PM calls all-party meet to evolve consensus on POTO,Indian Politics, News Analysis, India News Online

The government is increasingly getting anxious about the passage of the anti-terrorism ordinance in Parliament. Its massive propaganda exercise notwithstanding, the opposition parties are not yet convinced about the necessity of such a law at present. Besides, the Congress and the Left parties are suspicious about the motives of the BJP as the minorities have expressed fears that POTO is likely to be used to harass them. The Prime Minister’s meeting with the Chief Ministers clearly showed that a consensus on the issue is eluding the government. Chief Ministers of most non-BJP states have called POTO undemocratic and draconian.

In a fresh effort to evolve a consensus, Vajpayee is calling an all-party meeting, once the session begins and before the bill is put up for approval. The Prime Minister had a separate meeting with the Congress chief Sonia Gandhi to clear the misgivings of the party on the anti-terrorism ordinance.

Vajpayee made a vigorous defence of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance at a conference of Chief Ministers in Delhi, assuring them that adequate care had been taken to remove the shortcomings in TADA, that lapsed six years ago without a new law to combat terrorism. He sought a national consensus on national security and advocated a free debate on the new ordinance. At the day-long conference on internal security, Vajpayee also sought the establishment of a federal agency to deal with terrorism across the country.

“We have come across a number of cases where conspiracies for terrorist action have spread across a number of states. Although discussions on this were initiated a year ago, we do not have as yet any agency in place, which can take on and pursue such cases on its own,” he pointed out. The Prime Minister regretted “enormous delays” in trials due to huge pendency of cases and said the inefficiency in the criminal justice administration system led to criminals committing further crimes with impunity. He said all murderous groups, wherever they may be in Kashmir or elsewhere, must be declared as terrorist organisations by all civilised nations. “Their sources of funding have to be plugged. Countries giving safe sanctuaries or any other kind of support to them must be placed under sanctions,” he said, in a veiled reference to Pakistan’s role in cross-border terrorism. Vajpayee recalled that New Delhi had been alerting major nations to the fact that some countries in India’s neighbourhood had made the export of terrorism and religious extremism an “important instrument” of their State policy.

Declaring that India will play an active and positive role in the global war against terrorism, Vajpayee said New Delhi was “legitimately satisfied” with its diplomatic efforts in the past two months which have found support among almost all countries. He said during his recent visit to Russia, the US and the UK, India’s principled stand on terrorism and religious extremism was “highly appreciated” by the leadership of these countries.”Major nations around the world have acknowledged —some of them for the first time— that there cannot be double standards in identifying and tackling terrorism,” he said, adding: “The self-evident truth that terrorism and killing of innocent people cannot be justified on any political, ideological or religious grounds has now become evident even to those who earlier preferred either to ignore it or to rationalise it”.

Dwelling on India’s diplomatic campaign following the September 11 attacks in the US and the “inseparable linkage” between internal security concerns and external environment in the region and the world, he told the conference that “our foreign policy has always been a product of national consensus”. “You will agree that the time has come to similarly make even our policy on internal security a matter of national consensus,” Vajpayee said. Referring to the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) which has been strongly resisted by Opposition parties, he said, “The circumstances that have compelled us to bring in this legal instrument are well known to you. We have held consultations with the State Governments and the Law Commission before taking the step.” Recalling his appeal for a consensus on POTO at the Inter-State Council meeting , Vajpayee told the Chief Ministers that he had the “fullest confidence that you will give your studied views on this ordinance consistent with your own assessment of the nation’s security needs”.

A strong advocate of POTO, Home Minister L K Advani asserted that the ordinance was a comprehensive legislation against terrorism taking cognizance of terrorist acts, terrorist organisations and financing of terrorism. “Provisions and penalties in a law directed against terrorism are bound to be harsh. Yet, the ordinance provides suitable safeguards in respect of investigation, arrest, interrogation, trial and other related matters,” Advani said, hoping the State Governments would take necessary steps to make use of the ordinance to quell terrorism and terrorist activities in their respective jurisdictions.

States follow the party lines

The Chief Ministers who attended the meeting addressed by Vajpayee and Advani, took a predictable stand in line with their parties’ policy on POTO. Thus while the BJP-ruled Gujarat State fully backed the ordinance, Maharashtra,Madhya Pradesh and Assam ruled by the Congress followed the line adopted by the party leadership. Sonia Gandhi had clearly drawn the battlelines, commenting the anti-terrorism ordinance was draconian in nature. While Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu did not oppose the measure, he said the Press must be protected. Such a move was necessary to fight terrorism effectively, he said. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu echoed the views of AIADMK chief Jayalalithaa and said his party backed POTO as Advani had promised enough safeguards.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi came out strongly in favour of POTO saying attempts for providing necessary legal frameworks for facing deep-rooted terrorist threats should not be clouded by ill-conceived and misplaced imaginary fears about encroachment of individual liberties. “The fears about misuse of POTO are misplaced. Wiser from the experience of TADA, adequate safeguards have been built into the new legislation”, Modi said at the conference. Stating that the Constitution had provided adequate safeguards for the protection of fundamental rights, he said: “Any weapon can be misused when it falls into bad hands. If a policeman misuses a weapon, you do not disarm the whole police force. You hold him accountable and punish him”. In an obvious dig at the Congress, Modi remarked, “Emergency provisions were misused. But we did not scrap them from the Constitution. Those who misused them were held accountable by the voters and made to pay the price”.

On the other hand, attacking the Centre for promulgating POTO without taking Maharashtra into confidence, Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh rejected the measure saying the State would not support it. “POTO has far-reaching implications and in its present form, we are not in a position to support it,” Deshmukh asserted. Stating that there was a consensus about the need to have a Central legislation for effectively tackling terrorism at the last Chief Ministers’ Conference, Deshmukh pointed out that it was also agreed that this would be done after wide-ranging consultations with States and political parties. Expressing serious concern over the increasing activities of the Bajranj Dal and VHP in Maharashtra, he said that they seemed to be on a spree to open up a large number of branches. “Besides distributing trishuls and imparting firearm training to their supporters, they have started taking up every small local issue, give it a communal twist, to keep the communal atmosphere charged.” Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh held the opinion that POTO was undemocratic and a larger consultative process involving all parties was necessary.

Similarly, Assam too came out in strong opposition to POTO saying the provisions of the controversial ordinance were “too harsh” and their eventual “misuse” could not be ruled out. “In our opinion, the provisions of POTO are too harsh. Eventual misuse of its provisions, the possibility of which cannot be ruled out, may pose serious threats to the basic tenets of our civil society and fundamental rights of our citizens”, Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi said. According to him, shortage of laws is perhaps not the problem in India, but it lay in the ineffective enforcement of existing laws. Though Assam has been plagued by insurgency, surprisingly Gogoi chose to follow the policy laid down by Sonia Gandhi.

Options for the govt

The National Democratic Alliance is drawing up plans to get the anti-terrorism law sail through Parliament at any cost. According to reliable sources, the government plans to introduce a Bill in Parliament during the winter session to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO). The government is quite confident that the Bill will be cleared in the Lok Sabha since the ruling coalition has a majority in the Lower House. But if the Bill is blocked in the Rajya Sabha, where the Opposition parties have the upper hand, the government will demand a joint session of Parliament. The Constitution provides for placing a Bill before a joint sitting in case one of the two Houses has rejected the Bill. This provision, however, does not apply to a money Bill.

Article 108 (1) (a) of the Constitution says: “The President may, unless the Bill has lapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People, notify to the Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deliberating and voting on the Bill.” However, the government is thinking even beyond this. In the event of the Bill not getting approval even in the joint session of Parliament, the Uttar Pradesh government will get a similar law passed as the subject falls under the Concurrent List.

Several Opposition leaders have been accusing the government of having political motives behind pushing for POTO, arguing the law is aimed at garnering votes in the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections. The Congress governments in Maharashtra and Karnataka and the TDP government in Andhra Pradesh have got similar laws passed. UP Chief Minister Rajnath Singh is in a position to get a POTO-like law passed easily and fast. The State government can have a free run as the Opposition MLAs have already resigned from the House.

