Tag Archives: Dr.Subramaniam Swamy

Misogyny, Misandry, Deceptive Media and RSS

At the outset, let me share 2 observations from the twitter with regards to the slanderous campaign against RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.

  1. A misandry rant against RSS chief Sri Mohan Bhagwat in a reply to Tavleen Singh’s tweet.1pressbrief_misandry_rant
  2. Tavleen Singh responds to a tweet asking her view on Mohan Bhagwat after the smoke screen cleared. She says “@netsimha I think Mohan Bhagwat, Asaram Bapu and the Jamaat-e-Islami made comments that reflect the real reason why women are raped daily in Bharat and India.”2tavleen_singh_response

Now read this hidden and buried resolution “Need to maintain the dignity of Women” passed by RSS in 2008 by its apex body ABPS (Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha), that the Main Stream Media (MSM) would not want or care to publish:

(Full text of the resolution can be found here)The ABPS sees it as regretful that women are being increasingly subjected to indecent behavior, eve-teasing, sexual exploitation, abuse and other despicable crimes. It is deeply distressing that in addition to female foeticide, dowry violence etc. they are subjected to sexual abuse at work places, public places and even homes too.

The ABPS profoundly feels the need for a radical transformation in the mindset of society to bring in a meaningful change in this de-culturising situation. Just to rely upon the laws promulgated by the Government will be self-deceptive. The society must honestly realize that it is created by the institution of family and woman is the pivot of the familyhence a developed society cannot be envisaged without an enlightened, awakened and empowered womanIt is a pressing necessity that families, education system, media and society must change their attitude to ensure a respectful behavior towards woman. The ABPS appeals to the saints and social leaders also to take a leading role in this respect.

Now the shameless deception:

First on Jan 3rd, the MSM twisted the recent speech of Sri Mohan Bhagwat in Silichar where he was responding to a query on the rise of rapes and atrocities against women in India. The YouTube video (7:45 min) conveys the message that Sri Mohan Bhagwat was clearly implying Bharat as values and expressed concern that we as a nation have forgotten human values. Unfortunately it was easy to extract and misinterpret the India vs. Bharat quote by the rabid media people possessed with scavenging instinct. There was a verbal assault on RSS chief and the key point made by Sri Mohan Bhagwat “Besides new legislations Indian ethos and attitude towards women should be revisited” got lost in the shrill accusations. Interestingly, the social media (Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook) came to the rescue and facilitated the truth. Kiran Bedi viewed the original video and tweeted in support of Sri Mohan Bhagwat’s views and commented on the media to rectify its views.3KiranBedi_comment

On January 6th 2013 the venal media was at it again. It unleashed a viral false-propaganda based on a doctored video recording from the “so called” credible news supplier source ANI (Asia News International). In its typical style NDTV picked this up and further twisted the news saying that ‘Women meant to do household chores’: another shocker from RSS chief. The English media attacked RSS chief quoting him in total falsehood that women are bound to look after their husbands by contract, and if they didn’t fulfill their duties, their husbands should leave them. Anti-Hindu, Limo-liberals became ecstatic and were all over the TV shows. They all did a great disservice to the nation by shoving the falsehood and pure lie into the minds of the millions.

See the confession by the ANI News Editor on twitter to the comment by the columnist Kanchan Gupta.4ANI_Smitaprakash_confession

If it were the good old pre-internet days like in 90s, the well-wishers and supports of RSS including a good number in RSS would have lost this psychological war of minds and perceptions.  Fortunately we are in 2013; the leftist-socialistic-hegemony, control and gate-keeping of news by few dark-souls are no more the case. Social media has spread wide into the landscape of India (rural and urban) empowering millions of ordinary people including patriots, nationalists, activists and RSS Swayamsevaks. The consumer of news has now become the producer of news and digital content. An avalanche of outrage on twitter and elsewhere on the internet built up pretty fast, thanks to the relentless effort and campaign by patriots across the middle India on Social Media.(You can read a few here SamavadaNewslaundry and Rediscovery of India). This made the main stream media to stop its slanderous tirade and were forced to bend. The media was literally caught with its hands in the cookie-jar. Its addicted habit of spit and run did not work this time. Shameless deception got fully exposed and they were forced to lick their wounds.5Sagarika_sorry_bhagwatji_CB

I would give the benefit of doubt to all those misinformed and ill-informed about RSS and its outlook towards women. Hope one would rectify their skewed perception; and the ignorance and prejudice demonstrated by equating Sri Mohan Bhagwat to Jamaat-e-Islami would go away.

