Protection of Civil Rights Act: Part 2 Emergency Law Making

Part 1 discussed the long journey of how the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976 came to be drafted, redrafted, and presented in parliament. This post will explore themes in parliamentary discussion of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. As this law was discussed partially after the imposition of the Emergency, discussion on the bill on the floor of the house is limited. Much of the discussion that is conducted is thematically resonant with the politics of the emergency era with class struggles and distrust of the government being important talking points. Emergency of another sort is also top of mind as mob violence and ritual harm are discussed in parliament in new and interesting ways.

Rights, Rurality and Economic Reforms

Krishna Chandra Halder, speaking at the introduction of the bill in May 1975, terms the PCRA as a “half-hearted step”. He begins his speech by focusing on the denial of Constitutional rights to equality, “citizenship rights” and “equal social rights” to Dalits and Adivasis. He charges the prime minister directly and states “The Congress Ministers and the Prime Minister proclaim before the world that our country is the biggest democracy in the world. But actually a huge mass of our population are deprived of equal rights, social rights and democratic rights. When all these hard working people are deprived of such rights then I think they have no right to claim that India is the biggest democracy in the world.”[1]

He states the bill does not go far enough in not defining untouchability, not recognising and addressing the fact that contests over land ownership and wages in factories lead to atrocities, and not recognising the institutional failure of the legal system in protecting Dalits when they do complain about untouchability. He firmly grounds the problem of untouchability as rooted to economic contests. He argues that Dalits form the majority of “the over-pressed and exploited people not only belong to rural areas but they are also keeping the wheels of our industries running and the wheels of our railways moving.” He points out that construction labourers in the Delhi belong to the Scheduled Castes and tribes and are denied human rights because of their caste. And argues that the problem of untouchability will not be solved without first addressing feudalism in Indian society and bringing about land and labour reforms. He warned that in not addressing the economic roots of the problem the government would provoke a class struggle.[2]

These sentiments echo the arguments made by K Matthew Kurian and Ajit Kumar Saha in the Joint Committee set up to draft the bill. However they noted that “the overwhelming majority of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes live in the villages. As such, their emancipation is dependent upon the abolition of all forms of social and economic oppression by landlords, money lenders, and the caste-minded village oligarchies.” Untouchability, in their view, was “rooted in a culture based on social and economic exploitation.” And argued that legislative efforts to curb untouchability would fail without radical land reforms, the spread of education, and guaranteed employment.[3]

In the Rajya Sabha, K.K. Madhavan highlighted how upward mobility through land reforms is leading to a violent backlash against Dalit citizens.[4] Bhola Prasad also argued that the slow progress of land reforms was hindering the project of eradicating untouchability. He urged the government to provide Dalit citizens in rural areas with fertile land and abolish bonded labour. Arguing that without these concrete measures, simply legislating on untouchability would be futile.[5] He was joined in this argument by Sikandar Ali Wajd.[6]

Abu Abraham argued that governments had an “attitude of doing charity to Harijans.” He argued that while the PCRA was a radical law, it would not serve its purpose until Dalits had the means to defend, organise and educate themselves. And that the government should invest in Dalit education and land reforms.[7]

Commitment and Implementation.

In the Lok Sabha in 1975, Krishna Chandra Haldar expressed concerns about government inaction on untouchability. He pointed out that untouchability was practiced even in temples managed by the government and blamed the Congress government for this failure. He spoke of atrocities committed against Dalits in Burdwan District that resulted in two deaths and how he had attempted to engage the police machinery in the state to be stone walled. He demanded that the government investigate the matter and provide answers.[8]

Sadhu Ram argued that the fact that the government had not yet managed make a dent in eradicating untouchability spoke to their apathy. He demanded a separate ministry to deal with Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe welfare and argued that without a targeted approach and increased resources untouchability was bound to continue. He also argued that at the village level the burden of prosecution of untouchability cases should not fall on Dalits, and that the state should step in by providing free legal aid to Dalit citizens and creating committees headed by the District Superintendent of Police that would prosecute these cases proactively.[9]

Sarjoo Pandey addressed a recent violent attack in Uttar Pradesh in his speech and asked “Is there a government in this country or no?” stating that the police had stayed away when required to act allowing for  violence to occur. He bemoaned the fact that violent incidents were happening every day in the country and stated that Dalits were treated as second-class citizens by the state. He demanded accountability from the union government. Arguing that the constitution entrusted the union government with responsibility for Dalit welfare and if they were to delegate that responsibility to states as law and order problems, the union government should play an active role in supervising the actions of the state governments.[10]

Distrust of legal and administrative institutions remained a consistent theme during the Rajya Sabha debate. Pannalal Barupal, B.S. Bhaura, Ramkanwar, and N.H. Kumbhar wrote a minute of dissent to the joint committee report arguing that the PCRA needed to more clearly define untouchability, that it was necessary to set up exact built-in statutory machinery such as a “Custodian of Civil Rights”  at the state and district levels to execute the provisions of the act instead of vaguely suggesting that the central and state governments appoint committees to “look into the implementation of the act,” that public servants neglecting their duties ought to be punished (the PCRA did not mandate punishment), and that the “denominational” qualifier to temple entry be removed. [11]

In the Rajya Sabha, K.K. Madhavan pointed out that under the PCRA, prosecutions against government officers could only proceed with permission of the government office and insisted that this be remedied.[12] Bhola Prasad also argued that the law was destined to fail without proper checks on government servants entrusted with implementing these acts. He called for errant government officers to not just be transferred but also prosecuted and punished for neglecting to enforce the act.[13]

S.K  Vaishampayen proposed that the law incorporate district-level vigilance committees to ensure implementation.[14] Towards the end of the discussion in parliament, N.H Kumbhare moved an amendment seeking the creation of a position titled  “Director of Civil Rights”, who would be tasked with surveying and reporting on disturbed areas and attempting conciliation between caste groups along the lines of the Elayaperumal report recommendations from five years prior. He argued that such a measure was required to ensure the act was enforceable, not a dead letter. Om Mehta, however, refused to accept his amendment, and Kumbhare ultimately withdrew it. [15]

Violence and Ritual harm.

Untouchability is discussed in the parliament as not just an economic problem, but also a violent problem stemming from ritual harm.

Speaking in the Lok Sabha in 1975 Sadhu Ram condemned Shankaracharya of Puri for his statements suggesting untouchability was prescribed by Hindu scripture. He argued that if this was true, the scriptures should be burned and everyone following those scriptures should be punished. He reminded the house that India had adopted a secular constitution and that commitment to secularism should entail prohibiting the practice of untouchability. He did not concede however that Shankaracharyas views on scripture were right or that Hinduism required the practice of caste.  He stated that “God did not create casteism, so why cannot the government remove it?” and accused the government of apathy.[16]

A year later in the Rajya Sabha, Yogendra Makwana highlighted how he had faced caste-based violence during election season and stated that this was a common mode of Caste-Hindu backlash to Dalit self-assertion.[17] Laxmi Kumari Choudavat recounted an instance of hot glass being put in the ears of Dalits who had crossed caste lines by hearing the Vedas recited.[18] S.K. Vaishampayen argues that “untouchability has assumed a very acute form during the last three to four years. There are social boycotts, burning of huts of Harijans and even murders”. He characterised this increase in violence as a backlash to economic reforms, stating, “Because of measures which are there under the 20 point economic programme. Those who are going to benefit under them are coming into clash with the landed, vested interests in rural areas”.[19]

At the same time, MPs like Laxmi Kumari Choudavat and Vishambar Nath Pandey described untouchability as arising from religious orthodoxy, an expression of ritual harm. Pandey argued that despite converting, Muslim Dalits and Christian Dalits still faced untouchability in their communities and lamented the lack of inter-caste marriages.[20] In her speech, Chaudavat pointed to instances where Dalit citizens had been denied entry to temples.[21] Other MPs suggested that Hindu society should do away with caste-based surnames to eradicate untouchability.

These arguments were not fully developed due to the circumstances in which parliament was functioning and the lack of voices of opposition. The short discussion that did take place indicates that even during the emergency, MPs were keen on ensuring that the untouchability problem was addressed by the government in a comprehensive way, that laws made to this effect addressed the rights-claiming circumstances in which caste violence took place, and that these laws allow for holding untrustworthy state machinery to account.

---

[1] Krishna Chandra Haldar Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.52, May 6 1975) 344-345

[2] Krishna Chandra Haldar Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.52, May 6 1975)346-347,249-252

[3] Report of the Joint Committee, “ The Untouchability ( Offences Amendment and Miscellaneous Provision Bill, 1972”, Lok Sabha, (22 February 1974) xii-xiv.

[4] K.K. Madhavan, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3 September 1976) 95

[5] Bhola Prasad, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976” (3 September 1976) 68-70.

[6] Sikandar Ali Wajd, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3 September 1976) 106.

[7] Abraham, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”,(3September 1976) 98-99.

[8] Krishna Chandra Haldar, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.52, May 6 1975)348-349

[9] Sadhu Ram, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.52, May 6 1975)353-360

[10] Sarjoo Pandey, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.52, May 6 1975) 360-362

[11] Report of the Joint Committee, “ The Untouchability ( Offences Amendment and Miscellaneous Provision Bill, 1972” Lok Sabha (22 February 1974) xv-xx.

[12] K.K. Madhavan, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3 September 1976) 95.

[13] S. K. Vaishampayen, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3 September 1976) 68-69.

[14] N.H. Kumbhare, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3 September 1976) 81.

[15] Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976” (3 September 1976) 122-126.

[16] Sadhu Ram, Lok Sabha Debates (Vol.52, May 6 1975)353-360

[17] Yogendra Makwana, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3 September 1976) 75

[18] L.K. Choudavat, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3 September 1976) 92.

[19] S.K. Vaishampayen, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3 September 1976) 80-82.

[20] L.K. Choudavat and V.N. Pandey, Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”(3September 1976) 89-92.

[21] Rajya Sabha, “Untouchability ( Offences) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 1976”,3^rd September 1976,pp.92-93