http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/What_other_nations_are_doing_to_curb_terror/articleshow/2324828.cms
After the September eleven attacks on the US, Western democracies promptly recognized the scourge of terrorism and introduced effective legislations to tackle the menace. The move did face opposition from human rights groups, but these were overlooked in the larger interests of their populations.
In India, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was introduced to tackle terrorism in Mar 2002 but was not renewed by the government in 1995, ostensibly forced by vote bank politics. After numerous terror strikes in the country, including the one on the Parliament, Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), was introduced by National Democratic Alliance government in June 2002 as an effective legal instrument to deal with terrorist activities. However, it was repealed by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in Sep 2004, once again the country saw vote bank politics overriding the importance of collective security.
Both, TADA and POTA were effective initiatives to combat terrorism, ban/disband terror outfits, and strangle their funding channels. They represented the nation’s political will to accord correct priority to collective safety of Indian citizens. In the absence of legal sanction, security agencies in India cannot resort to investigating suspect extremist organisations and track their sources of finance. Monitoring hostile or suspect individuals and organisations’ communications without warrants, even in emergency situations, would put them on the wrong side of law. No wonder, then, that our intelligence agencies are forced to act with their eyes blind folded and the security apparatus’ hands tied behind its back. In addition, our legal system is too leisurely and our laws not stringent enough to prescribe deterrent punishments to those guilty of indulging in terror activities against Indians in their own land. If the legal proceedings against Maulana Azhar Masood had not lingered for over six years and his sentencing completed expeditiously, IC 914 could not have been hijacked to Kandahar and he could, probably not have been able to raise the terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed which was responsible for the Parliament attack in New Delhi.
Unfortunately for India, its geographical location favors the terror outfits seeking shelter and willing logistical support from the neighbors, Pakistan and Bangladesh. A tiny subverted segment of our population unwittingly providing support to terrorists from within the country can cause indescribable damage. The Western democracies do not suffer from any such handicap; yet have taken adequate precautions and ensured safety mechanism for their populations. The numerous and regular terror strikes in India should have pressed our politicians to enact tougher laws to take on terrorism and attempt to reassure the people. Instead, they remain busy consolidating their respective positions for the next election. Is it any wonder then that India continues to be considered a soft state.
After the September eleven attacks on the US, Western democracies promptly recognized the scourge of terrorism and introduced effective legislations to tackle the menace. The move did face opposition from human rights groups, but these were overlooked in the larger interests of their populations.
In India, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was introduced to tackle terrorism in Mar 2002 but was not renewed by the government in 1995, ostensibly forced by vote bank politics. After numerous terror strikes in the country, including the one on the Parliament, Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), was introduced by National Democratic Alliance government in June 2002 as an effective legal instrument to deal with terrorist activities. However, it was repealed by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in Sep 2004, once again the country saw vote bank politics overriding the importance of collective security.
Both, TADA and POTA were effective initiatives to combat terrorism, ban/disband terror outfits, and strangle their funding channels. They represented the nation’s political will to accord correct priority to collective safety of Indian citizens. In the absence of legal sanction, security agencies in India cannot resort to investigating suspect extremist organisations and track their sources of finance. Monitoring hostile or suspect individuals and organisations’ communications without warrants, even in emergency situations, would put them on the wrong side of law. No wonder, then, that our intelligence agencies are forced to act with their eyes blind folded and the security apparatus’ hands tied behind its back. In addition, our legal system is too leisurely and our laws not stringent enough to prescribe deterrent punishments to those guilty of indulging in terror activities against Indians in their own land. If the legal proceedings against Maulana Azhar Masood had not lingered for over six years and his sentencing completed expeditiously, IC 914 could not have been hijacked to Kandahar and he could, probably not have been able to raise the terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed which was responsible for the Parliament attack in New Delhi.
Unfortunately for India, its geographical location favors the terror outfits seeking shelter and willing logistical support from the neighbors, Pakistan and Bangladesh. A tiny subverted segment of our population unwittingly providing support to terrorists from within the country can cause indescribable damage. The Western democracies do not suffer from any such handicap; yet have taken adequate precautions and ensured safety mechanism for their populations. The numerous and regular terror strikes in India should have pressed our politicians to enact tougher laws to take on terrorism and attempt to reassure the people. Instead, they remain busy consolidating their respective positions for the next election. Is it any wonder then that India continues to be considered a soft state.
No comments:
Post a Comment