In his efforts to mobilize support for the POTO, Prime Minister Vajpayee asked all Chief Ministers to arrive at a consensus on the Ordinance, so that one could “answer national needs adequately.’ ‘Addressing the CMs at the Inter-State Council meeting, Vajpayee said he would like them to express their views on whether there was a need to strengthen the existing legal framework to assist the country’s battle against terrorism. Justifying POTO, Vajpayee called for a combat programme with sustainability as its crucial ingredient. He explained: “Sustainability is a product of strong political will, capability of security forces and, last but not the least, an enabling legislative framework.” After TADA, there was no law in place to deal effectively with terrorism and even Law Commission has opined that such a need existed, he emphasised.

Aware that opposition to POTO has come from several quarters, including the Congress which ironically has similarly harsh laws in states ruled by it, Vajpayee was quick to point out that ‘several states had already put in place laws against organised crime. . One of the chief problems facing the Centre and the states, Vajpayee told the CMs, was the threat posed by terrorism and religious extremism.

“The recent terrorist attacks on the US have starkly highlighted both the global scope and the extreme severity of this threat... Perhaps no country has suffered as much under cross-border terrorism as India during the past 10-15 years,” he said.

Meanwhile, the BJP has challenged the Opposition Congress and Left parties to cite any existing law which is adequate to deal with terrorism in all its dimensions as envisaged by POTO. BJP president K. Jana Krishnamurthi asked the Congress and the Left, which are critical of POTO, to tell him which current law provided for preventing terrorist activities as POTO did. He sought to know which existing law defined terrorism, its various dimensions and provided for measures to effectively deal with it. Saying the world scenario had changed after September 11, he pointed out that all countries in the wake of the attacks have started arming themselves with more powers to meet the challenge of terrorism. Even in the US, which upholds individual liberty, authorities had even detained suspects without stating any reason for doing so. “For them, all other interests become subservient to national interests,” he explained. The Opposition, according to him, could suggest amendments in the Bill if they felt that the ordinance was too stringent. The Government had an open mind on suggestions, he said.

When asked about the need for promulgating POTO though Parliament was to meet soon, the BJP president said the situation was changing fast. “We can’t be caught napping when rumours keep appearing in newspapers about the Prime Minister’s Office and Parliament being likely targets (for attack),” he said.

With Parliament’s winter session scheduled to commence here from Monday, the BJP has sought to put the Congress in the dock over its opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance. The BJP released a 14-page booklet, “Facts on POTO,” in which it appealed to the Congress “not to allow political prejudices cloud national interests” and urged it to express any reservation it had on the proposed legislation as the BJP did “not have a closed mind” on the issue. The booklet, released by general secretary Sunil Shastri, was a part of the country-wide offensive by the BJP to mobilise public opinion in favour of the government move. It explained various provisions of the recent ordinance (POTO) and pointed out how was it different from the TADA. It also sought to dispel the notion that POTO would impose curbs on the media and would be misused against the minorities and the weaker sections. “Minorities and weaker sections need not have any fear that POTO will be used against them. There is no basis for it. There is a very clear definition of terrorist act and there is no ambiguity in it,” the booklet said.

The BJP’s countrywide campaign, was launched on November 18. Union Law Minister Arun Jaitley and Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie are the two leaders who will be at the forefront of the campaign - not only have they been fielded repeatedly on TV by the party, but now even articles written by them will be reproduced in these publicity booklets. For the launch of the campaign, the Union Ministers will visit State capitals as they are ‘in a better position to answer queries and explain why POTO was needed, according to party sources. Besides, most of the BJP’s articulate spokespersons are now in the government, and involving ministers will give the campaign a higher profile. BJP workers are being asked to carry the campaign forward right down to the smallest units of the party.

The first booklet carries an article on POTO by Jaitley and a few others from Delhi dailies, and the second contains three pieces by Shourie. The third is in question and answer form, taking on the opposition’s attack on the ordinance. They are also being translated into a few regional languages. For the BJP, the purpose of the campaign is twofold: One, it aims at pressuring opposition parties to support the POTO Bill when it comes up for voting in the winter session. Two, the party’s pro-POTO campaign will set the stage for its campaign for Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Punjab and Manipur scheduled for next February.

