Prevention of Atrocities Act: Part 2 Implementation, Violence, Rurality, and Disillusionment

Anti-defection law was passed through the 52^nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985.[1] The measure was intended to stabilise democratic politics prevented parliamentarians from crossing the floor or dissenting from party whips during voting. Legal scholars have argued that this measure led to a chilling effect on freedom of speech of parliamentarians, decreased intra-party dissent, and increased polarisation.[2]

It is in this context that the POA is debated in the parliament. The bill was Introduced with an explicit statement of objects that it was meant to address Dalits being denied their civil rights and subjected to torture and humiliation. The PCRA and normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code had proven inadequate, and the bill aimed to establish special courts and provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims.[3]

The Minister of State for Welfare, Rajendra Kumari Bajpai, began the debate in the Lok Sabha by stating that caste atrocities took place due to backlash from landlords and feudal elements to the civil rights assertions of the Dalit community. She argued that In recent years, this backlash had gotten so violent and prevalent that this difference in degree denoted a difference in kind, and special legislation was required to address this problem. She outlined various measures adopted by the Rajiv Gandhi government to ensure the upliftment of the Dalit and Adivasi communities. And went on to discuss the salient parts of the bill.

She spent some time talking about the range of new offences that had been designated as “caste atrocities by the POA, including insult and degradation to Dalit women, fouling of water supplies, wrongful dispossession of property, forced feeding of obnoxious substances, public verbal abuse, disrobing of Dalit women, bonded labour, and interfering with the Dalit right to vote among others and stated that the bill would provide for a minimum punishment of six months imprisonment for these offences. She explained that the bill would provide for special courts and prosecutors to ensure effective implementation and would provide economic and social rehabilitation of victims of atrocities.[4] “untouchability” was thus not exactly defined by this bill, but illustrated through examples.

The opposition had characterised the bill as hogwash meant to sway votes in the upcoming election and walked out, so the law was enacted with only members of the Indian National Congress in attendance. It met with universal approval. However, four different themes emerged in the discussion in parliament: the difficulty of implementation and need for criminalisation, the characterising of atrocities as completely rural problems, the emphasis on violent crime, and the self-reliance proposed by Dalit and Adivasi law makers.

Implementation and Criminalisation

The predominant theme of the discussion was the difficulty of implementation. Many of the 40 or so members that spoke argued that while the law was well-intentioned enough, the primary hurdle to implementation would be at the police station where complaints were not lodged or would not be properly investigated.[5] Some of the solutions proposed included arming Dalits with guns,[6] recruiting them into the police,[7] and setting up a secret investigating agencies at the village level,[8] and even disenfranchising citizens convicted under the POA.[9]At the same time, many members detailed how the police participated in witness intimidation and in committing atrocities on Dalits.[10]

Implementation in the special courts was described by members as impossible, arguing that witness intimidation was prevalent. To cure this, MPs suggested not just reversing the burden of proof but also the presumption of innocence.[11] Delays within the justice system were perceived as another failure of implementation, and MPs sought to have cases under the POA disposed of in summary trials to overcome that hurdle. [12] MPs also suggested that the state was bound to rehabilitate and compensate victims of atrocities, not as a “gesture of genorisity” but as a “matter of right.”[13]

Several MPs also stated that economic and social upliftment of Dalits and Adivasis was being held back due to the lack of implementation of land reforms,[14] disbursal of handpumps to draw water,[15] bonded labour laws,[16] reservations in public service employment,[17] and education, among other areas of concern.

A small number of MPs laid the blame for lack of implementation on apathy by state governments.[18]

Rural Issue, Violence

The minister of state for welfare, along with nearly every other MP characterised the problem of untouchability as an entirely rural matter. She stated that “in cities and towns where the society was generally aware of the need to bring about such changes, the upward socio economic mobility of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was accepted and tensions did not arise. But in certain rural areas things are very bad… It is difficult to dislodge the prejudices and traditions there”[19] She blamed the traditions and prejudices for difficulties in enforcing land reforms. Only one MP talked about untouchability in urban areas.

Of course, many MPs categorised untouchability and atrocities as rural problems while noting instances of caste-based violence in their constituency that stemmed from a contest over land rights or economic mobility.[20] However, economic mobility, housing segregation, and discrimination exist in urban spaces too and only one member of the house discussed the state of slums in cities.[21]

This seems to indicate that the POA can be read as a top-down legislation that sought to civilise the othered rural poor by protecting Dalit citizens and educating Caste Hindus through the force of criminal law.

Nearly every MP discussed violence and humiliating incidents that occurred across the country or within their constituency; this emphasis on violence forms the basis for characterising complex social interactions as deserving high criminal penalties.

The focus on criminalisation and violence, in addition to the executive’s failures to implement the laws, could explain why there has been, over the years, an interest by political parties in being perceived as taking the untouchability issue seriously through increasing criminalization.

Dalit and Adivasi Voices

Dalit and Adivasi MPs spoke in a distinct voice in the parliament. Ramswaroop Ram pointed out that even though the Prime Minister and the central government encouraged Dalit youth to get educated and access the legal system in cases of atrocities, this puts them in a double bind. He states, “When educated youths of the village fight for their rights, they are branded as Naxalites… no Naxalites or persons are belonging to RPF in Central Bihar. Every young man wants to come into the national mainstream and live peacefully, but he is sandwiched between feudalism and the police”. He described how a community that is alienated and targeted through the criminal justice system might not be comfortable approaching the same criminal justice system to complain about the violation of his civil rights or the commission of caste atrocities.[22] Kamala Kumari also argued that Dalit youth who are deprived of employment, not paid their wages, deprived of land to construct shelter and whose women folk are exploited by influential people are victimised and turn toward naxalism in their desperation.[23]

Surinder Singh, speaking on the same day, repeatedly said, “No man can get his right through request. Rights are wrested from unwilling hands.” He stated that whatever laws were passed, effective implementation would require Dalits to stand up for themselves, unite and organise and that Dalit MLAs and MPs had a special responsibility to foster this attitude within their community.[24]

In doing so, they conveyed a sense of distrust of legal institutions and legal solutions to problems of untouchability, while still encouraging their constituents to remain actively engaged citizens.

The POA was passed unanimously in the Lok Sabha on August 14^th 1989, and in the Rajya Sabha two days later without much discussion.[25]

A year later the act was panned by Chandra Bhan Prasad as a “somewhat improved version” of the PCRA. He alleges that in considering untouchability a law and order problem the state has failed to address complex reasons for the commission of these crimes such as land alienation, indebtedness, wages, non-responsive state machinery among others. As resolved as questions about the causes of untouchability were in parliament, they remained unresolved outside of it.