On terrorism: So far so soft
Prakash Singh

< Back to Formatted Version

There is a feeling of elation in the country over UK having passed a new Terrorism Act banning as many as 21 terrorist outfits including the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaishe-Mohamed, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation, all of which were targeting India. The UK had hitherto been a haven for terrorist groups who had utilised the liberal democracy of the country to raise funds, enlist recruits and carry out ideological propaganda.

The US has an Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 1996 which gives broad federal jurisdiction to prosecute anyone who uses that country as a planning ground for attacks overseas. It is a comprehensive Act, and yet former president Bill Clinton had remarked that the Act, "does not contain everything we need to combat terrorism". The US government too has been enlarging its list of terrorist organisations and these lists are published every year in the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism.

There is an increasing realisation in the West that terrorists have been abusing the freedom they enjoy their countries and that terrorism requires international cooperation and further legislations are required to deal with the problem. This is a healthy development. But, though faced with the worst kind of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir for about a decade we have had no law to deal with the menace. The annual loss of lives as a result of terrorism in the UK is less than 50. Nearly 50 thousand people have been killed in J&K, Punjab and the North-East. Yet our legislators have not found it necessary to equip law enforcement agencies with relevant laws.

Surprisingly, even the National Human Rights Commission has been opposed to passing the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Legislators playing politics can be understood but the NHRC playing to the gallery is most unfortunate. No one in his senses would question the validity of human rights. But human rights cannot cut into a nation's right to exist as such. Nor can any state allow senseless killings of its citizens and subversion of its institutions. Would any human rights organisation now say that the UK, the cradle of democracy, has no regard for human rights?

The Government talks of "zero tolerance" of terrorism but the general perception is that we are giving all the latitude to militants. How else does one explain the recurring attacks on Army and paramilitary camps? In our keenness to uphold human rights and win kudos from the West, we have tragically sacrificed our national interests in a very sensitive area. We are told that the existing laws are adequate to deal with terrorism. There are enactments like the Arms Act, Explosives Act, Explosive Substances Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, etc; and the terrorists could be booked under these laws. Theoretically, yes. Practically, they make the job of investigation and prosecution only more difficult.

The legislative process in this regard has not caught up with the times. Terrorism was virtually unknown in the country when the IPC and the Evidence Act were drafted. What the opponents of the Prevention of Terrorism Act are advocating is but a patchwork approach wherein relevant sections of different Acts are to be applied against terrorists. What is needed is a pointed and well-directed attack on the menace of terrorism. And that is where the need for a special enactment arises. It would be unfair to expect the security forces to give their best and make sacrifices in the absence of support from a comprehensive anti-terrorist law.

We expect other countries to fight our legal battle against the terrorist groups. We gloat over the UK banning terrorist organisations operating in India. We want USA to brand Pakistan a 'rogue' state. But we are chary of having a comprehensive anti-terrorist law; and, instead of going hammer and tongs against the militants, we ask the security forces not to initiate various combat operations. We insist on having a dialogue with people who refuse to come to the negotiating table and talk of waging jihad against India. Whom are we deluding?

We have no policy on terrorism. There has been no enunciation of any general principles even though we have been battling with the menace ever since Phizo raised the banner of revolt in the Naga Hills in the mid-fifties. The US State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism lays down three principles: first, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals; second, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes; and third, isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor and support terrorism to force them to change their behaviour. We have no such formulation and our leadership comes up with ad hoc responses to different situations.

Without a policy to deal with terrorism and without any law to pin down the terrorists, the country hobbles from crisis to crisis. Ethnic cleansing, avoidable casualties among security forces, erosion of the State (J&K) authority - all this and more. Forces of disruption are gnawing at the very integrity of the republic. It is time the Government faced boldly the grim realities of insurgency and terrorism.

(The writer is a former Director General of Border Security Force)
Published in Daily Pioneer on 3/21/2001