PCTV Bill: Hindus are criminals by default – O.P. Gupta

O.P. Gupta“All Hindus whether Leftists, or Rightists, whether upper castes or lower castes, whether rich or poor will be arrested merely on a complaint howsoever flimsy by a Muslim or a Christian or any minority under the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparation) Bill which Dr Manmohan Singh, himself a minority, is planning to place before the Parliament. Draft of this totally anti-Hindu Bill was initially prepared by the National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi, a Christian, who was born as Edvige Antonia Albina Maino.” – O.P. Gupta

Indian Nested DollThe NAC comprises persons handpicked by Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh both minority persons. In this Council too Hindu members have been kept in numerical minority as was the case in the Sachar Committee and in the Ranganath Misra Commission. The Sachar and Misra Reports rob all Hindus (including Leftists, SC, ST & OBC Hindus, rich or poor Hindus) 15 per cent of jobs, 15 per cent of promotional avenues, 15 per cent of educational seats and 15 per cent of economic opportunities.

The PCTV Bill is based on presumption that communal riots are always committed only by  the Hindus and never by minorities.  This law can be invoked only against  the Hindus by minorities. Muslims, Christians who commit violence and hate against Hindus cannot be booked under this new law as they are exempt from it. As we know Muslims had suo motu attacked Hindus in India while demonstrating against Prophet Muhammad’s caricatures published in Sweden.

Explanatory Note of July 21, 2011 to this Bill circulated by the NAC states that evidence from the State records and several of Commissions of Enquiry confirms institutional bias and prejudicial functioning of state organs when a minority is attacked, so this Bill. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Bhandari in its judgment of December 26, 2011 unanimously rejected this perception of the NAC that the police was biased against the minorities. So the very basis of the PCTV Bill is illegal and unconstitutional.

When the PCTV Bill is enacted, Hindus will come under Shariah law.Under the PCTV Bill a Hindu against whom a Muslim including a Bangaladeshi Muslim infiltrator, a jehadi terrorist Muslim or a Christian or any minority makes a complaint, he will be presumed ab initio to be guilty of crimes; that Hindu will be arrested as all crimes under this Bill are cognisable and non-bailable (Clause 58 of May 2011 version); that Hindu will have to prove his innocence before a Court;  that Hindu will be presumed to be  guilty by Police and courts till he proves his innocence (Sections 73,74.1 & 74.2); that the Muslim or Christian making complaint is not required to give any proof or evidence to support charge against the Hindu  he has accused;  that Hindu will not be informed as to who has made complaint against him (Section 40, 87.4); the accused Hindu will not have  the right to cross examine his accuser(s) but Muslim or Christian who made the complaint will be regularly informed about the progress of the case (Section 69); that during the pendency of the case the Court can attach property of the accused Hindu even before he is found guilty (Sec. 82). And in case Hindu is found guilty his property will be auctioned to pay damages to Muslims, Christians etc.

Where a designated judge is satisfied suo motu or upon a complaint he can ask a Hindu to leave the station but judge cannot ask any minority to leave [Sec 84]. There are many anti-Hindu provisions in this Bill. At least one-third of the government advocates dealing with PCTV law in one draft were required to be minorities and only those could be appointed as special prosecutors who are not objected to by any Muslim or Christian, etc (Sec. 78.3).

There will be a seven member National Authority both at Central and provincial levels to monitor implementation of this law out of which at least four have to be minorities i.e. Hindus will be in perpetual numerical minority in this Authority. Hindus howsoever secular cannot be appointed as its Chairman and Vice Chairman vide Section 21.3 of this Bill. This National Authority comprising unelected persons will boss over all Chief Ministers too which is against principles of federalism.

What is hate speech?Hate propaganda (Chapter 2, Section 8) by Hindus against minorities is punishable under this law but Muslims and Christian missionaries cannot be booked under this law for spreading hatred against Hindus. It is well-known that Christian missionaries who indulge in conversion do a systematic hate campaign against Hindu beliefs. Life imprisonment is the penalty for Hindus under this hate propaganda.

If a Muslim woman or a minority woman complains of rape against a Hindu, he will be arrested, it will be presumed that charge is correct and  the Hindu will have to prove that charge against him is false and that Hindu will not  be told which woman has made  the complaint. But if a Hindu woman is raped by a Muslim or a minority person then she has to prove charge of rape against that person and her identity will be told to her rapist.

This Bill is worst than Aurangzebi firmans and reduces all Hindus to second class status and will force every Hindu to dance to the whims and fancy of every minority even if that minority is their employee.  This Bill if enacted as a law will give a legal weapon to every minority, even a beggar, to send to jail any Hindu he wants to settle his political or personal scores. It is well-known that in order to settle scores Christian nuns have made false allegations of rape against some Hindus.

Under Sec. 42 no statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the National Authority will subject him or her to or be used against him or her in any civil or criminal proceeding. In other words a witness giving false statement before National authority cannot be prosecuted for giving false evidence against a Hindu.

George Orwell was born in Motihari, BiharSection 129 states that for prosecution of offences under Sec 9 there will be no limitation of time. It means a Muslim or a Christian or a minority can reopen cases against Hindus, all past cases right from 1950 onwards.

Taking advantage of the law contained in this Bill a religious minority can force a Hindu to sell his property to him or rent his property to him, can force a Hindu to write off debts a minority owes to him, a minority employee or a minority subordinate of a Hindu can fix his own boss, etc. If a Hindu landlord wants to evict his Muslim or Christian tenant he cannot do so as under this new law on complaint of tenant he will first be sent to jail. If a Hindu has any Muslim or Christian employee or subordinate and pulls him up for unsatisfactory performance then wife or any relative of that minority employee can lodge complaint of causing mental or psychological harm which will be sufficient to arrest that Hindu CMD/ Senior (Sec. 3.9). Invoking definition of ‘Victim’ in Sec. 3.9 any relation of a minority person even with foreign nationality and living abroad say in USA, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or in Gulf countries can file complaint against any Hindu whether that Hindu lives in India or abroad. A Pakistani Muslim living in Pakistan can file complaint against any Hindu living in India on behalf of his relation living in India and that Hindu will have to be arrested by Indian police. Thus fate of all Hindus whether living in India or  living abroad (Sec. 2) would become worse than fate of Hindus in Pakistan if Hindu voters in India keep sleeping.

Naturally in order to save themselves from being victims of this law Hindus in general may start reducing all interactions with minorities. That is why many analysts rightly call this Bill divisive, killing the spirit of multiculturalism.

Ballot BoxSo this Bill must be opposed by all Hindus. If Hindu voters don’t want to get robbed off their children of 15 per cent jobs, 15 per cent of educational seats, etc and if Hindus do not want to go to jails on false allegations of Muslims or Christians, etc they must not cast their votes in favour of the Congress party or its ally parties in any election.

O Hindu voters wake-up, wake-up.

» O.P. Gupta is National Working President of Bharat Raksha Manch, and, National Convenor of the CARRIED. Contact him at opg55555@gmail.com.

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. PCTV bill is not yet fully buried by Modi govt and may be brought again when Sonia Gandhi comes to power.Govt should amend constitution making Hindus the main religion of india and all others are invaders infiltrators immigrants religion.Unless constitution is so amended Hindus are at peril

  2. Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh – Hindu Voice E-Bulletin Issue No.49. 1st-7th Dec. 2013

    Dear Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singhji,

    My government has received a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs along with a copy of the revised Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013 asking for comments to be sent “immediately”. It appears that the Government of India is contemplating a hurried introduction of the Bill in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament.

    2. Coming just a couple of months before the expected announcement of the next General Elections, it makes the move look very suspicious. It is almost a giveaway that the move to introduce the Bill is based on political considerations dictated by votebank politics rather than genuine concern for preventing communal violence.

    3. My government is sensitive to the issue of communal violence and I am happy to inform you that there have been no communal riots or major incidents of communal violence in Gujarat for the last ten years now. I fully agree that we need to be vigilant about communal violence. However, I have serious objections to the contents of the proposed Bill as also its timing. I am asking the concerned department to send its detailed comments to the Ministry of Home Affairs but considering the importance of the issue at hand, I would like to convey some preliminary observations to you.

    4. A plain reading of the bill suggests that it is not confined to Communal Violence on religious lines and includes other considerations like linguistic identities. This expansion of scope may lead to serious issues of operationalizing the provisions.

    5. Timing and your political compulsions apart, I also have serious concerns about the constitutional validity, legality, and efficacy of the proposed Bill in addressing the problem of communal violence in the country. To begin with, your government’s attempt to legislate on an issue of “law and order” and “public order” both of which are items in the List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule betrays its contempt for the federal structure and the separation of powers.

