The terror debate (The Hindu)

Mains Paper 3 : Security
Prelims level : Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act
Mains level : Mechanism adopted to prevent terrorism

Context

• The debate in Parliament this week over the National Investigation Agency (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was instructive in understanding our lawmakers’ attitude to law not as an instrument against abuse of power and violence but more as a tool to legitimise the politics of national security and validate precisely such abuse.

Background

• While the provisions of the amendment bill which seeks to give the NIA extra territorial powers to probe cases of terrorism, cyber crimes, human trafficking and facilitate creation of special courts are unobjectionable, what is disturbing is the farcical nature of the debate in both the Houses which culminated in a majority of the parties supporting its passage.
• The Congress supported the amendment bill with only some of its MPs making peripheral references to the State’s encroachment of civil rights with extraordinary anti-terror legislation and the unprofessional manner in which investigations were carried on in the name of probing terrorism.

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act

• Not one Member in any of the Houses thought it fit to mention the documented abuse of POTA and its predecessor, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), in targeting political opponents and minorities in the name of national security.
• These laws had to be repealed because they exemplified a complete departure from procedural fairness and Constitutional principles.
• In the case of TADA, 76,166 persons were arrested between 1985-1994.
• Of these, 18,708, i.e., 24.5 per cent, were discharged before the trial commenced.
• Of the 20,386 persons who were tried, as many as 19,543 were acquitted.
• Only four per cent of those tried under TADA were found guilty.

Conclusion

• In the current polarised climate that hinges heavily on national security, few politicians feel emboldened enough to make a legitimate argument about the primary function of the law as balancing State power with individual rights.
• These were the arguments that won the Opposition, including the BJP’s eminent predecessors, the nation’s favour against the Emergency. Aping their oppressors does the ruling party little credit.

  Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

  General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials

Prelims Questions:

Q.1) With respect to the Census 2011 data on migration, consider the following statements:
1. Marriage and employment are the major reasons for migration.
2. Maharashtra had more migrants from Bihar than from Madhya Pradesh.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both
D. None

Answer: A
Mains Questions:
Q.1) Why State power needs to be balanced with civil liberties and individual rights?