The Congress Government, which had proposed introducing a bill to control superstitious practices in the last winter session in Belgaum, put it in cold storage after opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindutwa organizations dubbed the move “anti-Hindu.” Now, just ahead of this year’s winter session, demand for introducing the bill is coming from an unusual quarter.

Heads of Hindu religious institutions in Karnataka, coming together under the banner of “Forum for Progressive Math Seers”, is launching a three-day hunger strike demanding the introduction of the bill in this legislature session at Belgaum scheduled to start on December 9.

The forum, headed by Veerabhadra Chennamalla Swamiji or Nidumamidi math in Bagepalli, has on board over 100 seers heading maths across Karnataka. A few rationalist organizations have also extended support to the hunger strike. The seers have said in a joint statement that a “progressive move” had been stalled by “a few interest groups.”

Speaking to The Hindu, Chennamalla Swamiji said that the government already had two model drafts of the bill submitted by two law universities and they should be studied by a legislature committee and fine-tuned. He said that while there had been “unnecessary propaganda” against the legislation, the government on its part had failed to dispel the misconceptions.

“I have read the drafts and there is nothing against any religion in them. It requires some tweaking, but in essence it is against all exploitative and discriminatory practices, reflecting a Constitutional mandate,” he said.

In the meanwhile, there are no sings of the bill being introduced in the coming legislative session. Law Minister T.B. Jayachandra told The Hindu that the legislation had been referred to the Karnataka State Law Commission to look at its pros and cons because there are “vociferous arguments for and against it.”

He said that he was in favour of bill since it is the “only way to fight several social ills and discriminations.” Pointing to a technical issue, he said that the bill would not pass in the Council since Congress had no majority there, if the party was not assured of the support of JD (S).

Sources in the commission said that they could not hurry with the bill since it was a “matter that required detailed study.”

.