The Hindu : Opinion / Letters to the Editor : Stringent laws

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Jan 03, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Opinion

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Stringent laws

The article “Terrorism: are stronger laws the answer?” (Jan. 1) was not only analytical but also insightful. A terrorist is one who is brainwashed by fundamentalists to become a monster, who does not know the cause for which he is being sacrificed. He is a victim of the proxy war waged by faceless ideologues.

The amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, brought in by the UPA government at the fag end of its tenure, and the NDA’s demand in the past five years to bring back POTA are nothing but acts of political one-upmanship. What we need today are not tougher laws — which do nothing to deter terrorists in their ‘mission’ — but a vision to understand the factors that breed them. It is the brain behind the terrorists that needs to be brought to justice. Misuse of terror laws and victimisation of the innocent will only breed more terrorists than the authorities can eliminate.

Nazhath Jabeen,

Bangalore

Following the terror attacks in Mumbai the UPA government felt the need for a strong law, which it enacted through the amendments to UAPA. But the law gives the police more powers. The most alarming aspect of the amended Act is that it fails to put in place a mechanism that can prevent the police from misusing it. As rightly pointed out in the article, no law, however draconian or stringent, can deter terrorists who are ready to die.

A.S. Farida,

Kancheepuram

The article is an eye-opener. The amended UAPA is old wine in a new bottle. The conviction rate under TADA and POTA was abysmally low. The majority of those arrested under such laws feel victimised and alienated from the system. They remain a potential source for those who can channel their anger against the government. To prevent the anti-terror laws from becoming a source of terrorism, it is important to make the police system unbiased, non-political and non-communal. This can be done by implementing the long overdue police reforms.

Kapil Kumar Singh,

New Delhi

The amendments to UAPA contain provisions which can be easily abused and misused. Untrammelled power at the hands of the police such as the power to investigate, arrest and charge any person if they have “reason to believe or know” that he or she has a “design” to commit an offence under the Act is alarming. Abuse of power, deliberate or inadvertent, denies justice to an individual accused of crime.

Stringent laws are inevitable. But they should give due consideration to the fundamental rights of the people and Parliament should pass them after an extensive debate. The amendments to UAPA were passed virtually without debate. Isn’t it better to debate a question without settling it than settle a question without debating it?

P.N. Ramachandran,

Kozhikode

Following the Mumbai attacks, the government and the Opposition showed great urgency in setting up a new agency and arming the police with a tougher law, which is anything but different from the now repealed POTA. But the question is: will it make a difference? We have had many laws to deal with terrorism in the past. But they failed to stop terror activities. Tougher laws alone cannot solve the menace of terrorism.

Barun Kumar Mahapatro,

Berhampur

Stringent laws are no doubt necessary to curb terrorism. But in our country, where the police force is corrupt and partisan, it is important to make people aware of the provisions of the anti-terror laws. It is also necessary to have a higher, independent body to verify the genuineness of the cases registered under UAPA.

M.K. Arjun,

Kozhikode

No law has succeeded in curbing acts of terror. There were terrorist attacks even when POTA was in force. All that the draconian laws like POTA and UAPA do are give the police more powers, which can lead to harassment of innocent persons. The objective of the government should be to make the police more accountable, transparent and people-oriented in their functioning.

Bhushshan A. Balbudhe,

New Delhi

One cannot but completely agree with the author. Everyone knows that the problem is not with the law but with the authorities that enforce it. No law is perfect. Any law, POTA or UAPA, can be weakened by misuse.

M. Suba Celestin,

Tirunelveli

Every law offers some scope for misuse, which has to be tolerated for a bigger cause. The government has the primary responsibility of protecting the nation and its citizens from terrorists. Legal loopholes have all along been used by many accused of terror activities to escape punishment. Thanks to rights activists, terrorists seem to be enjoying more rights than victims of terrorism.

V. Rajan,

Thiruvananthapuram

Unless we arm our police with more powers, we cannot control the new form of terrorism. Even if I am a potential victim of misuse of UAPA, I will support it because collective security is more important than individual rights. Denouncing a law altogether fearing its misuse is unwarranted.

Suresh Nandigam,

Hanuman Junction

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Rationalising arrest laws

Bangladesh can do much more

Towards a zero-nuclear weapon world

A price for everything, and anything for a price

3 million customers for bank for the poor

‘Green’ cement may help cut CO{-2}

Corrections and Clarifications