In the name of Muslims’ safety, UPA plays into Sangh’s hands

That Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1995 brought communal violence within the ambit of terrorism by defining a terrorist act as a crime committed ‘‘with intent,’’ among other things, ‘‘to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people.’’

Thus, the Rao Government, of which Singh himself was a part, had clearly sought to apply the rigours of a terrorist law to perpetrators of communal violence.

In fact, POTA’s definition is admittedly lifted from that of the aborted 1995 Bill.

But the Vajpayee Government—which called a special joint session to push POTA through—deleted all references to alienation of any section and disharmony among different sections.

So, one obvious option available to the new Government is to amend POTA and bring communal violence under the ambit of terrorism.

But by saying it will scrap POTA and bring a law to deal with communal violence has galvanised Hindutva groups.

VHP leader Praveen Togadia, silent after the shock defeat, came out of the woodwork today to say that this will put India ‘‘in the hands of Jehadis.’’

The repeal of POTA may also compromise India’s obligation under Security Council Resolution 1373 to take special measures against terrorim in the wake of September.

Like other countries, India has since been periodically reporting to the high-powered Counter Terrorism Committee in this regard.

There is also an element of doublespeak in the Congress party’s stand on POTA. Congress-ruled states such as Maharashtra, Karnataka and Delhi have adopted and enforced special laws against ‘‘organised crime’’ containing the draconian provisions of TADA and POTA (such as presumption of guilt, denial of bail and recording of confessions by police officers).

If the idea is prevent the abuse of POTA, as stated in the CMP, then the Government has the option of strengthening safeguards by giving the POTA Review Committee the powers it has been asking for.

Last December, the committee headed by former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court A B Saharya gave an interim report recommending that it be given powers to force reluctant state Governments to give material on the cases they have booked under POTA.

The Vajpayee Government disregarded this recommendation despite the amendments it made subsequently to POTA just to help its ally Vaiko get off the hook.

Its intentions may be honest: avoid a repeat of the Gujarat riot injustice and ensure that minorities aren’t POTA’s exclusive targets.

But if the Manmohan Singh Government is sincere about these twin objectives—without giving the Sangh Parivar a handle—it just has to go back to the Rao Government and look at what law it drafted to replace TADA with.