Opinion A bill that doesn’t fit

While the communalism of one group feeds on the communalism of the other,it is axiomatic that majority communalism can alter the nature of the Indian polity,subverting democracy and secularism. Jawaharlal Nehru had cautioned that by virtue of numbers “it is the responsibility of the dominant community not to use its position in any way which might prejudice the secular ideal of the nation.” Another incontrovertible truth about communalism is that the weaker group invariably bears the brunt of the killing,maiming,rape,destruction of property and exile. The communal riots in Gopalgarh,Dhule and Muzaffarnagar also exposed the institutional bias against the minority. However,in attempting to address the problems associated with endemic communal riots,the draft bill has,sadly,widened the rift between communities by relying solely on deterrence to heal a historical antagonism deeply embedded in our collective psyche — the poisonous offshoot of our tortured history. Perceptions are more powerful than fact,and in this case the dominant perception is that the bill has sacrificed the interests of the majority community for the minorities.

The new draft of the bill eschews terms such as “linguistic or religious majority” or “minority”,and clarifies that any person irrespective of his or her religion can be considered a victim,although its raison d’être is to put in place mechanisms that would eliminate the institutional bias against minorities. These amendments are a tacit acknowledgement that,in the current social milieu,targeted actions for minority protection are perceived as assaults on the interests of the majority.

Noam Chomsky has underlined the importance of realism and “recommends it to anyone who hopes to do something in this world and therefore takes into account real world circumstances and the consequence of one’s actions for suffering people”. The governing class,in particular,must ensure that policies relating to sensitive communal,ethnic or racial issues are not only fair and just but,importantly,do not exacerbate social tensions.

Unfortunately,the bill,even before becoming law,has already deeply polarised our society. The critics,including the BJP’s Arun Jaitley,contend that by aiming to protect only one section of the people,the bill will reinforce the communal divide. Significantly,a large section of minorities is also averse to legislation of this kind,which will facilitate fundamentalist forces to whip up a frenzy against them. Their cynicism also stems from the fact that,despite an exemplary Constitution and a plethora of stringent laws,there has been no let-up in communal riots. They believe that rigorous implementation of the existing laws is needed,not a new law.

The new draft of the bill has scrapped the proposed national authority and entrusted the functions of overseeing communal harmony to the NHRC,along with dilution of powers — an amendment clearly designed to appease the states. How will such a toothless recommendatory body contribute to ensuring justice and communal harmony?

In a caring society,strong legislation to protect the most vulnerable sections would have been considered vital for establishing social harmony. But we live in strange times where a just cause does not necessarily receive widespread approval. The irrelevance or insignificance of issues of justice and sheer humaneness in the realm of realpolitik was evident in 1984 when the Congress swept to power in the immediate aftermath of the Sikh massacre,and again in Gujarat where the dispensation that presided over the 2002 riots won three successive state elections with a massive mandate.

Instead of fuelling discord through such legislation,the government should think of ways to promote fraternity among communities,which is the need of the hour.

The writer,a former civil servant,is secretary general of the Lok Janshakti Party. Views are personal

express@expressindia.com