For a RSS worker be it from India or from Bharat, there is no doubt on what RSS stands for and its noble mission of serving the nation. A RSS worker with total conviction says “Apne par vishwas, Apnopar Vishwas, Apne Karya par vishwas” (I trust myself, I trust my fellow workers, I trust my noble mission and work).

It is up to the well-meaning people including those who need not necessarily subscribe to the views of RSS, to see through the smoke screens, facades and pursue the truth. Who a misogynist is, who is a in misandry and who is deceptive, I shall leave it to the reader’s judgment.


Harvard University’s Decision to remove Dr. Swamy’s Summer Courses shocking, hateful, repulsive and totally biased

December 12, 2011

In 3000 years of our history people from all over the world have come and invaded us, captured our lands, conquered our minds. From Alexander onwards, the Greeks, the Turks, the Moguls, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Dutch, all of them came and looted us, took over what was ours. Yet we have not done this to any other nation. We have not conquered anyone. We have not grabbed their lands, their culture, their history and tried to enforce our way of life on them. Why? Because we respect the freedom of others. That is why my first vision is that of FREEDOM. Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, Former President of India.
It is shocking to read that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) of Harvard University have voted to remove two courses from the Summer School offerings Dr. Subramanian Swamy was teaching for a number of years. The academic university, which is known for championing the free speech, has become pawn of self-professed liberal academicians who feel that Dr. Swamy’s speech was “hateful.” These academicians appear to have no knowledge about the atrocities committed by the Islamic terrorists, Islamic war on Hinduism, daily infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into West Bengal, professed killings of non-believers, and satanic verses demanding the destruction of Temples and Hindu Gods.

Dr. Swamy’s article is a peaceful approach to the most dangerous situation that is wrecking India. He did not advocate terrorism, did not mention about the extermination of any religion, did not advocate the forced conversion, did not call for burning the non-believers of Hinduism, did not advocate the demolition of Mosques, did not espouse the imposition of Jizya tax on non-Hindus, and did not declare fatwa on the haters of Hinduism. Any rational, fair minded, freedom loving, objective, logical, pluralistic persons irrespective of their religious affiliation would appreciate and applaud his article on “How to wipe out Islamic Terrorism?”

These academicians seem to know more than Dr. Abdul Kalam’s assessment of Hindus, their philosophy, their culture, their religion, their tolerance, their mindset, and their respect for freedom. For centuries Hindu have welcomed by almost all the religions with open hands, respected them and allowed them to practice their religion. Jewish people openly declared that the India is the only country that has not discriminated. Like wise Parsees, the descendents of Zoroastrians, were thrown out from their homeland, Persia, to be welcomed by India. Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and many others religions lived peacefully. In fact, on December 1, 2011 Sri Dalai Lama proudly announced that “I consider myself as a son of India” and carries the message of ahimsa across the globe and says that the country’s spiritual leaders should promote love and harmony in India and outside. Further he observed “that India has so many languages and dialects, yet remains strongly united because there is the freedom of speech and rule of law.”

Additionally, India welcomed with open hands two other religions – Islam and Christianity. These two religions profess their superiority and exclusivity. One is damned in hell if they do not believe in their God. In the name of God, Islamic invaders caused untold atrocities on Hindus. Suffice to mention the gloomy picture described by Koenraad Elst: “The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).” Goa inquisition is as bloodiest as Islamic onslaught on Hindus. Genocide of Hindus by these two religions is described in greater details if one is objective and rational. No Hindu would ever think of this kind of brutality, cruelty and viciousness even to their worst enemies, let alone do it.

The decision to remove two courses Dr Swamy was teaching for years is blot on the reputation of the university, blotch on the credentials of the faculty, stain on the objectivity of the faculty, blemish on the faculty’s grasp of the nearly eight centuries Islamic terror, spot on the integrity of the faculty, and a show case for the abuse of academic authority. Arrogance of academic power, pure hatred toward Hindus pluralism, alignment with religion that abhors human freedom and dignity, associating with no-productive petro dollars, and negation of the history of Islamic barbarism are unpardonable offenses committed by the pseudo secular scholars at Harvard.

