a pseudo-intellectual entity like the NAC had the guts to even introduce this malignant tumour in the Indian legal system is an indicator of what times India is facing today while people are busy with cricket and reality shows.

At the outset, I am not a lawyer and these questions, doubts, interpretations etc are from my reading of the actual bare Bill. I confess to have skipped some sections that I thought would be procedural and hence not contain anything out of the ordinary, but they possibly do and I am letting the Bill of easy on those counts. I also read a couple of other blogs for ideas and I don’t care who takes credit for this rant. It belongs to all those right-minded, nationalistic Indians who have blogged about this draconian Bill. If I have read something wrong, please feel free to point it out in the comments section.

Ok, my first complaint about the Bill is its general wishy-washy nature. It makes sweeping statements with no words on the procedure that needs to be followed. It does not outline any sort of tests to the applied to a lot of statements it says are offenses. A good (or is it bad?) example of this is the Section 3 (c):

communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property, knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group, which destroys the secular fabric of the nation;

What constitutes the destruction of the secular fabric of the nation? Is a question that is left unanswered. Ok. So say a hindu pick-pocket, robs a muslim man who was dressed to reveal his religion (cap, beard et al), can that be construed to mean destruction of the secular fabric of the nation?

Another example: Lets say India defeats Pakistan (again) in the cricket world cup, a group of kids burst fire crackers, is that considered destroying the secular fabric of the nation?

My second and the BIGGEST objection to the Bill is that it itself identified Hindus as criminals in any act (violent or not) that violates the secular fabric of the nation (a statement that itself is frivolous as I mentioned above). Q) How does it do this? A) By first defining a ‘Group’ in section 3 (e):

“group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any 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;

As can be read above, ‘Group’ means a religious (or linguistic) minority. The minority is measured based on State and not a locality of a region. So apart from J&K (BTW, J&K is conveniently excluded from the ambit of the Bill, the one state where Hindus have faced genocide) and Kerala a Group basically means only Muslims and Christians. Well, it also includes SCs/ STs but we all know who the Bill is *really* framed for, don’t we?

The next step in cementing the communal nature of the Bill is its definition of a ‘victim’ under the Act. This is done in the section 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;

So in any case of communal violence, Muslims and Christians will automatically be the victims and by corollary Hindus will be the criminals?

In fact, Section 6 to 12, which all outline the violent acts, all mention that the act has to be committed against the Group (Muslims and Christians) for the act to be considered as an illegal offense.

An example. A muslim majority in India, say Bhindi Bazaar or Malegaon, sees communal violence and a group of muslims (lets just call them misguided youth) assault a hindu woman, would it be considered as an act of communal violence under this Act? In my reading, no, it would not! The reason, Bhindi Bazaar and Malegaon are part of the Maharashtra State that (still) has a hindu majority and as such only hindus can be criminals.

Apart from these two explicit points the draconian, anti-majority nature of the Bill is strengthened by its wishy-washy nature, as I mentioned above. Some examples:

Section 3 (f) defines hostile environment (again only for Muslims and Christians). Hostile environment includes several points. But point no 5 is the most interesting one. It says, …includes 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

Any act (?!), even if its not an offense under the law? So anyone humming the national anthem in Malegaon can be considered to be part of the any other Act? Anyone canvassing for the Amarnath Yatra can be a hostile environment? Anyone supporting the Common Civil Code, which is enshrined in our Constitution can be contributing to the hostile environment? What provisions are in place to ensure that this law is not misused?!

Section 4: 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

Seriously? How does the law judge what a person ‘meant’ to do when he/she committed violence against anyone? What are the legal tests or procedures to prove this? Will we be taking on the clairvoyance services of Benny Hinn when we try to find out what a person was thinking (ie is someone mugging someone for money or because he thinks the ‘victim’ is a muslim?). No answers that I noticed here, please enlighten me.

There is more…

Section 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;

Again, perhaps I am stupid, but the terms ‘colourably’ and ‘likely’ are wide open to interpretation, especially given that the government has already pronounced Hindus as the criminals in the definition section of the Act itself.

What is the test for checking the public servant has exercised authority ‘colourably’. What colour? Saffron perhaps?