    6. The Union List (List I) has 97 entries in it and you will agree that there are a whole range of issues in that list which are waiting for legislation. However, rather than addressing issues which are in its domain, the Government of India seems to be under some compulsion to encroach upon the issues in the State List. Is it because the implementation has to be done by the State Governments? Thus if a poorly conceived and badly drafted legislation does not give the intended results and ends up compounding the problem, the Centre can blame the State Governments for “improper implementation”.

    7. I strongly believe that if an issue is in the State list and a proposed legislation will have to be implemented by the State Governments then it should be legislated upon by the State Government. You will agree that after all state governments are also elected by the people and are as much concerned if not more about law and order in general and communal violence in particular.

    8. Nonetheless, if you feel that there are certain competencies available with certain people in the Government of India which elude the State Governments and your government cannot but contribute to this issue it should consider preparing a “Model Bill” and circulate to State Governments for consideration if necessary. However, the circulated Bill can be called anything but a “Model Law”. It is a case study on poor conceptualization and even poorer drafting. In short, it is a recipe for disaster.

    9. However, knowing its genesis, I am not surprised by the poor drafting of this bill. You will kindly recall that in the Chief Ministers’ Conference on Internal Security in Delhi in May earlier this year, I had brought to your notice how certain individuals with questionable credentials and condemnable links with anti-national elements have penetrated into our policy making think tanks like the Planning Commission and the National Advisory Council, NAC. It is the same NAC, an extra-constitutional authority and the same set of individuals who seem to have now usurped the law-making powers because of the void created at the political level that are behind this draft.

    10. The provisions of the proposed Bill will have a consequence of further polarizing Indian society on religious and linguistic lines; the religious and linguistic identities will become more reinforced and even ordinary incidents of violence will be given communal colour to benefit from the provisions of the proposed law. In short, this law will end up achieving just the opposite of its intended objective: it will increase communal violence and fragment Indian society further.

    11. Coming to the specific provisions of the Bill, Section 3(f) which defines “hostile environment” and includes “(iii) deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights” and “(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” is so wide ranging and vague that it can certainly be misused.

    12. Similarly, section 3(d) read with Section 4, attempts to bring in the concept of “knowledge and intent” into the definition of communal violence. This makes one wonder whether the Orwellian concept of “thought crime” is being introduced in Indian criminal jurisprudence. The said provision has certainly not been examined from the point of view of Evidence Act as also investigation and prosecution.

    13. The proposed bill seeks to undermine the basic constitutional tenet of equality before law by attempting to create different classes of citizens based on religion. Under Section 9A, certain offences under IPC have been classified as offences of communal violence. This is a clear breach of Article 14 and 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. If A murders or rapes B, law has to apply similarly regardless of the religious and linguistic identities of A and B; and the equal application of law includes both substantive law and procedural law.

    14. The proposed bill tarnishes the police and security forces and paints them as communal at large. Sections 9B and 10A are totally ill conceived in the context of communal violence. The other assumption is that all incidents of communal violence can be prevented by the law and order agencies. Both these assumptions are fallacious and too simplistic. I must say that overall the members of our police forces and security agencies have done a commendable job in dealing with various law and order problems arising out of caste and communal conflicts as also various political agitations.

    15. To belittle their sacrifices and contributions and to put them at grave risk of partisan and politically motivated victimization leading to criminal action for dereliction of duty is most unreasonable. Such provisions have crept in only because most people involved in the drafting of this law have never had the occasion to deal with angry mobs on the ground putting their lives at risk. It would do us no harm if we were to seek the inputs of the heads of various police and security forces as to whether such provisions will help or harm the law enforcement agencies in dealing with communal riots.

    16. Section 10B is absurd in that it criminally penalizes a public servant for failure of his subordinates! Incompetence cannot be handled by putting people in jail. It needs capacity building, training, sensitization, motivation, imparting leadership skills etc- certainly issues requiring more inputs and efforts, than mere legislation. I do not know whether such provisions have been weighed at various levels in Government of India.

    17. The proviso to Section 10B will only ensure that in times of serious violence, senior officers will rather leave the lower functionaries on the field to fend for themselves than to intervene and expose themselves to criminal liability!

    18. There are several other ill-conceived provisions in the proposed Bill which are either non implementable or counter-productive. The only provisions which pass muster are the redundant ones like those in Chapter IV-A and IV-B. These are nothing but a reiteration of existing provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

    19. Chapter V and Chapter VI simply reiterate the analogous provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Here I have a serious opposition to bringing NHRC and SHRC into the process of exercising powers that are vested in the executive wing of an elected government. I think these bodies are already empowered under the existing statute to deal with serious violations of human rights during incidents of communal violence.

    20. However, to burden these statutory bodies with redressal of all issues, handling of appeals and monitoring of individual incidents is neither practical nor desirable. Ultimately, in a democratic polity it is the elected government which should be the focal point of all responsibility and accountability. That is the only way elected governments will be held accountable for maintaining law and order. To tinker with this basic structure is ill-advised and ill-conceived. To that extent, the roles of NHRC and SHRC should be confined to their present roles as envisaged under the existing laws.

    21. Regarding the relief and rehabilitation, the establishment of the Communal Violence Reparation Fund is a welcome step but the use of the word compensation is arguable as the same should be in the domain of a civil court under the “Law of Torts” or a criminal court after the completion of trial. The role of government should be to provide immediate succour and relief to the victims as an ex-gratia relief/assistance. However, introducing compensation for “moral injury” as provided under the Bill is strange and does not take into account implementability.

    22. In view of all of the above observations, I would like to express my government’s strong opposition to this ill-conceived and poorly drafted Bill. I would also like to convey my government’s strong reservation against this attempt to encroach upon the authority of the state governments. I sincerely request you to direct the Home Ministry to have a wider consultation with the State Governments, political parties and the police and security agencies before proceeding further.

    With warm regards.

    NARENDRA MODI
    Chief Minister of Gujarat

  3. Communal Violence Bill a recipe for disaster, Narendra Modi to PM – PTI – TOI – Dec 5, 2013

    AHMEDABAD: Questioning the timing of bringing the Communal Violence Bill, Narendra Modi on Thursday wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, describing the proposed legislation as “ill-conceived, poorly drafted and a recipe for disaster”.

    Terming the bill as an attempt to encroach upon the domain of states, the BJP’s PM candidate sought wider consultations among various stakeholders, such as state governments, political parties, police and security agencies, before making any move on the issue.

    Modi’s letter comes on the morning of beginning of the winter session of Parliament in which the bill is likely to be taken up.

    “Communal Violence Bill is ill-conceived, poorly drafted and a recipe for disaster,” Modi said in his letter.

    Meanwhile, PM Manmohan Singh when asked about Narendra Modi’s opposition to Communal Bill, said, “It will be our effort to evolve broad-based consensus on all matters of great legislative importance.”

    The Gujarat chief minister said, “the timing to bring the bill is suspicious owing to political considerations and vote bank politics, rather than genuine concerns”.

    Expressing strong concern that the proposed legislation would further divide people on religious and linguistic lines, Modi said, “religious and linguistic identities would become more reinforced and even ordinary incidents of violence would be given a communal colour thus giving the opposite result of what the bill intends to achieve”.

    He also brought out various “operational issues” in the proposed Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013.

    “For example, Section 3(f) that defines ‘hostile environment’, is wide-ranging, vague and open to misuse. Likewise, the definition of communal violence under Section 3 (d) read with Section 4 would raise questions on whether the Centre is introducing the concept of ‘thought crime’ in the context of the Indian criminal jurisprudence,” the letter said.

    • The contents of the intended legislation are clearly anti-Hindu and the timing of introducing it is clearly motivated keeping in view of the oncoming election. Can we expect more from the manipulative democracy from the ruling party. The country was vivisected to grab and retain power to the dynasty. The party will leave no stone unturned to bring the unconstitutional law into force. Will the Hindus wake up?

  4. Has our ” saviour” ( hindus incapable to think have made him such) Modi ever said anything about this?

    he is too great man to talk on such tiny matters.

  5. as is proved india is the only country which has no problem losing territory,dying citizen.where bomb blasts against hindus are evaluated as “high” or “low” intensity,yet the hindu morons claim that “all religions are equal” and its ok to isolate hinduism only and abuse it as much as you like,what do you expect??i am planning to leave this nation of sickular morons the first opportunity i get.

  6. Such an unconstitutional and undemocratic move by some political parties is incredible! One must realize that, “When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined
    as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.” – Neil Postman. It is now time for the nation to unite and fight to prevent the second greatest mistake after partition from happening!

Comments are moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: