08-15-2006, 12:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Mythical war on terror </b>
Pioneer.com
Absence of strong deterrent law makes India a soft target; the Centre must give better account of its will to fight terrorism, says Prakash Singh
A debate is currently raging within the country on the need and desirability of having a permanent anti-terror law. The National Security Advisor recently said that one of our nuclear installations is under terrorist threat. The Defence Minister said that the infrastructure of the country and the religious establishments are among the likely targets.
Apparently, a horrendous scenario is building up, and we must therefore take an early decision on this crucial point.
It would be educative to look at the issue in its historical perspective. The Law Commission of India, an advisory body headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court, recommended the adoption of a law designed to deal firmly and effectively with terrorists and their activities. When the very existence of a liberal society is at stake, they opined, drastic measures meant to strengthen law enforcement and the maintenance of public order were necessity.
Accordingly, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act or TADA was enacted in 1987. The Act gave stringent powers of search and seizure to the police, which could indict any person, who would then be tried by a special court according to special procedures. There were instances of TADA being misused for political purposes. The Supreme Court nevertheless upheld its constitutional validity in Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab (1994), considering that the country was in the "firm grip of spiralling terrorist violence and is caught between deadly pangs of disruptive activities".
<b>TADA was eventually allowed to lapse in 1995. Subsequently, the country was witness to major terrorist incidents including the hijacking of the Indian Airlines flight IC-814 to Kandahar in 1999 and the assault on Parliament on December 13, 2001. The Government was thereupon obliged to enact the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA).</b>
Significantly, several provisions of TADA were diluted in the new enactment. And yet, POTA was also criticised on the ground that it gave extraordinary powers to the law enforcement agencies, which were being misused.<b> The UPA Government unfortunately gave a commitment to repeal POTA, and so it was also allowed to lapse. The modified version of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004 which replaced it, is an apology of an anti-terror law.</b>
The opponents of anti-terror law usually raise three myths to buttress their arguments: <b>that the existing laws are adequate to deal with the menace of terror, that even when TADA or POTA were in vogue terrorist incidents could not be prevented, and that these laws are generally misused. What are the realities?</b>
Those who say that the existing laws are adequate either do not understand the practical aspects of law enforcement or take that plea for extraneous reasons. When the Indian Penal Code was drafted, the crime of terrorism was relatively unknown and so there was no provision to deal with this form of crime in the Code. Without an anti-terror law, a terrorist would have to be booked under several sections of different Acts, like the Arms Act, Explosives Substances Act, relevant sections of the IPC, etc.
It will make the job of police and prosecution far more difficult. Conviction, under the circumstances, would be a far cry. <b>In the Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case, the accused could be sentenced only because TADA was applied.</b>
The argument that terrorist incidents could not be prevented even when we had specific laws is absurd, to say the least. There are sections to deal inter alia with offences of murder and rape in the IPC, but these sections have not been able to prevent the offences. Does it mean that we shall do away with sections 302 and 376 from the IPC?
In fact, much of the IPC will have to be scrapped. <b>The Prevention of Corruption Act has not been effective in curbing the evil of corruption. Shall we then do away with this law also?</b> Going by the argument of the opponents of anti-terror law, we may have to revert to the law of jungle.
<b>The third argument is equally specious. Many laws are, in fact, misused. The Arms Act is misused. The Narcotics Act is misused. Nobody, has ever suggested that these laws should be annulled.</b> If a law is misused, the answer lies in, firstly, punishing the person who misused the law and abused his authority and, secondly, in inserting such provisions as may be necessary in the law to prevent its misuse. Throwing the child with the bath water is no solution.
The opponents of POTA forget that even the most advanced democracies of the world have found their existing legal framework inadequate to deal with the problem of terrorism.
In the wake of 9/11, the US enacted the Patriot Act, giving sweeping power to the domestic law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. UK's Terrorism Act 2006, makes it a criminal offence to glorify acts of terrorism, training and preparing for terror activities or disseminating related publications.
The Act even enables authorities to detain terror suspects for up to 28 days.
US and UK may still have terrorist attacks. However, leaders in both the countries have shown political courage in dealing with the problem and they have broadly been supported by people across the political spectrum.
In India, on the other hand, extraneous considerations play a major part and national security takes back seat. If our leaders do not change their mindset, the people of the country will have to pay a very heavy price in terms of loss of life and property.
Incidents which happened in Delhi, Mumbai or Ayodhya might pale into insignificance compared to the incidents which are looming on the horizon.
<b>"The freedom of individual must takes second place to the security of the state," </b>said Lord Denning. Would our political leadership care to listen? Or, would they wake up only after a major catastrophe overtakes the country?
