Vultures feed on corpses of Hindu victims in Calcutta, August, 1946
Muslim appeasement by the UPA government:
In the Part-1, it has been mentioned how the present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition government in Delhi, under the leadership of Indian National Congress (INC) party is appeasing the Muslims of India with unfair, undemocratic, non-secular and even illegal privileges and concessions to Muslims and thus turning India into a de facto Islamic State. In fact, Muslims in India, despite being the minority, enjoy elevated status and much more privileges, generally offered by a typical Islamic government in a so called Islamic state.
The reader may gauge the extent of Muslim appeasement by the UPA government from the statement of its PM Manmohan Singh. He has said that the Muslims are the first to claim the produce of India. What is the basis of such a stupid comment? Does the Muslim contribute maximum share of India’s GDP? How aggressively the Congress is wooing the Muslim community nationally is evident from the a recent comment by another leader Digvijay Singh, who, while referring to the killing of Osama bin Laden, reverentially said “Osamaji” and bemoaned why the terrorist leader was not given a proper burial.
To please the Muslims further, the said UPA government has drafted a bill called “Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparation) Bill, 2011” and is intending to place the same in the Parliament in the coming Monsoon Session. If the bill gets approval of the Parliament and becomes a law, the Muslims will be supreme lords of the country while majority Hindus will be dragged into slaves of the Muslims.
It is needless to say that the UPA government is going to do this with an eye on vote-bank politics. It has been mentioned in the previous article that the Muslims cast their votes, not according to his/her personal choice but, according to the dictates of their religious and community leaders. Therefore, all Muslim votes go for a single party. When the quantum of Muslim votes becomes significant, or a deciding factor for winning or losing election, political parties start wooing Muslims for their votes by offering them unfair, and even illegal, concessions. The frantic competition that ensues among the political parties to win election and stay in power makes the politicians blind and take any sinister attempt, even at the cost of national interest, to win the Muslim block votes. The reader may recall that the UPA government came to power for the second time in 2009, with the help of the Muslim votes and the present Communal Violence Bill is reward for their support.
The drafting of the Communal Violence Bill:
The draft of the so called Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Repatriation) Bill, 2011, has been prepared by the National Advisory Council (NAC), headed by Sonia Gandhi, the president of INC. It has been agreed by the NAC at its meeting on July 14th, 2010, the NAC Working Group on the Communal Violence Bill, has set up an Advisory Group and a Drafting Committee to develop a draft bill on communal and sectarian violence. The draft a bill should aim to provide effective prevention and control of communal and sectarian violence, and justice and comprehensive reparations to survivors and victims of communal and sectarian violence. This would be ensured on the basis of certain essential elements accepted by people’s groups, civil society groups and the NAC, including the key principle of accountability of public officials. While framing the draft, the relevant provisions, including rules, for relief, compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement, restitution, and reparations, keeping in mind the rights of internally displaced persons.
