12-18-2008, 02:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Getting its Act together</b>
pioneer.com
<b>But UPA lacks the guts to fight terror</b>
Doubts about the UPA Governmentâs intention to fulfil its promise, made in the aftermath of the November 26 fidayeen attacks in Mumbai, of setting up a federal investigative agency and tightening existing legal provisions to fight terrorism have been partially removed by the proposed legislative measures. A Bill has been introduced in Parliament to set up a National Investigation Agency, which will have over-riding powers to investigate incidents of terrorism across the country and prosecute the guilty. Some State Governments have expressed their reservations about setting up a federal investigative agency as it would be intruding into their domain â maintaining law and order is a State Governmentâs responsibility. While such objections may have been valid in the past, they are no longer relevant. The siege of Mumbai has demonstrated that jihadi terrorism has evolved into a lethal war against the nation; most, if not all, State Governments do not have the resources or lack the political will to tackle those who are waging this war. If we are going to move towards a homeland security regime, then the proposed National Investigation Agency is a non-negotiable necessity. A separate Bill has been moved to further amend the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 to facilitate both successful investigation and prosecution. This Act was amended in 2004-05 after the UPA abolished the Prevention of Terrorism Act with disastrous consequences. At that time, then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, whose gross incompetence is largely to blame for the collapse of the national security apparatus, had claimed that the amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act would serve the purpose of dealing with terrorism.
Like everything else that Mr Patil ever said, this too proved to be no more than bunkum â not only has India suffered repeated terrorist strikes and paid a huge price over the past four-and-a-half years, a situation has come when mere tinkering with existing laws is unlikely to have a deterrent effect. Hence, although <b>the proposed amendments, including increasing the period of detention from 90 to 180 days, denying bail to the accused without the consent of the prosecution, shifting the burden of proof of innocence on those who are charged with committing acts of terrorism, and expanding the scope of what defines terrorism are welcome measures, they may ultimately prove to be insufficient. It can be argued that since the amended Act will more or less resemble POTA and hence serve the purpose of the tough law that was first discredited and then scrapped by the Congress and its âsecularâ allies with an eye to the Muslim vote, there is no reason to frame a separate law.</b> This argument is not without merit; even after its 2004-05 amendment, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act had enough clauses to prosecute those who perpetrate terror and those who collude with the perpetrators. But the amended law was neither used to send out a clear message to terrorists, their collaborators and their patrons that their criminal deeds shall not be tolerated, nor was it invoked to prosecute the guilty. Indeed, in most cases prosecutors preferred the easy option of invoking the Arms Act. So, there is no reason to believe that the Act, after further amendments, will be used as a weapon to fight terrorism. Ultimately, what matters is not the law but the Governmentâs political determination, something which is alien to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pioneer.com
<b>But UPA lacks the guts to fight terror</b>
Doubts about the UPA Governmentâs intention to fulfil its promise, made in the aftermath of the November 26 fidayeen attacks in Mumbai, of setting up a federal investigative agency and tightening existing legal provisions to fight terrorism have been partially removed by the proposed legislative measures. A Bill has been introduced in Parliament to set up a National Investigation Agency, which will have over-riding powers to investigate incidents of terrorism across the country and prosecute the guilty. Some State Governments have expressed their reservations about setting up a federal investigative agency as it would be intruding into their domain â maintaining law and order is a State Governmentâs responsibility. While such objections may have been valid in the past, they are no longer relevant. The siege of Mumbai has demonstrated that jihadi terrorism has evolved into a lethal war against the nation; most, if not all, State Governments do not have the resources or lack the political will to tackle those who are waging this war. If we are going to move towards a homeland security regime, then the proposed National Investigation Agency is a non-negotiable necessity. A separate Bill has been moved to further amend the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 to facilitate both successful investigation and prosecution. This Act was amended in 2004-05 after the UPA abolished the Prevention of Terrorism Act with disastrous consequences. At that time, then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, whose gross incompetence is largely to blame for the collapse of the national security apparatus, had claimed that the amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act would serve the purpose of dealing with terrorism.
Like everything else that Mr Patil ever said, this too proved to be no more than bunkum â not only has India suffered repeated terrorist strikes and paid a huge price over the past four-and-a-half years, a situation has come when mere tinkering with existing laws is unlikely to have a deterrent effect. Hence, although <b>the proposed amendments, including increasing the period of detention from 90 to 180 days, denying bail to the accused without the consent of the prosecution, shifting the burden of proof of innocence on those who are charged with committing acts of terrorism, and expanding the scope of what defines terrorism are welcome measures, they may ultimately prove to be insufficient. It can be argued that since the amended Act will more or less resemble POTA and hence serve the purpose of the tough law that was first discredited and then scrapped by the Congress and its âsecularâ allies with an eye to the Muslim vote, there is no reason to frame a separate law.</b> This argument is not without merit; even after its 2004-05 amendment, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act had enough clauses to prosecute those who perpetrate terror and those who collude with the perpetrators. But the amended law was neither used to send out a clear message to terrorists, their collaborators and their patrons that their criminal deeds shall not be tolerated, nor was it invoked to prosecute the guilty. Indeed, in most cases prosecutors preferred the easy option of invoking the Arms Act. So, there is no reason to believe that the Act, after further amendments, will be used as a weapon to fight terrorism. Ultimately, what matters is not the law but the Governmentâs political determination, something which is alien to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->