[Reader-list] Are Tougher Laws The Answer?

[Taha Mehmood]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Parvaiz Bukhari
<parvaizbukhari at gmail.com>wrote:

> http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090108&fname=prashant&sid=1&pn=1
>
> *Are Tougher Laws The Answer?*  *No. Far from curbing terror, draconian
> laws
> used by a corrupt and communal police are creating conditions which will
> only make the problem worse. The problem lies with the police, the
> implementing agency.*



Dear Parvaiz,

Thank you for posting this article. We all know that any critique of terror
laws in any country warns us about the possible worsening of situation.
Personally I denounce terror laws in our country and elsewhere as it goes
against basic and fundamental human rights. I deeply deplore them.

But for the sake of an argument, please allow me to play the devil's
advocate.

Don't you feel that at one level it is but obvious for the Government to
have introduced terror laws in India?

At the macro level, that is on a national scale there is a perception about
the Muslim community in India in particular that these people are bunch of
maniacs and religious zealots, then there is this meta-narrative of Jehad
and War against terror.

Parallel to this perception, on a micro level or on the scale of a street or
a mohalla there is a continuous occurrence of bomb attacks, fidayeen attacks
and what not. The crescendo seems to be building up as India approaches
general election.

The micros and macros are then adduced to make  generalizations about fear
and insecurity. The line of argument seems to be valid. Among some sections
of Indian society this fuels a desire that Muslims need to be contained.

There are general elections around the corner. The Hindu right agenda is
clear and known to everyone. In order to perhaps make sure that it should
not be perceived as soft on terror, the UPA introduces some laws. As a
political form of response what is wrong in that?

Considering the fact that Bombay terror attacks did happen, there is an
insurgency going on in Kashmir (the only state with a Muslim CM), there were
a series of bomb attacks in the country, where it was widely perceived that
disgruntled Muslim youth of the country supported by other individuals
carried out these attacks. Then there are statements like those made by
Qasab, who claims that a) He did it for Islam and b) he will not repent at
all for what he did.

It is indeed a tragedy of this country that even after 60 years of
Independence, most of the 140 million Muslims of India have to sound
apologetic for their beliefs because of absolutely disgusting acts of a
bunch of ten brainwashed, mad and crazed Pakis.

Having said that I am not at all claiming that I support terror laws but I
am curious- Is there any other way or different way or differing way in
which this perception could have been read in a new light? because prima
facie I find myself at odds to come up with counter arguments in addition to
those articulated by Mr. Bhushan against the imposition these terror laws.

Regards

Taha