The following are the members of the Advisory Group Members Communal & Sectarian Violence Bill, 2010 Advisory Group
(1) Abusaleh Shariff, (2) Asgar Ali Engineer, (3) Gagan Sethi, (4) H.S Phoolka, (5) John Dayal, (6) Justice Hosbet Suresh, (7) Kamal Faruqui, (8) Manzoor Alam, (9) Maulana Niaz Farooqui, (10) Ram Puniyani, (11) Rooprekha Verma, (12) Samar Singh, (13) Saumya Uma, (14) Shabnam Hashmi, (15) Sister Mary Scaria, (16) Sukhdeo Thorat, (17) Syed Shahabuddin, (18) Uma Chakravarty, (19) Upendra Baxi, (20) Aruna Roy, NAC Working Group Member, (21) Professor Jadhav, NAC Working Group Member and (22) Anu Aga, NAC Working Group Member
The Joint Conveners of the Advisory Group are (1) Farah Naqvi, Convener, NAC Working Group and (2) Harsh Mander, Member, NAC Working Group
(1) Abusaleh Shariff, (2) Asgar Ali Engineer, (3) Gagan Sethi, (4) H.S Phoolka, (5) John Dayal, (6) Justice Hosbet Suresh, (7) Kamal Faruqui, (8) Manzoor Alam, (9) Maulana Niaz Farooqui, (10) Ram Puniyani, (11) Rooprekha Verma, (12) Samar Singh, (13) Saumya Uma, (14) Shabnam Hashmi, (15) Sister Mary Scaria, (16) Sukhdeo Thorat, (17) Syed Shahabuddin, (18) Uma Chakravarty, (19) Upendra Baxi, (20) Aruna Roy, NAC Working Group Member, (21) Professor Jadhav, NAC Working Group Member and (22) Anu Aga, NAC Working Group Member
The Joint Conveners of the Advisory Group are (1) Farah Naqvi, Convener, NAC Working Group and (2) Harsh Mander, Member, NAC Working Group
The members of the Drafting Committee are (1) Gopal Subramanium, (2) Maja Daruwala, (3) Najmi Waziri, (4) P.I. Jose, (5) Prasad Sirivella, (6) Teesta Setalvad, (7) Usha Ramanathan (upto 20 Feb 2011) and (8) Vrinda Grover (upto 20 Feb 2011).
The conveners of Drafting Committee are (1) Farah Naqvi, Convener, NAC Working Group and (2) Harsh Mander, Member, NAC Working Group
The key Guiding Principles laid down before the drafting committee are
(1) Broaden title and applicability of the law to include ‘communal & sectarian violence’,
(2) Shift from empowering the State, to seeking action & accountability of State/public officials,
(3) Basic framework of law must not rest on declaration of “disturbed areas”,
(4) Need for an independent National Authority to ensure effective compliance with the law, without disturbing the federal structure,
(5) Ensure accountability & criminal liability of public officials for acts of omission & commission, for preventing or controlling communal & sectarian violence, or extending timely and adequate rescue, relief and rehabilitation,
(6) Incorporate the doctrines of Command & Superior responsibility,
(7) Definition of communal & sectarian violence to cover both isolated incidents as well as mass crimes, against people based on religious, caste, linguistic, regional and other identities,
(8) Need to specifically define and include new crimes/offences including sexual assault, enforced disappearances, torture, long-lasting social & economic boycott, and genocide, among others,
(9) Need to remove prior sanction requirement for Hate Speech (Sec. 153A & 153B – IPC),
(10) Statutory obligation on government to lay down national standards for the entire spectrum of provisions for victims – including rescue, relief, compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement, restitution, reparation and recognizing the rights of internally displaced persons,
(11) Implementation according to the norms in point 10 to be a statutory obligation under this law,
(12) Compensation amounts to be specified in terms of national norms under the law, and revised every 3 yrs and
(13) Need for amendments in CrPC and Indian Evidence Act to meet extraordinary circumstance of communal & sectarian violence to protect victims’ rights. In addition to that,
(14) specific provisions for victim-witness rights to be made under this law
(1) Broaden title and applicability of the law to include ‘communal & sectarian violence’,
(2) Shift from empowering the State, to seeking action & accountability of State/public officials,
(3) Basic framework of law must not rest on declaration of “disturbed areas”,
(4) Need for an independent National Authority to ensure effective compliance with the law, without disturbing the federal structure,
(5) Ensure accountability & criminal liability of public officials for acts of omission & commission, for preventing or controlling communal & sectarian violence, or extending timely and adequate rescue, relief and rehabilitation,
(6) Incorporate the doctrines of Command & Superior responsibility,
(7) Definition of communal & sectarian violence to cover both isolated incidents as well as mass crimes, against people based on religious, caste, linguistic, regional and other identities,
(8) Need to specifically define and include new crimes/offences including sexual assault, enforced disappearances, torture, long-lasting social & economic boycott, and genocide, among others,
(9) Need to remove prior sanction requirement for Hate Speech (Sec. 153A & 153B – IPC),
(10) Statutory obligation on government to lay down national standards for the entire spectrum of provisions for victims – including rescue, relief, compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement, restitution, reparation and recognizing the rights of internally displaced persons,
(11) Implementation according to the norms in point 10 to be a statutory obligation under this law,
(12) Compensation amounts to be specified in terms of national norms under the law, and revised every 3 yrs and
(13) Need for amendments in CrPC and Indian Evidence Act to meet extraordinary circumstance of communal & sectarian violence to protect victims’ rights. In addition to that,
(14) specific provisions for victim-witness rights to be made under this law
The list of people as given above for guiding, monitoring and preparing the draft of the Communal Violence Bill 2011, one finds that all of them are loyal to the Nehru-Gandhi family. Many of them operate several NGOs and it is well known that an NGO is very efficient instrument to siphon public money. In addition to that, these committees were formed without any approval of the Parliament. So, while commenting on the formation of the committee, Sam Rajappa, in his article Communal Violence Bill says, “The very fact that Parliament was bypassed and the undemocratic National Advisory Council, acting as a supra Parliament, was entrusted the task of drafting the most sensitive legislation, makes the UPA government a suspect. Harsh Mander and Farah Naqvi, conveners of the advisory group to prepare the draft Bill, are known for bashing Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, and do not enjoy the confidence of the public” (The Statesman, June 4, 2011)..
