| Published on 01-10-2008 In General | | Viewed 969 times | | Harsher laws not the solution to fight terrorism |
|
| Written by
Girish Nikam | 
The spate of Bomb blasts across the country, with the capital being targeted once again, has understandably once again set forth a wave of criticisms as well as demands for a more stringent law to deal with terrorism. Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh, after indicating that his Government may just go ahead and come out with such a law at his address at the Governor's conference, however seems to have had second thoughts. Just a day later the Cabinet meeting on Sept.18, decided against it, and instead has decided to initiate the much-needed measures to strengthen intelligence machinery among other things.
The knee jerk reactions of certain sections of people, including political parties like the BJP, demanding a POTA-like law or something even harsher, fail to recognize one simple fact. Terrorism cannot be controlled with harsh laws. It is not that India did not have harsh laws to combat terrorism. Right from 1985 to 1995, we had the Terrorist and Preventive Detention Act(TADA). It was found that it was more often abused than used. According to statistics available, the conviction rate under this dreaded law was just about one percent! However during this entire decade long period, cases of terrorism did not come down.
After it was repealed in 1995 by the Narasimha Rao Government, following uproar from Human rights activists as well as those worried about the minorities being made targets by the security agencies using this law, neither did the acts of terrorism come down.
In 2002, the NDA Government, despite the POTA ordinance being rejected by the Rajya Sabha, however went ahead and called a joint session and got it passed. The immediate effect was felt in Gujarat following the 2002 riots, when hundreds of Muslims were arrested and detained without a trial for years.
POTA had proved to be far more dreaded than the TADA. POTA provided for criminal liability for mere association or communication with suspected terrorists without the possession of criminal intent (Section 3(5) of the POTA). Section 4 of POTA is similar to Section 5 of TADA in laying out a legal presumption that if a person is found in unauthorized possession of arms in a notified area, he/she is automatically linked with terrorist activity. Section 48(2) provided for the option of pre-trial police detention for up to 180 days. As under the TADA, where 98% of the cases never reached the trial stage, this Section 48(2) could also be misused by the police by keeping an accused for long periods of detention without charge or trial. Special courts for trials were established under POTA which were given the discretion to hold trials in non-public places, like prisons, and to withhold trial records from public scrutiny, thus preventing the independent monitoring of special court sessions. Section 32 provided that confessions made to police officers are to be admissible in trial, which increased the possibility of coercion and torture in securing confessions.
It was seen in many cases, the Parliament attack case being the prominent one, where without a shred of evidence, except for the forced confessions, accused were almost convicted.
All this and the increased religious profiling as well as counter-activities from the right wing forces have only heightened the sense of hurt among the minorities. It has to be noted that all through the existence of POTA, several dreadful terrorist strikes took place all across the country.
In the process, this sense of alienation and sense of being targeted has sent even the educated and well entrenched Muslim youths to take to the path of terror. It is evident from the messages of the so-called Indian Mujahiddin before the strikes in Ahmedabad, Bangalore and now Delhi. The language as well as issues raised in those long mails should convince the powers that be, as well as those who are demanding harsher laws, that the solution to the problem lies elsewhere.
In any case, the already existing Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has adequate provisions to deal with the situation. In fact Human rights activists feel some of the provisions introduced in this law, following the repeal of POTA by the UPA Government, in 2004, continue to provide opportunities for misuse. The amendments which were brought to this Act defined a terrorist act and provided for banning of terrorist organisations and their support systems, including funding of terrorism, attachment and forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism, etc. All terrorist organisations banned under POTA continue to remain banned, under the Unlawful Activities Act, after the repeal of the Act. Some of the clauses contained in POTA, which were completely dropped in the amended Unlawful Activities Act, are: the onus on the accused to prove his innocence, compulsory denial of bail to accused and admission as evidence in the court of law the confession made by the accused before the police officer.
However Human Rights activists feel that even with this "milder" law, innumerable human rights violations have occurred in these last four years of its operation. The latest being the case of Dr.Binayak Sen who has been under detention for 15 months in Chattisgarh, without the police still unable to provide a shred of evidence against him of being a Maoist.
What is therefore the need of the hour are not harsher laws, which have conclusively proved to be ineffective, but a two pronged approach. One, to address the reasons for the youths of the minority communities to take up to terrorism. Mahendra Kumawat, Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, looking after Internal Security, hits the nail on the head, when he points out in an interview to Rediff.com recently. "I am not saying that only through the security method we can deal with terrorism. First, the various components of society should take everybody into confidence. Nobody should have perceived grievances. A perceived grievance is the most dangerous thing in the human mind".
And this is something which the political class as a whole has failed to address effectively, so far caught as they are in their own vote bank politics. Secondly, and equally importantly, the aim should be to prevent incidents of terror, through effective intelligence gathering and dissemination. And this can only happen if a Central mechanism, highly professional and with least political interference, is created on the lines of the FBI, which can have both investigating as well as preventive powers, through a well oiled system of intelligence network. The resistance to such a central mechanism from the political parties which are afraid of losing their powers to manipulate, like what is happening in Gujarat, is what is coming in the way of establishing it.
Unless this twin-pronged strategy is effectively implemented, we will continue to breed new recruits to create terror in the country. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
