Islamic Voice A Monthly English Magazine

October 2011
COVER STORY ISLAM IN THE WEST THE MUSLIM WORLD OBSERVATIONS MEDIA COMMUNITY ROUND UP MEDICO-ETHICAL ISSUES EDITORIAL LETTERS ANALYSIS FEATURE ISLAMOPHOBIA MANNERS AND ETIQUETTE SOUL TALK QURAN SPEAKS TO YOU UNDERSTANDING QURAN HADITH ILLUMINATES THE PATH OUR DIALOGUE ENTREPRENEURSHIP MATRIMONIAL UPDATE GLOBAL AFFAIRS LIFE AND RELATIONSHIP TRAVELOGUE CHILDRENS CORNER SCHEDULE FOR DISCOVER YOURSELF WORKSHOP
ZAKAT Camps/Workshops Jobs Archives Feedback Subscription Links Calendar Contact Us

EDITORIAL

For a Riot-free Reign
If nothing else, the ferocity and partisan attitude of the police force during the recent communal violence in Gopalgadh area in Mewat region of Rajasthan stresses the urgency to put in place an effective legislation against communal violence. It is indeed regrettable that the proposed Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparation) Bill, 2011 has been shot down by several state governments. Infringement of powers of states within a federal structure and fear of undue intervention by the Central Government within jurisdiction of States has ostensibly stalled the progress of the Bill through the houses. Although major opposition rose from States being ruled by the NDA, non-NDA governments too have raised objections.
History of communal riots and targeted violence against groups bears testimony that mayhem in majority of these cases has always been premeditated and Centre’s hands have always been tied against firm action. It is mainly because all such actions are likely to turn into accusation of interference against State governments, more so in a polyglot polity in evidence since the end of 1990s. Riots, as is seen all this while, are normally the culmination of sustained poisonous propaganda, deliberate sowing of hatred, overplay of identity-related issues and fomenting communal friction with an intention to light the communal fuse. Few of them have had the element of spontaneity. To this extent, the Bill was on right track. It was accurate in identifying the vested interests in promotion and persistence of communal virus in body politics of the nation. No wonder then why NDA State Governments were vociferous in their attempt to stall the bill. Curiously, the NDA has chosen the issue of drafting committee i.e., the National Advisory Council (NAC) headed by Sonia Gandhi National Advisory Council (NAC), to be the major ground for its rejection, dubbing the Council an extra-Constitutional body. It is a grotesque irony. The same NDA did not see any qualms in forcing the similarly ‘extra-Constitutional Anti-Corruption Bill’ down the throat of the Parliament only last August.
However, the objections do have some substance when it comes to federal structures and a fresh look, should hopefully, address the fears of states.
The Bill has indeed several bright features. It deems the occurrence of such violence as internal disturbance, provides for formation of a central authority for communal harmony with sweeping powers to requisition officers and information from every level of administration and even non-state actors, conferment of powers of a civil court on such an authority, and fixes compensation for death and rape of victims of communal violence. Wish-list of the potential victims of targeted violence could have been longer and one could have hoped for inclusion of checks on hate campaign too. But for the time being, the Bill would have been sufficient to nip the violence in its physical form, in the bud.
With India emerging on the world map as a major economic player, peace and harmony among its bewilderingly diverse people and communities, would be a prerequisite to be recognized as a major power. Violence in any form should not continue to smudge its copybook as it has done during the last 20 years which have seen phenomenal economic progress despite disruptive effect of the divisive nature of the violence. Elimination of violence and distributive justice in economic sphere would be the twin pillars around which the nation can hope to rise in the estimation of the comity of nations.
Bereft of Credibility
The President of the United States is considered to be the most legally powerful man on the earth. But US President Obama’s refusal to support statehood for Palestinians in the wake of mounting pressure from Israel serves to indicate the actual sinews of power of the world’s most powerful democracy. When it comes to the question of any concession to Palestine or its embattled residents, the American Presidents, otherwise known for ordering wars against and devastation of supposedly hostile nations, are rendered lame-duck for all practical purposes.
Obama’s plight is not unique. Most of the predecessors were no better than him. With Netanyahu receiving more standing ovations than Obama in the US, and Israeli premier already seen in the role of interlocutor between White House and the Republicans—who dominate the House of Representatives—on key issues, Obama is likely to remain beholden to Israel for rest of the term. Corporate stranglehold of the American democracy has rendered it Democracy Inc. And now Israeli tail wagging the American dog exposes the claims of the most powerful democracy for one and all to see and judge for themselves. The larger question then is: Should the peace in the most strife-torn part of the world remain so helplessly hinged to the vagaries of the polls prospect of the US president and shifting sand of politics in the US? If it is so—and indeed Obama’s pathetic attempt to stall the Palestinian statehood is a definite indication—then the ones cherishing peace and justice must begin to look for option better than democracy to achieve their ideals.
Obama has saddened the world, especially the Arab folk, with his speech in the UN. He had raised hopes of responsive and democratic governance in the Arab world with several of his initiatives including the Cairo speech. If not the UN, from where else should the peace efforts seek legitimacy? With the US president’s hands tied against the aggressor, oppressor and expeller, how could its credibility as an honest broker in the Middle East Peace Process be tested? The US would owe answers to several such questions.