Communal Riots-2011.pdf - Indian Social Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

second class citizens - these came out in the personal testimonies of 55 people affected by the 2002 post-Godhra riots. They were participating in a public hearing organised by Anhad, Centre for Social Justice, and several other NGOs working for human rights, in the city on Monday. In the jury were Justice R A Mehta, former acting chief justice of Gujarat high court; Annie Raja, general secretary of National Federation of Indian Women; social activist Gagan Sethi; and author Githa Hariharan. Syeda Imam Bilgrami, a member of the National Commission for Minorities, was a special observer. Retired academician and social activist from Vadodara professor J S Bandukwala, who is from Daudi Bohra community, lashed out at Bohra spiritual leader Dr Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin for getting close to Modi. The Syedna and Modi shared the dais on Saturday at a trade exhibition of the community here. "It is unfortunate that many of us are getting close to Modi," Bandukwala said. There were instances of how Muslim corporators had ignored their community. Rashidaben of Aman Samudaya told the jury how the slums in Bombay Hotel area of Behrampura lived with chemical-laced water. "Badruddin Shaikh who represents this area has done nothing about this basti," she said. There were cases from Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Godhra, Surat, Dahod, Panchmahal and other districts. Latifa Giteli from Godhra, who runs a trust for education, said that her husband who works with BSNL was jailed for 11 months in a fake bombing case and is questioned every time there is trouble in the city. "When the serial blasts happened in Ahmedabad they took him away for three days," she said. Shabnam Hashmi of Anhad said that at a time when the state was projecting a picture of being progressive and safe, a section of people is battling for its basic rights and fighting communal forces even after nine years of post-Godhra riots. Bilgrami told TOI later that Muslims felt out of place not just in Gujarat, but elsewhere in the country. "What I tell them is to create strong institutions for academics and special training and give the society role models who can lead the way to progress. I have high hopes from Gujarat," she said. The jury will present the finding to state government officers on Tuesday. (TOI, 22/02/2011) Govt says Bill on communal violence must for fair play The Government on Thursday said it was “determined” to introduce the communal violence bill in order to bring about a polity in the country which is “fair” and “just” towards all sections of the society. “This is a very serious issue. Our Government is determined to take it (the Bill) forward, because we do not want any State Government not to be accountable to the kind of things that have happened in the past,” HRD Minister Kapil Sibal told mediapersons. The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, drafted by the National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi, was put in the public domain on Thursday. Sibal’s remarks came when his attention was drawn to BJP leader Arun Jaitley’s observations about the Bill. In an article put on the BJP website, Jaitley has feared the Bill will intrude into the domain of the state. Sibal said those issues could be discussed at the Standing Committee after the Bill is referred to it for being placed in the House. The HRD Minister said with the Bill, the Government also wants to ensure that in “certain situation we can make Governments and individuals accountable”. Signifying the importance of the Bill, he said there are instances in the country where certain sections of the community have been targeted and nine years have lapsed to decide which court should take up the matter and should be accused. (Pioneer, 27/05/2011) NAC agrees to make 49 amendments to Communal Violence Bill The National Advisory Council today agreed to make as many as 49 amendments to the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill, including the one which created doubts about Centre-state relations while dealing with such violence. Another amendment made in the draft bill relates to the definition of communal and targeted violence which included reference to 'destruction of the secular fabric'. The members agreed that this was "too high a threshold," and therefore it was agreed to delete this phrase, a statement by the NAC said here. The members of Sonia-Gandhi-led Council agreed to delete a clause which refers to Article 355 of the Constitution, as it created a fear that it may interfere with the federal structure of the country. According to clause 20, Chapter III of the draft bill, "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." There were some concerns about excessive powers to the National Authority and some clauses were deleted. The NAC Working Group will place the full list of amendments to the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011 on the website and later forward the draft bill the Centre for consideration. (Deccan Herald, 23/06/2011)
Justices Verma and Srikrishna red-flag NAC draft anti-communal violence Bill The Congress may dismiss the BJP’s attack on the National Advisory Council’s draft Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill as “communal propaganda”. But there’s mounting criticism from quarters it may find hard to shrug off — independent jurists with an impeccable record of having intervened in cases of communal discord or violence. Their argument: existing laws need to be better implemented, access to justice needs to be expanded — another law isn’t the answer. Especially one which, just like the one for a Lokpal, sets up panels of eminent people of “good moral character” and expects to equip them with a magic wand. Commenting on the Bill — its amended draft was released this week — former Chief Justice of India Justice J S Verma says: “No law can eradicate communalism in the country...We need to identify lacunae in present laws, if any, and make amendments. We have enough laws, in fact the maximum in the world. The problem is in faithful implementation. It is not the Constitution that has failed us but we who have failed the Constitution.” Gujarat 2002 is the refrain of many in the NAC to justify this Bill. Verma, who as chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, took a proactive role in cases related to the Gujarat massacres, says: “From the unfortunate history of Gujarat in 2002, we must learn how we can help prevent such incidents and help with reparations and with access to justice.” Instead, this Bill, critics say, sets up a whole new bureaucracy at the Centre, a seven-member National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation, parallel state authorities and — in a remarkable parallel with the Lokpal proposal — expects it to “prevent” any communal violence, control an outbreak of violence, monitor the probe, the prosecution and the trial and distribution of relief and reparations. (Chapter IV, Clause 30). The proposed law also defines the victim as member of a religious or linguistic minority or SC/STs — opening the door to a bewildering interpretation of who all are eligible. Four of the seven members have to be from either a linguistic or religious minority or an SC/ST community. The qualifications include “high moral character and impartiality,” and, in the flavour of the season, it bans membership of any political party for at least a year before the appointment. No wonder Justice B N Srikrishna, a former Supreme Court judge and author of the report on the communal riots in Mumbai of 1992-3, finds the principle behind the Bill flawed. “The investigative and prosecuting machinery under the CrPC could itself be used by suitable amendments,” he says. “There’s no need for an elaborate separate Act for that. Large-scale communal riots like in Mumbai or Gujarat do not happen on the spur of the moment. These are the result of elaborate preparations. There should be an effective method of tagging known communal elements and for swooping down on them with preventive arrests in case of intelligence inputs so as to nip the riots in the bud. What is needed is lightning action and not meandering gait. What is needed is pre facto and not post facto activism. The Bill suggests no such quick reactive machinery. Communal riots spread like wildfire and must be treated like fire emergencies. The Bill shows no such thinking. It seems to be long on cure and short on prevention.” On the National Authority, he says: “It’s a toothless tiger. Its role seems more to collect information and advise the government at the Centre and state levels. This is an example of mindless proliferation of laws. That is the rampant disease in our country. We have and make many laws but hardly implement them seriously.” Echoing this is chairman of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) Wajahat Habibullah. He says the creation of such an Authority would mean a “vast centralized machinery, which is also a criticism of the Jan Lokpal Bill”. He adds: “Instead of empowering the community to safeguard minority interests, the Bill would instead strengthen the government machinery which, in the past, has shown itself to have been the principal offender in failing to so safeguard.” Welcoming a law to control “collective violence,” the NCM has cautioned on safeguarding the rights of states vis-a-vis the Centre and on varying interpretations of how the term “group” is to be defined. Endorsing the Bill is Justice M S Liberhan, who headed the Ayodhya Commission after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. He said there’s a need to be less cynical about new laws and accept that there is a lacuna when it comes to communal or group violence. On the BJP’s criticism there is an anti-majority bias in the draft, Liberhan said: “Only those who are weak and numerically weaker need protection. In case, there are gaps like attacks by a Muslim group on Hindus where they are in a majority, the law can be amended later to accommodate them.” Sources in the NAC rebut the criticism saying the Bill protects all those who are in a “non-dominant” position — not just religious minorities. And that the it does not envisage the National Authority as one “taking away” the functions of the state but merely to “ensure that justice is done.” They also underline the “progressive reparations” suggested in the Bill — Rs 15 lakh for death to victims of group violence. Clearly, this Bill, too, is headed for a fractious political — and legal — debate. (IE, 26/06/2011)
Page 1: COMMUNAL RIOTS - 2011 January to De
Page 5 and 6: against Bhatt but he was suspended
Page 7 and 8: Wednesday night," he added. Superin
Page 9 and 10: and prejudice shall be guilty of de
Page 11 and 12: sent all the material to the sessio
Page 13 and 14: Supreme Court by her on the post-Go
Page 15 and 16: DEHRA DUN, October 4, 2011: Uttarak
Page 17 and 18: AHMEDABAD: The state government has
Page 19 and 20: ‘Communal conflict in India has s
Page 21 and 22: are misinterpreting it as a draconi

Communal Riots-2011.pdf - Indian Social Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?