Legislating anti-terrorism II

The issuance of Prevention of terrorism Ordinance 2001 or POTO has landed the nation into a boiling controversy. The memories of a misused TADA had not yet faded when the ruling party pronounced that those against POTO are against the nation. The Government insists that the country needs a strong anti-terrorism law. Events of September 11 and the hardline adopted by USA and Britain have come handy for justifying POTO. The need being so urgent that the Government pushed through a Presidential Ordinance realising its inability to get the legislation passed in the Parliament due to its minority. Its ironical that the government did not experience the indispensability of such a law for six years. During this period, our foreign minister escorted three renowned terrorists (Maulana Masood Azhar, Zargar and Sheikh Omar Saeed) to Kandahar in return for the passengers of the hijacked flight no IC-814. A combination of foreign mercenaries and terrorists supported by Pakistani soldiers occupied the mountain ranges of Kargil and Dras. The same had to be regained after a fierce battle causing immense loss to the nation. Opponents of POTO claim that this ordinance has been promulgated with an eye on elections for Uttar Pradesh assembly early next year. The ruling BJP can curtail personal liberty and freedom of expression, lock its opponents and win these elections, which will prove critical for the party. Samajvadi party chief Mulayam Singh openly asserts that POTO is meant to target Muslims of Uttar Pradesh so that BJp can win assembly polls. Renowned lawyer and congress MP Kapil Sibal expressed a similar view in his article "Politics of POTO' [The Times of India, November 15, 2001]

Let us examine the areas where POTO violates norms of democracy and constitutional government swinging the state towards authoritarianism. Since anti-terrorist laws are meant for a special set of criminals, such laws must be made as specific as possible. Misuse is unavoidable if such laws are made sweeping in scope and loosely worded. Define the term terrorism loosely and the misuse begins. The ruling party uses this definition to suffocate dissent. Even label dissent as criminal. Rogue officials lock up innocent citizens who have no chance of bail under such draconian legislations. Articulating disagreement is the essence of democracy. It must not be gagged under the mask of combating terrorism. Thus peaceful political activity must be kept outside the purview of the term terrorism.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic