The Mumbai blasts were an act of war against the Indian state; it would be naïve to term it as anything else. It was an act of terror to kill as many Indians as possible. It was an act enabled, to a large measure, by a growing perception among the terrorist groups, especially those operating from Pakistan, that the Indian state was soft and indolent. The state's response, this time, too, has not given any reason to change this perception. It is a matter of national embarrassment. <br /> <br /> There are many ways in which a strong nation can tackle calculated, systematic acts of terror. The first essential step, in any war on terror, is to draft and implement a comprehensive, stringent and clearly articulated law to add teeth to both prevention and prosecution. Government must constitute a task force immediately (it has a history of setting task forces for the most asinine of reasons) to draft an anti-terrorist legislation, drawing ample lessons from the earlier legislations like TADA and POTA to avoid the inherent flaws and pitfalls which made convictions extremely difficult. Government should place this legislation before Parliament, if not in the Monsoon session then the Winter session, giving ample time for public debate. <br /> <br /> Without getting into the nitty-gritty, the law should give greater freedom and resources to intelligence agencies, both at the Centre and the State, to pursue leads and investigations, intercept communication facilities, track down banking details and interrogate suspects and those related to them for at least a week without the mandatory appearance before a court of law. The designated courts can be kept informed about the arrests and seizures, however. This will enable the intelligence and security agencies to interrogate suspects, follow-up leads and investigate linkages without coming, time and again, to courts. <br /> <br /> The next important feature of the law should be witness protection. The law should provide enough safeguards for witnesses in cases of terrorism. Prime witnesses should in fact be given assumed identities and offered enough remuneration to lead lives of anonymity. Stringent penalties, as extreme as rigorous imprisonment, should be included for witnesses turning hostile. <br /> <br /> Enough credence should be given to email intercepts, data retrieved from computer hard-disks, mobile phone transcripts and otherintelligence inputs in deciding the cases against terrorists. <br /> <br /> The law should prescribe a time limit for trials in cases of terrorism. Fast track courts should be in place even before the legislation is enacted with judges and prosecutors, and their family members, given adequate safety and protection. <br /> <br /> The provisions for punishment should be equally clear. Those who indulge in acts of terror, whether inspired and instigated, should be treated as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. Those who provide support, shelter, weapons and other logistics should be treated as no less than terrorists and given punishment accordingly. For instance, death sentence should be the only punishment a convicted terrorist must get. His or her supporters, allies and helpers deserve no less a punishment than 25 years of rigorous imprisonment. If any of them are accused of multiple crimes - helping terrorists with weapons, shelter etc. - each act of terror should be treated separately and punished accordingly. <br /> <br /> There should be no leeway for foreign terrorists. They should not be allowed any right to appeal. Death by hanging within a week of the judgement should be the norm. The body should be shipped to his or her parent country. There should be a special provision for those financing terrorism. They should be treated with no less a punishment than rigorous imprisonment of 25 years for every act of transaction which has been linked to an act of terror. Not only should the person directly dealing the money should be punished but his contacts and office staff should be given deterrent punishment, of no less than 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. <br /> <br /> Bail provisions for any category of the accused should be restrictive. The accused should not be given a bail till the trial is over. Even after punishment, the guilty should not be given parole or pardon. They must not be entitled to any concessions even for good conduct. <br /> <br /> Terrorists should be incarcerated in isolation wards and denied any extra facility which might be available to accused in other crimes. Stringent laws are the only possible deterrents against terrorists who are busy making a mockery of civil society. <br /> <br /> <em>Daily Pioneer, July 16, 2006</em> <br /> <br /> <em>* Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Observer Research Foundation.</em> <br />
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
