11-29-2006, 12:16 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Keep the powder dry </b>
Pioneer.com
Arun Jaitley
UPA Government's lackadaisical, unhurried approach to national security is bound to extract a heavier price from the people
Is India safe in the hands of the UPA? If we see the performance of this Government, we go back disappointed with a great sense of insecurity. Every time any major incident of sabotage or terrorist violence takes place, we see the leaders of this Government, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, come up with the usual clichés: This is condemnable; the Government and the country will have zero-tolerance to terrorism. But after this, the Government simply sits back and waits for the next attack to take place. This has been the history of the last two-and-a-half years.
<b>Today, we have the situation in Jammu & Kashmir; Assam is again erupting and now a complete zone of violence is emerging from Left-wing extremism.</b>
The past two-and-a-half years have seen internal security crumbling under this Government, if not collapsing. I went back to the national common minimum programme (NCMP) to see what the UPA had to say on the subject. When it comes to the NCMP, the UPA generally asks for a strict enforcement. Yet<b>, the 24-page document made virtually no reference to the management of the country's internal security! It was not a UPA priority. There was no mention of what the national strategy has to be to deal with terrorism, what the way forward has to be in order to ease the situation in J&K, on how Left-wing extremism has to be combated</b>. The NCMP did not spare time or attention to all this. It is, therefore, understandable that the UPA's inaction does not bring turmoil within the UPA or its supporting parties in the Left. We are disappointed, but not surprised.
Are the UPA, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister living in denial? I don't think they are unaware of what is happening. All security and intelligence agencies have the eyes and ears of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. And professional as they are, I have no doubt that our agencies have been keeping the highest functionaries of the Government informed as to what the ground-level situation is.
<b>The problem is not that there is lack of professional advice, the real problem is the UPA's own approach. Hard decisions are not taken, terrorism is to be dealt with kid gloves, and the punch to be delivered must have a velvet coating. The approach of the UPA is: Can I make political capital out of it? Can I use the fight against terrorism as an instrument of vote bank politics?</b>
In 59 years of India's independent history, has it ever happened that an exasperated head of an intelligence agency chooses a public platform to deliver his views? These are all agencies that usually, very quietly advise the Government on the steps to be taken. But even these agencies - I refer here to the speech made by the Director, IB - have come to realise that the Government is not merely to be rapped on its knuckles but to be knocked on its head.
Before the entire country, television and media, the Government is advised that all existing traditional legal architectures for dealing with terrorism have failed and, therefore, think of a solution commensurate with the problem. Within 48 hours came the Prime Minister's response that the Government had no intention of enacting any tough law to deal with terrorism!
Today, you have a situation where terror attacks and networks are not merely limited to J&K, but ISI modules have been expanding across the country. In different towns of Maharashtra, for instance, the kind of recoveries being made are not of explosives made by our security agencies.<b> How many recoveries have been made from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat, Goa, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal?</b>
<b>Today, the targets of principal terrorist attacks are chosen very carefully so as to destroy the economic, religious and social fabric of society</b>. Take the major attacks past one year or so. On July 5, 2005, the chosen target was Ayodhya. On the eve of Diwali last year - October 29, 2005 - it was Delhi, the capital of India. Then, they chose Bangalore, the technological hub, on December 28, 2005. On March 7, 2006, came Varanasi, an attack against a religious and cultural hub. Next Nagpur, an attempted attack on the headquarters of the RSS. On June 1 and July 11 it was Mumbai, the commercial capital. Thereafter, Malegaon - a town in which minority community is in majority. The target of attack was the minority itself so that some kind of upheaval could be created.
Each one of these attacks is believed to have been planned across the border. <b>But, then, you find reports there is also an indigenous element to the terror. From what was initially a support only for logistics by local groups, you have to face an unfortunate reality that these cross-border attacks are also being supported at places by homegrown terrorists. Let us not forget that the centre of activities has also shifted. The fencing across the western border has made infiltration more difficult. And, therefore, a large amount of infiltration is taking place from Nepal and Bangladesh. And, from Nepal, it is of both kinds - not only the ISI but also the Left-wing extremists. </b>
Take the Mumbai bombings of July 11, 2006. Separated by about a minute, bombs went off at seven different places. Dozens of people must have been involved. They had picked up different stations, different trains, different people must have transported the explosives, funded them, placed the material in local trains. Despite these large numbers, did we have advance intelligence information?
<b>In 1993, when Mumbai was attacked, within days, if I remember correctly, the whole case was cracked. When Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, in less than 24 hours our intelligence agencies, I remember, had drawn out the sketch of the assassin, with a belt round her waist. When the Akshardham Temple was attacked, within hours, the terrorists were liquidated and those who provided logistical support were arrested. Today, if you were to ask who was behind the Malegon or Mumbai bombings, information only trickles in. The Government, with its inadequate response, has lowered national morale.</b>
A major promise the NCMP did make was: "The anti-terrorism law, POTA, will be repealed." That was the only real response that the UPA had to terrorism. You repealed POTA, saying it was not against terrorists, but a particular community. What has happened thereafter? Obviously, the security agencies advised the Government, and the Home Ministry said that several aspects in POTA, such as, interception of communications, ban on organisations, confiscation of terrorist properties, defining terrorism, would be lifted and put in another law, the Unlawful Activities Act.
But there were two important provisions that were kept out. One, POTA had special provisions that made bail extremely difficult, if not impossible. Unless the court was satisfied that the accused was virtually innocent, bail was not to be granted. The second aspect was that confessions made to a police officer of high seniority were admissible as evidence. Safeguards were introduced in POTA that within 24 hours of the confession, the accused is to be produced before the magistrate, and he can always deny to the magistrate that he made the confession. The magistrate can then direct the medical examination of the accused.
These two special provisions were not merely in POTA. Several States want the same power to deal with organised crime. So, Karnataka, Andhra, Maharashtra, all asked for the same permission and were granted it. So, now you have tough law not for terrorists but for organised crime. For terrorists civil liberties are safeguarded, but for mafia no such consideration is required. This is the illogical approach of the UPA Government.
Let us see what happened thereafter. The Rajasthan and Gujarat Governments asked for the same law. Their assemblies passed the same law as MCOCA, and the Karnataka law and Andhra law. For over two years the UPA Government says, "No such permission will be granted, we are still examining it."
The entire argument is that terrorists should be tried under ordinary law. If the assassins of the late Rajiv Gandhi had been tried under ordinary law, what would the judgement have been? We now have a series of pronouncements from a Mumbai court in relation to the 1993 blasts. Without the benefit of the evidence provisions in TADA, how many of these accused would have been convicted?
The proof of the pudding is in its eating. Today, you have a Congress-NCP Government in Maharashtra. You don't have POTA because you think it violates civil liberties. After 7/11, the State Government arrested some people. What law has it tried them under? Not the ordinary law. They know that under the ordinary law these two advantages that the investigation has against terrorists will not be available. So, they have now formed a new device.<b> We opposed POTA for political reasons, so we cannot bring POTA back. Ordinary law will be insufficient. So, MCOCA, which is not meant for terrorists but for organised crime, will be used. All terror suspects who have so far been arrested for the July bombings are being tried under MCOCA, so that the benefit of a hard law is available to prosecution</b>!
The case of Afzal Guru is an illustration of this Government's attitude. Somebody tries to attack this most vital institution of Indian democracy, the Parliament; he conspires in it, and three courts, one after the other, find there is adequate evidence against him. He tries to annihilate the entire political leadership. This attack, if it had succeeded, if our security guards had not laid down their lives, if these 12 doors had not been closed, a large number of us may not have been here. Is that why you are rewarding the gentleman concerned?
There are mercy petitions the Government may go on considering indefinitely, but there are cases where the Governments in the past disposed within hours. In the case of the assassins of General Arun Vaidya the clemency application was disposed of within hours. There has to be some time-bound system within the Government, within the highest constitutional functionaries of the Government, to dispose this off. Otherwise, it is reflective of the kind of national intent that we have.
