The BJP has termed the UPA government’s “Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2006″ as “totally unacceptable”. The BJP’s reasoning is that chapter XI of the Bill, which empowers the Centre to deal with communal violence in a State and take over its law and order mechanism if it suspects that the State does not intend to act, threatens the federal structure of the country as there are no safeguards against its possible misuse.
Questions: Is the BJP right or wrong? Is protecting the federal structure—which means allowing the States to do what they want within the Union—more important than saving the lives of innocent people? If a State is burning, like in say Gujarat, should the Centre haplessly and helplessly look on because law and order is a “State” subject? Or will the Communal Violence bill, like Article 356, be liable for misuse at the hands of overly ambitious central governments?
26 June 2006 at 8:02 pm
If we can accept that the Gujarat pogrom under Narendra Modi’s benign gaze was the most horrifying one, then there can be no question that we need a law like this which will ensure that the Centre is not reduced to watching helplessly. But will a law necessarily end such “riots”? I suspect not. There are hundreds of laws against corruption, has it ended corruption? No. All that the new law seems likely to do is pitch state governments in direct confrontation with the Centre, especially if they belong to rival parties. What happens if the States do not notify such a law? What happens if a single party wins everywhere?