Dr Subramanian Swamy files complaint against Soniya Gandhi on Communal Violence Bill

From:

Dr Subramanian Swamy , President of Janata Party, A-77, Nizamuddin East, Sector 18, Rohini,   New Delhi-110013:                            

To:

SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh, Sector 18, Rohini, Crime Branch, New Delhi.

Re: Registering of FIR u/s 153A & B, 295A & 505(2) of Indian Penal Code. 

Dated: October 24, 2011.

1.         In public interest I am sending by Courier service a complaint in my name against Chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi of National Advisory Council, which has its office at 2 Motilal Place, New Delhi-110011, Tel: 23062582, and also against unnamed other members of the said NAC for committing offences of propagating hate against the Hindu community of India by circulating for enacting as law a Draft Bill described as PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE BILL OF 2011. This Draft Bill has been posted on the NAC official website, is dated July 21, 2011 and sent for adoption by Parliament. That this 2011 Draft Bill is mischievous in content of targeting the Hindu community, malafide, unreasonable and prejudicial to public order, is apparent from the second section of Explanatory Note [Annexed herein] to the Draft Bill titled “Key Provisions of the Bill”, thereby inciting crimes against the Hindu community with impunity, and thus committing offences u/s 153A & B, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2.         The UPA Government in December, 2005 had introduced earlier a Draft Bill [2005] in the Parliament described as THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS)  BILL (2005).

3.         The Draft Bill however did not find favour with any Party.  Leaders of several political parties felt that the Draft Bill provided sweeping powers to the Central Government thus undermining the authority of the State Governments.  But the most vocal opposition to this draft Bill came from the Muslim, Christian and so called secular quarters.  Their contention was just the opposite of what the political leaders were saying.  The view of Muslim and Christian groups was that the 2005 Draft Bill was “completely toothless”.  They demanded that the powers of managing communal violence be vested in non-government actors and make governments and administration at all levels accountable them for communal violence.

4.         The All India Christian Council was in the forefront of this campaign against the 2005 Draft Bill as being “too weak”.  In a letter written to the Prime Minister, Ms Sonia Gandhi, herself a Christian, through  the AICC had  conveyed to the PM the Christian Council concerns about the  2005 Draft Bill, and then revised the same as the 2009 Draft Bill.

5.         The Muslim bodies too joined in the protest campaign against the draft as being too weak.  They wanted provisions to make police and civil administration and state authorities “accountable” to public bodies.  The Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE) made the demand on behalf of these organizations.  JCMOE also urged the government to convene a meeting of leaders of “targeted communities” to note their views on the Bill as follows:

“The Bill does not make police or administration or state authorities accountable and provide for timely and effective intervention by the National Human Rights Commission, if the communal violence spreads or continues for weeks, or by the Central Government under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, duly modified.  On the other hand, ironically, the Bill grants more power to the local police and administration, which, more often than not acts in league with the rioters by declaring the area as ‘communally disturbed area’ JCMOE statement said.

6.         It is interesting to note that these two statements, the Muslim and the Christian, come at around the same time as though they were premeditated.  They probably were.

7.         From their arguments in opposition to the Draft Bill, it is clear that they wanted a Bill that would consider only the Christians and Muslims as the “generally targeted” victims of communal violence; and that the word ‘communal violence’ be re-defined in such a way that only the Muslims and Christians are treated as victims and Hindus as predators, and that the local police and administration, including the State administration, considered hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of violence. Hence the Bill should empower the Central Government to invoke Art. 355 and 356 of the Constitution against any state in the event of such communal violence.

8.         Since the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill (2005) does not discriminate between the perpetrators and victims of communal violence on religious grounds and also it does not envisage the State administration as committed in preventing such violence, these groups wanted the Bill to be withdrawn.

9.         The National Advisory Council  (NAC) was re-constituted in 2009 by the UPA Government again under the chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. The UPA Government promptly handed over the re-drafting of the Bill to the newly constituted NAC and asked it to come up with a fresh draft.

10.       The basic communally provocative premise of the re-drafted Bill is that: a) there is a non-dominant group in every State in the form of religious and linguistic minority which is always a victim of violence; b) the dominant majority (usually Hindus) in the State is always the perpetrator of violence; and c) the State administration is, as a rule, biased against the non-dominant group.

11.       The object of the re-drafted Bill thus was the basic premise of the NAC that the majority community – read Hindus – are the perpetrators of communal violence in India and the minority – read Muslims and Christians – are the victims, clearly  is  incitement of religious strife.

12.       What is more important is to conclude is that in all cases of communal and targeted violence, dominant religious and linguistic group at the State level is always the perpetrator and the other the victims.  Similarly the conclusion that the State machinery is invariably and always biased against the non-dominant group is a gross misstatement of the sincerity and commitment of millions of people who form State administration in the country.

