Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 19, 2005

About Us
Contact Us
National
News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements | Entertainment |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

National Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

`Draft Communal Violence Bill unsatisfactory'

Special Correspondent

`Adds draconian powers to state and armed forces in communal situations'

NEW DELHI: Activists, lawyers, social scientists and academicians who met here on Wednesday to discuss the government draft of the Communal Violence (Suppression) Bill, 2005, unanimously rejected the draft, saying it was "entirely unsatisfactory and even dangerous."

The meeting, held under the aegis of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism in collaboration with the National Foundation for Communal Harmony, resolved that the government's draft legislation only "adds draconian powers to the State and the armed forces in communal situations, which experience shows tends to be used most against minorities and marginalised groups.''

The participants endorsed the view of the former Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, Justice J.S. Verma, that the Bill should be restricted to ensuring accountability of the State and Central governments and reparation and rehabilitation according to accepted international covenants.

`Cosmetic exercise'

Justice Verma said the Bill was a "cosmetic exercise" and symptomatic treatment rather than dealing with violence. The Bill did not deal with anti-secular activities, which led to the communal violence, but only sought to punish after communal disturbances had occurred and after the appropriate government had declared the area as "communal disturbed." All the participants felt that the Bill should be rejected outright.

The participants included Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, Chairman, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mukul Sinha, an advocate from Gujarat, Shabnam Hashmi of ANHAD, Justice Rajinder Sachar and Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed of the Jawaharlal Nehru University.

They felt that the proposed law was "irrelevant" to the challenges of communal governance because may of the special powers such as of search and arrest could be used against the minorities in the same way as the Narendra Modi government did under POTA.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements | Entertainment |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |


News Update


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu