Verma a la carte: Why govt's ordinance fails to inspire

It is easy to understand the befuddlement that has very likely overcome the UPA government’s policy wonks and political managers when they contemplate the criticism, by women’s groups and others, of the ordinance on sexual violence against women that President Pranab Mukherjee signed over the weekend in double-quick time. After all, government spokespersons will reason, we’ve moved with uncharacteristic alacrity to operationalise those aspects of the Justice JS Verma committee recommendations that relate to amendments to the criminal law in respect of sexual violence against women. In fact, they will argue, we’ve even gone beyond the committee’s recommendations in some cases - by providing for death for rapists, which the committee had rejected in the context of a wider debate over capital punishment. Why then, they may wonder, do the very same people who were accusing the government of lack of seriousness in implementing the Verma committee recommendations in recent days now criticising it? Are we to be damned if we do, damned if we don’t? [caption id=“attachment_612007” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The government’s ordinance sidesteps some of the more critical recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee. PTI[/caption] The answer, as _Firstpost_ noted earlier , is of course that the government’s approach - as reflected in the speed with which it greased the tracks to promulgate the ordinance - is that it has treated the Verma committee’s recommendations as an a la carte menu. It has picked and chosen bits that are either easy to implement, while appearing to lack the political will to implement its more far-reaching recommendations that address the complex sociological roots of the problem of the atmosphere of misogyny. It has plucked the low hanging fruit of the recommendations, but has given no indication of its views on the merits or demerits of the other, more radical recommendations. For instance, the government ordinance sidesteps some of the critical elements of the Verma committee report, which are bound to prove rather more controversial. Issues of marital rape; the recommendation that members of the armed services accused of sexual violence in conflict areas be tried under the civil courts - and be stripped of the immunity they currently enjoy under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act;  the long-pending demand for police and judicial reforms:  the proposal for elected members of legislatures to be  held accountable when they face charges of sexual violence (which has acquired resonance in the context of the Suryanelli rape case)…  the ordinance gives no clue to the state of the government’s mind on these matters. According to reports, the government has indicated that it will refer some of the committee’s  broader suggestions of a general nature (as opposed to more sharply focussed amendments to criminal law) to the appropriate ministries for broader discussion. An internal note circulated by the Law Ministry and the Home Ministry records that the Verma committee made “a number of recommendations relating to its terms of reference as well as outside it.” Those recommendations that relate to “policy and administrative measures” would be referred to the Ministries concerned for appropriate action, it notes.   For instance, the amendment of electoral laws would be examined by the Ministry of Law and Justice. And the Ministry of Women and Child Development would be tasked with considering the changes recommended in the law relating to sexual crimes against children. There is, of course, wisdom in adopting an incremental approach to some of these matters, particularly given that they will likely require wider debate and discussion to nuance the provisions of the law and ensure that in the rush to get things done, the rounded  edges of legal provisions don’t get overly sharpened. Yet, the real problem with the government’s approach, as this editorial observes, “is not what the government has done, but what it appears unwilling to do.”  From all accounts, it adds, the government “does not have the political will to push ahead with the most substantive points in the Justice Verma Committee report.” That suspicion arises not least because the UPA government lacks the political goodwill - which it needs in large measure - in order to take on the vested interests in the police, the judiciary, the armed services, the political establishment, and even in civil society that will likely challenge many of these substantive points in the Verma committee report. One measure of the virtual political consensus among parties that will likely prove an impediment to the implementation of many of these far-reaching proposals is the response of the principal Opposition party, the BJP, which has broadly welcomed the ordinance, without adequately channelling the voice of dissent from women’s groups and others.   No one, of course, wants the ends of criminal justice to be compromised by a capitulation to civil society outrage over the horrific gang-rape in Delhi in December. But unless one sees a more robust demonstration of political will, both from the government and the opposition parties, the apprehension that some of the more far-reaching recommendations of the  Verma committee report will likely lose themselves in the maze of bureaucracy and law-making will only be reinforced.