Date: 07/02/2016

OP Gupta,
Indian Foreign Service [1971] [Retd.]
National President Bharat Raksha Manch

1. As we are aware the National Advisory Council headed by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, a Roman Catholic Christian prepared the first draft of what is now known as the Prevention of Communal & Targeted Violence [Access to Justice and Reparation] Bill 2011. There are 135 sections in this Bill with four schedules. The July 2011 version of this Bill is available at
2. The Prevention of Communal & Targeted Violence [PCTV] Bill is an anti-national draft law as it would destroy social harmony existing among different sections of Indian people and widen gulf between majority & minorities. It makes legal presumption of majority to be guilty of all crimes alleged by any minority, religious or linguistic so it is anti-majority therefore anti-democratic too. Being anti-majority it is obviously an anti-Hindu Bill. It militates against the Constitutional spirit of equality of all citizens, militates against principles of secularism & multi-cultarism and will further fragment the Indian society vertically. This Bill is open assault on human rights of all Hindus. Whether leftists or rightists, whether living in India or abroad.
3. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was born as Edvige Antonia Albina Maino in Italy. She has been an Italian citizen by birth and now claims that she has legally become a naturalized Indian citizen though some persons continue to question legality of her claim. The NAC comprises persons handpicked by Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh both minority persons. One report suggests that there is no Hindu member in the NAC; members with Hindu sounding names in NAC are either Buddhists or crypto-Christians or atheists. This aspect needs further probe. The NAC is packed with well known Hindu baiters.
Similarly the Sachar Committee & Misra Commission were numerically dominated by minorities and their reports are cooked up to rob all Hindus [including leftists, SC, ST & OBC Hindus] 15% of promotional avenues, 15% of employment, 15% of educational seats and 15% of economic opportunities [PE-3].
4. Fundamental principle of Indian criminal law is that everyone is presumed in law to be innocent till proven guilty before a court of law by an accuser. Supreme Court has held this principle to be one of human rights. But reversing this general principle Sonia Gandhi has got drafted this Bill in which every Hindu shall be presumed by Police and Courts to be guilty of all allegations to be made against him by minorities till that Hindu proves his innocence.
Thus for the first time in the history of modern India we all Hindus have been targeted and shall be presumed ab initio in law to be criminals by virtue of our birth in Hindu fold and Congress Party & its allies want to do so by cheating their Hindu voters. This Bill defames we all Hindus. So it is high time for every Hindu voter to come out of slumber and read text of this Bill.
5. Explanatory Note of July 21, 2011 to this Bill circulated by the NAC states that evidence from the State records and several of Commissions of Enquiry confirms institutional bias and prejudicial functioning of state organs when a minority is attacked so this Bill. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari, TK Thakur and Dipak Misra in judgment of December 15, 2011 unanimously rejected this perception of the NAC that the police [as an institution] was biased against the minorities [Criminal appeal number 1068 of 2006]. So the PCTV bill is in conflict with the Supreme Court judgment. The Bill exposes anti-Hindu mindset of framers & supporters of this Bill.
6. Hindus whether Leftists or Rightists, whether upper castes or lower castes, whether rich or poor shall have to be arrested merely on a complaint howsoever flimsy or fictitious by a Muslim or a Christian or any minority under the PCTV as Section 56 of this Bill declares all offences under this Act to be cognizable and non-bailable.
7. The PCVT Bill is based on another illegal & unconstitutional presumption that communal riots are always committed only by Hindus and never by minorities. Definition of group under section 3(e) and victim under Section 3(k) is such that this law can be invoked only against majority Hindus by minorities. Muslims, Christians who commit violence and similar hate propaganda against Hindus cannot be booked under this new law as they are not included in definition of 'group' and 'victim' so are exempt from it.
It is known that Muslims had attacked Hindus in India while demonstrating against Prophet Muhammad's caricatures published in Sweden. Violence in Gujarat in 2002 was started by Muslims by burning Hindu pilgrims at Godhra. There are cases of riots between Muslims & Christians. Muslims & Parsies. Shia & Sunnis etc. There are riots between Muslims and Christians in other countries such as Nigeria, Philippines, Egypt etc.
8. Analysing this Bill Arvindam Chaudhury, Editor, 'The Sunday Indian' & Director, Indian Institute of Planning and Management [IIPM] raised a very pertinent question: "There are many districts, towns and localities in India where Muslims and Christians outnumber Hindus. Who will then be blamed for communal violence and riots? Suppose there are riots in two towns of UP-one with a Muslim majority and one with Hindu majority....what will the police do in both these cases? Arrest only Hindus under PCTV because Indian law will state so" [Pioneer June 3, 2011].