The so-called liberal faculty members at Harvard thought the Dr. Swamy’s article is equal to incitement of violence and a hateful speech.

Amnesia at Harvard

It appears that many of the faculty members seem to experience Islamic amnesia – they experience memory loss, suffer from forgetfulness, and become totally blank when it comes to Islamic terror that reined India and continue to terrorize many countries. They close their eyes, plug their ears and tape their mouths when it comes to talk about the destruction of thousands of Hindu Temples by the Muslims, killing of millions and millions of Hindus, mass raping of untold number of Hindu women, pillage of national treasures and whole sale conversion of Hindus into Islam at gunpoint.

Would they be willing to remove all the Islamic courses because these courses talk about Terror, violence, destruction and mass killings? The faculty members at Harvard appear to either justify or ignore all the atrocities committed by Muslims on Hindus for more than eight centuries.

Are the Harvard Faculty Jaundiced eyed?

Any persons suffering from the medical condition known as jaundice would see everything as yellow. It means the person with jaundiced eye would have a prejudiced view, usually negative, prejudiced, subjective, biased or critical. The blind association with the so-called liberal thinking may have interfered with the objectivity, rationality, and balanced opinion – the hallmark of academicians – causing them to see Dr. Swamy’s article through jaundiced eyes.

Past History: The human beings are relentlessly tortured to make a decision by between two seemingly contrasting areas of human endeavor, namely, the pursuit of livelihood and the reality of existence. No matter how idealistic one may be, one cannot the escape from the past, present and future. Faculty members at Harvard chose to ignore the past history of the Islamic atrocities in India that experienced the untold misery. As many as 80 million Hindus were brutally murdered, millions of women were raped, millions of people were disfigured, thousands of Temples were destroyed, thousands of Hindu Temples were converted to Mosques including Taj Mahal, Qutub Minar & Kaaba in Saudi Arabia, a number of Mosques were built either on the Hindu religious places or built in front of them, and converted Hindus into Islam. Many people keep moaning and whining about the demolition of Babri Masjid forgetting the 14 centuries of destruction of Temples, mass killings, wholesale rape of Hindu women, and forced conversion of Hindus. Sitaram Goel compiled a list of 2000 mosques that were converted from Hindu Temples. He listed them by the present name of the mosques, the earlier name of the Hindu Temples and the location state by state, for any fair minded to read, digest and comprehend. They would not say a word about the horrific history.

Present status: Similarly the Faculty members decided to overlook the present conditions in India and how Muslims are aggressively planning to convert India in to three Muslim countries. At first SIMI, Indian Mujahideen, ISI from Pakistan, and others are relentlessly creating terror in the major cities killing scores of people, blasting Hindu Temples and Hindu pilgrimage centers and declaring fatwa against any body who criticizes Islam, imposing Jizya tax on Hindus in Muslim dominated cities and making India as part of Dar-ul-Islam (world Islam). For all practical purposes, Article 370 excluded Hindus to own any property. Can any of these distinguished professors find any parallels to this kind of provision in any other country? Will it be acceptable for these Faculty members to exclude Muslims from owning land in any one of the states in India? Nearly half a million Kashmiri Pandits were chased out from their homeland and forced to live in tents. Almost all the districts in West Bengal bordering Bangladesh have millions of Muslim infiltrators tilting the balance toward Muslim state. Rampage and terror continues even today forcing Hindus to flee from their villages. Converting many Hindus into Islam through Love Jihad is continuing openly. The Muslim Clerics openly asking their faithfuls to have eight children to make Kerala a Muslim State. The list goes on.

