Secondly, the power to compensate and the power to determine the amount payable continue to be discretionary rather than mandatory. Compensation is not treated as a right of the victims, but a largesse doled out if the DM deems fit. Further, it is not clear if the state can recover costs for damages to public property. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, neither the un-amended Act nor the Ordinance actually provide for the imposition of fine on political parties or leaders responsible for the violence. The un-amended Section 51, curiously, allowed fines to be imposed on the residents of the area where the violence took place. So, if you were unfortunate enough to live in the ‘disturbance area’, you could be made liable to pay the fine. The Ordinance preserves this odd provision, but adds another category — now, ‘the members of unlawful assembly’ who caused the damage are personally liable to pay the fine. But this only covers the footsoldiers who execute plans. While their political party may choose to foot their bill, it has no obligation to do so. If the fines have to have any deterrent effect, the leaders and organisations whose activists are involved or whose speeches have a causal connection with the violence must be made vicariously liable.

One hopes that the Maharashtra legislative assembly, when called upon to formalise the Ordinance into an Act, will make the necessary changes to address the above-mentioned problems. But the Maharashtra assembly is not the only body grappling with the problem of political violence. In the aftermath of the Gurjjar violence last year and earlier this year, a Supreme Court-appointed committee headed by Justice Thomas is analysing how to deal with violence against public property. The Supreme Court itself is dealing with the issue of compensation to the churches that were damaged recently in Orissa. These debates suggest that India is beginning to take the problem of political violence seriously. The effectiveness of any solution will depend on its ability to deter the leadership that encourages violence rather than focussing merely on the footsoldiers. Imposing harsh fines on the leadership may be one possibility.

... contd.