“The NAC is a conglomeration of NGO members handpicked by Sonia Gandhi for their faith in the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Most of these NGOs are foreign-funded and they act according to the wishes of donors. It is indirect interference in the affairs of the nation by foreign countries. The NAC chairperson has become a supra Prime Minister and an instrument for maladministration”, Rajappa adds.
Salient points of the draft:
The most crucial part of the draft for the Communal Violence Bill 2011 is the definition of the term ‘group’. The basis of such groupings may be religion, mother tongue, ethnicity and caste, e.g. schedule castes and schedule tribes. The next important step is to decide whether a group consists of the people of minority or the majority community. In India as a whole, Hindus are a majority and Muslims and Christian are a minority, on the basis of religion. Based on this criterion, the draft proceeds to designate any group consisting of Hindus as a group of majority, while a group consisting of Muslims and Christians as a group of minority community. But such identification is utterly faulty.
There are so many states, e.g. Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland, and in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, where Hindus are minorities. So, in those states Hindus are deserved to be considered a religious minority. The most astonishing as well as ridiculous part of the draft Bill is that, communal troubles are created only by members of the majority community or the Hindus. From this basic presumption it comes out that for any incident of communal violence, only Hindus will be held responsible and punished. So, for any incident of communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, where Muslims constitute more than 80% of the population, they will be considered a minority group and only Hindus will be held responsible and punished. Or in other words, if the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir persecute the Hindus and massacre them en masse, even then the Hindus will be considered offenders and punished, while Muslims will not be held responsible.
There are so many states, e.g. Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland, and in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, where Hindus are minorities. So, in those states Hindus are deserved to be considered a religious minority. The most astonishing as well as ridiculous part of the draft Bill is that, communal troubles are created only by members of the majority community or the Hindus. From this basic presumption it comes out that for any incident of communal violence, only Hindus will be held responsible and punished. So, for any incident of communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, where Muslims constitute more than 80% of the population, they will be considered a minority group and only Hindus will be held responsible and punished. Or in other words, if the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir persecute the Hindus and massacre them en masse, even then the Hindus will be considered offenders and punished, while Muslims will not be held responsible.
Similar is the case for the states Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland, where Christians are majority and the Hindus are minorities. In the above mentioned states the Christian missionaries are carrying on ceasasionist movements. They have formed militant terrorist gangs and oppressing the Hindus. If the draft becomes a law, only the Hindus would be held guilty of such a violence and let the perpetrators go scot free, as they have labeled as a minority group. So, the draft Bill proceeds on the presumption that communal violence is created only by the majority community (Hindus) and never by members of the minority communities.
