Click to play videoIn an attempt to fight terrorism, the Government is proposing amendments to existing anti-terror laws that will extend police custody of the accused to 180 days, that will place the proof of innocence on the accused if he is armed, prohibit foreign terror suspects from getting bail, permit the Government to seize assets of any organisation suspected of terror links and give a 10-year prison sentence to anyone in possession of a weapon of terror.
On Tuesday, the Government introduced two bills in Parliament that seek to tighten India's anti-terror laws. But does the war on terror have the potential to become a war on our basic individual rights and freedoms? Should human rights take a backseat in the war against terror?
CNN-IBN debated the issue on Face the Nation with a panel comprising Congress MP and former Delhi commissioner of police Nikhil Kumar; BJP member and senior journalist Sheshadri Chari; and Executive Director Human Rights Law Network Colin Gonsalves.
At the beginning of the show, 70 per cent of the people who voted in said that human rights should take a backseat in the war against terror while only 30 per cent disagreed.
DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS
Anti-terror legislation across the world has been criticised as being damaging to individual rights. In America, the Patriot Act, The Homeland Security Act or the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are seen as examples of how individual freedoms have been destroyed to fight terrorism.
In India, laws like POTA have been called draconian and simply a means to implicate innocents. The question is whether the new law that the UPA Government is proposing will manage to do a balancing act between human rights and being tough on terrorism.
Colin Gonsalves said that many of the people who voted in on the show may simply not have understood the meaning of the question.
"To take the stand that human rights should take a backseat would be to go by the Bush doctrine, to take advantage of a whole country like Bush did and then to make every American citizen suspect, violate the rights of American citizens. He went ahead and invaded Afghanistan and bombed Iraq and what was the result? America today is weaker than it has ever been," Gonsalves said.
He cited the case of a former prime minister of Sweden, Olaf Palme who was assassinated outside a cinema hall in 1986. "In this case, the professional police force was put into play, but the human rights of Swedish citizens were not diluted and every person in the society did not become a suspect. They didn't say we want more guns and tougher laws, instead they strengthened democratic rights and today Sweden is at peace. So why should human rights be diluted?" he asked.
"I should say that at a time when something so grave as the Mumbai terror attacks have happened, you need human rights upfront. These rights are nothing else but treating the citizens of India with dignity, respect and protecting them, rather than protecting politicians. Policemen have to protect the people not the politicians and that's what human rights are all about. Don't we want that in India?" he added.
SECURITY VERSUS FREEDOM
The desire to destroy terror and terrorists however, seem to be destroying the democracy and the freedom that is the basic inheritance of all Indians.
Sheshadri Chari stated that freedom did not belong to a terrorist. "We are talking about human rights. Terrorists are not humans, not after the heinous crimes that they are committing. If a person is a terrorist, has been found with a gun in his hand and has been caught in the act of committing a terror crime, he has to be punished and there has to be a very strict law. Human rights do not apply to terrorists at all. They are devil incarnate."
Chari said that anti-terror laws proposed by the UPA on Tuesday were stringent and well thought out, on the lines of the the Patriot Act and The Homeland Security Act in the US. That these acts were successful reflected in the fact that there had been no terror attack in the US since the 9/11 strike on the twin towers.
However, Gonsalves begged to differ here saying that because of these acts, all American citizens were treated as suspects in their own country. "Thousands of Americans were put under duress when these acts were implemented."
Chari interrupted saying that this was not the case and that Americans were simply made to go through mandatory security checks which were extremely stringent. "I think the common man should be happy to be subject to stringent security checks for a terror free society."
Nonetheless there was always the fear that the executive would be armed with too much power if such security checks and acts came into being and that those who did not agree with the powers that be would be branded terrorists and a menace to society. POTA were used by politicians like Jayalalithaa against Vaiko to settle private scores.
The common man - aided and abetted by senior lawyers and lawmakers in the society - is coming to the conclusion that we already have too many laws in the country. What we need now is stricter implementation of these laws. The constant refrain is that we don't need laws that are playing to the gallery every single time.
Nikhil Kumar joined the debate at this point saying that introducing a particular law could be helpful for investigating agencies in probing a particular case or a crime in a more facile and convinient manner as also to ensure that the trial of any such case is conducted expeditiously.
NEW LAW DRACONIAN?
The most draconian part of the new law that the Government has introduced seems to have put the burden of the proof on the accused. If the accused has to prove that he is innocent, then the police has to do no investigation, find facts or get hold of unimpeachable evidence and this seems almost sloppy on the part of the UPA.
Kumar said that whether the accused has to prove that he is innocent or not is something that would depend on the trial of the case. "The police will have to investigate the case come what may and chargesheet the accused," he added.
Gonsalves barged in at this point saying that it was not about stricter laws. What the Government of India needed really was police reforms and to put together a more professional police force, which is the servant of the people of India. "Not a single party has raised this point and that is very disappointing," Gonsalves stated.
Chari stated that the Government is trying to bring all investigative agencies on to one platform but for that it needed some time and would have to wait till Parliament met and a decision was taken. "The BJP has promised that whatever the Government does to tackle terrorism, the BJP is with the UPA on this," Chari added.
DEFINE A TERRORIST
Under these new laws, it seems that the definition of a terrorist would be someone who doesn't agree with the state. Armed with these incredible powers, the executive can throw anyone who doesn't agree with them in jail for 180 days and no one can really say a thing.
Chari said that while he agreed that TADA was used by the then government against political opponents, there is a change in the perception of the Government today. He said that POTA was also not introduced to target minorities.
"The new law that the Government has introduced will address all these initial apprehensions as well. If a police officer or a politician has misused a particular act or even misused the ordinary Criminal Procedure Code to trouble innocents, we cannot generalise that this is what is going to happen with all the laws," Chari stated, inadvertently making the point that new laws were not as important as the correct implementation of existing ones.
Colin Gonsalves said that the Indian criminal law is one of the toughest in the world but where we are weak is in the implementation.
However, Kumar said that one needed to scrutinise the new laws carefully to see why we needed these new and special laws in the first place. "Any law can be misused, not just special laws. But these laws are being created because the Government does not want to treat 26/11 as any criminal activity. We must appreciate this and if a special law is being brought in. let's not say that we cannot bring it in because it will be misused."
He also added that it was unfair to say that the police was not doing its duty because the police has many well-investigated under its belt.
Chari agreed with Kumar saying that a special law was needed to aid investigation and to counter the problems that the police force was facing now.
Gonsalves however, disagreed. He said that we talk of Naxalism as another form of terrorism. In this context, he cited the example of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) who were fighting for a just cause saying that the British government did not say that we need tougher laws to shoot down the people who formed the IRA but instead entered into a political discussion with them and recognised them as a political entity.
"This is what we need to do with Naxals. Hold a dialogue with them and solve their problems of poverty, education as well as unemployment. Guns will not solve the problem. These problems can be tackled by giving justice to people," he stated.
Chari disagreed saying that these were all aspects for a normal society not in a war-like situation.
However, all the panelists agreed that democracy is our most precious inheritance and the right to life liberty and freedom - as guaranteed by Article 21 in of our Constitution - must be at the centre of any war against terror.
FINAL SMS/WEB POLL
Government plans new terror law: Should human rights take a backseat in the war against terror?
Yes: 65 per cent
No: 35 per cent
(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.