Human rights first

The Delhi bombings resulting in several deaths has understandably caused outrage at the failure of the intelligence machinery. But the prime minister has rightly scotched the idea of a federal intelligence agency taking the view that since the bombings took place under the eyes of central agencies, the fight against terrorism requires the involvement of states as equal partners.

The BJP has been trying to score a point about the withdrawal of POTA by the UPA government conveniently ignoring that the terrorist attack on Parliament was during the time when POTA was still in operation. In the same vein, the Congress dubiously included the worst provisions of POTA in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It is now inclined to include provisions like making confessions to the police admissible as evidence, a provision which was described by two judges in the TADA case as "unfair, unjust and unconscionable" and ''against Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution". The Supreme Court had said, "It is heartrending to note that day in and day out we come across news of blood-curdling incidents of police brutality and atrocities alleged to have been committed in utter disregard and in all breaches of humanitarian law and universal human rights as well as in total negation of the constitutional guarantees and human decency..."

The practical utility of TADA was nil. During 1985-93, conviction rate of those arrested never exceeded 0.89 per cent.

But the saddest part was the absence of debate on TADA. Discussion in Parliament on TADA in this period varied from a little over an hour in 1993 to a maximum of eight hours in 1985. The participation of MPs varied from eight MPs to a maximum of 34.

The National Human Rights Commission had given its firm opinion against POTA. It said that all the actions which the government wishes to take are substantially taken care of under existing laws. To seek to oppose new anti-terrorist legislation in the context of multiple bomb blasts would appear foolhardy. But remember what the 'New York Times' wrote after 9/11: "The temptation will be great in the days ahead to write draconian new laws that give law enforcement agencies, or even military forces, a right to undermine the civil liberties that shape the character of the United States. President George Bush and Congress must carefully balance the need for heightened security with the need to protect the constitutional rights of Americans." Of course, these sane voices were ignored when the US government passed the Patriot Act which vested law enforcement agencies with extraordinary new powers.

One is not underestimating the danger of terrorism, nor is one against using all the government's resources against it. But the methods must be consistent with the letter and spirit of our Constitution - namely the supremacy of human rights. This has been forcibly asserted by the SC even when it upheld the validity of POTA.

The court said, "The protection and promotion of human rights under the rule of law is essential in the prevention of terrorism. If human rights are violated in the process of combating terrorism, it will be self-defeating. Terrorism often thrives where human rights are violated, which adds to the need to strengthen action to combat violations of human rights. The lack of hope for justice provides breeding grounds for terrorism. In all cases, the fight against terrorism must be respectful to the human rights. Our Constitution laid down clear limitations on state actions within the context of the fight against terrorism."

All political parties must therefore remember that human rights are not a gift from the state, which any government in its discretion may choose to distribute or withdraw at its whim. Human rights are essential prerequisites of a civilised and a democratic country. It is only such civilised conduct that distinguishes democracy from totalitarianism. That is why the proposed new legislation - even if it has the consent of both the national parties - has to be resisted.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Human_rights_first/articleshow/3523765.cms