Future outlook: Like wise the Faculty members should also look at what might happen in the future based on the past history and present conditions. One does not have to be an expert in Islamic Expansion to find out what might happen. Just look around, you will see it. There are as many as 52 Islamic countries where other religions are abhorred or barred from practicing their religion. In Saudi Arabia no body can take even Bhagad Gita or any other Hindu scriptures. It is also a known fact that majority of these countries are undemocratic, mostly controlled and ruled by Islamic fundamentalists and Al Qaeda. Individual rights are denied. One has to submit to Allah, because “there is no God but Allah.” That means they do not accept neither Hindu Gods nor Christian Jesus. There would not be any freedom, pluralism and independence left in those countries. Neither the members of FAS nor an average citizen are worth any more. In Pakistan, at the time of Independence in 1947, Hindu population was about 20 percent. Today, not even a fraction of one percent is left. They were either brutally killed or converted to Islam. Out of 428 Hindu temples at the time Independence, not even 25 Temples are functional. Similar story continues in Bangladesh. At the time of Independence, Hindu population was between 28-30 percent. Today, Hindus account for less than 7 percent of the population. Most of them were either killed or forced to convert. In India, Muslim population was about 9 percent at the time of Independence; today their population increased to more than 14 percent. Their fertility rate is much higher than any other religious group.

Coexistence is anathema for Islam and to some extent for Christianity. Wherever they went they either terminated the local population, converted them, conducted inquisitions, imposed jizya tax, destroyed the Hindu Temples, or decimated the local cultures. Hindus accept dialogue, discussions, criticism and debate. Hindus do not believe in conversion by any means to hoist the flag of hegemony in other countries. How many faculty members can talk about these 52 plus countries and examine as to how they were able to make these countries Islamic nations? How come they cannot accept the concept of Hindu Nation and call Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s statement as hateful? Can they also declare the Islamic countries as hateful, vicious, and destructive? Have they ever examined the freedom of speech and freedom of worship of the minorities in these Islamic countries? Is it not their moral responsibility to question the freedom issue in these Islamic countries?

What is expected of Academicians?

Academicians in general are expected to demonstrate honesty, integrity, objectivity, fairness, rationality and professionalism conduct are expected. Their presentation of views and opinions should be couched in scientific evidence. They are also expected to have broad knowledge where they should give both side of the argument, rather than being biased based on affiliation, association, allurement and monetary inducements.

Faculty members have the responsibility of adhering to the Free Speech Guidelines adopted by the faculty. It states that the “Free speech is uniquely important to the University because we are a community committed to reason and rational discourse. Free interchange of ideas is vital for our primary function of discovering and disseminating ideas through research, teaching and learning. Curtailment of free speech undercuts the intellectual freedom…”

When Professor Diana Eck says “Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places,” and “Harvard has a moral responsibility not to affiliate itself with anyone who expresses hatred towards a minority group.”

Professor Sugata Bose states that “[Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement] is like saying Jewish Americans and African Americans should not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants”

Being a Historian, Dr Bose should know better than that and compare apples with apples. What a tragedy. These are the professors teaching young students and molding them to hate Dr. Swamy’s article but never open their mouths about the hateful, violent, destructive and demeaning verses in Quran. Hiding behind freedom of speech, they are distorting the views of Dr. Swamy. Comparing the statement that Muslims accept their Hindu ancestry to Jewish American and African American accept the supremacy of Anglo Saxon Protestant is nothing but a blatant distortion of Dr. Swamy. One wonders about the competency of these professors in teaching at Harvard.

Now the question is what kind of research they have conducted about Islamic terror in India and the satanic verses in Quran. How many of them know that as many as 3400 people were killed by Islamic terrorists in the last one decade? They have failed to follow the guidelines adopted by the faculty – disseminating ideas through research.

These faculty members are not lay people, uneducated, biased and subjective who express their opinions without any scientific research. They are expected to be authority on the subject they speak about. What kind of research they have done and how many of them have done research on Quran and Islamic open war against Hindus in India?

What happened to the moral responsibility of the faculty members in addressing these issues?

Academic abuse of authority

Based on the controversial decision taken at Harvard with regard to Summer School offerings, every University should look at the standard procedure of a group of faculty members approving the courses for that school. This has been a norm for centuries; it is nothing new. An incident like this opens every body’s eyes and wonder as to “how can it be.”

Decisions are made by the faculty members of a particular School as to whether a course can be offered in a given semester. In each School there may be as many as 10 – 30 departments representing different disciples. That means if the Economics Department would like to offer Economics 101, decision is made by overwhelming majority of non-economists. The faculty members in the field of Sanskrit, Comparative Religion, philosophy, Islamic Studies, History, Sociology, Anthropology, Music, Art, Mathematics, Statistics, English and other fields decide depending on their clicks, associations and / or favors. Traditionally the faculty members would follow the recommendations of the department concerned. They have over stepped their boundaries in removing these courses.

