Author: Rajeev Deshpande
Publication: The Times of India
Date: August 31, 2007
The world over, the fight against terror has
resulted in countries giving more teeth to existing laws of passing tough
new laws. New Zealand turned up the heat following the Bali bombings. Any
sort of support to terrorism was banned. Overall, these measures were not
very different from those taken by other countries against techno-savvy terrorists.
Japan went a step further. Its constitution
lays down a clearly pacifist foreign policy agenda, but the Bill to Respond
to Armed Attacks for the first time allowed Japanese forces to consider a
pre-emptive strike if the interests and safety of citizens were endangered.
Canada, too, enacted a special law against those who knowingly "either
directly or indirectly'' provide funds for terror crimes. This has apparently
made fund-raising for various causes more difficult.
Canada had no specific terror law. Post-9/11,
it set down life imprisonment for those guilty of "instructing'' anyone
to carry out a terrorist strike and a ten-year jail term for harbouring a
terrorist. It did away with the need to demonstrate electronic surveillance
as a "measure of last resort'' while allowing such surveillance. At the
same time, it is viewing the setting up of DNA data banks of criminals and
terrorists.
Not surprisingly, these measures, as well
as similar measures in Germany, the UK, Australia, France and the US, have
faced strong opposition. The debate over special laws in legislatures and
in the public domain has taken note of concerns over curbs on individual and
human rights. Most laws have safeguards such as parliamentary oversight and
independent review. CIA and FBI officials have to present testimony to congressional
committees. But, as the French law notes, on balance, collective security
has been given precedence.
Indian laws don't have any such skew. In response
to a demand for bringing back the Prevention of Terror Act, it's been argued
back that Pota couldn't prevent the 13/12 attack on Parliament. How, then,
was it effective? But other democracies maintain terrorists are cunning and
hence they might strike despite special laws, but these laws would make their
operations tougher.
Hence, apart from enacting these laws, these
countries have integrated laws to allow wiretaps, have doubled or trebled
border guards, customs and investigators, enhanced coordination between banks
and other financial institutions and regulators, made sharing of data banks
easier, introduced video surveillance, mandatory maintainance of telephone
records, designation of terrorist crime and fast trials and tough sentences.
They have also brought down the firewalls
between intelligence agencies, police organisations, customs, immigration,
airport security, border guards, white collar crime investigators and narcotics
control. Countries like the US, Germany and the UK have realised the lines
that divide these crimes are thin and that terrorist outfits with a global
reach stride all these worlds.
Is all this relevant for us? In India, the
variables of a terror attack are many-it has neighbours like Pakistan and
Bangladesh, where terror groups like JeM, LeT and HuJI find shelter, and perhaps
much more. Besides, there are no racial distinctions between the operatives
of these groups and Indians, unlike in western democracies. On top of this,
there are pockets in the country which appear to have been influenced by extremist
doctrines. Thus, it's not as difficult to find logistical support for terror
acts in India as it is in western democracies.
Still, the US has enacted the PATRIOT Act
in the teeth of liberal opposition and has prevented a strike on the American
mainland since 9/11, even though its controversial-and many will add, stupid-engagement
in Iraq would have given a lot of angry youngsters the 'rationale' to hit
back at the US with means fair or foul.
In the UK, which has a mixed population, the
laws are not as stringent as PATRIOT. It has has suffered 7/11, but also busted
the Birmingham plot.
Apart from its practical aspects, targeting
terrorism through special laws is a declaration of intent and signals resolve
to take on an enemy. It's a call to arms and tells those on the frontline
that the authorities recognise the nature of the beast and are prepared to
confront it. That there will be no half-measures in the war against opponents
who do not believe in dialogue, rather are convinced that their cause will
be served by killing innocents.
In India, we still shy away from doing any
of this, fearing that the wider powers given to agencies will be abused. Is
that good enough reason to weaken the battle against terror? Or should we
have special anti-terror laws, and as in other democracies, make them open
to legislative oversight and reviews? Will that give our warriors against
terror a level playing field? TOI believes it will.
