Opposition against passage of Anti-Black Magic Bill in ‘haste’
* The much-debated Anti-Black Magic Bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly
Staff Reporter
After
a long wait of over 20 years, the revised and re-revised Anti-Black
Magic Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday
evening. During the debate on the Bill that continued well past 8.30 pm,
Shiv Sena voiced its clear opposition while other Opposition parties
expressed ‘displeasure’ and sought certain explanations, amendments in
the Bill. The Ruling side supported the Bill.
After withdrawing the 2011 Bill, Social Justice Minister Shivajirao
Moghe introduced the much-awaited Anti-Black Magic Bill, 2013 in the
House. The Opposition members including Devendra Fadnavis, Gopal Shetty,
Yogesh Sagar, Dr Sudhakar Bhalerao (all BJP), Subhash Desai (Shiv
Sena), and Vivek Pandit sought to refer the Bill to Joint Committee
comprising members from both the Houses of State Legislature and seek
report within six months.
Initiating the debate on the Bill, Fadnavis discussed it threadbare. He
accused the Democratic Front (DF) Government of lacking decision-making
will-power. “Hence, it issued Ordinance after Dr Narendra Dabholkar’s
murder, without obtaining informed opinion. This haste has left many a
ambiguity in the Bill. There is no explanation whatsoever as to how the
provisions in this Bill are different from those in Indian Penal Code as
far as human sacrifice is concerned,” he said. He alleged that the
Government was using the Bill as an instrument to portray itself as
progressive and those suggesting amendments to make it a better law as
regressive. “Any legal instrument to meet desired goal or objective
should be perfect. But, in this case, the Bill is inadequate and
ambiguous,” he said.
According to Fadnavis, there were no provisions in Anti-Black Magic Bill
to aid prosecution or to increase conviction rate in cases of human
sacrifice. Besides, it was not clear whether the Government wanted to
make the society ‘faithless’. Referring to article of activist Shyam
Manav in Government’s official publication ‘Lokrajya’, Fadnavis demanded
that interpretations/explanations of various provisions cited by Manav
in the article should be incorporated in the Bill as ‘Saving Clause’.
“This will serve the purpose of making the Bill better. At the same
time, the Government should try remove misconceptions among people and
incorporate amendments suggested. Else, it should sent the Bill to Joint
Committee seeking report within six months. Do not pass it in haste,”
he said.
Abu Azmi (SP) spoke elaborately on the Bill and wanted to know how did
the Government plan to differentiate between good-natured and
ill-intentioned spiritual or religious leaders. He wanted to know if
action would be initiated against Muslims participating in Moharram
processions or performing ‘Khatna’ as these rituals involved physical
injury. “Even if the law is well-intentioned and is passed, can we
guarantee proper implementation of any law by police?” he asked while
stressing for safeguards to be incorporated so that devout people did
not suffer.
Girish Bapat (BJP) said that Hindus should not be targeted making use of
the provisions in the law. Deepak Kesarkar, Meenakshi Patil (PWP),
Bachchu Kadu also participated in the debate.
Don’t push ‘vague’
Bill: Sena to DF Subhash Desai called the preface of the Bill as
‘vague’ and said that there were no clear explanations for various terms
used. Opposing the Bill, he said that if the Government pushed the
Bill, Shiv Sena would not co-operate. He blamed Chief Minister
Prithviraj Chavan and DF Government for misleading the cops and failure
in tracing Dr Dabholkar’s murderers. Ravindra Waykar (Shiv Sena)
stressed for constitution of a Vigilance Committee with representation
to religious leaders also.
Ruling side supports the Bill
Nawab
Malik (NCP) said, “Do not pass the law merely as a tribute to Dr
Dabholkar. Pass it to stop exploitation of people in the name of faith.”
He also said that misconceptions among people needed to be removed, and
he flayed ‘some people’ misleading people by calling the Bill as
anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim or anti-faith. Babanrao Pachpute (NCP),
himself a Warkari, supported the Bill and appreciated Moghe and the
Government for efforts made. Dr Namdeo Usendi (Congress), Pravin Darekar
(MNS) supported the Bill.
Comments
Post a Comment