Anti-terrorism laws must not become a tool of violating human rights, as that would only mean perpetuating injustice in the society. In the wake of 26/11 Bombay attack, a wave of panic and anger was naturally to be expected. Instead of doing honest and impartial assessment of the failure of various government machinery, an easy, uncalled for resort to Anti Human Right Legislation was resorted to, and not unsurprisingly all the parties thumped their patriotic chests to pass this most draconian legislation N.I.A. and amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act. 1967).
A good percentage of the press has also gone along with the vicious executive propaganda that human rights organizations are concerned with the rights of terrorist rather than that of the victims of terrorism. This is untrue, considering that established human rights bodies like Peoples Union for Civil Liberties ( PUCL ) have unequivocally condemned the killing and taking of
hostages by terrorist, whether in Jammu & Kashmir or the northeast or the Maoists, though at the same time emphasizing the culpability of the State agencies. The painful part is that even when the statements by the NGOs condemning the killing by terrorists of human rights activists in various parts of the country is published in newspapers, the media because of its prejudice against the human rights organizations, continues to present this wrong picture of the human rights activists.
I maintain that meeting the challenge of terrorism requires determination, proper utilization of intelligence information and support of public and not these draconian laws violating the human rights of citizens.
Human Rights organizations firmly believe that by indulging in violence, the militants, Maoists clearly violate the human rights of the individuals in the society. But this does not mean that unlawful excesses by the State agencies are justified or can be condoned, even though one appreciates the strains and risks under which these agencies operate. Any such condonation will destroy the fabric of democratic institutions.
Such like indifference to the human rights has been a common feature of the political class. It is important to note that the practical utility of TADA was shown to be nil because during 1985 – 93, conviction rate of those arrested never exceeded 0.89 per cent. But the saddest part was the almost total somnolence of our legislators which shows that discussion in Parliament on TADA from 1985 to 1993 has varied between 1 hour and 10 minutes (1993) to a maximum of 8 hours in 1985. The participation of MPs varied from 8 MPs to a maximum of 34 in 1985. it would seem that gradually the sensitivity of MPs at the deprivation of basic rights of citizens is becoming dulled.
Though TADA was upheld by the Supreme Court, it could not but express its anguish at its working thus; “It is heart-rending 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…..”
It is also a matter of regret that the media, which is expected to be a protector of human rights, played a damp squibs in opposing such anti Human Rights legislation.
Though I am not too fond of USA media let me give some illustrations. Thus New York Times wrote “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.”
Similarly Washington Post wrote “the country cannot allow terrorists to alter the fundamental openness of US society or the Government’s respect for civil liberties.”
Philadelphia Inquirer wrote “We feel rage. We feel fear. We are bewildered. We can’t avoid acting on those feelings. Yet we must calibrate our response against the ideals of liberty and tolerance that have made this nation work so well for so long.”
Of course, saner voices were ignored when the USA Government passed anti human rights legislations. But similar condemnation found echo there. Thus Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU’s Washington nation office “this law is based on the faulty assumption that safety must come at the expense of civil liberties. U.S.A. Patriot Act vests law enforcement agencies nationwide extraordinary new powers unchecked by meaningful judicial review”.
I am not underestimating the danger of terrorism, nor am I against using all the governmental 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 Supreme Court even when it upheld (regretfully for many of us) the validity of POTA. But it commented very strongly thus; “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.”
The government has been seeking to take cover by seeking to call in aid U.S. Patriot Act., as being equally restrictive – first that Act does not apply to U.S.A. citizens. The Act has received severe condemnation at the hands of American Civil Liberties Union, thus – “This law is based on the faulty assumption that safety must come at the expense of civil liberties.” A quiet acceptance of this obnoxious legislation led to shameful excesses of Guatanamo Camps. Similarly taking cover under this draconian legislation, the Executive acts in a manner which is inconsistent with civil liberties and human rights of individuals, and the poorer sections of society, especially tribals, Dalits.
All political parties and governments must therefore remember that human rights are not a gift from the government nor a bounty, which any government in its discretion may choose to distribute or withdraw at its whim.
Acceptance of human rights are essential prerequisites of a civilized and a democratic country. It is only such civilized conduct that distinguishes democracy from totalitarianism.
Of the many violations of human rights that can be listed, none is worse but less spoken of in fashionable seminars on human rights – I am referring to “poverty”, the mother of all human rights violations.
No doubt human rights violations manifest themselves in various forms – brutality of police, or gender injustice, pollution and environmental degradation, social ostracism of the Dalits – but ultimately the answer to all these must be found in our commitment to the elimination of poverty.
Freedom of an individual, which is the postulate of human rights, obviously can have no meaning so long as the poor in the country do not have their economic conditions improved and the discrimination based on privilege do not become mere memories, instead of becoming more and more aggressive as time passes on.
The present situation must cause concern to all human right activists.
Working for human rights is to wrestle within you to strive to remain firm to commitment to unvarnished truth, even when people may misinterpret your motives including some time hurl calumnious accusations. But that is the price one must be willing to pay in the firm belief of victory of our National motto Satyamav Jaite and always reinforcing one’s strength by reminding oneself that in times like these, “it is a duty to speak and sin to be silent”.
