Opinion - Editorials   

Respecting State sentiments

While the Centre has received the total support of the States in fighting extremist violence during the recent conference of Chief Ministers, it would do well to pay close attention to some of the reservations expressed over the new anti-terror laws. Moved in the anxious climate that prevailed after the ghastly Mumbai terror attack, the National Investigation Agency Bill and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill were passed with broad unanimity by voice vote in Parliament. Nevertheless, there were and are reservations about the new laws that need to be fairly addressed. Concerns about the creation of an NIA, the federal agency to investigate terror crimes, fall into two categories. First, the constitutional — law and order being a State subject, does an agency armed with suo motu powers to investigate certain offences encroach on State rights and infringe the nation’s federal character? Secondly, the practical — will a body like the NIA weaken the State police, who have the machinery to understand local conditions and collect ground-level information?

The answer to the first question is something — should the NIA Act come up for legal challenge — that the courts must settle. Suffice it to say here that it is not uncommon to have central agencies armed with similar or even greater powers in other countries. For instance, apart from terrorism, the FBI in the United States is empowered to tackle such things as public corruption and certain economic offences. On the issue of the role of the State police, care must be taken to see that it is not undermined by the new arrangement to investigate terror crimes. Highly trained investigators can help but never totally replace an alert police machinery at the grassroots level. Reservations about the amended UAPA originate from diametrically opposed standpoints. The Left parties have raised concerns about the two notorious POTA-like provisions — the increase in the detention period without charges from 90 to 180 days and the presumption that those accused are guilty under certain circumstances unless they prove otherwise. The BJP’s complaint is simply that the amended law does not go far enough in resembling POTA — a position based on the delusional idea that a draconian law is the magic wand to solve blast cases and prevent terror attacks. Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram has shown the required flexibility by saying that the new anti-terror laws could be revisited in Parliament if necessary and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has promised the “closest possible interaction” with States on all anti-terror initiatives. Terrorism requires a firm and united response and it is imperative that the Centre has the States fully on board.

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

Stories in this Section

Respecting State sentiments
A mammoth task
Increasing challenges to stability in Asia
Replica White House on the market
Corrections and clarifications
Satyam debacle
On caste system
“People still have very high confidence in the judiciary”

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu