Jayalalithaa could well be playing her own power games. But in invoking certain sections of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) against MDMK leader Vaiko for his Tirumangalam speech, in which he extended support to the LTTE, she was acting strictly within the law. The LTTE was already declared as a terrorist organisation under Pota and is held responsible for the murder of one of its prime ministers, which is why its supremo, V. Prabhakaran, is still a wanted man in this country. By stating in his June 29 speech that ‘‘yesterday I supported the LTTE, even today I am supporting the LTTE and tomorrow I will continue to support the LTTE’’ Vaiko was seen to have fallen foul of Section 21 (2) and Section 21 (3) of Pota, as this newspaper has already pointed out.The BJP, of course, finds itself in a quandary over this one. On the one hand, Vaiko has proved to be a loyal supporter of the NDA government, even embracing Narendra Modi at a public rally in Gujarat despite the BJP’s other allies having condemned the chief minister unequivocally. On the other hand, the BJP had almost single-handed, in the face of a fierce resistance from the Opposition and civil liberties activists, pushed Pota through. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Centre has chosen to keep away from the current controversy, treating it as matter concerning the state. But this stance may not work — Jayalalithaa is not likely to allow it the luxury of remaining aloof for too long. She has already fired off letters to New Delhi explaining her stand. Knowing this, the BJP party has in the meanwhile hinted that the action against Vaiko was unwarranted, and that there are enough safeguards in the law to prevent its misuse by political opponents.But that precisely is the problem. There are not enough safeguards in Pota to prevent its abuse — an aspect that the Centre has used in its favour when it has suited it, and especially against the minority community. Look at how Section 21 (3) is worded: ‘‘A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting for the purpose of encouraging support for a terrorist organisation or to further its activities’’. In any case, any safeguards in this law come into force only when the court comes into the picture — in the meanwhile, those booked under the law stand to lose over six months of their lives in the cooler. Ironically, Vaiko had enthusiastically supported the passage of this Bill in Parliament although, to grant him his due, he had suggested some safeguards, including a reconsideration of the definition of a ‘‘meeting’’ arranged in support of a terrorist organisation, under Section 21 (2) and (3) — the precise sections under which he is currently booked. Call it intimations of incarceration or plain nemesis!
