Siddharth Varadarajan

Journalist | Writer | Analyst

A bill to settle a terrible debt


22 June 2011
The Hindu

A bill to settle a terrible debt

Siddharth Varadarajan
















6 comments on “A bill to settle a terrible debt

  1. Anonymous
    September 16, 2011

    I agree with Aditya Singh above.We must get over this goup subgroup mentality.I'm an Hindu living in a Muslim ghetto.I might be targetted anytime.This majority kills minority is something that US,UK believes is part of democracy,so they must be protected.But US,UK do not have so much diversity so as to study the effects.In India Muslims inspite of being called a minority is such a potent votebank that some political parties even protect the bad elements to gain political mileage.

  2. Anonymous
    July 7, 2011

    Practically every crime committed by violent thugs in communally charged situations, whatever their religion be, are already covered in various other laws including the Indian Penal code. What about implementing them?

    Now the Sonia dynasty wants to fish for a minority vote or two by passing yet another ineffective law that will not serve the purpose..

    Do we need special laws for CTA violence, domestic violence, violence against kids, elders, females, dalits, did I miss anyone else? Can we then do away with IPC?

    Many of these special laws are shamefully immoral, undemocratic, draconian and shift burden of proof to the accused, jail people for years without investigation, let alone trial, trample on human rights and end up being exploited by unscrupulous people in collusion with corrupt policemen and greedy lawyers. The so called Anti-Dowry law is a classic example. Ironically it has become the biggest threat to many women who it was supposed to protect as the first recommendation of any divorce lawyer is to ask the wife to file a case under this act, send several relatives (mainly women) to prison and then blackmail.

    Any surprise that lawyers were the biggest group protesting against 'dilution' of norms for arresting people without investigation?

    Yet another law will become a crude weapon in the hands of these thugs to milk innocent victims dry. Sonia and her family will get a few votes, yellow propaganda puppets of the dynasty can score a few brownie points against the BJP and life goes on…

  3. K P Ganesh
    June 26, 2011

    If the NAC which controls the present Central Government, are so confident that this law will help minorities, how come they reject the anti-conversion bill. I personally, think this law is squarely aimed to protect the politically vested Church and various Evangelist organizations who fund the missionaries for their conversion activities. And the NAC is having the Kandhamal riots issue in Orissa, in the back of their mind but selling to the nation the Sikh riots of 1984 and the Godhra riots of 2002. No wonder our pseudo-secular media too is playing the same tune that the Government wants to play. Simple question – why does DigVijay Singh have to convert to Christianity, as per information available in Wikipedia till a few weeks ago, suddenly change his religious status back to Hinduism. In India, no law is made to bring to task the corrupt politicians till the supreme court does so.

  4. Aditya Singh
    June 25, 2011


    I have read many of your writings in past for authoritative analysis on current affairs. I have followed television debates on this new proposed Prevention of Communal & Targeted Violence Act and have heard arguments from both sides.
    But I have not heard anyone making a balanced analysis that mentions both the flaws and the benefits of the new bill. Unfortunately I did not get enough of that argument in your article either. You have whole heartedly supported it except for reference to article 355 and some other minor things which you have criticized.

    Anyone who reads the draft bill is greeted with the statement that states “It extends to the whole of India. Provided that the Central Government may, with the consent of the State of J&K, extend the Act to that State”. There in front of us is the reality of our country; where we have given so much autonomy to a minority community simply for being a majority in a particular state and yet the secessionist and divisive elements prevail in J&K. The moderates demand more autonomy and the extremists demand secession. Positive discrimination alone did not ensure harmony.

    This forms my prime argument about the inherent flaw in this bill. The flaw is that of division of population in front of law and the definition of the victim “group”. Any amount of special rights to a group will not bring justice for the individual. Simply because this is an intractable problem, there is no right division. There is no right definition of a “group”. In fact if this bill read in exclusion of the definition that this act uses for “group” and the word group is used in a more general term then this act would be an excellent act. In fact the definition of “communal and targeted violence” in this act is coloured by the definition of “group”. The victims of the “group” as defined in the law seem to be the real victims and the other victims are second class citizens.

    I would say when you have to divide, divide down to the individual not to any particular group. So when you have to protect anyone by law, protect the rights of an individual irrespective of what group or subgroup he or she may belong to, as per a certain definition of a group. So I don't quite agree with the definition of group (minority) as per this bill and special protection for that group. I fear that further divisions of our society are being created in this anti-riots bill. How do you define minority? Do you define them only in terms of the religious and linguistic minority in a particular state by population? What if there is a Christian family living in a Muslim dominated ghetto in Nagaland? Also why does the bill treat all SC as one group, there are majority and minority religions in the SC/ST categories too. Where is protection for these groups under the provisions of this law?
    This bill has simplified its definition of minority group by using the population in the entire state as a whole. This may be simple to define in a law but does it address all acts of group violence?

    You have rightly mentioned that the greatest culprits have been the public servants who have been derelict in their duty and have taken sides in a communal violence. The law rightly has severe punishment for such dereliction of duty and makes it mandatory for them to take immediate actions. Creating provisions which discriminate against an individual victim because as per the law he or she belongs to a majority group is not fair. We as a nation have to evolve and grow over this group and sub-group mentality.

    If we have to divide, divide down to the individual and protect every individual's right by treating him or her equal in the eyes of the law. That is the foremost fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.

  5. Anonymous
    June 23, 2011

    I agree with you that the standard law of the land should have worked in safeguarding the safety of its citizens. But our corrupt bureaucrats and netas will tweak this to their advantage. They will still get away with this. This “getting away” has emboldened them to ignore law.

    Also, one very important point to be noted is that the mode of discrimination and exploitation has changed. Now, we have less communal riots or mass violence but minorities of every ilk and disadvantaged sections of the society face discrmination on daily basis.

    It seems our societal structure is such that we'll always need one section at the bottom…And no law can cure this problem. As a society we need to reflect on our social,education and economic evolution.

    Laws should not change society but it should be other way around.


  6. Anonymous
    June 23, 2011





    New Delhi

Leave a reply


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

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on June 22, 2011 by in Communal Violence.



%d bloggers like this: