Modi's case for an anti-terror law ---- Ever a man to call a spade a spade, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's case for an anti-terrorism law at a public meeting in Mumbai on Monday was an accurate reflection of public sentiment. Mr Modi spoke not just as a rhetorical politician but as a concerned party. As Chief Minister of a State that shares a border - admittedly a long, desolate and arid one - with Pakistan and that has seen religious radicalism grow by leaps and bounds in recent years, Mr Modi sees the need for such a law. Indeed, his Government had initiated a State law against organised crime and terrorism - on the lines of a similar law in Maharashtra - only to have the Union Home Ministry sit on it, following suggestions that the law may be misused by the State BJP Government. There is an essential dishonesty here - the Centre will revoke the omnibus anti-terror law but not allow States to fill the gap with local laws; in anticipation of wrongful use, a legally elected State Government will be prevented from legislation. This dog in the manger attitude - reflected ever since the UPA Government nullified the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) almost as soon it came into office - is politically advantageous, perhaps, but runs contrary to national interests. It is nobody's case that a strong anti-terror law can prevent all acts of terrorism, every suicide bombing. Yet what it does contain is the framework for inflicting upon the criminal exemplary and harsh punishment, which can deter his or her compatriots. Without POTA, neither those who plotted the attack on Parliament in 2001 nor those who desecrated Akshardham temple in 2002 would have been convicted. India's counter-terrorism machinery would have been left - as it has been now - toothless. The UPA's supposed argument - that POTA was used to harass Muslims - is so specious as to be ridiculed. Occasionally, the anti-dowry law can be exploited by aberrant individuals to settle scores with innocent husbands. Should then the entire Act be junked? Prevention of misuse - and redressal measures should this happen - are to be built into the governing and criminal justice system.

The truth of the matter is - to quote from the Prime Minister's apparent plea at a Cabinet meeting this past week - the UPA has successfully communalised the fight against terrorism, selectively seeing laws and measures in terms of how they affect one religious community or the other. As long as this was theoretical indulgence and political debate it was perhaps tolerable. If, as in the case of the Mumbai blasts, it is found that it severely handicaps the police and the intelligence community's capacity to interrogate and punish the guilty, it is bound to evoke revulsion and shame India. That is why, if it wants to deny Gujarat its own anti-terror law, the UPA should only hope to do one better and bring in a national law, a POTA Plus if it so desires. Right now, India is just too vulnerable.

Courtesy: The Pioneer, July 19, 2006

Back to up