Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Shri Ajoy Chakraborty.

SHRI AJOY CHAKRABORTY (BASIRHAT): Sir, I beg to move:

"That this House disapproves of the Prevention of Terrorism (Second) Ordinance, 2001 (No. 12 of 2001) promulgated by the President on 30 December, 2001. "

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI L.K. ADVANI): Sir, I beg to move:

"That the Bill to make provisions for the prevention of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and matters connected therewith, be taken into consideration. "SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN (CHIRAYINKIL): Sir, ….. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your turn has passed.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN (CHIRAYINKIL): Sir, I was inside the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I called you. Now, I have passed on to the next item.
 
  SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Mr. Chairman, Sir, at this point of time, I do not want to say very much except to emphasise that there is a universal appreciation of the fact in almost all democracies that terrorism is a new kind of challenge to the security of a nation, a challenge for which the present legal regimes, the legislative regimes are inadequate. It is this kind of universal realisation that was reflected even in the Security Council’s Resolution adopted on 28th September, 2001 in which the Security Council asked its Member-States to proceed to legislate against terrorism, against financing of terrorism and against all the other crimes that were associated with it. 15.20 hrs (Mr. Deputy-Speaker i n the Chair) So far as we are concerned, even before this kind of Security Council Resolution came, we have been dealing with the problem of terrorism for nearly two decades, slightly less, but nearly two decades, more particularly after 1980. Though our neighbour conceived of waging a war against us through this instrumentality of terrorism shortly after its 1971 defeat and planned accordingly, but it took them some time to implement it. From 1980-81 onwards, first in Punjab, and from 1989 onwards in Jammu and Kashmir, and even in other parts of India, they have been waging a war against us which we rightly described as a proxy war. If there is an open war, the Constitution itself provides suspension of fundamental rights, and emergency is imposed. In a proxy war, we do not do that, but at the same time, wherever terrorism has been there, we thought of TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act). Subsequently that TADA kept on being extended and, at one point of time, a situation came around 1995 when we allowed it to lapse. There were several reasons. I do not want to go into it. Ever since I had been here in this office looking after problems of internal security, at every Conference where I have had interaction with those who look after security in their respective States, whether it is the Directors-General of Police, whether it is the intelligence people or occasionally even with Chief Ministers, there has been a demand ‘that we should have some substitute for TADA; TADA was not properly used, there were distortions, there were lacunae in the law. So, let us do something.’ Therefore, it is that this Government thought it proper to refer the matter to the Law Commission of India and ask the Law Commission to consider the issue in all its aspects and make a recommendation. The Law Commission in the year 2000 gave us a recommendation. It is the Hundred Seventy-third Report of the Law Commission, and it even gave us a draft Bill for consideration. Now, this draft Bill has been considered in a number of fora, in not only the Consultative Committee related to my Ministry, but also in the Chief Ministers’ Conference, in the various conferences of police officials and, in fact, we took into cognizance even the Supreme Court judgement on TADA in which several shortcomings had been pointed out ‘that if these shortcomings had not been there, then TADA would have been absolutely impeccable, but as it is, it is a shortcoming’. We incorporated all of them. When the Security Council passed this Resolution in September 2001, shortly after that, the Government thought it proper to bring an Ordinance, which we call POTO. That Ordinance was sought to be converted into an Act in the Winter Session of Parliament, but as all Members are aware, on the 13th of December, an extraordinary event took place which only emphasised the need to have a law of this kind. However because of that incident, we could not complete the process of legislation and, therefore, that Ordinance had to be repromulgated. Now, today, I have come to the House with a Bill which seeks to replace that Ordinance. I appeal to all Members of the House, all parties of the House that we can differ on so many issues, like on what to do about Ayodhya; we can differ on what to do about economic liberalisation, on economic reforms or the Budget; but let us, on some issues particularly issues relating to security, particularly on issues relating to terrorism, be unanimous. Therefore, the hon. Prime Minister himself had convened a meeting of Opposition Parties where he appealed to them: "please do not oppose this proposal in toto. Make your recommendations; give us your suggestions". I can only say that whether they have come formally from your side or informally from your side, so much so that even the objections raised by the Human Rights Commission have been taken cognisance of and the new Bill is a Bill in which all the shortcomings that we experienced in case of TADA -- perhaps the Executive at that time in the States or at the Centre sometimes was tempted to abuse – have been sought to be eliminated. The Bill has been brought which should be effective against terrorism but gives minimal scope of abuse. If there is any abuse, then there is always the Judiciary, the courts and the other agencies to take care of it. Sir, with these words I commend the Bill to the House. If in course of today’s debate there do come up certain suggestions which may be necessary to incorporate, I can only say that we view the whole matter with an open mind. We want to be effective against terrorists. We want to be effective against terrorism and at the same time see to it that human rights are not, in any way, violated. With this objective I hope that we would be able to pass this Bill. MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Motions moved:

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It may be after six hours from now. Say, at 9.30 p.m. SHRI PRAMOD MAHAJAN: Sir, I do not mind any time. But the time must be known to the hon. Members of the House.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It may be at around 9 p.m. SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, I would require 15 minutes to reply to the debate.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: So, the discussion would end at 8.45 p.m. Then the hon. Minister would take 15 minutes to reply to the debate and then the actual voting will take place at 9 p.m. SHRI E. AHAMED (MANJERI): Sir, if more Members want to speak on this Bill, then they should also be allowed to speak.

"It seems that the Police Officers favour imposition of TADA because Police find it easy to apprehend the persons under TADA. People cannot raise their voice against the Police. If TADA is misused, we cannot extend our support to it."Well, of course, there is the speech of Shri Ram Vilas Paswan. I do not want to take the time of the House in quoting it. I am aware that we are today debating with time constraint.
On 12th August, 1991 the following voted against the TADA (Amendment) Bill, 1991. Those who voted against the Bill include Shri L.K. Advani, Shri Bhuvan Chandra Khanduri, Shri Madan Lal Khurana, Shri Ram Naik and Shri Ram Vilas Paswan. They all voted against it in 1991. But now all these great libertarian leaders have become POTO-compliant and also POTO-genic! What is the record of performance of this Government? Many people have referred to Kandahar. Therefore, I do not want to take the time of the House on that. The TADA failed to convict Omar Syed Sheikh under TADA and he had to be therefore surrendered or given up to Pakistan at Kandahar. Now the case of the Government is that ‘POTO is not as draconian as TADA. We opposed TADA at that time because it was draconian; POTO is now more democratic’. They also say in the same breath ‘look, the situation has since become much more serious. Do you not see that?’ The question that I would like to raise is: ‘How can a less draconian piece of legislation succeed in dealing with a more explosive situation in the country’? I want a short answer to this question.