Policemen chasing away Peace Party activists protesting against Muzaffarnagar riots, in Lucknow last month. The Minority Affairs Minister has asked the Prime Minister to introduce an ordinance, in the wake of the riots in Muzaffarnagar. PTI

he Union government is keen to pass the Communal Violence Bill in the winter session of Parliament. Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, a Congress spokesperson confirmed, "We are committed to passing the bill. It will be a priority for us in the winter session." However, the Congress is facing opposition to the bill from within, as the bill is perceived to be anti majority. The principal Opposition, the Bharatiya Janata Party is opposed to the bill, as well as several other parties.

Union Minority Affairs Minister K. Rehman Khan met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently to ask for an ordinance on the bill, in the wake of the riots in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, in which over 40,000 have been displaced and scores of others killed.

In 2005, the Congress-led UPA government introduced the bill in the Rajya Sabha in order to fulfil the promise made in its election manifesto in the backdrop of the Gujarat riots of 2002. Subsequently, the bill was sent to the Standing Committee, which found it in contradiction of the federal principle enshrined in the Constitution, which allows the states jurisdiction over law and order matters.

The Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council was roped in to write another draft of the bill. It came up with the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill. However, this created another controversy, with the Opposition, especially the BJP, calling it anti-majority. Another bone of contention is the creation of a National Authority under the bill at the Central level, with corresponding authorities at the state level. This too has been opposed, as it's seen as another attempt to curtail the jurisdiction of the states as any direction issued to the state authority by the National Authority is binding.

A section in the Congress believes that pushing the bill could be counter-productive. A senior leader belonging to a minority community said that this was not the right time to bring the bill. "The bill is perceived to be anti-majority. Bringing it now, with Assembly and general elections scheduled, will polarise the electorate, as the Narendra Modi factor is already in play," he said. He compared the move to announcements made by the Congress before the UP elections in 2012, promising reservation to Muslims. The move was widely derided at the time and was said to have antagonised the Muslims who felt they were being taken for a ride.

The most contentious provision in the draft bill prepared by the NAC is the definition of a "group" against whom communal violence occurs. The NAC specifically states in its draft that the term "group" stands for a "linguistic" or "religious" minority. This has drawn the ire of the BJP, as the draft excludes the possibility of violence by the minority against the majority.Image 2nd

Defending the definition of "group" stated in the NAC's draft, N.C. Saxena, a member, said, "As regards to violence, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Code of Procedure (Cr.PC) can be invoked if Bihari auto-drivers beat Maharashtrians in Mumbai. But it is usually the other way round and hence, the bill specifically protects the minority." In the case of majority violence, the states and district administrations tend to be biased and do not want to take action, he said. He pointed out that the UP government has been tardy in taking action against the perpetrators of the Muzaffarnagar riots.

Dr Aftab Alam, secretary, Aligarh Muslim University Teachers' Association (AMUTA), said that the definition of "group" was in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 1948 on genocides, to which India is a signatory. However, he said that the bill should have provisions to punish anyone guilty of perpetrating communal violence, regardless of their affiliation with either community. The AMUTA wants the bill to be brought as an ordinance. Claiming that the Muzaffarnagar riots had created an "urgency", Alam said that "the bill is not of recent origin. It has been pending for over a decade". He disagreed that bringing it in its present form will create communal disharmony.

A senior Congress leader said that the Minority Affairs Minister was working on a draft of the bill. It is understood that it will have inputs from both previous versions of the bill. However, Saxena claimed that the new bill, which will be sent for the Cabinet's approval before being presented in Parliament, has "dumped the (provisions of) the NAC draft bill," including the definition of "group".

The bill drafted by the NAC also provides for penalty against sexual harassment during riots, against financial and material aide to rioters and torture of victims. It also fixes punishment for officers found guilty of dereliction of duty and senior office-bearers of any organisation complicit in riots. All the offences under the bill have been made cognizable and non-bailable.