Reflections on Mumbai terror

Reflections on Mumbai terror

Soli Sorabjee

One salutary outcome of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai has been the enactment of much belated, tough anti-terror legislation which is sorely needed because extraordinary times require extraordinary laws. The terrorist threat is real and not a thing of the past. However, one serious reservation I have is about the period of detention up to 180 days. This is constitutionally vulnerable apart from its inconsistency with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 [ICCPR], which India has ratified and which will cause problems before the Human Rights Committee when it takes up India’s report which India is bound to submit under the ICCPR. A serious lacuna in the legislation is the exclusion of admissibility of confessions by the arrestee which to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge were not the outcome of torture and third degree methods. This will hamper effective prosecution and conviction. This aspect has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the POTA case and the provision making confessions admissible was upheld. In the absence of such a provision, terrorist Kasab may get away for lack of evidence.

But remember: However tough and comprehensive the law, its enforcement will be ineffective if our police force is not adequately armed, properly equipped and fully trained to combat the terrorists. Police reforms are urgent and the Supreme Court directions in this behalf should be implemented without further delay.

A disturbing fallout has been the divide between the communities which is infecting our polity. In a recent meeting, some 300 real estate brokers in Surat declared that they will not sell or rent houses to Muslim clients. This is reprehensible. It is this divisive mindset which the terrorists wanted to achieve. Whilst eliminating terrorism, we must also eliminate this mentality.

Another disturbing aspect is the threats meted out and attacks on lawyers who are unafraid to render legal assistance and appear for Kasab, if called upon to do so. Under Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted by our Supreme Court, every person, citizen and non-citizen alike, is entitled to legal aid especially in a criminal trial which may result in loss of his life or liberty. Our country is not a banana republic. It is a democratic republic based on the rule of law. Denial of legal representation to Kasab, however heinous his crime, would be a violation of Article 21. Our justified revulsion for Kasab should not result in abandoning basic principles of fair trial.

Flip-flops and U-turns by Pakistan justifiably cause strong resentment. However, military strike is neither an option nor a solution. That might indeed have the effect of all parties and peoples in Pakistan, including those sympathetic to India, to come together behind the jehadi flag for defence of their Fatherland against India, the aggressor. We must keep our cool and act with maturity in our own interest and that of international peace.

One nagging question: What happened to the three terrorists who escaped? Have they been arrested or neutralised or eliminated in an encounter? There should be no difficulty in taking the people into confidence and dispelling their sense of insecurity.

Shoe-throwing heroism

There are different ways of becoming a hero. Muntazer al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist, achieved that distinction overnight by throwing a pair of shoes at President George W. Bush in Iraq despite the fact that the shoes missed his target. Zaidi’s action is viewed as a courageous, symbolic protest against the US invasion of Iraq and its subsequent policies. In Saudi Arabia, a man has offered to buy the historic pair of shoes for $10 million. In Libya, Gaddafi’s daughter has bestowed a medal of courage on Zaidi. Expectedly Muntazer has been arrested. He is said to be in hospital with a broken arm and ribs after being struck by Iraqi security agents. If he is not released but is prosecuted and jailed, he would emerge as a martyr. Do the Americans and the present Iraqi administration desire that result? Would it not be politically pragmatic to ignore the incident?