Editorial: New armoury

So India has a watered down version of old anti-terror laws that were abolished because they had been widely misused; it is also on its way to getting a national investigation agency. The government felt compelled by the public sentiment that prevailed in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks to undertake legislation that it had steadfastly refused to countenance till then, so it must be presumed that the new laws are seen as unavoidable rather than desirable. The speed of action is to be welcomed, as also the fact that ministers in Cabinet questioned the need for some draconian measures that were apparently proposed by the new home minister, leading to their being dropped from consideration. What is unfortunate, though, is that tackling the terrorist challenge is seen as a task that cannot be accomplished without the sacrifice of human rights. Given the standard police techniques as well as the oversight failures of the past, there is room for disquiet until the police and the administration can demonstrate that the use of the new law (or, more correctly, the amended version of an old law) will be different from the way in which Misa, Tada and Pota were all misused over the past three decades and more.

Several arguments have been made in favour of the new laws: that you do not avoid the required legislation merely because it might be misused; that such laws are not designed to prevent terrorist attacks (which they have manifestly failed to do in the past) but to help convict those guilty of them; and that there are effective safeguards against misuse. These arguments would be more convincing if there were a simultaneous initiative to hand out exemplary punishment to those who have indulged in misuse of the law, if the country’s criminal investigation units did not routinely use what are euphemistically called third degree methods; and if laws meant for special circumstances were not invoked to deal with situations that should be covered by the normal laws of the land. As for the national investigation agency, the record of its only precursor (the Central Bureau of Investigation) is less than inspiring. In case after high-profile case, the CBI’s efforts have come to nought.

In short, while Parliament has given the government the tools it has sought for dealing with the terrorist menace, and while there is general public support for the new measures, the onus remains on the government and its various arms to use the new laws in such a manner that they earn the trust and respect of the public at large. The people using the new law and working in the new agency have to demonstrate that what they do is not what was done in the past; if they fail to do that, then both Parliament and the country may at some stage want to repeal the new laws, just as the old ones were because they manifestly failed to serve their purpose.