Asia Times: New Indian terror law strikes fear


	March 27, 2002	atimes.com

India/Pakistan

New Indian terror law strikes fear
By Sudha Ramachandran

BANGALORE - The Indian government might have scored a political victory on Tuesday by pushing through legislation aimed at tackling terrorism, but there are deep concerns in the country that the legislation - the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) - far from preventing terrorism will end up fuelling it.

The fate of the deeply controversial Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) was uncertain for some months with the government unable to cobble together adequate support to ensure its passage in both houses of the Indian parliament. While POTO's ratification was certain in the Lower House of parliament, its passage through the Upper House was doubtful. This is because the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which forms the core of the ruling coalition, does not control the Upper House.

Indeed, last week, POTO sailed through the Lower House but suffered a humiliating defeat in the Upper House. But a determined government, intent on pushing the legislation through parliament, had its strategy neatly worked out. It decided to convene a joint session of parliament where it could muster the requisite number of votes to enact POTO.

So, POTO became POTA on Tuesday when, after an acrimonious debate, it secured the required votes. Its ratification in a joint session came as no surprise since the BJP's allies in the coalition pledged solidarity with it on POTO a few days ahead of the joint session.

While the main opposition parties remained steadfast in their rejection of the legislation, key opponents of the anti-terrorism legislation within the ruling coalition, such as the National Conference (the ruling party in the terrorism-hit state of Jammu and Kashmir) that had voted against POTO in the Lower House, supported it in the joint session.

The convening of a joint session was not unconstitutional. It has been bitterly criticized, however, since it was resorted to in a bid to hustle through an unpopular piece of legislation. Instead of building a consensus through negotiation with the opposition parties and addressing the many valid flaws in POTO that they raised, the government steamrolled it through a joint session of parliament.

Besides, the BJP, which had made POTO its campaign plank in the just-concluded assembly elections in four states, was roundly defeated in those polls.

The opposition Congress Party has pointed out that although the electorate rejected POTO, the government is ramming it through parliament.

But more worrisome than the process that was adopted are the provisions of POTA and their possible misuse. The implications for India's secular democracy are enormous.

Analysts have pointed out that like its predecessor, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), POTA) will prove counterproductive in tackling terrorism.

"It will victimize innocent people through unwarranted detention. This can only lead to more discontent and provide the ideal breeding ground for terrorists," a civil liberties activist based in Hyderabad told Asia Times Online.

The definition of terrorism under POTA is vague, but it at least requires that the act be committed, for which the sentence is death or life imprisonment. But as columnist Praful Bidwai points out in the fortnightly news magazine Frontline, "Chapter III of POTA makes nonsense of this very requirement by creating a new category, of 'terrorist organizations', defined merely as 'listed in the [attached] Schedule'. [Already, 23 groups have been named.] Such organizations need not have committed or participated in terrorist acts; it is enough that they are found to 'encourage' terrorism or are 'otherwise involved' in it.

"Thus, the central government can arbitrarily label any organization 'terrorist' - for instance, because it promotes a 'terrorist ideology' [also arbitrarily defined]. It can harass its members, sympathizers and so on. A 'sympathizer' - by definition not a terrorist - can be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. 'Members' are liable to be imprisoned for 10 years - whether they have engaged in any violent act or not. Those who raise funds can be sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment."

Under POTA, an officer of the rank of superintendent of police is empowered to extract confessions from an accused and present them as evidence of his terrorist connections. It is well known that third degree methods are used to extract confessions and their use to prove the terrorist connections of an accused will only increase.

"POTA will be a dangerous weapon in the hands of the police. Ordinary people, who find themselves caught between the police and the terrorists, will suffer its worst fallout. Anyone who is in contact with a terrorist, knowingly or unknowingly, can be picked up under POTA and it will be up to the arrested person to prove that he has no connection with the terrorist. But by that time, he might have to spent several years in jail," civil liberties activist pointed out.

If POTA is a fearsome weapon in the hands of any police force, in the arsenal of a communally and politically partisan police it could prove to be a most lethal weapon, for it invests in the police awesome powers, and these they can use to eliminate people of certain communities or their political rivals, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

POTA by itself and in the hands of any regime would be worrying. In the hands of a government dominated by a party (the BJP) that is based on a narrow, exclusive and a largely anti-Muslim ideology, it will trigger off alarm. Even in November, when POTO was introduced, there was concern that the government would misuse its provisions and use it to selectively target religious minorities.

Among the 23 organizations that were labeled terrorist then were the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Deendar Anjman, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Hizbul Mujahideen. The list did not include the fraternal organizations of the BJP in the Sangh Parivar (a family of militant Hindu organizations) like the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS) or the Bajrang Dal that have unleashed terror on Muslims and Christians.

And after the rampant violence in Gujarat last month that was unleashed by VHP and Bajrang Dal activists in retaliation for the killing of some of their supporters, seemingly by Muslims, and in which the BJP governments in the state and the center colluded, why would any secular democrat or a member of any minority trust POTA in the hands of the BJP?

That the BJP would use POTA to further its anti-minority agenda was further confirmed when the Gujarat government arrested 62 persons (all Muslims) under POTO in connection with the attack on the train at Godhra carrying the Hindu activists, but refrained to charge under POTO its own hoodlums of the Sangh Parivar, who terrorized and continue to terrorize hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat. (Under pressure from the National Human Rights Commission, the Gujarat government has since withdrawn the charges against the 62 Muslims under POTO.)

The ostensible purpose of POTA is to fight terrorism. The government has said that the December 13 attack on India's parliament has strengthened its resolve to carry on the fight against terrorism to its logical conclusion. Besides, it says that India has to fulfill its obligations in complying with UN Security Council Resolution No 1373, which requires member states to undertake comprehensive measures to deal with terrorism.

Analysts believe that existing laws can adequately deal with terrorism if they were scrupulously enforced, and a conscientious effort be made to bring culprits to trial and convincingly establish their guilt.

There is no need for POTA. In fact POTA, critics say, will only undermine the credibility of the legal system and aggravate alienation. It could well worsen the very problem it is seeking to eliminate.

((c)2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact ads@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)