Similarly, What tests are in place to judge (and who judges?!) that the public servant will ‘likely’ commit an offence? Who defines ‘likely’?! For example, will they pre-emptively punish a police commissioner because he is a hindu and his religion in itself is a crime for which he is ‘unlikely’ to enforce this ridiculous law in his jurisdiction? Clearly, the law must have made provisions for pre-cogs like in the movie “Minority Report” (apt film title?) who can gauge what is likely to happen in the future. If people can be arrested by the NAC’s pre-crime division why do the jholas in the NAC protest when the police arrests someone who is likely to commit a terrorist act…or is it because that is the correct ‘colour’?

I noticed sections 4, 9 and 14 are adopted from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I find that surprising because Government of India has consistently opposed the court . Is this a surreptitious attempt to bring India under Rome (figuratively, of course). Legal students will probably do a good job to enlighten me here.

The third most shocking part for me in this Act was its Section 20.

Section 20: The occurrence of organised communal and targeted violence shall constitute “internal disturbance” within the meaning of Article 355 of the Constitution of India and the Central Government may take such steps in accordance with the duties mentioned thereunder, as the nature and circumstances of the case so requires

It seems like a harmless section at the first glance, why, it even references the Indian Constitution! Should be pretty fool-proof till another blog hinted at the chapter under which Section 355 falls in the Indian Constitution. Its falls under something called “Emergency Provisions”. Now I again stress, I am not a lawyer, but I am guessing that the last time Emergency provisions were invoked, the excesses were carried out by the government itself! Section 20 empowers only the Central government to declare emergency conditions? It does not even specify what scale of violence would be needed, would 2 people killed in some state in some tragic violence be enough grounds to invoke section 355? Someone please advise!

Ok, there ridiculous sections go on an on. So I will try summarise. The Act calls for the formation of a pompously named National Authority for Communal Harmony Justice and Reparation (NACHJR). It appears that since the law has basically convicted Hindus before any trial of any sort the NAC had no hesitation in giving the NACHJR sweeping powers. After all, no risk of anyone from the ‘correct’ religion being caught since they are all victims anyway. Section 39 gives the commission power over public sevants (isn’t this the parallel government we were told about that Lokpal would bring?). It even brings the armed forces under this, thus undermining (IMHO) the only relatively honest institution that we have left in the country (e.g. would the army be guilt of destroying the communal fabric of the country if it carried out operations against terrorists?, Did the police upset the secular fabric when they killed terrorists in the Batla House encounter?). Section 58 makes all offences cognizable and non-bailable. So any offense, however small and frivolous will result in some majority community member going to jail without possibility of bail. Another section also appears to allow the government to gag the press, so ‘wrong reports’ are not circulated.

Section 74 is special in the sense it appears to change the basic structure of natural justice by presuming guilt unless innocence is proven…what?!

I will copy-paste the take of someone on a legal blog on this section:

“The biggest lacuna which exists in the Act is the presumption of guilt on the accused unless it can be rebutted by the accused. Section 74 however makes two fold presumptions which are against the very ethos of Criminal Justice System i.e. A person is deemed to be innocent unless proven guilty of an offence.

The first presumption is that the accused shall be guilty of an offence that he has been charged with, unless that can be proven otherwise. The second presumption is further discriminative as it states that Whenever an offence of organized communal and targeted violence is committed and it is shown that a hostile environment against a group exists or the offence of hate propaganda under section 8 was committed against a group, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said offence was knowingly directed against persons belonging to the group by virtue of their membership of the group.

The consequences may have a very negative influence on the entire state of affairs. For instance, a speech that was made in a politically sensitive area may be qualified as hate propaganda to be knowingly directed against the people of the minority group and shall attract a punishment of three years as per section 115 of the Act. The very presumption is devoid of rationality as the definition of the term Hate Propaganda is so wide that any act could be construed as being culpable in nature.”

Source: http://www.legallyindia.com/Blogs/Entry/the-ugly-truth-behind-the-communal-violence-bill-2011-please-forward-it-to-as-many-people-as-you-can

All in all, while a lengthy blog, I believe it raises some pertinent questions on not just this Act but also the intentions and motivations of people who have framed it. For a layman like me, if this Act is implemented with its open ended definitions and draconian Commissions, life for any majority community member would be impossible. We possibly had more secular laws under Aurangzeb, one might think.

Having said that, nothing would give me more pleasure than someone reading through the Act and telling me that my fears are FACTUALLY INCORRECT.