9. Karan Thapar, a senior journalist wrote in the Hindustan Times of June 11, 2011; "The problem lies with the details of the NAC's bill. It starts with the presumption that communal violence is perpetrated by the majority community and the victims are members of religious or linguistic minorities. While that may be true of the horrific murders of 1984 and 2002, it's certainly not the full truth. The violence independent India witnessed in Meerut or Moradabad, Bengal, Assam and Kerala was also communal. No doubt the NAC's desire to protect minorities is laudable. But a law must be even-handed and non-discriminatory".
10. Under Section 3 (k) of the Bill a "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 her 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".
Invoking definition of Victim in Sec 3.k any relation of a minority person even with foreign nationality & living abroad say in USA, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or in Gulf countries can file complaint against any Hindu whether that Hindu lives in India or abroad [Section 2]. Thus fate of all Hindus whether living in India or abroad [Sec 2] would become worse than fate of Hindus in Pakistan if Hindu voters in India keep sleeping and keep voting to anti-Hindu parties like the Congress Party or its allies.
11. Under the PCTV Bill a Hindu against whom a Muslim including a Bangaladeshi Muslim infiltrator, a jehadi terrorist or a Christian or any minority including criminals makes a complaint he [Hindu] shall be presumed ab initio by Police and Courts to he guilty of all crimes alleged by a minority [Sections 70, 71 and 73]; that Hindu shall have to be arrested as all crimes under this Bill are cognizable and non-bailable [Section 56]; that Hindu shall have to prove his innocence before a Court; that the Muslim or Christian making complaint is not required to give any proof or evidence to support his allegations against the Hindu he has accused [Sections 70, 71 and 72]; that Hindu shall not be informed as to who has made complaint against him [Section 38]; consequently the accused Hindu shall not have right to cross examine his accuser(s) but Muslim or Christian who made the complaint shall be regularly informed about the progress of the case [Sections 35, 66
and 83]; that during the pendency of the case the Court can attach property of the accused Hindu even before he is found guilty, [Sec 80]. And in case Hindu is found guilty his property under section 81 shall be auctioned to pay damages to Muslims, Christians etc.
12. Under Sec 40 no statement made by a minority victim, a witness against Hindus or informants in the course of giving evidence before the National Authority shall subject him or her to or be used against him or her in any civil or criminal proceeding. In other words a witness giving false statement before National Authority against a Hindu cannot be prosecuted for giving false evidence against a Hindu. Thus this Bill encourages minorities to make false complaints against Hindus. This law has vast potential for misuse against Hindus and destroys confidence & harmony among different communities.
13. Hate propaganda by I Hindus against minorities is covered under Section 8 of the Bill so it will be punishable under this law but hate propaganda by Muslims and Christian Missionaries against Hindus are not covered under this Bill so Muslims & Christians cannot be booked under this law for spreading hatred against Hindus. It is well known that Christian missionaries who indulge in conversion do a systematic hate campaign against Hindu beliefs. Life imprisonment is the penalty for Hindus under this hate propaganda leading to Organised communal violence. Muslims and Christians will get lighter punishment under the Indian Penal Code for similar offences. It is apprehended that Christian missionaries may use this law to get arrested those Hindu priests who oppose conversion of Hindus into Christianity.
14. Section 11 of the Bill declares that 33 acts which are offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be deemed to be offences under the PCTV Bill too if committed by majority Hindus against minorities i.e. an accused Hindu shall be presumed to be guilty of even IPC offences till he proves his innocence. But if same 33 offences are committed by a minority person against. Hindus he will be tried in normal criminal court where that minority person shall be presumed by court to be innocent till he is proved guilty. The 33 acts include fabricating false evidence [192 IPC], disturbing religious assembly [296 IPC], unlawful assembly [141 IPC] etc.
15. If a Muslim woman or a minority woman complains of rape against a Hindu, he shall have to be arrested; upon the sole testimony of the victim it shall be presumed by Police & Courts that charge of rape is correct [Section 70] and the accused Hindu shall have to prove that charge against him is false and that Hindu will not know which woman has made complaint against him. If held guilty of rape the Hindu may be given life imprisonment under section 111. But if a Hindu woman is raped by a Muslim or a minority male then she has to prove charge of rape against that Muslim etc, and, her identity shall be told to her rapist and in case Hindu woman proves the crime minority rapist shall get maximum of only seven years jail under the IPC.
16. Taking advantage of the law contained in this Bill a religious minority can force any Hindu to sell his property to him or rent his property to him, can force a Hindu to write off debts a. minority owes to him, a minority employee or a minority subordinate of a Hindu can fix his own boss etc. If a Hindu landlord wants to evict his Muslim or Christian tenant he cannot do so as under this new law on complaint of harassment by tenant or by relatives of tenant he [Hindu] shall first be sent to jail. If a I Hindu has any Muslim or Christian employee or subordinate and pulls him up for unsatisfactory performance or dismisses him for inefficiency then wife or any relative of that minority employee can lodge complaint of causing mental or psychological harm which will he sufficient ground to arrest that Hindu CMD/ senior [Sec 3(k)].
