Last week we discussed on the various objections to the necessity
of bringing in legislation like POTO. This week let us discuss about
few other objections and where it stands today. The experiences with
TADA still haunt people. Even the Congress-I, which brought TADA and
put into force cribs about POTO citing the abuse of TADA. In December
2001, Britain's House of Lords expressed disquiet about POTO-style
legislation amenable to abuse. The ruling NDA, to be technically correct
BJP wants to show it is serious about 'defence' and India's sovereign
integrity whilst the Opposition is not. The government should understand
that fighting terrorism could not become a political fashion. It is
an issue related the future well being of the nation. Some experts
in the legal circle even suggest that the sensible compromise would
be a new offence of terrorism investigated and tried through ordinary
procedures. The government can give a thought to it and explore this
option in stead of making it as an ego issue. This is not too difficult
to agree upon. In any case, convincing the opposition to take them
into confidence is the right way rather than to convene a joint session
of Parliament to roller POTO through.
USA PATRIOT
The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) has unnecessarily been
mired in controversy. Even the United States has enacted an anti-terrorism
law "USA PATRIOT" (United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) and checks on
immigrants and students by setting up a Foreign Terrorist Tracking
Task Force. The laws minimise judicial control on surveillance of
telephones and the Internet use by suspects. The laws enhance the
Government's ability to conduct secret searches, permits the Attorney-General
to incarcerate or detain non- citizens based on suspicion and deny
re-admission into the U.S. and makes payment of membership dues to
(undesirable) organisations a deportable offence. Britain has enacted
similar strict laws.
One should not forget that intercepting a suspect's communications
and freezing his assets are not "practically" possible under existing
laws. Hence, POTO is essential but there should be safeguards, which
would prohibit its abuse or misuse. The Opposition must be mature
enough not to politicise the issue. The people should endure inconveniences
while being frisked at airports. Otherwise the undeclared 'jehad'
would endanger the nation.
Fears and Apprehensions
In The Hindu (Nov 28, 2001) Kuldip Nayar under the title "Pushing
the POTO" extensively criticised the POTO. The key points from his
article were highlighted here so that the reader can take his call.
He basically predicts that we are heading for another emergency period
and recalled the experience the nation had between 1975-77 when one
lakh people were detained without trial. He then traced the origin
of what is going to come up, as per his apprehensions, to the revival
of MISA in the form of TADA in 1984 by the Congress government. He
went on to say that "the measure did not stay for long because its
misuse had killed thousands of innocent people and put some 75,000
men and women behind bars, only one per cent of whom were convicted".
He categorically says that the history of preventive detention is
littered with examples of "state terrorism". It is for the BJP government
at the Centre to convince and allay these fears. That is where its
true intentions of curbing terrorism would be tested. Mere patriotic
posture would not do. It would be in bad taste to brand those who
oppose the ordinance as supporters of terrorism. In fact this would
strengthen all suspicions on POTO. He echoed a big fear in that article
that "the Government's purpose is not to challenge the terrorists
but to chastise those who oppose saffronisation and are committed
to civil liberties and human rights". The disappearance of civil liberties
activists especially the inability of the police to produce human
rights activist Khalra of Punjab despite the Supreme Court's order
is cited as one big incidence to suggest that POTO would be more abused
than used. The police should not use POTO to satisfy the will of their
political masters.
State Terrorism
The author would like to leave the thoughts of Kuldip Nayar before
ending this article on POTO. "No one is opposed to the fight against
terrorists. People all over the country suffer at their hands. But
the suffering at the hands of the police is no less. There is no rule,
which is not bent, and there is no excess, which is not committed
when word comes from the top to fix someone. What remedy does the
common man have against state tyranny? Even the power of law courts
has been curtailed. The government should clearly spell out as to
what are the gains of POTO and what are the pressing reasons to have
a new Act when we already have special laws like "The National Security
Act", the "Armed Forces Special Powers Act", the "Disturbed Area Act",
the "Special Court Act" and the "Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act". It is for the government to prove its true intentions. The author
believes that in spite of the fact that we have so many special laws,
having one more comprehensive law to curb terrorism is in the good
interest of the nation. Only thing is that enough safeguards to be
provided and this responsibility lies with the Opposition. Also it
is very important that the POTO should clearly spell out that "alienating
people or affecting the harmony among different sections is a terrorist
act". Yes, definitely "individual or organised terrorism is bad enough
but state terrorism is worse". Hopefully POTO will not be used for
state terrorism.
