All the fears and apprehensions expressed about the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) are coming true. The governments of Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh have blatantly used the law to settle political and other scores. Vaiko, an MP, and his party colleagues in Tamil Nadu have been languishing in jail, without any trial, for over eight months as prisoners of POTA. It is bizarre to note that the country’s defence minister has visited this ‘‘terrorist’’ in jail twice already.There are voices justifying the detention of Raja Bhaiya and his father in UP under POTA on the ground that they are a criminal mafia. Does this mean that the normal criminal justice system is to be replaced by POTA? This could sound the death knell for freedom, civil rights and human dignity in the country. As if to prove this, the Delhi Police seem to be using POTA as enthusiastically as they are sterilising roads and terrorising pedestrians during VVIP movements.Of late, ‘‘leaders’’ with fascist leanings are openly threatening to use POTA to muzzle dissent. We call ourselves the ‘‘largest democracy’’ in the world. Yet by enacting POTA at the joint session of Parliament on March 26, 2002, India’s elected representatives have betrayed democracy a second time since Independence. The last time this happened was on June 26, 1975 when the Union Cabinet endorsed Indira Gandhi’s diktat proclaiming Emergency. The impact of that Emergency and POTA are essentially the same: denial of freedom and civil liberties to India’s common citizens in the name of a super-hyped ‘‘national security’’ reducing them to ‘‘insecure citizens within secure borders’’.At no point of time was either a public or political consensus, an essential requirement in any democracy, built around this anti-terrorism law. Did the country really need POTA? No, said two of the best legal minds in the country — former Chief Justice of India and chairman of the National Human Rights Commission J.S. Verma and eminent Supreme Court senior advocate, F.S. Nariman.Verma’s view was that national integrity, which POTA seeks to protect as well, and individual dignity, which the Act denies, are core values in the Constitution and a balance has to be struck. The NHRC’s official stand was: ‘‘the existing laws are sufficient to deal with any eventuality, including terrorism, and there is no need for a draconian POTA.’’Nariman concurred. ‘‘We don’t need POTA. We already have the National Security Act, 1980, which permits central and state governments to preventively detain persons who are a danger to the security of the state. The governments could tighten some provisions of the NSA or, if necessary, even extend the period of detention in certain cases and under certain safeguards. We should not have another harsh and oppressive law.’’ In defence, the government says POTA is meant to fight terrorists more effectively. ‘‘Terrorism has acquired catastrophic dimensions. Considering the seriousness of the situation and the terrorists’ ability to shock humanity, harsher laws are more than justified. When extraordinary situations have been created by terrorists, extraordinary laws are needed to deal with them,’’ it says.But the fact is that extraordinary situations are created because of the nexus between criminals, who indulge in organised crime, and political leaders who benefit from it. This nexus has been clearly established many times, the most visible being the Gujarat riots that claimed hundreds of innocent lives. Terrorism is described as the ‘‘usage of methods of extreme fear for governing or coercing government or community’’. It is immaterial who uses these methods — individuals, organisations or governments. And from the manner in which POTA is being used, the Act itself could become a ‘‘method of extreme fear’’.Enacting a law that takes away an individual’s liberty and terrorises him — without radically reforming the political system and civil services to provide good governance or overhauling the administration of criminal justice involving the police, prosecution and judiciary to render speedy and equitable justice — is counter-productive. It can only end up spawning more terrorism. So the sooner POTA is out of the statute book, the better.(The writer is a former IAS officer)