Regarding the two courses Dr. Swamy was teaching over the years, the distinguished professors used their biases, prejudices, hatefulness, narrow-mindedness, and vindictiveness in rejecting the courses. There is nothing wrong with the courses except that these courses were to be taught by Dr. Swamy. Many of these faculty members have no clue as to the ground reality in India. Many of them have no expertise in the field of neither Economics nor Islam. But they can dispose these courses even if the God proposes. They are given that kind of authority. It is time for all Academic Universities to probe the academic abuse of their authority.

Can these Academicians call the following verses in Quran HATEFUL?

If these distinguished faculty members consider Dr. Swamy’s article a hateful speech, what would they call the following verses in Quran. Just for their perusal, we listed only few.

What do Professors Eck, Witzel, Kelly, Bose and others say about these verses?

Quran contains many verses that offend the sentiments of Hindus, their worship practices, and their numerous gods because they are considered kafirs (non-believers). These verses create enmity between the religions, create disharmony, create poisonous climate for the destruction of Hind images, belittle the belief system, and encourage killing of non-believers (Hindus). Hindus believe in peaceful coexistence while the Quran believes in total domination with no rights for non-believers.

Idol worshippers

[31:13] Recall that Luqmaan said to his son, as he enlightened him, “O my son, do not set up any idols beside GOD; idolatry is a gross injustice.”

[12:106] The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship.

[4:48] GOD does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who sets up idols beside GOD, has forged a horrendous offense.

[4:116] GOD does not forgive idol worship (if maintained until death), and He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who idolizes any idol beside GOD has strayed far astray.

[39:65] It has been revealed to you, and to those before you that if you ever commit idol worship, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers.

[72:18] The places of worship belong to GOD; do not call on anyone else beside GOD.

Idolaters are unclean just because they are idolater
9.28: O you who believe! The idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He pleases; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

Forcing non-believers to pay tax
9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

2.62, 5.69 : All except Muslims / Jews/Christians / Sabians will go to hell
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

Smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers
8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Smite the neck of unbelievers
47.4: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

Now, would the Faculty Cancel courses on Islam?

As documented above, these verses openly advocate the killing of non-believers, destruction of the idols, smiting the necks of unbelievers, the imposition of taxes on nonbelievers, and condemning nonbelievers to hell. How many distinguished faculty members would like to vote on these verses as vicious, inciting, hateful, vicious, and evil? If you cannot vote, how many of them are willing to conduct research on these verses? How many of them are willing to discuss each of these and other verses in Quran openly in the University campus? All the faculty members who voted to scrap these courses from the Summer School denying Dr. Swamy to teach should be honest to their consciousness, integrity, and professionalism. Pascal may have Muslims in his mind when he stated that “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

Reinstate Dr. Swamy, restore credibility, and regain the lost prestige

We earnestly request the President of the University, the faculty, the staff and the students to reintroduce these courses and reinstate Dr. Swamy to teach these courses. It is the right thing, a noble thing and an honest thing to do. Freedom of speech cannot be railroaded by select group of non-experts in the field. The reasons for removal of these courses are based on the supposed hatefulness in Dr. Swamy’s article, then the University should apply the same yardstick to all the Islamic courses based on Quran since it contains hundreds of hateful passages about non-believers. University’s reputation cannot be a sacrificial lamb for certain vested interested, anti-Hindus and self-professed secular liberals. University is a citadel for research, investigation and reasoning. The faculty should look at all sides of the issues rather than carried away by personal prejudices, ignorance and associations. It takes courage, guts and nerve to reverse the decision. The faculty and the President have this rare opportunity to correct the wrong. Every body will be a winner. No body will be a looser for doing the right thing.

– Global Hindu Heritage Foundation

Communal Violence Bill – Dr.Subramaniam Swami file complaint on Sonia


Dr Subramanian Swamy , President of Janata Party, A-77, Nizamuddin East, Sector 18, Rohini, New Delhi-110013:


SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh, Sector 18, Rohini, Crime Branch, New Delhi.

Re: Registering of FIR u/s 153A & B, 295A & 505(2) of Indian Penal Code.

Dated: October 24, 2011.