- (The writer is a retired Police chief)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Absence of strong deterrent law makes India a soft target; the Centre must give better account of its will to fight terrorism, says Prakash Singh
A debate is currently raging within the country on the need and desirability of having a permanent anti-terror law. The National Security Advisor recently said that one of our nuclear installations is under terrorist threat. The Defence Minister said that the infrastructure of the country and the religious establishments are among the likely targets.
Apparently, a horrendous scenario is building up, and we must therefore take an early decision on this crucial point.
It would be educative to look at the issue in its historical perspective. The Law Commission of India, an advisory body headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court, recommended the adoption of a law designed to deal firmly and effectively with terrorists and their activities. When the very existence of a liberal society is at stake, they opined, drastic measures meant to strengthen law enforcement and the maintenance of public order were necessity.
Accordingly, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act or TADA was enacted in 1987. The Act gave stringent powers of search and seizure to the police, which could indict any person, who would then be tried by a special court according to special procedures. There were instances of TADA being misused for political purposes. The Supreme Court nevertheless upheld its constitutional validity in Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab (1994), considering that the country was in the "firm grip of spiralling terrorist violence and is caught between deadly pangs of disruptive activities".
<b>TADA was eventually allowed to lapse in 1995. Subsequently, the country was witness to major terrorist incidents including the hijacking of the Indian Airlines flight IC-814 to Kandahar in 1999 and the assault on Parliament on December 13, 2001. The Government was thereupon obliged to enact the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA).</b>
Significantly, several provisions of TADA were diluted in the new enactment. And yet, POTA was also criticised on the ground that it gave extraordinary powers to the law enforcement agencies, which were being misused.<b> The UPA Government unfortunately gave a commitment to repeal POTA, and so it was also allowed to lapse. The modified version of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004 which replaced it, is an apology of an anti-terror law.</b>
The opponents of anti-terror law usually raise three myths to buttress their arguments: <b>that the existing laws are adequate to deal with the menace of terror, that even when TADA or POTA were in vogue terrorist incidents could not be prevented, and that these laws are generally misused. What are the realities?</b>
Those who say that the existing laws are adequate either do not understand the practical aspects of law enforcement or take that plea for extraneous reasons. When the Indian Penal Code was drafted, the crime of terrorism was relatively unknown and so there was no provision to deal with this form of crime in the Code. Without an anti-terror law, a terrorist would have to be booked under several sections of different Acts, like the Arms Act, Explosives Substances Act, relevant sections of the IPC, etc.
It will make the job of police and prosecution far more difficult. Conviction, under the circumstances, would be a far cry. <b>In the Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case, the accused could be sentenced only because TADA was applied.</b>
The argument that terrorist incidents could not be prevented even when we had specific laws is absurd, to say the least. There are sections to deal inter alia with offences of murder and rape in the IPC, but these sections have not been able to prevent the offences. Does it mean that we shall do away with sections 302 and 376 from the IPC?
In fact, much of the IPC will have to be scrapped. <b>The Prevention of Corruption Act has not been effective in curbing the evil of corruption. Shall we then do away with this law also?</b> Going by the argument of the opponents of anti-terror law, we may have to revert to the law of jungle.
<b>The third argument is equally specious. Many laws are, in fact, misused. The Arms Act is misused. The Narcotics Act is misused. Nobody, has ever suggested that these laws should be annulled.</b> If a law is misused, the answer lies in, firstly, punishing the person who misused the law and abused his authority and, secondly, in inserting such provisions as may be necessary in the law to prevent its misuse. Throwing the child with the bath water is no solution.
The opponents of POTA forget that even the most advanced democracies of the world have found their existing legal framework inadequate to deal with the problem of terrorism.
In the wake of 9/11, the US enacted the Patriot Act, giving sweeping power to the domestic law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. UK's Terrorism Act 2006, makes it a criminal offence to glorify acts of terrorism, training and preparing for terror activities or disseminating related publications.
The Act even enables authorities to detain terror suspects for up to 28 days.
US and UK may still have terrorist attacks. However, leaders in both the countries have shown political courage in dealing with the problem and they have broadly been supported by people across the political spectrum.
In India, on the other hand, extraneous considerations play a major part and national security takes back seat. If our leaders do not change their mindset, the people of the country will have to pay a very heavy price in terms of loss of life and property.
Incidents which happened in Delhi, Mumbai or Ayodhya might pale into insignificance compared to the incidents which are looming on the horizon.
<b>"The freedom of individual must takes second place to the security of the state," </b>said Lord Denning. Would our political leadership care to listen? Or, would they wake up only after a major catastrophe overtakes the country?
- (The writer is a retired Police chief)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->