13.       This dangerous premise is the incitement of communal strife in this Bill.

14.       One can safely conclude that the script writers of this Bill are themselves blinded with religious biases.  In India communal violence happens mostly because of politico-communal reasons.  In many instances, as documented by several Commissions of Inquiry, it is the so-called minority group that triggers the trouble.  We hence need laws that can prevent such violence irrespective of whoever perpetrates it.  To argue that since the administration is always biased in favour of the dominant group we need acts that are biased in favour of the non-dominant group is imprudent and puerile.

15.       The final Draft is available on the NAC website now.  One is not sure when the same will be placed before the Parliament.  However, a close scrutiny of the Draft is essential to understand the serious implications of and threats from it to our national integration, social harmony and Constitutional Federalism.

16.       This Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to whole country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.  Note that J&K is one of the two States in India (excluding the North East and other tiny UTs) that has Hindus as minority – the ‘non-dominant group’ according to this Bill. Punjab is the other State where the Sikhs constitute the majority, while in the rest of the entire country it is the Hindus who constitute ‘dominant group’ and by implication the perpetrators of communal violence, according to this Draft Bill.

17.       The mischief in the drafting primarily lies in the ‘Definitions’ part contained in Art.3 of the first chapter.  Art. 3 (c ) defines Communal and Targeted Violence as under:-

“Communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group”.

18.       The mischief is centered round the word ‘Group’. Art 3(e) defines what constitutes a ‘Group’.

“Group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses of the Constitution of India;

19.       Having thus established that the individual member of the Minority community is always considered a part of the Minority group the Draft Bill goes on to add several detrimental clauses subsequently.  Art.3 (f) defines ‘Hostile environment against a group’ thus:

“Hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:

(i)                 boycott of the trade or business of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or

(ii)               publicly humilitate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation of any act of indignity; or

(iii)             deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights;

or,

(iv)             force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livlihood without his or her express consent; or

(v)               any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.”

Note the Clause (v) – ‘Any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act’.  The intention here seems to be to make anything and everything an offence, even if it doesn’t come under any definition of an offence.  It is clear that the entire definition of ‘hostile environment’ is malafide.

Clause (k) defines who is a ‘victim’. Here the draft makers are very explicit:

“victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or hr property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;

“Victim” can only be belonging to a ‘group’ as defined under this Act.  And the group as defined under this Act is the Minority – the ‘non-dominant group’.  That means this act will consider only the Minority as the victims.  And he or she will become a ‘victim if he or she has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm….’ Now, physical harm is measurable, mental harm is difficult to gauge, but how on earth  can anyone define ‘psychological harm’?  The Bill does not define it.  Then how can be so-called ‘psychological harm’ be one of the reasons for victimhood?

Similarly, Art. 4 (a) states as follows:

4. Knowledge. – A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person’s membership of that group where;

(a)    he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group;

20. Art 7 of the draft Bill defines ‘sexual assault’.  It is by far the most widely covered definition that is very much needed to protect women from becoming targets of sexual violence as part of communal violence.  But against the problem is that this definition is applicable to the women belonging to Minority group and women of the Majority community cannot benefit from it.  Secondly, it also states that in a case of communal violence sex by consent also can be construed as a crime.

21.       Patriotic Indians now realize that the present draft Bill is a standing proof that neo Jinnah-ism – the belief that the minority is perpetually oppressed in India by the Hindu majority – is still poisoning our minds even today by mischievous minds..

22.       The present Draft Bill will only promote disharmony. With these kind of laws the LeTs and Hujls across the border need not have to promote terrorism in our territory anymore.  All that they need to do is to encourage a minor communal riot and they can achieve what they want – huge rift between the Majority and Minority communities.

23.       Hence, the NAC, with Ms Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, and other members have jointly committed offences under IPC Sections 153A & B, 295A, and 505(2).

 

24.       It is significant that even well known persons of secular credentials have condemned this Bill as divisive. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalitha has in a Press Release dated July 29, 2011 [Annexed] has concluded that “the remedy sought [in the Draft Bill] to be provided against communal and targeted violence is worse than the disease itself”.

25.      Therefore, this complaint be taken as a basis to register an FIR and conduct investigation into the communal mentality of the NAC chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi and other members and take necessary action under the law to prosecute the offenders under the cited sections of the IPC.

( SUBRAMANIAN  SWAMY )

 

 

Vishwa Samvada Kendra

21 thoughts on “Dr Subramanian Swamy files complaint against Soniya Gandhi on Communal Violence Bill

  1. This FIR by Subramanian Swamy will likely be blacked out, like the April 2011 prosecution request by the same Swamy against the UPA coalition chief.

    But this FIR made to top trends on Twitter India today. Hundreds, if not thousands of tweeple tweeted the excerpts from this FIR with a #SoniaFIR tag.

    The collection below has about 1 hour’s worth of selected tweets during the same evening. Check it out:

    http://chirpstory.com/li/2858

  2. This foolish self-defeating pseudosecularism should end.

    Case in point, the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan has decreased from 11% to 1%, Bangladesh 41% to about 6% today whereas the percent of muslims in India has increased.

