Author: Arun Jaitley
Publication: Times of India
Date: December 9, 2001
In the last 15 years, we have lost
61,000 civilians and 8,700 security personnel to terrorism. Compare this
to the number of lives lost in the four wars India has fought: 5,400. What
we have lost to terrorism, which we regard as low-intensity conflict, is
several times more than what we lost in those high-intensity wars.
In the last 15 years, 5,80,000 people
have been rendered homeless and we have spent Rs 45,000 crores on anti-insurgency
efforts and rehabilitation of para military forces. The expenditure has
increased 26 times in the last decade. Terrorism has become an economic
and social burden, and erodes faith in democratic institutions.
Most liberal western democracies,
with not even a fraction of the terrorist problem we face, have strong
anti-terrorist laws. It is ironical that we should still be debating.
An anti-terrorist law needs five
components. First, making monetary assistance to terrorists an offence.
Second, no one should be allowed to retain profits of crime. So assets
acquired out of terrorism need to be confiscated. These laws have been
functioning for years.
Third, provision for banning terrorist
organisations. This provision is almost identical to the British law. England,
acting on the basis of this law and upon our request, has banned most organisations.
Isn't it ironical that we ourselves are without a proper system to do the
same? Fourth, interception. In a country where the conviction rate is only
6.5 per cent, intercepts are essential and must be treated as admissible
evidence.
Fifth, a special procedure for trying
terrorists. Bails should be made more difficult and confessions to the
police treated as admissible evidence. Terrorist trials ought to get precedence
over other trials.
The Congress' argument against Poto
is that it may be misused, like TADA was when they were in power! We must
learn from it and plug the loopholes: Confiscation of property and banning
of organisations must be subject to review; To ensure that intercepts are
not misused, they will go through a review committee headed by a high court
judge; A person making a confession will have to be produced before the
judge within 48 hours, who will determine whether it was voluntary or otherwise.
In any case, it's the state governments who will have to enforce the law.
The next argument is that the Opposition
was not consulted. But the Law Commission draft was circulated, there was
a national debate, and suggestions by the NHRC and the Supreme Court were
incorporated. Then, virtually every Congress government supported it. MP
and Maharashtra made good suggestions. The intercept chapter was added
at Maharashtra's suggestion. After all this, you turn around and say we
don't require this law. The argument is that if you arm the policeman with
too much power, he will violate human rights. The truth is if you don't,
but expect him to deliver, violations will be much more.
The amendments: Nothing has been
changed except the clause the media objected to. But, officially, I can't
say anything until Monday when the issue is discussed in Parliament. The
PM consulted the opposition parties. The Home minister had a meeting with
state chief ministers. If we don't make changes you say it is draconian,
if we do, you say it's toothless.