The controversy over the POTO has also brought into focus the different perceptions of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. While Vajpayee is still trying for a consensus among all the parties to get the Bill on anti-terrorism voted in Parliament, some of the statements attributed to L.K. Advani have led political observers wonder whether there was a larger plan by the Home Minister to assert himself. For instance, the remarks of Advani that those who opposed POTO could be considered anti-national did not go well with the opposition parties which felt there was an attempt to twist their hands. Thus while the PM is talking of even accepting some of the valid and genuine amendments proposed by the opposition, Advani seems to be taking a harder line. Even when POTO was being given the final shape, it was expected that there would be some murmurs of protest from some NDA allies and attack by the opposition and human rights groups. From the beginning, there was an impression that the PM was a hesitant supporter of POTO at the present time when all types of motives could be attributed to it and also he wanted to avoid fresh controversies. Advani could not be unaware of the likely reaction from other quarters. If he has still gone ahead and is campaigning vigorously for getting the law passed, obviously he must have his own valid reasons and political calculations.

Like the Ayodhya movement, which propelled him into the headlines, Advani seems once again on the verge of projecting himself as a tough politician. There had been reports that some emissaries who had gone to persuade him were bluntly told that as the Home Minister, he had certain commitments. And if he was forced to compromise, he would rather bow out. His primary duty, he told them, was to enforce the rule of law and root out those challenging the country’s integrity. Now that the ordinance had been approved and promulgated, Advani has made it clear that it is a prestige issue for him.

Those in the Sangh Parivar who fear that the coalition rule had stunted the BJP’s growth want to use POTO as a policy plank to arouse the Hindutva ranks. Advani is keen on making national security and patriotism as a major election issue in case the NDA allies or the opposition fail to support the anti-terrorism law. His loaded statement that those who are opposing POTO are appeasing terrorists is also aimed at his own doubting colleagues. Advani, with his aides, has been successful in showing the Congress as a confused party which also had similar laws in its own states. Even while the Prime Minister was on a foreign tour, Advani got busy with his POTO campaign and got informal consent from most allies in the NDA. Besides, the Samata and the National Conference, he even managed to get approval of the ordinance from the AIADMK chief Jayalalithaa, which will give the NDA a numerical advantage in the Rajya Sabha. For the regional allies, sticking with the BJP in the NDA is a safer bet. One, it helps them to share power at the Centre, thus getting benefits like reliefs at times of natural disasters and being forced to fight powerful rival like the Congress. The NDA banner gives the smaller parties a better image of being close to the center of power in Delhi. Under fire for long for his handling of the Kashmir militancy, Advani wants desperately to prove that he can deliver provided he is given the right tools and powers.

Even as the party versus government war rages, with the Prime Minister trying hard to make the BJP a supporter and campaigner of the government, the role of Advani will be watched in the coming days with interest. For the Home Minister, POTO is more than just another law-it is a prestige issue for him that could affect his status in the party as well as the government.

Stage set for showdown in Parliament

The stage is set for a showdown over POTO in Parliament with the Congress rejecting the anti-terrorism ordinance outright. At the Inter-State Conference of Chief Ministers on Internal Security, the Congress CMs have been directed to spell out the party’s opposition to the controversial ordinance. The Congress CMs were given a detailed briefing at 10 Janpath on the party’s defence against attempts to paint the opponents of POTO in anti-national colours. Party chief Sonia Gandhi got Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, a strong POTO critic, to kick off the discussions. It was a clear signal to all those present that Sonia had made up her mind to oppose the ordinance.

At the end of the meeting, where the discussions on POTO went on for three hours, the Congress issued a brief statement describing the ordinance as “anti-democratic, suffering from serious legal infirmities and liable to abuse”. The statement pointed out that the Government had committed itself to a larger consultative process on an anti-terrorism law at the Chief Ministers’ Conference in August last year. Without consulting political parties and in the absence of any urgency, the Government has promulgated an ordinance titled POTO, the statement said.

It added, “The Congress believes that combating terrorism is the need of the hour. However, a larger consultative process involving all political parties is necessary to put in place an appropriate legislation.”In short, this means that virtually the entire Opposition will vote against the Bill and it is likely to be defeated in the Rajya Sabha where the Opposition has a clear majority. According to Congress sources, the only compromise that the party is ready to consider is for the Government to withdraw the ordinance and send the bill to a select committee for discussion. This would pave the way for a consensus as the Bill could be suitably amended to satisfy its critics.

