Communal Violence Bill on the backburner

Legislation held up as NAC draft panel is a divided house.

The much-touted Communal Violence Bill, supposed to be the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s showpiece legislation, is delayed yet again.

National Advisory Council (NAC) Secretary Rita Sharma recently wrote to the home ministry that the draft would not be available before the end of March. This is the second extension of the deadline for a draft Bill, which was to have been tabled in Parliament during the Budget session.

The Bill reflects the resolve of the UPA to never allow the kind of riots that followed the Godhra incident to recur. In the UPA’s reckoning, those riots had government backing. But the legislation has been repeatedly delayed because the drafting committee in the NAC is a house divided.

The committee as well as the advisory committee for the Bill comprised people who were on the same side when they had criticised the original Communal Violence Bill drafted by the home ministry in 2005. But now, when they have got the opportunity to draft their own vision of the Bill, they are unable to agree.

So deep is the divide that two members of the drafting committee, Usha Ramanathan and Vrinda Grover, both lawyers, have quit in anger and are now preparing a parallel draft Bill to be presented before the NAC. The NAC has, meanwhile, taken the draft Bill and given it to Advocate General Indira Jaising for redrafting.

So now, there would be two draft Bills, one of the NAC and one from those who have left the NAC. Shabnam Hashmi who had quit the advisory committee on the Bill much earlier, says if the matter was to be handed over to Jaising, there was no need for a farcical drafting committee and advisory committee.

Grover says that both Ramanathan and she are lawyers but were kept out of drafting exercise. “We were only asked for our views,” she says. So, that left Teesta Setalvad, Farha Naqvi and Harsh Mander doing most of the drafting. Members say Mander is too mild to have had any say in the presence of two tough-talking women. Mander did not comment on the matter, except to say the drafting process is on.

Explaining why she quit, Grover says: “The draft that was shown to us did not reflect the agreed points. We had insisted on focusing on challenging the impunity of public servants and ruling authorities, without whose knowledge and permission, no riot can continue. They had to be held accountable. If the law fails to do that, there is no point in having a new law.”

“Even before NAC started making the draft, it was a civil society campaign that rejected the draft Bill made by the home ministry in 2005. So, now, the matter is now once again with the civil society. We will make our chapters on offences and relief and present it to public and NAC from outside,” said Grover.

An example cited by members is the definition of violence in the NAC draft as large-scale genocide type of incidents, thus leaving out individual attacks. “When Christians are targeted, it is individuals who get hit,” said Hashmi and added, “But the present definition leaves that out.”

Maja Daruwala, Najmi Waziri, P I Jose and Setalvad are other members, while Mander and Naqvi are convenors of the group. Differences within the NAC is not the only problem with the Bill. It also has to be acceptable — and implementable — say officials in the home ministry.

Some NAC members say the bill must have the provision to notify a riot-hit area and hand over control to a retired judge who will run it on the advice of civil society, including local NGOs. The district magistrate and the superintendent of police will report to the judge for directions.

“How is this possible? What if the NGO is one receiving assistance from Saudi Arabia? Can we allow such a thing?” asked an agitated official. They said the draft Bill would be dead in the water if too much activism is forced down the throat of the Indian state.