US embassy cable - 05NEWDELHI9231

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 009231 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/07/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, PINR, PHUM, KISL, IN, Indian Domestic Politics, Human Rights 
SUBJECT: GOI INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS COMMUNAL 
VIOLENCE 
 
Classified By: Political Counselor Geoff Pyatt, for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) 
 
1.  (C) Summary:  Over stringent opposition from BJP-ruled 
states, the Congress government  devised a bill to prevent 
the outbreak and spread of communal rioting by allowing New 
Delhi to intervene in any state experiencing communal 
violence.  On December 5, the UPA unexpectedly diluted the 
bill to allow federal intervention only at the request of 
state governments and instead of submitting it to Parliament 
for a vote as originally announced, sent it to committee for 
further consideration.  Disappointed human rights activists 
and Muslim leaders interpreted the UPA's action as a sign of 
weakness and an indication that Congress is not fully 
committed to protecting vulnerable minorities from violent 
attack.  This could convince more Muslims to withhold support 
from Congress and throw their crucial votes to regional 
parties.  End Summary. 
 
The UPA Introduces a Bill 
------------------------- 
 
2.  (U) The UPA government has long been concerned about the 
prospect of another communal conflagration such as the one 
that took place in Gujarat in 2002.  In Gujarat, the BJP 
government of Chief Minister Narendra Modi failed to take 
decisive action to prevent or stop widespread attacks against 
Muslims by militant Hindus.  The UPA drafted The Communal 
Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) 
Bill to ensure that a similar event does not happen again. 
The Bill, as originally drafted, would have given the Federal 
Government the power to declare any area of any state as 
"disturbed" when communal rioting breaks out, and to deploy 
paramilitary or military forces to stop the violence.  After 
the rioting is suppressed, the government would have the 
power to convene special courts to try those arrested, and 
state and federal officers would enjoy legal immunity for 
"anything done in good faith," to enforce the provisions of 
the bill. 
 
But Waters it Down Almost Immediately 
------------------------------------- 
 
3.  (U) Although the Bill was aimed at reining in 
irresponsible state governments and preventing the 
victimization of minorities, the UPA was not willing to take 
on the state governments that would have objected.  To 
head-off a possible confrontation, the UPA watered-down the 
bill by removing the provisions giving the Federal Government 
the power to unilaterally intervene in a riot situation.  The 
new version specified that New Delhi could only intervene at 
the request of the government of the effected state. 
 
4.  (U) Muslim and Human Rights groups, disappointed by the 
UPA's apparent lack of backbone, complained that a 
"communally insensitive" state government would never request 
Federal intervention, and that the new bill would do nothing 
to change the existing status quo.  Some human rights 
activists also complained that the bill would have put 
draconian powers in the hands of local police, and objected 
to the provisions enabling the GOI to establish "special 
courts" and providing immunity from law suits or prosecution 
to state and federal officials. 
 
And Then Withdraws It 
--------------------- 
 
5.  (U) With the NDA opposition increasingly outspoken and 
energized, the UPA was unsure that it had sufficient support 
to pass the bill and on September 5 referred it to the 
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs for further 
consideration rather than putting it up for a vote.  It also 
put the bill up on a website and invited comments from the 
public. 
 
A Perennial Problem 
------------------- 
 
6.  (C) Communal outbreaks are a perennial problem in India. 
Since independence the GOI has relied on President's Rule as 
the last resort when it appeared that the violence would get 
out of the control of state authorities.  In 1992, New Delhi 
declared President's rule to deal with the rioting that 
engulfed parts of the country after the destruction of the 
Babri Mosque.  In 2002, the GOI seriously considered imposing 
president's rule to suppress the rioting in Gujarat, but 
decided against it, since the state government was controlled 
by the ruling BJP.  This bill as originally drafted would 
have provided the GOI with an interim measure to deal with 
communal violence short of dismissing the state government. 
 
 
While A Muslim Leader is Less Than Enthused 
------------------------------------------- 
 
7.  (C) In a December 7 conversation with Poloff, Maulana 
Mohammad Athar, the head of the All India Shia Personal Law 
Board (AISPLB) showed little interest in the bill.  Stating 
that his organization supported any measure aimed at curbing 
communal violence, Athar confided that the AISPLB did not 
take a public stance on this particular bill.  Noting that 
Muslims were the principal victims of communal rioting, Athar 
complained that it did little good to pass legislation that 
is not enforced. 
 
8.  (C) Athar pointed out that the GOI was only interested in 
addressing the symptoms, as it did not have the will to 
address the root of the problem.  In Athar's estimation, 
communal rioting is engineered by power-hungry politicians 
working together with organized criminals.  He urged the GOI 
to "decriminalize" politics by unseating the over 100 MPs 
with criminal records and ensuring that no more criminals can 
get elected.  Athar also urged the GOI to provide financial 
support to those NGO's both secular and religious that are 
standing up to the criminal politicians and taking steps to 
ensure communal harmony.  The GOI should also arrest and 
convict politicians of any party who incite communal riots. 
He expressed little faith that the UPA government had the 
will to implement his suggestions. 
 
Comment - Little Action to Address a Huge Problem 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
9.  (C) The UPA government paints itself as the secular 
alternative to the "communal" forces of the BJP/NDA, and 
tells religious minorities that it will protect them from the 
forces of Hindu nationalism.  This half-step attempt to 
address the issue will disappoint those Muslim and other 
minorities who supported the UPA and could further convince 
many in the Muslim community to remain aloof from a Congress 
Party which does not seem genuinely interested in their 
welfare. 
MULFORD