Do we need POTA to tackle terrorism?

DEBATE

In the wake of the Mumbai strikes, the need for this type of legislation has taken centrestage with the BJP championing it vigorously.

PRAKASH SINGH,
Former Director General, Border Security Force

Both the US and the UK now give sweeping powers for anti-terrorist activity - are we trying to be more democratic than even them?

Having a proper law is one of the essential ingredients of any counter-terrorist strategy. The country had the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act (TADA), 1987. It was, however, criticised for laying down a procedure that was allegedly unfair to the accused and was, therefore, allowed to lapse in May 1995. When it was again felt that the country must have an anti-terror law, Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was enacted in a joint session of Parliament in 2002. It was a diluted version of TADA. While an accused could be kept in police custody for 60 days under TADA, he could be kept for only 30 days under POTA. Besides, while TADA permitted an accused to be kept in judicial custody for one year, POTA allowed that for 180 days. The minimum punishment under TADA was five years while under POTA it was just three years.

Unfortunately, the UPA allowed even this to lapse in September 2004 with the result that we have no anti-terror law today. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is hardly a substitute.

The usual arguments that are trotted out against an anti-terrorism law are that the law is misused, that acts of terrorism could not be prevented even when we had such a law, and that the existing laws are adequate to deal with terror. All these are specious. If a law is misused, the answer lies in punishing those who abuse its provisions and not dismantling the law itself. The Arms Act, the Narcotics Act and a host of other laws are also misused. Shall we, then, repeal all these and let the criminals have a field day? Besides, counter-terrorism involves a comprehensive package; law is only one of its components. Those arguing that the existing laws are adequate are either deluding themselves or saying so for extraneous reasons.

In the wake of 9/11, the US enacted the PATRIOT Act, which gave sweeping powers to the domestic law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. It modified the procedures that protected the confidentiality of private communications, reinforced the curbs on money laundering, prevented alien terrorists from entering the US and enhanced the penalties for acts of terrorism. The UK passed an Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act, 2001, which gave additional powers to the police and reinforced the security of airports and laboratories. It even allowed the internment of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.

Lord Denning said: "The freedom of individual must take second place to the security of the state". Recently, no less a person than the Chief Justice of India said that the international community could not fault India if it chose to enact tough measures to deal with the menace of terror. Are we pretending to be more democratic than the Western countries?

K G KANNABIRAN,
President, People's Union for Civil Liberties

The entire provisions of POTA were incorporated in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act when it was amended in 2004

The whole argument that POTA could have prevented blasts in Mumbai is based on a misconception and total ignorance. The entire provision of POTA is incorporated in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) 1967 after it was amended in 2004. L K Advani is bluffing and other political leaders are talking in ignorance when they say that POTA could have prevented the blasts. In the amendment to the 1967 UAPA, the word "terrorist" was introduced in the law and chapters two to four of POTA have become chapters four to six of the UAPA 1967. The schedule of POTA, which lists out banned organisations, is now in the schedule of the amended Act.

The Students Islamic Movement of India is a banned organisation and the government recently extended the ban. How can it extend the ban if there is no Act to prevent terrorist activities? The government cannot be without an Act on terrorism. Every member of SAARC will have to introduce a terrorism prevention Act. SAARC as well as the UN Security Council have passed resolutions to this effect.

So, the BJP introduced POTA when it was time to renew the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preventive) Act (TADA). It did not want TADA since it was passed by a Congress government. Then Congress made promises in its UPA manifesto that it will repeal POTA. So, in compliance with its manifestor, it repealed POTA and introduced all the provisions of POTA in the amendment to the UAPA in 2004. With increasing reliance on the US, India cannot be without a terrorism act.

For 50 years, these parties have been misgoverning the country with such false statements. As for the prevention of blasts, an act alone cannot catch terrorists. The only way to meet this violence is to encourage the Muslim constituencies to speak for secularism. Calling the media and parading suspects and such tamashas are just that. Nothing can come out of it. If the government is really interested, there must be a campaign for secularism among Muslims, and intellectuals in the community should speak against terrorism and say that they are for secularism. This would not only disillusion terrorists but also make Hindu communalism fizzle out. It cannot exist in the face of vocal Muslim secularism. Muslims should declare a jehad against terrorists.

It is true there is insecurity and fear in the Muslim community. But being bold and being vocal against terrorism is the only weapon against this fear. It is not that the onus of fighting terrorism is on the shoulders of Muslims alone. But this is an opportunity the Muslims have to project the community as a pillar of secularism. That would prevent terrorists from seeing any hope in receiving the hospitality of the community to carry out their agenda.