Opinion
-
Editorials
Politics and terrorism issues
IF THE ALL-PARTY meeting called in the hope of converting the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) into an Act yielded no results, it is because neither side - the Government and the Opposition - was prepared to shift from already staked out positions. The inability of the Centre to advance any new proposal which could save the proposed legislation and the reluctance of the Opposition to spell out exactly what it wants changed or modified in it strongly suggest that the ongoing debate over POTO has less to do with tackling terrorism and more to do with playing politics. Recent political behaviour has clearly demonstrated that the new terrorism legislation has become a subject on which arguments have been framed and stances have been adopted with an eye on Uttar Pradesh, which goes to the polls a few months from now.
With the Government declaring that there is no change in its intention of converting the POTO into a law and the bulk of the Opposition sticking to its stand that a totally new draft Bill be prepared after wideranging consultations, the fate of a new terrorism legislation appears at best dismal and at worst doomed. But this is clearly not going to prevent the politics of POTO from playing itself out. Although the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, has repeatedly expressed his desire to evolve a consensus on POTO, his Government as well as his political party have given the distinct impression that they are quite comfortable with the Opposition's rejection of it. That the BJP is convinced that it is politically counter-productive to oppose POTO is hardly in doubt. Allegations to the effect that those who are opposed to POTO are soft and ready to compromise on terrorism have sent unmistakable signals that the BJP is preparing to try and capitalise on its supposedly hard and unyielding line on terrorism in the Uttar Pradesh election. The U.P. Chief Minister, Mr. Rajnath Singh's repeated declaration that his State will enact a law on the lines of POTO if it fails to pass through Parliament is another indication of the BJP's plan to use the terrorism issue to gain political sympathy.
Although the mainstream Opposition has identified some features of POTO that it is apprehensive about, by and large, its objections have not been spelt out specifically and in the detail that is warranted. The very least that must be expected of those who profess they are not (in principle) against an omnibus law against terrorism is a clear elucidation of what exactly they think is wrong with POTO and what is needed to correct/redress this. An unfortunate result of the Opposition's attitude is that it has lent the impression that its objections to POTO stem less from a (valid and reasonable) civil liberties point of view, but from certain calculations which are of a political/electoral nature. It is questionable whether POTO will have a significant impact on tackling terrorism (its infamous predecessor TADA had no discernible impact on the phenomenon). Moreover, some of its provisions such as the use of confessions made to the police and tighter bail rules raise legitimate concerns from a civil rights point of view - the manner in which TADA was misused should serve as a lesson about how `stringent' legislation can result in abuse and victimisation in the hands of the police. At the same time, a subject as significant as terrorism demands a debate that is dispassionate, non-partisan and honest. Unfortunately, much of what we have witnessed so far - from the time POTO was promulgated to the abrupt collapse of the all-party talks which were held to try and save it - is posturing and political oneupmanship. A country in which politicians seem more than prepared to play politics with issues relating to terrorism can hardly be very effective in tackling it.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Opinion
|
