Do we need to bring back laws like POTA?

DEBATE

The question boils down to whether the existing anti-terrorism laws have helped reduce terrorist activity and whether they're prone to systematic abuse.

Nitin Gadkari,
Senior BJP leader,
Maharashtra

'I agree POTA had been misused and it should have been executed better, but it started instilling fear in the minds of terrorists "" they now have no fear'

A terrorist is no ordinary criminal but a highly motivated person who is ready to kill himself for the sake of his 'cause.' Hence, he has to be dealt harshly and not under normal laws. Of course, for fighting terrorism, a nation needs strong-willed leadership, but equally, extraordinary laws to empower the police and investigating agencies that deal with terror.

A terrorist should not be allowed to take advantage of normal laws, which are meant for routine criminals. My party and I firmly believe that POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Activities Act, 2002), which was so painstakingly prepared by the NDA government, should be brought back. The current UPA government, which excels in minority appeasement and has always played vote-bank politics, had revoked POTA in 2004 without giving the nation an alternate law to deal with the menace of terrorism.

A law like POTA gave powers to the investigating authorities in more ways than one. They could detain a terror suspect for up to 180 days without having to file charges in court. It also allowed them to withhold the identities of witnesses and made a terrorist confession before the police an admission of guilt.

I agree that POTA had been misused at times, but its scrapping was no answer. We should have in fact refined its execution and implementation. For, I believe, that implementation is an equally important part of any law. This needs to be monitored and controlled by the courts and civil society.

Alas, POTA remained in effect for barely two years. But it had started instilling fear in the minds of terrorists. Now they can have a free run in India. Recently they struck in Jaipur, and, for that matter, they can strike anywhere for they know the hands of the Indian law-enforcing agencies are tied.

They also observe that the Indian government cannot even hang Afzal Guru, whose role in a terror strike on Parliament, has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Such signals only embolden terrorists in choosing India for executing their diabolical designs.

Look at the US and how it has beefed up its anti-terror security after the 9/11. Today it may be the biggest target in the minds of Islamic terrorists but they dare not cause more harm to the country. The US has a set of well-defined laws against terrorists and, unlike us, the government does not follow a policy of minority appeasement.

In comparison, ordinary Indians are just sitting ducks for foreign terrorists. Look at how the country is unable to deal with the influx of Bangladeshis, who have settled down in every city and town of the country. What prevents HuJI militants to enter India since we have kept our doors open for them?

Mukul Sharma,
Director,
Amnesty International, India

'Of the 77,000 detained under TADA, 72,000 were released without ever being charged. Those suspected of ordinary crimes are treated as terrorists'

The deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists constitutes a serious abuse of the fundamental human rights of the hundreds of thousands who get killed or maimed in these attacks. However, in the aftermath of the Jaipur serial blasts, this is also the time to urge our governments and leaders not to respond to terror with terror. If the government takes recourse to extraordinary laws, it would amount to more violations of human rights, this time in the name of security. It will provide an effective smokescreen for governments to authorise arbitrary and long detention, unfair trial, suppression of political dissent, and minority persecution.

Terrorism has many forgotten faces in India. Across the country, many violent conflicts are taking a bloody toll. In Chhattisgarh, more than 100,000 people have been displaced, over a 1,000 have died, thousands have been jailed under Salwa Judum. In Assam and Nagaland, people's distress, despair, fear and alienation have grown. The photographs of defenceless Muslims, humiliated and terrorised in Gujarat, shocked us all when they were published in 2002. But the abuses they exposed were not an aberration. The images followed numerous allegations of torture and ill treatment reported from police custody in Hyderabad, Mumbai and Kolkata. Data collected by the Sachar Committee, but not included in the final report, showed a higher number of Muslim prison inmates in several states.

We have plenty of anti-terror laws and measures in the country. National Security Act, Armed Forces Special Power Act, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987, Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance 2001, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance 2004, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999, Chhattisgarh Public Security Act 2005 are some of the prominent ones. Several state governments like Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat are proposing new anti-terror laws. However, these did not work either to stop terrorism or to make us safe.

Instead, authorities who exercise power over detainees and are allowed to inflict pain and suffering are becoming more brutalised. We have also seen in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh that once the 'coercive' techniques are authorised in limited circumstances for a so-called relatively small number of people, in practice, the authorised techniques become more and more cruel. TADA began with the arrests of a few hundreds that turned into thousands and finally around 72,000 out of 77,000 detained under it were released without having been charged or tried. Similarly, around 3,500 persons from 18 states were held under POTA during the three years of its existence. More than a decade after TADA lapsed and many years after the repeal of POTA, hundreds are still under detention for offences under these Acts. People suspected of ordinary crimes start receiving the same treatment as terror suspects. And once all this happens, no one is safe.