The strong stand taken by the Congress today is a setback for the Government, which was hoping for cracks in the Congress because two of its state governments, Maharashtra and Karnataka, have similar ordinances. However, Sibal’s argument that the state bills and POTO are “as alike as apples and potatoes” carried the day and the party has decided to brazen it out by focusing on the differences. There is a rider to this which Congress spokesman Jaipal Reddy hinted at after the meeting. He said that the Maharashtra and Karnataka Chief Ministers agreed that if the state bills had any harsh provisions, these would be amended. In fact, Maharashtra CM Vilasrao Deshmukh is reported to have stated at the meeting that the law in his State has proved effective in combating organised crime. He quoted figures to buttress his claim that it was not being misused. According to him, in two years, only 50 cases have been booked under Maharashtra Organised Crime Act. Of 13 cases decided so far, ten have resulted in convictions.

The party’s defence revolves around legal and political points. Legalistically, it has decided to argue that the definition of terrorism in POTO is imprecise and therefore liable to abuse, that provisions relating to bail, etc. are draconian and sweeping, that provision relating to journalists violates freedom of press and that organisations like the PWG, MCC and NSCN, which use violence as a political tool, are not listed in the schedule of terrorist organisations.

Politically, it will point out that the Government has reneged on its promise to consult political parties on an anti-terrorism law. It will insist that there is a clear political motive behind the decision to promulgate an ordinance on the eve of winter session of Parliament.

While the Congress party has rejected POTO, the dilemma of its state Governments is that in their feedback to the Centre last year three of them -Delhi, Karnataka and Nagaland-fully endorsed a draft of the anti-terrorist law. Three other Congress-ruled states, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, extended “qualified support” to the draft Bill. But that is unlikely to make them look any better in the party’s eyes because the “modifications” suggested by those states are mixed-some are for more safeguards and some to make the provisions even more stringent.

The Centre could also put the Congress party on the defensive by pointing out that POTO actually incorporates some of the written suggestions made by three of its state governments.

Rajasthan

* It wanted the Centre to borrow from a Maharashtra law the provisions authorising interception of communications. Chapter V of POTO is virtually reproduced from the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MOCA).

* It suggested deletion of a provision empowering the special court to order a police official to pay compensation from his pocket to a victim of malicious prosecution. POTO however retains this salutary provision.

* It proposed that the notorious bail provisions of the terrorist law be liberalised for petty offences, which carry a maximum sentence of three years. But POTO makes no distinction between the offences. Nobody accused under POTO can be granted bail unless the special court is prima facie satisfied that he is innocent.

* Rajasthan suggested deletion of the “omnibus provision” criminalising non-disclosure of information as it is “likely to be misused.” The Centre disregarded Rajasthan’s apprehension of the powers that endanger journalists.

Maharashtra

* The state has suggested inclusion of MOCA’s interception provisions. The Central ministers have been gleefully acknowledging Maharashtra’s contribution to POTO.

* The state suggested that just as there is a minimum limit on the sentence of imprisonment for a lot of the offences under the terrorist law, there should be a minimum prescribed limit on the fine that can be imposed on conviction. The Centre did not adopt this suggestion.

Madhya Pradesh

* The Congress-ruled state proposed that the terrorist law should include powers to impound arms licence and passports of chargesheeted persons. This now forms one of the more significant provisions of POTO.

* Madhya Pradesh suggested that if a person accused under the terrorist law is ever released on bail, the court should be required to insist on at least two heavy sureties. The Centre did not think it necessary to add another restriction to an already rigorous bail procedure.

The winter session of Parliament may begin on a stormy note with the Opposition parties preparing to attack the Government on two major issues - the re-induction of George Fernandes as Defence Minister and the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO). According to the Government list of business, about 32 bills, including those which have been passed on from the last session, will be taken up for legislation.

These include the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, the Freedom of Information Bill, the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill and the Essential Services (Maintenance) Repeal Bill.Also on the list are four ordinances, including POTO, which have been promulgated since the Monsoon session and have to be passed in this session of Parliament. On his party’s agenda, Congress spokesman Anand Sharma has said, “Two of the most important and controversial issues this session are the reinduction of George Fernandes as Defence Minister and POTO.” The other issue which the main Opposition party is planning to raise in Parliament is the action taken by the Uttar Pradesh state government against those involved in violation of the court order on the Ayodhya dispute.

India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics »