Click to play videoJaipur, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Delhi – with every blast, the terrorists seem to get increasingly audacious and the state and civil society more helpless.
Can India fight the enemy within? Importantly, can we spot the terrorist hiding in between a crowd of common men? Is it possible to build a national consensus on terror, irrespective of political and ideological leanings?
Weekend Edition with Rajdeep Sardesai looked at finding answers to some of those questions with a panel comprising of BJP leader Arun Jaitley, Congress leader Salman Khurshid, ex-IPS officer and Magasaysay award winner Kiran Bedi and lawyer Colin Gonsalves.
Issue 1: Will tougher laws like POTA help?
BJP has been repeatedly insisting on bringing back the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act. But will the law help? Arun Jaitley maintained it would and said law was not a substitute for securing borders, effective intelligence or better policing.
"Law only empowers the forces by giving it special rights in relation to trial and investigation so as to punish those responsible. That's when it acts like a deterrent," Jaitley stated.
However, that does not necessarily mean terror attacks will stop. After all, there were dastardly attacks during the BJP-led NDA regime when POTA was in place. But Jaitley said it was POTA that enabled authorities to sentence the guilty. "These are special situations and one needs special, substantial laws to deal with it," he said.
However, Congress' Salman Khurshid said law was not the issue in India, its application was. "Has there ever been a misuse of law in America, the manner in which it has happened in India? Never," he said. He argued India was at a worse position because there was a "sense of alienation" among the masses. That isn't the case in America, he argued.
Jaitley said there was no point of conflict in Khurshid's argument. A political initiative is undoubtedly required and so is a conducive environment. But at the same time, he argued, those who commit the crime shouldn't have the "luxury" of easy bail just for the fear of someone else or some other community getting alienated.
Confession and bail are two aspects that are seen under the present law as problem creators. In the UK, for example, police can hold suspects for up to 42 days without a charge. In India, it's 90 days.
So we do have tough laws but should they be made tougher?
Kiran Bedi felt police officers must be given a voice since there's too much pressure within the ranks. "This is the time when Home Minister should have a close-door meeting with all senior police officers and ask – what's going wrong," she suggested, alleging someone else was deciding for the cops.
Most panelists agreed that it was a reasonable argument considering how politicians usually make terrorism an ideological issue. Terrorism cannot be fought with politics or inflammatory debates like minority versus majority. But Jaitley said it was an invalid argument. "End of the day, politicians, too, have accountability," he said, but agreed with Bedi on giving voice to police.
Jaitley said under POTA, Maoists can also be arrested and they could be Hindus as well. Hence it's got nothing to do with religion.
Does it mean the human rights debate needs to take a backseat because it's more important to debate the law? Many argue human rights and related issues delay conviction in terrorism cases, making them linger on.
Colin Gonsalves agreed while religion was not important, it was also important to look at Mumbai riots of '93, Gujarat riots of 2001 and the recent attacks on churches in Kandhamal.
"That's terrorism, isn't it? Terrorism by VHP, Bajrang Dal," he said, arguing no politician would ever fight for POTA in Kandhamal or Gujarat. Gonsalves also argued it was important to have tough laws that also punish the authorities that indulge in riots or terror-related activities.
Gonsalves also made an observation that kicked off a heated debate between him and the politicians. He said POTA had a clause whereby a policeman could take a signature from anyone and put him behind bars without evidence.
Jaitley reacted furiously to the argument, alleging it was factually incorrect. "Confessions in ordinary laws are not admissible. But under some special laws, they are. They are admissible under Narcotics Act, the Customs Act, the FERA and the FEMA," he clarified and said there were specific conditions in POTA as regards confessions.
"It should have been made to an officer of the level of SP and above, he should be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of being arrested. Magistrate will ask him if he's been tortured and if the answer is yes, he will order an inquiry," Jaitley explained.
Responding to the allegation that politicians will misuse POTA, Jaitley said IPC is misused in police stations all the time. It does not mean IPC must be repealed, he argued.
Bedi suggested all confessions should be videographed while Khurshid maintained the problem remained in the manner terrorism was defined. "Why don't we talk about Naxalism as terrorism?" he said.
Jaitley said crime must be punished, irrespective of who commits it. However, he remained politically vague on whether burning churches constituted terrorism and called for a punishment.
Gonsalves concluded the segment saying India had the toughest laws in the world but POTA was draconian. Jaitley contradicted him and cited the example of Rajiv Gandhi who was assassinated in front of a 50,000-strong crowd. "But for the admissibility of those confessions, not one accused would have been convicted in court," he concluded to an applause by the audience.
Conclusion: Need tough laws, tough processes, safeguards and a clear definition pf terrorism.
Issue 2: How to revamp police machinery to fight terror?
There's an infamous saying that goes like this: India has 21st century terrorism with a 19th century police force. Kiran Bedi agreed and said it was the case because none of the recommendations of police reforms were ever implemented. That's because they were being made by non-police officers who had no ground experience.
"One of the biggest blockades – even before the politician – is the Indian bureaucracy," she alleged, saying the Director of Police Force in the Home Ministry was not even a police officer.
Jaitley said these structures would take time to change. "In a democracy, the CM is accountable for what happens in the state. If you take away his discretion in appointing a DGP, what can be done?" he said.
He argued the number of policemen in various state forces be increased apart from expanding the intelligence base. But ironically an application demanding the same in Delhi police has been pending for a long time now. Mumbai has just 30,000 policemen to guard the city. Hence, there's no comfort in numbers either.
Gonsalves took an extreme view of the argument and said no political party would ever want police reforms because all police officers will land up behind bars.
Another issue is the politicisation of police force – beginning with transfer of cops. Khurshid said politicians were responsible for such problems and it was shameful. "It's sad we have never been able to make police reforms an electoral issue," he said.
Jaitley, too, agreed with Khurshid and said police reforms were required and there was no need to take any politically adversarial position on it.
So while there seemed to be a political consensus on reforms, Khurshid ultimately pointed out the root problem – lack of consensus within political parties. "Let's be honest, I don't decide everything in Congress and neither does Jaitley decide everything in the BJP," he said.
Conclusion: Insulate police force from negative political influence and implement the SC judgement on police reforms. Eliminate corruption and torture.
Issue 3: How to involve citizens in war against terror?
Angry, afraid, defenceless – that's what the common man seems to feel in the wake of terror attacks. An eyewitness to one of the blasts that took place in Delhi was among the audience. She made an important point. "The mass hysteria has stayed with me for a week. I feel defenceless because police, politicians aren't taking any action," she said.
She also pointed out how weak the security apparatus at crucial installations like the Delhi Metro was. "Food isn't allowed on the Metro. The other day, I was carrying a sandwich in my bag. I was checked but it wasn't detected. I might as well have been carrying a bomb," she said.
Rajdeep Sardesai also cited the example of the film A Wednesday where an aam aadmi takes on the role of a terrorist to bump off terrorists. Is it coming to that?
Jaitley said there was no denying the common man was the victim. But it was important to remove the feeling of helplessness that he faces. "The only way it can happen is: the Indian state must create a sense of security. When non-helpless state creates systems that are a little unpleasant, please do not complain," he said.
The audience too seemed to agree to cooperate but also felt it wasn't right for citizens to get armed – like shown in the film A Wednesday.
Gonsalves brought back the old argument of human rights and said the aam aadmi was also the victim of human rights violation. But Jaitley countered him yet again and said human rights organisations shouldn't become the over-ground faces of the underground.
A member of the audience said it was important to have good intelligence as the ‘cure'. Another said it was important to have a political consensus rather than rhetoric every time blasts happen. Khurshid said it was important to have good intelligence but not at the cost of Big Brother-like invasive scrutiny.
Conclusion: The citizen does not want arms but a concept of citizen police is important for watch and ward. Involve cadets, civil defence and students. Create partnership between police and citizen. Do not play the blame game.
Issue 4: Can India have a national consensus in war on terror?
When Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi demands a terror law on the lines of one in Maharashtra, he's denied that. Why not? Khurshid said.
Gujarat's history made things complicated. "Anyway, does any law prevent Gujarat from dealing with its terror compared with Maharashtra?" he asked.
Khurshid also admitted there was no political consensus when it came to terror. "Our parties don't allow that," he said. But while Khurshid was honest and candid, Jaitley remained politically correct and said it was time to come together on terror as a country.
Gonsalves, however, maintained it was not important for the common man if political parties came together on an issue. "The common man is despaired. You want to solve the problem, it won't be solved by Congress and BJP. Be benevolent to people, treat them with dignity. If you ban SIMI, ban Bajrang Dal, RSS and the VHP," he said.
Kiran Bedi maintained that to understand the gravity and the seriousness of terrorism, it was important that LK Advani and Manmohan Singh listened to the DGP. "You just don't need the law, you need processes as well," she argued.
Final words: A step forward
Colin Gonsalves: I would say the most important thing is a radical reform of police force. Making laws like POTA and giving it to a criminal force in uniform is the worse mistake we can possibly make.
Kiran Bedi: Police force is handicapped, ill-resourced, ill-equipped. Toughen them up. Listen to them.
Salman Khurshid: In your search for excellent order, do not lose sight of the good.
Arun Jaitley: National intent reflected in all of us should be to fight terror from a security, social and political consideration. If we can trust every policeman with an AK47 to guard all of us, we can give him some legal power to investigate terrorism.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.