The politics of POTO

IF THE UNION GOVERNMENT banked on achieving a measure of consensus on the proposed legislation to check terrorism, its plan seems to have come totally unstuck. With the Congress and other Opposition parties declaring their total rejection of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) in its present form, the proposed new law on terrorism seems destined to die still-born. In an important sense, this is not a bad thing at all. While a general omnibus law on terrorism is not necessarily objectionable, the country shouldn't shed tears over the passing of a legislation, which contains many worrying features and which runs the real risk of being subject to misuse. From a civil rights point of view, India's experience of the now mercifully defunct Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) has been a far from happy one. It is true that POTO is a softer version of its much-reviled predecessor in a couple of critical ways, particularly with respect to the conditions for securing bail. But overall, the provisions of POTO, which widens the definition of terrorism, are severe enough to raise legitimate fears about possible abuse, victimisation and general violations of human rights.

The BJP-led Government has blamed the Opposition for scuppering the proposed legislation, but it is the former that should shoulder most of the blame for failing to achieve a consensus. Given the sensitivity of the issue, what was the need to rush through with an Ordinance? It would have been far more appropriate for a Government which has declared it is in favour of a consensus on a new terrorism law to have brought it up in the form of a Bill before Parliament and have its provisions discussed in a responsible manner and with an open mind. By adopting the Ordinance route, the Government has contributed to the Opposition's suspicion that POTO may have less to do with terrorism and more to do with politics. Statements issued by BJP Ministers and party bigwigs to the effect that opposing POTO is tantamount to being soft on terrorism have only helped stoke such suspicions. The crucial Assembly election to Uttar Pradesh is only months away and the BJP has already made it no secret that its ostensibly tough line on terrorism will form the main basis of its campaign plank.

To equate opposition to POTO with being unpatriotic or with a willingness to compromise on terrorism issues is a cynical political ploy and deserves to be condemned roundly. On the other side of the power divide, the Opposition is not exactly innocent of playing politics with POTO either. Enactment of similar laws in Congress-ruled States is a case in point. At a more abstracted level, it is something of a tragedy that a subject such as terrorism - which is serious and important enough to warrant the forging of political ranks - can create so much dissonance and disunity. Until now, much of the political cut and thrust of the discussion over the new terrorism legislation has been cynical and self-serving. As Parliament meets to discuss the provisions of the draft Bill, it is imperative that the level of the debate is raised beyond mudslinging, name-calling and petty politicking. The Government cannot carry the proposed legislation through in the Rajya Sabha, where it suffers from the lack of a majority, without Congress support. So, unless there is a radical change in the already staked out positions, the conclusion of the debate is foregone. The terrorism Bill in its existing form is a dead letter though the Congress(I) has held out the compromise of a Parliamentary Committee to examine it. Nevertheless, it is important that the contours of the debate, particularly on a sensitive and important issue such as terrorism, are shaped by reason and open-mindedness and not by bias and political prejudice.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Gathering pace