Recently, there was a news report regarding the denial of bail to police officers (anti terrorist squad) in the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin. A few months ago, the verdict in the Kandahar hijack case was delivered — a trial that was conducted without the main accused. The depressing thread that connects these stories reflects poorly on the government’s effort to counter terrorism. An effective counter terrorism policy requires at the very least a law, a crack team of police and perhaps a competent judiciary. For reasons best known to the government we don’t have a law, effective or otherwise. The constitutionality of POTA was upheld; the law passed the keen test of fundamental rights, yet it was repealed. The argument for reform of the police forces has been gaining momentum for a while now, the issue reaching even the Supreme Court. The need for a centralised counter-insurgency agency has been raised but nothing has come of it. State governments or politicians meanwhile have successfully resisted police reforms and have also shown reluctance for a unified or federal agency because police and public order are state subjects. As terrorists find better and more innovative ways to wreak havoc, we equip our police officers with sticks and stones. The exposé by The Indian Express would lead one to believe that that our security forces are combating poachers or leopards and not Naxals. Yet the police must respect the fundamental rights of those accused of terrorism. Obviously under these circumstances there is going to be some ‘collateral damage’. To try cases relating to terrorism we have an overburdened judiciary that isn’t equipped to deal with such cases. No one expects a Supreme Court judge to try these offences, but designated courts with trained judicial officers would certainly go a long way in disposing of such cases. Fancy malls in Delhi and Bombay have better security arrangements than the district courts trying these cases. If the government has an anti-terrorism policy, they are doing a good job of keeping it confidential. After more than two decades of being affected by terrorism, the prime minister now realises the need for a centralised agency along the lines of the FBI. The Chief Justice of India has also suggested an effective and stringent law. You didn’t have to be the chief justice to make that suggestion — there isn’t any law. Until then perhaps we will convict terrorists for indecent behaviour or reckless driving. After all, Al Capone was convicted only of tax evasion. The absence of a law, an effective agency and an equipped judiciary is quite apparent. Police officers being convicted rather than terrorists, trials conducted without the accused present, innocent individuals in lock-up, an alarming reach of terrorists throughout India, the changing profile of the Indian terrorist — the litany of sorrow is long. In the midst of all of this, the multi-disciplinary monitoring agency probing Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination got an extension — after 10 years. The facts speak for themselves. National security undoubtedly demands secrecy and confidentiality, but the general scramble and divergent versions following an attack reveal a lack of coordination and not secrecy.If there is any research on the subject of terrorism or any efforts to rehabilitate terrorists, that again is perhaps a state secret. If the changing profile of terrorism has dawned on policymakers, they are doing a good job of being discreet about this bit of knowledge. Considering all this, the credit for convicting the few who are nabbed must go to the beleaguered investigators and prosecutors. A comprehensive law that deals with murky financial transactions, recognition of evidence that is sufficiently corroborated, a competent team of investigators and prosecutors and an elite team for hot pursuits would go a long way in dealing with terrorism. Stories of former terrorists rehabilitated in society must be encouraging for citizens and government alike and more ought to be done towards this end. Every attack cannot be brushed aside as one that is sponsored by Pakistan or one that is related to Kashmir. At present the counter-insurgency policy is reminiscent of a case of cubes for circles and nothing seems to be stirring policymakers and Parliament to take decisive measures. The writer is an advocate based in Delhi sa_ananth@yahoo.com