1. In public interest I am sending by Courier service a complaint in my name against Chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi of National Advisory Council, which has its office at 2 Motilal Place, New Delhi-110011, Tel: 23062582, and also against unnamed other members of the said NAC for committing offences of propagating hate against the Hindu community of India by circulating for enacting as law a Draft Bill described as PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE BILL OF 2011. This Draft Bill has been posted on the NAC official website, is dated July 21, 2011 and sent for adoption by Parliament. That this 2011 Draft Bill is mischievous in content of targeting the Hindu community, malafide, unreasonable and prejudicial to public order, is apparent from the second section of Explanatory Note [Annexed herein] to the Draft Bill titled “Key Provisions of the Bill”, thereby inciting crimes against the Hindu community with impunity, and thus committing offences u/s 153A & B, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The UPA Government in December, 2005 had introduced earlier a Draft Bill [2005] in the Parliament described as THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS) BILL (2005).

3. The Draft Bill however did not find favour with any Party. Leaders of several political parties felt that the Draft Bill provided sweeping powers to the Central Government thus undermining the authority of the State Governments. But the most vocal opposition to this draft Bill came from the Muslim, Christian and so called secular quarters. Their contention was just the opposite of what the political leaders were saying. The view of Muslim and Christian groups was that the 2005 Draft Bill was “completely toothless”. They demanded that the powers of managing communal violence be vested in non-government actors and make governments and administration at all levels accountable them for communal violence.

4. The All India Christian Council was in the forefront of this campaign against the 2005 Draft Bill as being “too weak”. In a letter written to the Prime Minister, Ms Sonia Gandhi, herself a Christian, through the AICC had conveyed to the PM the Christian Council concerns about the 2005 Draft Bill, and then revised the same as the 2009 Draft Bill.

5. The Muslim bodies too joined in the protest campaign against the draft as being too weak. They wanted provisions to make police and civil administration and state authorities “accountable” to public bodies. The Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE) made the demand on behalf of these organizations. JCMOE also urged the government to convene a meeting of leaders of “targeted communities” to note their views on the Bill as follows:

“The Bill does not make police or administration or state authorities accountable and provide for timely and effective intervention by the National Human Rights Commission, if the communal violence spreads or continues for weeks, or by the Central Government under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, duly modified. On the other hand, ironically, the Bill grants more power to the local police and administration, which, more often than not acts in league with the rioters by declaring the area as ‘communally disturbed area’ JCMOE statement said.

6. It is interesting to note that these two statements, the Muslim and the Christian, come at around the same time as though they were premeditated. They probably were.

7. From their arguments in opposition to the Draft Bill, it is clear that they wanted a Bill that would consider only the Christians and Muslims as the “generally targeted” victims of communal violence; and that the word ‘communal violence’ be re-defined in such a way that only the Muslims and Christians are treated as victims and Hindus as predators, and that the local police and administration, including the State administration, considered hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of violence. Hence the Bill should empower the Central Government to invoke Art. 355 and 356 of the Constitution against any state in the event of such communal violence.

8. Since the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill (2005) does not discriminate between the perpetrators and victims of communal violence on religious grounds and also it does not envisage the State administration as committed in preventing such violence, these groups wanted the Bill to be withdrawn.

9. The National Advisory Council (NAC) was re-constituted in 2009 by the UPA Government again under the chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. The UPA Government promptly handed over the re-drafting of the Bill to the newly constituted NAC and asked it to come up with a fresh draft.

10. The basic communally provocative premise of the re-drafted Bill is that: a) there is a non-dominant group in every State in the form of religious and linguistic minority which is always a victim of violence; b) the dominant majority (usually Hindus) in the State is always the perpetrator of violence; and c) the State administration is, as a rule, biased against the non-dominant group.

11. The object of the re-drafted Bill thus was the basic premise of the NAC that the majority community – read Hindus – are the perpetrators of communal violence in India and the minority – read Muslims and Christians – are the victims, clearly is incitement of religious strife.

12. What is more important is to conclude is that in all cases of communal and targeted violence, dominant religious and linguistic group at the State level is always the perpetrator and the other the victims. Similarly the conclusion that the State machinery is invariably and always biased against the non-dominant group is a gross misstatement of the sincerity and commitment of millions of people who form State administration in the country.

