Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

          By passing the law as it is, we the Parliament will unwittingly be writing on the hands of the enemies’ children mera baap desh ka dushman hai. So, definitely the law has to be changed, at least the drafting. It is not our intention. It was done by somebody in the legal fraternity by mistake. We merely want their properties. That is one thing.

          Then, I do not want to enter into the dangerous territory which is the concept of ‘sedition’. The concept of ‘sedition’ is not there in our country. I am afraid this law is not only for the past but also for the future. So, I wish the word ‘enemy’ is removed. Kumari Sushmita Dev has suggested that the word ‘enemy’ be removed and let some other terminology be used. They have also defined enemy countries in respect of China and Pakistan. Actually, in our State Telangana we are trying to invite the Chinese and giving them land to set up factories. So, I think some of these antiquated ideologies and concepts have to be removed in the wordings.  So, we need to redraft this.

          There is one more very important point. This again, I think, may not stand the legal scrutiny. In relation to ‘enemy property’, if I did an act of treason or worked with an enemy country and if I had gained property or money, that can be seized by the State. But if I have an ancestral property – my father was a freedom fighter, my grand father was a freedom fighter but I alone have committed this treason – the nature of ancestral property is different from self-gained property. The nature of ancestral property is different from self-gained property. In ancestral property, no single generation owns the property. The property is owned by the lineage. Every generation has a right on the property. So, my great grand father or grand father had contributed to the nation, and they were freedom fighters and I alone worked against the interest of the country. I alone was the aggressor. My children should not suffer not only being called `desh drohi’s children but also the entire property of ancestral. So, we need to distinguish between self-gain property and ancestral property. To overcome this, the Government introduced some clauses, which I don’t think would stand legal scrutiny. Nothing contained in clause 5(b); nothing contained in any law for the time being in force relating to succession or any customs or usage governing succession of property shall apply in relation to the Enemy Property  Act. It should only be limited to the property gained by that particular person who had committed the act of treason and not the ancestral property; not the entire lineage – my past and future should not be condemned.

          Regarding the other issues, the intention behind this enactment is good because the heir will get what his forefathers had.  There is no doubt at all.  If a person who has embraced the nationality of the enemy country during the war and he ceases to be the owner of the property by operation of this piece of enactment, nobody can claim over the rights of the property.  That is true; we agree on that legal proposition.  But, for the purpose of enforcing that legal proposition, the poor persons, those who are living here, the heirs of the persons who have embraced the nationality of other nations during the war, they will be stamped as enemies.  That is not proper for us.  I would say, that will be a shame on our nationality sense also. 

SHRI M. VEERAPPA MOILY (CHIKKABALLAPUR): Of course, you have mentioned about the Bill.

          I am telling you one thing. Does choosing the citizenship of a country amount to sin? I do not think so. Then again the point is classifying any country. Today you can classify one country as an enemy country. Tomorrow it may not be. Yesterday, it would not have been. How do you classify this? This is a very dangerous situation. … (Interruptions)

DR. SHASHI THAROOR : Well, let me come to the point Shri Veerappa Moily has just made because I also want to stress that, in fact, international conventions do not provide for any country to be designated an enemy in peacetime and regulations pertaining to enemy property in all jurisdictions only pertain to property in times of war. So, this is already a slippery issue. It has been mentioned by someone that Pakistan disposed of the property held there by Indian citizens. It is true. But is that the standard by which we should judge India? Do we want ourselves to maintain the highest international standards? Or, would it not be ironic for a BJP Government to reduce India to the level of Pakistan? I do not think this is a good argument at all.