But history tells us that, so far violence between the Hindus and the Muslims is concerned, in almost all the cases, the Muslims are the initiators of the violence. The Mopla Riot in Malabar, Kerala, is one of the most famous incident of Hindu Muslim violence, was initiated by the Muslims (called Moplahs) on August 20, 1921. Instead of calling it a Hindu-Muslim riot, it would be proper to designate it as Hindu pogrom by the Moplahs. Another famous incident of communal violence is the “Great Calcutta Killings” that took place in August, 1946. It is also called the “Direct Action Day” by the historians. August 16 was Friday and that too in the month of Ramadan according to the Arabic calendar. It was therefore the holy day of the holiest month for the Muslims. On that holy day, lakhs of Muslims gathered under the Ochterlony Monument (now Shahid Minar) to offer midday holy Jumma prayer. After finishing the prayer, Muslims started to attack Hindus, killing Hindus, looting Hindu shops, setting Hindu shops and Hindu houses on fire. The killing of Hindus went on for several days.
Many hold this misconception that the 2002 Gujarat violence was initiated by the Hindus. But in reality, the violence was initiated by the Muslims by setting the coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express on fire on February 27 at Godhra and burning 59 Hindu devotees, including women and children, alive. This barbaric incident initiated the communal violence in Gujarat that claimed over 1,200 lives. So, many called this Gujarat Violence as post Godhra Violence.
The coach S-6 of Sabarmati Express burning at Godhra
So, it can be shown that in every incident of Hindu-Muslim violence, Muslims are responsible. It is due to the fact that the Islamic holy book Koran spews hatred against the non-Muslims, including the Hindus and the Islamic doctrine of jihad inspire the Muslims to kill them, set their houses on fire, loot their wealth and riches, rape their women, occupy their tilling land, convert them by force and so on and so forth. But the holy books of the Hindus do not teach such hatred and oppress the non-Hindus. So, the presumption of the Communal Violence Bill 2011 that majority Hindus should be held responsible and punished for any incident Hindu-Muslim communal violence is patently discriminatory, undemocratic and non-secular. Such a view is totally opposed to the secular principle laid down in the Constitution of India that holds ‘an offence is an offence and the offender should be punished, irrespective of to what group he belongs’.The other devastating provision:
The other devastating provision of the draft is that, if an individual of the minority community brings an allegation of propagation of hate against an individual belonging to the majority, police will have the right to arrest him without any investigation and put him behind the bar. The victim would not even have the right to know from whom the complaint has come. During trial, the complainant would not have any responsibility to establish his allegation, and it would be the sole responsibility of the victim to prove his innocence.
The other devastating provision of the draft is that, if an individual of the minority community brings an allegation of propagation of hate against an individual belonging to the majority, police will have the right to arrest him without any investigation and put him behind the bar. The victim would not even have the right to know from whom the complaint has come. During trial, the complainant would not have any responsibility to establish his allegation, and it would be the sole responsibility of the victim to prove his innocence.
It is needless to say that this provision, if it becomes a law, would equip the UPA government to victimize any of its political rivals, and send him to prison. Suppose a fictitious man brings an allegation of propagating hate speech against Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat, the police will have the right to arrest him immediately and put him in prison. He will be released if and only if he succeeds to prove himself innocent. So, Arindam Chaudhuri, an author, has said that the bill is to kill secularism in India (The Pioneer, June 4, 2011). He has also said, “The NAC-drafted Communal Violence Bill is a recipe for unmitigated disaster. In the guise of promoting communal harmony it promotes rank communalism. In the guise of protecting minorities, it attacks Hindu rights. This Bill will strike at the very foundation of liberty and legitimise criminal misdeeds of Muslims. It must not become law.”
Conclusion:
From the discussion presented above, it appears that the draft of the Communal Violence Bill 2011 has been framed with a strong motive of Hindu bashing. The contents of the draft grossly violate the sacrosanct principle of secularism, democracy and equality enshrined in the Constitution of India and if it becomes a law, it would be a disaster for the Hindus. Though it is doubtful whether such a draconian bill could survive even a preliminary scrutiny of the Supreme Court of India, the Hindus should raise their voice across the country so that the bill gets defeated in the Parliament. If this bill is passed by the Parliament and becomes a law, it will undoubtedly push India a step towards Islamization.
