With a number of high-profile terror attacks in India this year, there is a growing buzz about India’s war against terror.
In case of each of these attacks, what comes under the scanner is India’s security apparatus to act as a effective preventative mechanism.
However, while there is a need to strengthen intelligence, another factor, i.e., the fact that India still does not have a strong anti-terrorism law, also deserve due attention, as it has the potential to act as a strong deterrent to terror groups.
Anti-terrorism laws in India have always been a butt of controversy, as also in the United States and Britain. But in India, the leaders of our democratic set-up tend to hijack the debate over anti-terror laws and use it as a political tool to fill the vote banks.
TADA: Political fixation
The first strong act in recent history was the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, or TADA. It as an active law from 1985 to 1995, but was charged with allegations of abuse and lapsed due to growing unpopularity.
The major drawback of TADA was that it failed to describe the term ‘Terrorist’. The Act just presumed that the accused was culpable of charges made against him.
The major aspect of TADA, which was widely criticized, was that a confession of the accused made before police was accepted as evidence in court, and the problem was that such admissions were mostly taken under torture.
When famous Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt was arrested under TADA in connection with the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, the issue became too big to handle. Moreover, a section of the minority community in India protested that the Act was targeting them.
As a result, the Narsimha Rao-led government was forced to allow TADA to lapse in 1995, and subsequent governments too did not have courage to revise it.
After the lapse of TADA, India had no law, which could act as a weapon to curb the growing terrorist activities.
However, the 9/11 attacks in the US forced a global rethink on the threat posed by terrorism and revived the debate for an appropriate legal mechanism to tackle the menace.
POTA: Vote banks’ victim
In 2001, the Indian Parliament passed the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), which was further replaced by The Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) in March 2002. The Act was supported by the governing National Democratic Alliance and was seen much better than its predecessor, TADA.
The Act aimed to strengthen the administrative rights to fight terrorism in India within a legal framework. It provided proper definitions as to ‘who is a terrorist’ and ‘what a terrorist act is’. It also granted special authority to the investigating agencies as described in the Act.
Although the Act claimed to ensure that its powers were not perverted, a number of human rights organizations and NGOs argued that it violated most of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution.
The major roadblock was the provision in the Act that it could be applied against anyone, and that the suspect could be detained for 180 days without any charges being filed.
Thereafter certain key incidents, for example the controversial arrest of MDMK leader Vaiko by then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha under POTA, for making a speech in support of the LTTE, added more fire to the Act’s opponents.
As POTA became a major issue in the 2004 election, the new UPA government repealed the Act on October 7, 2004. The government bagged the confidence of voters, who were against POTA, and said it would ponder over alternative laws to check terrorism.
A vague approach
Recently, in August 2007, in the Lok Sabha, the Centre rejected the demand for re-enacting a law like the Prevention of Terrorist Activities. In a debate on an Opposition-sponsored adjournment motion over the UPA government’s failure to contain terrorism, Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil said that “draconian laws” such as POTA only contributed in creating more terrorists than keeping a check on terrorism.
The Congress-led government also argued earlier that India already has many rigorous laws such as the National Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to check terrorism.
But what is overlooked is the fact that POTA, despite having its failings, was fairly comprehensive and also dealt with the funding, which is used to spread terrorist activities.
Officials indicate that after POTA is repealed, FEMA may be amended to control terrorism. It is also said that amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act may also check the terrorist groups’ funding.
But unfortunately for India, after the controversial POTA and TADA, no government has political will to enact a new anti-terror law.
If India has a strong intelligence network and an effective law, it can bring the accused under the scanner.
While a strong law would increase our potency to battle terrorism, it cannot be denied that every law has its own limitations and may not be a deterrent to terrorism.
But still it is one of the strongest answers to the rising threat of terrorism. With a strong law, India can send this message across that if a terrorist is caught making or executing a terror plot in the country, he will not be spared.
With missing anti-terror laws, we are sacrificing its ability to fight terrorism to satiate a political wish to lure vote banks.
Leave Your Comments