17. If a Hindu refuses to do business with any minority because that minority person is rude or dishonest or supplies substandard products or does not pay in time or does not supply products in time, that Hindu will commit a non-bailable cognizable offence under Sec 3(f) (i) of PCTV and he shall have to be arrested. But if a Muslim or Christian boycotts Hindus, he shall not he arrested as boycotting of Hindus by minorities is not a crime under this Bill. Hindu business community must open their eyes before it is too late.
18. Where a designated judge is satisfied suo motu or upon a complaint he can ask a Hindu to leave the station [Sec 82 (1)] but that judge cannot ask any minority to leave the station. There are many anti-Hindu provisions in this Bill. At least one third of the government advocates dealing with PCTV law in one draft were required to be minorities and only those could be appointed as special prosecutors under this Act who are not objected to by any Muslim or Christian etc [Sec 78.3 of old draft]. Only advocates acceptable to Muslims etc could be appointed as government advocates for PCTV.
19. Section 29 of the PCTV Bill empowers a designated judge to take cognizance of offences without the accused Hindu being committed to him for trial.
20. There shall be a seven member National Authority at Central level and at provincial levels to monitor implementation of this law out of which at least four have to be minorities i.e. Hindus shall be in perpetual numerical minority in decision making body of this Authority. Majority Hindus have thus been reduced by the Congress Party to numerical minority in decision making bodies as was the ease during Islamic period.
Hindus howsoever secular or Marxist cannot be appointed as its Chairman and Vice Chairman vide Section 20.3 of this Bill.
21. The National Authority comprising unelected persons shall boss over all elected Chief Ministers too which is against principles of federalism and against principle of supremacy of elected representatives over unelected ones. [Section 73]
22. Under section 83(6) a minority victim can choose any advocate of his choice at government cost to prosecute a Hindu but when a Hindu wants to prosecute a minority he cannot have advocate of his choice at government cost.
23. Section 126 states that for prosecution of offences under Sec 9 there shall be no limitation of time. It means a Muslim or a Christian or a minority can reopen cases against Hindus of all past cases of what a minority can call Organised communal and targeted violence right from 1950 onwards if not earlier ones from the eighth century.
24. Under this Bill public servants including military officers of all security forces can he jailed from 3 years to life imprisonment under sections 117 [dereliction of duties], 118 [breach of command responsibility] and 119 [offences by other superiors for breach of command responsibility]. The official or procedural immunities available to public servants against prosecution shall not bar any proceeding under this Bill under section 73, Section 74 of the Bill stipulates that provision of prior sanction of the government under sections 196 and 197 CrPC shall not be available to public servants for their prosecution under this Bill. Therefore all Hindu civil servants must go through the text of this Bill thoroughly and minutely.
25. In order to save themselves from being victims of this law Hindus in general may start reducing all interactions with minorities. That is why many analysts rightly call this Bill divisive killing spirit of secularism and multi-cultarism.
26. In the Criminal Appeal No. 1068 of 2006 three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justnice Bhandari unanimously decided: "It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to he innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence' which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognised as a human right which cannot be wished away. See Narendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. (2004)10SCC699 and Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005)5SCC294. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Ganesan v. Rama S. Raghuraman and Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 83 where this Court observed: "Every accused is
presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The Presumption of innocence is human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. "These were reiterated by this Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors. (2011)4 SCC 324 also."
27. As Rajiv Gandhi had nullified the Shah Bano judgment of the Supreme Court similarly his widow Sonia Gandhi & Man Mohan Singh are trying to nullify all the above decisions of the Supreme Court through the Prevention of Communal & Targeted Violence Bill 2011.
28. With this Bill becoming a law all Hindus living in India or abroad will naturally be looked down upon by host communities as criminals by birth may face more immigration problems abroad. This Bill tarnishes international image of all Hindus and defames all Hindus, even those Hindus who vote for Congress Party. This Bill downgrades & defames Hindus as a race of criminals.
29. This Bill is thus worst than Aurangzebi firmans of 17th Century and reduces all Hindus to second class status and will force every Hindu to dance to the whims and fancy of every minority even if that minority is his driver, cook or employee. A relation of a minority employee can also lodge complaint. This Bill if enacted as a law shall give a legal weapon to every minority, even a beggar, to send to jail any Hindu he wants to settle his political or personal scores.
30. So this Bill &. Congress Party must be opposed by all Hindus whether leftists or rightists but through ballot boxes.