13. This dangerous premise is the incitement of communal strife in this Bill.

14. One can safely conclude that the script writers of this Bill are themselves blinded with religious biases. In India communal violence happens mostly because of politico-communal reasons. In many instances, as documented by several Commissions of Inquiry, it is the so-called minority group that triggers the trouble. We hence need laws that can prevent such violence irrespective of whoever perpetrates it. To argue that since the administration is always biased in favour of the dominant group we need acts that are biased in favour of the non-dominant group is imprudent and puerile.

15. The final Draft is available on the NAC website now. One is not sure when the same will be placed before the Parliament. However, a close scrutiny of the Draft is essential to understand the serious implications of and threats from it to our national integration, social harmony and Constitutional Federalism.

16. This Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to whole country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Note that J&K is one of the two States in India (excluding the North East and other tiny UTs) that has Hindus as minority – the ‘non-dominant group’ according to this Bill. Punjab is the other State where the Sikhs constitute the majority, while in the rest of the entire country it is the Hindus who constitute ‘dominant group’ and by implication the perpetrators of communal violence, according to this Draft Bill.

17. The mischief in the drafting primarily lies in the ‘Definitions’ part contained in Art.3 of the first chapter. Art. 3 (c ) defines Communal and Targeted Violence as under:-

“Communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group”.

18. The mischief is centered round the word ‘Group’. Art 3(e) defines what constitutes a ‘Group’.

“Group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses of the Constitution of India;

19. Having thus established that the individual member of the Minority community is always considered a part of the Minority group the Draft Bill goes on to add several detrimental clauses subsequently. Art.3 (f) defines ‘Hostile environment against a group’ thus:

“Hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:

(i) boycott of the trade or business of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or

(ii) publicly humilitate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation of any act of indignity; or

(iii) deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights;


(iv) force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livlihood without his or her express consent; or

(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.”

Note the Clause (v) – ‘Any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act’. The intention here seems to be to make anything and everything an offence, even if it doesn’t come under any definition of an offence. It is clear that the entire definition of ‘hostile environment’ is malafide.

Clause (k) defines who is a ‘victim’. Here the draft makers are very explicit:

“victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or hr property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;

“Victim” can only be belonging to a ‘group’ as defined under this Act. And the group as defined under this Act is the Minority – the ‘non-dominant group’. That means this act will consider only the Minority as the victims. And he or she will become a ‘victim if he or she has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm….’ Now, physical harm is measurable, mental harm is difficult to gauge, but how on earth can anyone define ‘psychological harm’? The Bill does not define it. Then how can be so-called ‘psychological harm’ be one of the reasons for victimhood?

Similarly, Art. 4 (a) states as follows:

4. Knowledge. – A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person’s membership of that group where;

(a) he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group;

20. Art 7 of the draft Bill defines ‘sexual assault’. It is by far the most widely covered definition that is very much needed to protect women from becoming targets of sexual violence as part of communal violence. But against the problem is that this definition is applicable to the women belonging to Minority group and women of the Majority community cannot benefit from it. Secondly, it also states that in a case of communal violence sex by consent also can be construed as a crime.

21. Patriotic Indians now realize that the present draft Bill is a standing proof that neo Jinnah-ism – the belief that the minority is perpetually oppressed in India by the Hindu majority – is still poisoning our minds even today by mischievous minds..

22. The present Draft Bill will only promote disharmony. With these kind of laws the LeTs and Hujls across the border need not have to promote terrorism in our territory anymore. All that they need to do is to encourage a minor communal riot and they can achieve what they want – huge rift between the Majority and Minority communities.

23. Hence, the NAC, with Ms Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, and other members have jointly committed offences under IPC Sections 153A & B, 295A, and 505(2).

24. It is significant that even well known persons of secular credentials have condemned this Bill as divisive. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalitha has in a Press Release dated July 29, 2011 [Annexed] has concluded that “the remedy sought [in the Draft Bill] to be provided against communal and targeted violence is worse than the disease itself”.

25. Therefore, this complaint be taken as a basis to register an FIR and conduct investigation into the communal mentality of the NAC chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi and other members and take necessary action under the law to prosecute the offenders under the cited sections of the IPC.


Source : http://www.samvada.org