The new anti-terror Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill gives the country’s security agencies extraordinary powers. The government is offering assurances that the power to name individuals, including suspects, as “terrorists”, and even seize their property will not be misused. But history suggests that the more powers are given to investigators, the more they will be misused, with not only suspects but also innocents feeling the heat of interrogation methods that may breach human rights. The effect of the new provisions, which will become a part of the law when the bill passes in the Rajya Sabha, is that India will become more of a security state like Israel, Turkey or Russia, where the security forces will have a free run against anyone seen as non-conformist with those running the State. There have been far too many cases of terror suspects being incarcerated for decades before being let off for want of evidence, and all we have then are hardened criminals let loose on society, defeating the aim of averting acts of terrorism.
The passing of the NIA Bill and the Protection of Human Rights Act, which waters down the role of the Information Commission, and the whittling down of the RTI Act into a pale shadow of itself reveal a pattern in which the State is empowering itself to the extent of not being legally accountable. The UAPA aims to replace Tada and Pota, but each successive upgrade only puts more powers in the hands of the investigators. Terrorism is the modern world’s biggest and most disruptive threat, and must be rooted out. Those indulging in it or planning to do so must face the consequences. However, there is no guarantee that the strictest laws will prevent terrorist attacks. There are issues involving the centralisation of powers at the hands of the Centre, which may also not go down well with state governments. While all governments at the Centre show a tendency to concentrate powers with itself, it is the larger fear of misuse of such power that suggests we are getting into a situation truly unworthy of a democratic order.
The opaqueness in sharing of information protects virtual police states from having to be accountable. The law will assign absolute powers to the Centre as it may deem any activity, including what may be normal democratic dissent, as unlawful, and may declare it so. The home minister’s assertion that the so-called “Urban Maoists” will not be spared triggers disturbing anxieties over where this is all heading. While all states must encourage real-time information sharing and an active cyber presence to ferret out malcontents without fear of losing ground to the Centre, it is incumbent for Central investigating agencies not to usurp the powers of states. A discerning apparatus to undertake counter-terror operations is the need of the hour — that requires smarter policing more than sweeping powers.
