[Reader-list] Are Tougher Laws The Answer?

[anupam chakravartty]

Dear Rakesh,



At the outset, let me congratulate you for availing your democratic rights
for free expression on your views about terror, legalities and
interestingly, Pakistani Muslims assisting Indian Muslims and blah and blah.
Even I endorse these rights from time to time as I have realised this luxury
of free expression lately as opposed to millions who are maimed or gagged
because they wanted to say something or expose some important facet of their
respective societies.

Your idea of terror as compared to traffic issues is very interesting if not
ridiculous. That there should be strict laws to prevent terror attacks in
the nation and that laws (for instance: traffic laws, as your pointed out)
exist but not implemented in a proper manner shows exposes the hypocrisy of
the legal system in fighting crime and other social ills. For instance, last
week the Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, expressed his reservations
about setting up a National Investigation Agency (NIA) but at the same time,
vigorously mobilising young people in the state to take part in the
signature campaigns to support GUJCOC – the proposed anti terror law for the
state. He reasons: "By setting up the National Investigation Agency, the
Central government now obviously wants to take over upon itself the
responsibility of fighting terror by sidetracking the states."

On second thoughts, let's do a small experiment here with this quote by Mr
Modi (hope he doesn't mind). Let us replace the word "investigation" with
"traffic". Modi's quote would read like this: "By setting up the National
Traffic Agency, the Central government now obviously wants to take over upon
itself the responsibility of fighting traffic issues by sidetracking the
states." If we go by your comparison of traffic and terror laws, this
statement would have made more sense on part of Mr Modi.

Let us also assume that we have very tough terror laws and they are been
misused. Because there would be a presence of an extremely vocal watchdog's
lobby demanding explanation for each preventive arrest under the law, are
you trying to say that it would keep a check on the policemen? For how many
months these watchdogs can keep an eye ( as the police reforming itself is
very unlikely unless there is push from non-police agency)?… for six months?
What if the detention is extended for a period of two years? Do we have a
body in the Indian Polity to keep a watch on a man detained by the police
under presumed preventive terror act for two years? Can you monitor if the
police and state agencies did not torture the accused for a forceful
confession?

Forget the tough laws on terror, Assam Government has increased the period
of preventive detention from six months to two years. There is not single
watchdog in that state to keep a track people picked up in the name of
preventive detention in the middle of the night. There used to Manab Adhikar
Sangram Samiti (MASS) but then it has been by the successive state
governments to have links with the banned ULFA. Although, MASS is the only
organisation to have exposed the army's torture on innocent villagers
especially women.

You want to educate the people about the laws on terror. Why would anyone
listen to you Rakesh? What business do they have apart from knowing what
their rights here? It is the responsibility of the state. In a state like
Gujarat, there is a shortage of 1200 policemen in the forces. Don't you
think a tough terror bill has been drafted to compensate the staff shortages
in the security agencies?

And finally, why do Indian Muslims or anyone has to issue a *fatwa* against
Pakistani Muslims? What did Muslims do anyway? Isn't ridiculous to
legitimise the attacks by deeming it as some kind of support to Indian
Muslims when a lot of others through non-violent means such as music and
arts are opposing the states from gaining a communal colour, preventing them
from waging another war?

As I am a novice when it comes to the art of arguing through mails, I hope
these questions are answered in this public forum.

Best,
Anupam

On 1/10/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> I would like to point out a statement made on the floor of the Parliament
> by
> the Home Minister P.Chidambaram, as the discussion on the anti-terror law
> was taking place in the Lok Sabha. He had said that these terror laws would
> definitely not help in fighting jihadis, who have no fear of death and who
> are ready to die for a cause. This law is being introduced to bring
> confidence among the people, that the state is not just sitting idle, as
> terror attacks take place throughout the country.
>
> Secondly, just because an anti-terror law is misused doesn't mean that the
> law shouldn't be there. This is a completely nonsense argument. The traffic
> laws are also misused in our country to a great deal. Does that mean that
> we
> should not have any traffic laws? No, it means that we educate our people
> about these laws, ensure that they are strictly implemented, introduce
> reforms in our traffic police and provide them incentives so that they can
> ensure strict implementation of such laws, and moves like these.
>
> Similarly, just because there are some provisions in any law, which can be
> misused, doesn't mean the law must not be there. The way to fight out this
> is to ensure that institutions must be created and people must be educated
> on the possible misuse of the law, and how to counter it. If that means
> police reforms, so be it. If that means courts intervening and punishing
> officials who do so, so be it. If that means society has to change its
> outlook towards those who are arrested under POTA and then acquitted for
> want of any evidence, so be it. But that does not mean repeal of the law.
> So, as far as those provisions which can be misused are concerned, this
> certainly is the case. Let us stop misuse of the law, not repeal it.
>
> The only argument according to me, which is useful, is whether it's against
> the basic tenet of human rights. When a person in USA or England can be
> detained for upto a maximum period of 30 days, or even less than that, why
> is it required that a person in India be detained till about 180 days, is
> beyond comprehension. This is wrong, and hence must certainly be looked at.
>
> Finally, I would say that I am no supporter of anti-terror laws. I
> understand it does alienate people from the society they live in. But
> certainly, they are not introduced for that purpose itself as they are
> supposed to perform, as the Home Minister acknowledges. And one must
> understand that, for the UPA has its own compulsions to do so. To be in
> it's
> position, is totally problematic. It has to deal with both Hindutva and
> Antulay.
>
> And yes for Pakistan. The Indian Muslim leaders should together release a
> fatwa telling the Pakistani Muslims to mind their own business, and that
> the
> justice and redistribution of resources on a fair basis is something the
> Indian Muslims can fight for, without requiring any help from Pakistan. And
> more importantly, all such terror help from Pakistan must be denounced in
> all terms.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh Iyer
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>