(Excerpted from BJP MP Arun Jaitley's speech in the Rajya Sabha on Monday)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Arun Jaitley
UPA Government's lackadaisical, unhurried approach to national security is bound to extract a heavier price from the people
Is India safe in the hands of the UPA? If we see the performance of this Government, we go back disappointed with a great sense of insecurity. Every time any major incident of sabotage or terrorist violence takes place, we see the leaders of this Government, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, come up with the usual clichés: This is condemnable; the Government and the country will have zero-tolerance to terrorism. But after this, the Government simply sits back and waits for the next attack to take place. This has been the history of the last two-and-a-half years.
<b>Today, we have the situation in Jammu & Kashmir; Assam is again erupting and now a complete zone of violence is emerging from Left-wing extremism.</b>
The past two-and-a-half years have seen internal security crumbling under this Government, if not collapsing. I went back to the national common minimum programme (NCMP) to see what the UPA had to say on the subject. When it comes to the NCMP, the UPA generally asks for a strict enforcement. Yet<b>, the 24-page document made virtually no reference to the management of the country's internal security! It was not a UPA priority. There was no mention of what the national strategy has to be to deal with terrorism, what the way forward has to be in order to ease the situation in J&K, on how Left-wing extremism has to be combated</b>. The NCMP did not spare time or attention to all this. It is, therefore, understandable that the UPA's inaction does not bring turmoil within the UPA or its supporting parties in the Left. We are disappointed, but not surprised.
Are the UPA, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister living in denial? I don't think they are unaware of what is happening. All security and intelligence agencies have the eyes and ears of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. And professional as they are, I have no doubt that our agencies have been keeping the highest functionaries of the Government informed as to what the ground-level situation is.
<b>The problem is not that there is lack of professional advice, the real problem is the UPA's own approach. Hard decisions are not taken, terrorism is to be dealt with kid gloves, and the punch to be delivered must have a velvet coating. The approach of the UPA is: Can I make political capital out of it? Can I use the fight against terrorism as an instrument of vote bank politics?</b>
In 59 years of India's independent history, has it ever happened that an exasperated head of an intelligence agency chooses a public platform to deliver his views? These are all agencies that usually, very quietly advise the Government on the steps to be taken. But even these agencies - I refer here to the speech made by the Director, IB - have come to realise that the Government is not merely to be rapped on its knuckles but to be knocked on its head.
Before the entire country, television and media, the Government is advised that all existing traditional legal architectures for dealing with terrorism have failed and, therefore, think of a solution commensurate with the problem. Within 48 hours came the Prime Minister's response that the Government had no intention of enacting any tough law to deal with terrorism!
Today, you have a situation where terror attacks and networks are not merely limited to J&K, but ISI modules have been expanding across the country. In different towns of Maharashtra, for instance, the kind of recoveries being made are not of explosives made by our security agencies.<b> How many recoveries have been made from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat, Goa, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal?</b>
<b>Today, the targets of principal terrorist attacks are chosen very carefully so as to destroy the economic, religious and social fabric of society</b>. Take the major attacks past one year or so. On July 5, 2005, the chosen target was Ayodhya. On the eve of Diwali last year - October 29, 2005 - it was Delhi, the capital of India. Then, they chose Bangalore, the technological hub, on December 28, 2005. On March 7, 2006, came Varanasi, an attack against a religious and cultural hub. Next Nagpur, an attempted attack on the headquarters of the RSS. On June 1 and July 11 it was Mumbai, the commercial capital. Thereafter, Malegaon - a town in which minority community is in majority. The target of attack was the minority itself so that some kind of upheaval could be created.
Each one of these attacks is believed to have been planned across the border. <b>But, then, you find reports there is also an indigenous element to the terror. From what was initially a support only for logistics by local groups, you have to face an unfortunate reality that these cross-border attacks are also being supported at places by homegrown terrorists. Let us not forget that the centre of activities has also shifted. The fencing across the western border has made infiltration more difficult. And, therefore, a large amount of infiltration is taking place from Nepal and Bangladesh. And, from Nepal, it is of both kinds - not only the ISI but also the Left-wing extremists. </b>
Take the Mumbai bombings of July 11, 2006. Separated by about a minute, bombs went off at seven different places. Dozens of people must have been involved. They had picked up different stations, different trains, different people must have transported the explosives, funded them, placed the material in local trains. Despite these large numbers, did we have advance intelligence information?
<b>In 1993, when Mumbai was attacked, within days, if I remember correctly, the whole case was cracked. When Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, in less than 24 hours our intelligence agencies, I remember, had drawn out the sketch of the assassin, with a belt round her waist. When the Akshardham Temple was attacked, within hours, the terrorists were liquidated and those who provided logistical support were arrested. Today, if you were to ask who was behind the Malegon or Mumbai bombings, information only trickles in. The Government, with its inadequate response, has lowered national morale.</b>
A major promise the NCMP did make was: "The anti-terrorism law, POTA, will be repealed." That was the only real response that the UPA had to terrorism. You repealed POTA, saying it was not against terrorists, but a particular community. What has happened thereafter? Obviously, the security agencies advised the Government, and the Home Ministry said that several aspects in POTA, such as, interception of communications, ban on organisations, confiscation of terrorist properties, defining terrorism, would be lifted and put in another law, the Unlawful Activities Act.
But there were two important provisions that were kept out. One, POTA had special provisions that made bail extremely difficult, if not impossible. Unless the court was satisfied that the accused was virtually innocent, bail was not to be granted. The second aspect was that confessions made to a police officer of high seniority were admissible as evidence. Safeguards were introduced in POTA that within 24 hours of the confession, the accused is to be produced before the magistrate, and he can always deny to the magistrate that he made the confession. The magistrate can then direct the medical examination of the accused.
These two special provisions were not merely in POTA. Several States want the same power to deal with organised crime. So, Karnataka, Andhra, Maharashtra, all asked for the same permission and were granted it. So, now you have tough law not for terrorists but for organised crime. For terrorists civil liberties are safeguarded, but for mafia no such consideration is required. This is the illogical approach of the UPA Government.
Let us see what happened thereafter. The Rajasthan and Gujarat Governments asked for the same law. Their assemblies passed the same law as MCOCA, and the Karnataka law and Andhra law. For over two years the UPA Government says, "No such permission will be granted, we are still examining it."
The entire argument is that terrorists should be tried under ordinary law. If the assassins of the late Rajiv Gandhi had been tried under ordinary law, what would the judgement have been? We now have a series of pronouncements from a Mumbai court in relation to the 1993 blasts. Without the benefit of the evidence provisions in TADA, how many of these accused would have been convicted?
The proof of the pudding is in its eating. Today, you have a Congress-NCP Government in Maharashtra. You don't have POTA because you think it violates civil liberties. After 7/11, the State Government arrested some people. What law has it tried them under? Not the ordinary law. They know that under the ordinary law these two advantages that the investigation has against terrorists will not be available. So, they have now formed a new device.<b> We opposed POTA for political reasons, so we cannot bring POTA back. Ordinary law will be insufficient. So, MCOCA, which is not meant for terrorists but for organised crime, will be used. All terror suspects who have so far been arrested for the July bombings are being tried under MCOCA, so that the benefit of a hard law is available to prosecution</b>!
The case of Afzal Guru is an illustration of this Government's attitude. Somebody tries to attack this most vital institution of Indian democracy, the Parliament; he conspires in it, and three courts, one after the other, find there is adequate evidence against him. He tries to annihilate the entire political leadership. This attack, if it had succeeded, if our security guards had not laid down their lives, if these 12 doors had not been closed, a large number of us may not have been here. Is that why you are rewarding the gentleman concerned?
There are mercy petitions the Government may go on considering indefinitely, but there are cases where the Governments in the past disposed within hours. In the case of the assassins of General Arun Vaidya the clemency application was disposed of within hours. There has to be some time-bound system within the Government, within the highest constitutional functionaries of the Government, to dispose this off. Otherwise, it is reflective of the kind of national intent that we have.
(Excerpted from BJP MP Arun Jaitley's speech in the Rajya Sabha on Monday)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->