    Rajiv Malhotra explains why the Kashmir problem has remained unsolved all the while. A good read.

    http://goo.gl/R3pKU

  3. Yada Yadah hi Dhramsya, Glanirbhavathi Bharatha, Abhyutthanam Adharmasya,Tadatmanam srijamyah Ahama 4.7 GITA
    (“Whenever there is decay, of righteousness O! Bharatha,And a rise of unrighteousness, then I manifest Myself!”)

    Praritranaya Sadhunam, Vinashaya Cha dushkritam,Dharamasansthapanarthaya,Sambhavami Yuge-Yuge.” 4.8 (GITA)
    (“For the protection of the good, for the destruc¬tion of the wicked and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age.”)

  4. “Hindus may have their systems and every community has it but the discrimination was started by BRITISHERS to divide Hindus as they see that without division they would not rule india.thats why they had made distinctions between shudras and baishyas.kshatirya and Brahmin are also made to toe the line. The whole system was changed by them to keep shudras in inhuman conditions. Before British came what is the condition of all these castes? Before moguls what is their conditions. There was no discriminations among hindus.every caste is identified by their jobs. But no untouchably or discrimination was before British came and implemented their colonial agenda. Now congress is practising same agenda of British taught to congress by them to divide Hindus by caste creed race and rule for ever.”

  5. Just as we prepare to remember the 25th anniversary of the draconian event in free India’s history, a series of events and the government’s responses guided by 10 Janpath indicate what everyone always feared but never dared to suggest – the Emergency is back, it’s just in different colours.

  6. The draft bill as I went through What I felt is this.
    1 The majority Hindus are the perpetrators.
    2 The minority are the victims.
    3 The result a.any disturbance occurred will end up
    victimization of the majority.
    b.There will be scare among the
    human beings and man wants to live, the fundamental urge. This psychology of human beings has been applied to exploit the majority to voluntarily get converted and enter into the minority group to shout that the remaining majority as perpetrators.
    WHAT MACAULAY AND CALDWELL DID NOT ACHIEVE IN THEIR LIFE TIME THIS LADY IS ATTEMPTING TO GET IT BY OUR OWN PEOPLE,THE BLACK SHEEP OF MEEK MAJORITY.

  7. Welcoming the efforts of Swamy. His efforts should be backed by the public opinion. So let us educate all citizens who want peace and harmony in the country and mobalise them to express their fears about the draft bill.Also the people belonging to the “group” as defined in the draft are to be told that the bill if passed will further alienate them from the mainstream population and their support to this bill will make others to look at them in an en emetic trait which will jeopardize further the mutual trust.

  8. The minority will use this as weapon against majority who are just. Whether minor or major, justice is just justice. Justice cannot be denied to anyone whether he belongs to majority or minority. You can not use any means to cowardize anyone. This POTA is undemocratic, unjust, immoral and should be thrown away.

  9. Are all these weapons for minorities. Bot the master weapon in the hand of majorities, nevertheless we learnt to use it. And we will use it. we have to root out otherwise it will root out majorities and made Bhart as Italian India.
    Swami Ji done a great work for majorities . Now I can say india’s future is bright as long as Dr.Swami ji and Ram Dev is there
    thank you

  10. No Hindu should/could keep quiet now. The Traitors of our country are now attacking the FOUNDATION OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY i.e, HINDUISM. No true Indian can tolerate this. An outsider from Italy is doing all sorts of mischief since the day of becoming chairperson of UPA. She deserves condemnation from all. Thanks to Dr. Subramanian swamy leadership for fighting against such attrocities on Hindus, and millions and millions and millions of Hindus throughout the world support Dr. Subramanian swamy in this fight against this worst BILL.

  11. One point to be noted is that, the Bill is worded such that the Central Government wont make any mistake and its always the state Government which makes the mistake.

    History(1984 Sikh riots and 1992 Babri masjid) says that both the State and Central Governments were responsible.

  12. Dr. Swamy,

    Congratulations for taking the initiative. I am sure, a righteous person as you are is badly required to fight against and stem the rot. With your bold initiative you have moved in the right direction to stem the rot and the poisoning of the Hindu movement.

    May your yeoman acts continue as ever to the benefit our Country.

  13. Subramanyam swami has been doing yeoman service to this nation and I have great faith in him and also reverence for him.
    This bill has to be opposed by every true Indian tooth and nail and Sonia Maino alias Nehru alias Gandhi has to be put behind bars for conceiving and perpetuating such a great crime against this nation.
    Bharat Mata Ki Jai

  14. DR SWAMY IS CERTAINLY TO BE LAUDED FOR TAKING UP ISSUES WHICH ARE IN THE LARGER INTERESTS OF THE NATION AND ITS SURVIVAL.THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE NATION BOTH MINORITY &MAJORITY SHOULD OPPOSE THIS TOOTH AND NAIL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Are you Human? Enter the value below *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next Post

Video: RSS Seva Bharati Madhya Pradesh-Part 1

Wed Oct 26 , 2011
email facebook twitter google+ WhatsApp