The Acorn briefly weighs the proposed Communal Violence Suppression bill that the Congress mouthpiece, Indian Express, published on April 23. His byline reads, Do it, but do it without the army. I contend that while this is a sensible stand, it is more appropriate to try to discern why this bill was proposed, and what the UPA/Congress wants to achieve. The IE report has given us some hints at the possible implications, but my take is not really in the oh-so-legal and politically-correct frame.

The Acorn opines,

Communal violence cannot strictly be bracketed as a ‘local issue’ restricted to the confines of a single state. It never was. While it is for the state governments to ensure the maintenance of law and order and tackle communal violence at its grassroots, India needs a strong national law to ensure that isolated incidents do not get out of hand.

Truer words were never written. However, what can the Centre do if the state governments themselves indulge in complicity? An incident, which many may not be aware of–forgive my presumptousness–comes to mind. I’m talking about a certain incident of communal violence that occurred in Sidhpur taluk of Mehsana district in Gujarat. The incident occurred when temple artifacts/remains were found in the premises of the Jama Masjid (mosque), and local Hindu groups began a protest aimed to restore the original temple (Rudramahalaya). A Commission (sic) was formed, and after 2-3 years of inquiries, the case was buried (Literally. Subsequent excavations, which revealed more temple artifacts were covered up with brick, mud and concrete.). The case was buried precisely because the government in power at that time–Congress–buckled under pressure from the aggrieved minorities. The lofty principle of minority appeasement was repeated once again. And it is no secret that historically, most communal riots were started by, and occurred in states where the Congress ruled. Given its record, is it reasonable (or sensible) to expect that with the Congress in power at the Centre, it will seriously impose this Suppression of Communal Violence law in states where it wields power?

This Bill is sinister on several counts. If it gets through, it will mean a return to the golden era of concentration of power at the Centre. And there’s no mention of the conditions under which an area can be branded as “communally sensitive.” Even assuming that these conditions are well-thought out, given its record, the Congress can declare any area as “communally sensitive” at its whim. For a party that shamelessly sought to overturn the Constitution on occasions too numerous to count (latest, Goa, and Jharkhand), imposing this law should be a cakewalk. Worse still, is a clause that states,

…the ‘’special court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person has abetted the offence.”

In other words, guilty unless proved innocent.

It is worthwhile to ponder over the timing of this bill. Why now? Also, the brains that have worked overtime to formulate this bill merit special mention.

The draft Bill, finalised by the Home Ministry is being studied by the Prime Minister’s Office and the National Advisory Council (NAC) headed by Sonia Gandhi.

A lady whose educational qualification is suspect, heads a council formed to formulate a law as sensitive as this. A lady, who is merely a party functionary–she might be designated President, but she still is a functionary–with no active role in running the government has agreed to supervise this. And she definitely gives her assent to these words of the bill,

According to the preamble to the Communal Violence (Suppression) Bill 2005-a promise made by the UPA in its Common Minimum Programme-the Bill is in exercise of the constitutional ”duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.”

Sonia’s name as the top lady is too conspicuous to be ignored because on the other burning issue of the Naxal menace, her silence is conspicuously thunderous. More so when the officials of the Home Ministry are worried and angry about the Naxal threat.

“Either the naxalites helped out with funding or in influencing the electorates, and some CMs are in power on account of them,” said an enraged home official, “and, therefore, they want no part in a joint strategy which will ultimately combat the naxalite menace.”

(Source: India Reacts, linked above)

It is also noteworthy that this item was part of the CMP. And a key player of the CMP includes the Left that has a psychotic hatred towards the NDA/BJP.

Methinks the only purpose this bill seeks to serve is to legalise political vendetta. When the law is enacted, the Congress and/or Left will have a field day in targetting their rivals. Gujarat will of course, go first. This brings us again, to examine the question of the bill’s timing. With the UPA in power for more than a year, and despite their collective efforts to target Modi, they’ve only ended up painting their faces with darker and darker shades of the night. The outcome of the visa denial case only tilted the balance in favour of Modi. He has so far remained out of their grasp. Hence this bill. According to the Indian Express report,

However, it turns established constitutional principle on its head by allowing the Centre to prevail over the state in declaring any area as communally disturbed.

Armed with immense arsenal against Modi, it will now be easy to simply declare, on any tenuous ground that Gujarat is a “communally disturbed area,” and therefore, the Centre should prevail.

The enforcement of the Communal Violence Suppression law using armed forces or no is to me, a matter of mere technicality. After a person is adjudged fit for punishment, does it really matter whether his skin should be peeled off till he dies, or whether should be hanged? Nevertheless, the Acorn has weighed on it in his usual insightful manner.

I don’t contend that that we don’t need a law of this kind. What bothers me is that it is envisaged with a dangerous motive and if implemented, will further derogate public life. As it is, we have enough goons and murderers ruling us.