Christian Council suggests major overhaul of bill against communal violence

The following is the text of the letter

Dr. Manmohan Singh

The Prime Minister of India

Your Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh:

Greetings from the All India Christian Council.

We applaud your government for its desire to protect the idea of India – a secular government with equality for all. We welcome the intention to pass a Bill on

communal violence which will add to India’s strong body of laws.

However, the Christian community has deep concerns about the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2009, from the drafts we’ve

read. We humbly request a serious re-write of this legislation. Our main concerns:

1. The Bill doesn’t adequately address the question of hate campaigns and the “communalisation process” (i.e. hate speech published in local language media) that

precede communal violence. This well-studied phenomenon of activities, some already illegal but not often prosecuted, is a root issue.

2. The Bill doesn’t take into account the demography and pattern of living of various communities. Specifically, anti-Christian violence is normally dismissed by

public officials as “sporadic” (although there may be a serious incident daily in some areas). Because other minorities live in concentrated or contiguous areas, those

“communally disturbed areas” are more easily identified. In Orissa, Kandhamal would likely not fit the Bill’s definition but we know what happened there in 2007-2008.

3. The Bill doesn’t give States guidelines on reparations and compensation. We need a uniform national policy as well standards on the assessment of damages after

riots in order to prevent ghettoisation.

4. The Bill doesn’t fully address police and administrative impunity properly or adequately. The “good faith” clause, which exempts police and public servants from

prosecution unless there is permission from the executive branch, is a major concern.

We share concerns, especially voiced by Muslim groups, that the Bill doesn’t fully acknowledge the individual victim, treats communal violence as spontaneous rioters

versus rioters (instead of acknowledging the possibility of premeditated or state-sponsored violence), and gives much power to state

governments which, historically, have occasionally acted in a biased manner. We need to see stronger checks and balances.

Also, we acknowledge that some shortcomings are systemic legal issues better addressed by your government in separate legislation or orders. The most important, in our

humble opinion, include:

• Establishing witness protection programs and guidelines

• Strengthening of National Commission for Minorities and state minority commissions

• Action against police who refuse to register FIRs

• Permanently debarring government officials guilty of involvement in communal violence – or any crime – from government jobs and from contesting any office

• The rights of “internally displaced persons” in relief camps should mirror UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement e.g. including immediate education

for displaced children

Many provisions of the current version of the Bill are acceptable. But we request you to consider the input above so that a weak Bill is not passed which requires the

almost impossible process of securing future amendments.

Our community has learned from recent waves of communal attacks in Orissa and Karnataka as well as ongoing onslaught on house churches, individual pastors/priests and

nuns, and the terrible hate campaigns in newspapers which are officially sponsored by several state governments. Our suggestions are rooted in the reality of rural

India where the vast majority of our members – thousands of Protestant, Catholic, and independent Christian organisations – live and work to improve our beloved

society.

Yours Sincerely and Most Respectfully,

Dr. Joseph D’souza, President, aicc, Hyderabad, dsouza@aiccindia.org

John Dayal, Secretary General, aicc, New Delhi, john.dayal@gmail.com

C.C.:

Shri M. Veerappa Moily, Union Cabinet Minister for Law & Justice

Shri P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of Home Affairs

Shri Salman Khurshid, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Minority Affairs

Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, Indian National Congress Party

-------------------

Hindustan Times report today:

Amended law to let Centre take charge in riot-hit states

Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Time

r

New Delhi, March 17, 2010

The government’s final version of the communal violence law empowers the Centre to take charge of an area where riots have broken out once it sends in central forces,

if it finds the state government concerned reluctant to act against the rioters.

The new law still does not allow the Centre to send armed forces on its own to a riot-hit spot. But once a state has asked for central forces to quell violence, the

Centre will have the right — under certain circumstances — of setting up a unified command, comprising these forces and the local police.

The amendment was cleared by the Cabinet last December and is expected to come for parliamentary approval next month.

The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, however, says the Centre can declare an area “communally disturbed” and take direct

charge only if the state concerned refuses to act against the violence being perpetrated to such an extent that the secular fabric of the country, or internal

security, is endangered.

To guard against political misuse, the law stipulates that the Centre must

draw the attention of the state government to the deteriorating state of affairs, and set a deadline for it to take necessary steps to suppress the violence.

Until now, central forces deployed in a state worked under the control of the local district administration. But henceforth, in special circumstances, it will work

under the unified command, which will report to the Centre.

The amendment was conceived of in the backdrop of the 2002 Gujarat riots, when it was widely believed the state government had done little to discourage the rioters.

Even so, it is bound to anger state governments who will see it as an encroachment on their powers. Eight of 12 states that responded to a survey by a parliamentary

panel had even opposed an earlier, milder version.