NEW DELHI, 27 March — The Parliament yesterday passed a controversial anti-terror measure 425 to 296 in a joint session called to enact the legislation.
The voting came after a belligerent Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee contested the statements made during the debate on the measure by leader of opposition Sonia Gandhi questioning his integrity and ability to lead the government.
The display of anger by Vajpayee led to the proceedings being disrupted for almost 15 minutes. Order was restored after Vajpayee briefly yielded to Congress party MP Arjun Singh, who contended that the prime minister had undermined the dignity of the house.
“If I used any unparliamentary language, it can be stricken off the record,” said Vajpayee when he resumed his address and then abruptly cut it short, having never once mentioned by name the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) that the joint session later adopted.
The special sitting was called after the Rajya Sabha (upper house), where Vajpayee’s coalition is in a minority, rejected the bill to ratify the ordinance that had earlier been passed by the Lok Sabha (lower house).
A politically surcharged debate ahead of the voting saw MPs sharply divided on the bill, even as opposition parties viewed the joint sitting as a desperate and dangerous attempt by the government to enact the measure.
A combative opposition even termed the ordinance — an act of terrorism in itself, and compared it to oppressive pre-independence laws imposed by the then British rulers. The joint sitting of the Parliament began on a tumultuous note with noisy protests by opposition parties before Home Minister L.K. Advani could introduce the bill for consideration and passage.
Advani contended that special laws such as POTO were essential for the country’s security needs. “It is necessary to enact POTO because we feel we cannot score a decisive victory against terrorism unless special laws of this kind are in place,” he held, defending his government’s decision to call a joint sitting. Sonia accused the government of exploiting a constitutional provision to achieve a narrow and controversial aim. “Supporting POTO was like supporting terrorism,” she declared in an impassioned plea against the measure that she felt violated human rights and could be used to oppress religious minorities.
“I fear that POTO will become an instrument in the hands of this government to oppress opposition parties, minorities, weaker sections and ethnic groups,” said the Congress chief.
Sonia alleged that POTO had been selectively used in a partisan manner, with the definition of terrorism cleverly expanded to advance the government’s political and ideological agenda. Sonia pointed out while 62 Muslim perpetrators of the Godhra massacre of Hindu passengers had been arrested under POTO, the Hindus responsible for the retaliatory carnage in Gujarat were booked under ordinary criminal laws. “Draconian laws have rarely been successful in combating terrorism and the purpose of fighting terrorism cannot be achieved by curbing individual freedom,” she said, adding that POTO would be an instrument of injustice rather than justice.
Speakers from all parties labored through well-prepared or extempore speeches with the combined house frequently erupting into indignant outbursts that prolonged the proceedings.
It required redoubled efforts from the chair to maintain order, as Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker P.M. Sayeed, Rajya Sabha Chairman Krishan Kant and Deputy Chairperson Najma Heptullah, among others, took turns to control the vociferous MPs.
Law Minister Arun Jaitley declaimed a long and spirited defense of the proposed law, stating that it had in-built safeguards to ensure against its misuse.
Jaitley also accused the opposition of breeding needless fear among religious minorities. “POTO’s purpose is to contain terrorism, there is no political motive in it,” he declared. Opposition parties refrained from walk out or resort to any other display of protest even as they bitterly contested the bill to the last. Questioning the government’s emphasis on cross-border terrorism having necessitated the legislation, former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar laid out that it was high-time the government stopped accusing Pakistan for its own weakness. He said: “Continuance of terrorism on our soil exposes our own weakness and by blaming Pakistan for it we cannot escape the responsibility.”
The Samajwadi Party’s Mulayam Singh Yadav compared the anti-terror law to the Rowlatt Act passed by the then British government in 1918 under which political cases could be tried without juries and suspects could be jailed indefinitely without trial.
“It is not an anti-terrorist law but a terrorist act. The government is trying to divert the people’s attention from its failings through POTO,” Mulayam charged.Added Communist Party of India-Marxist MP Somnath Chatterjee: “POTO is a partisan law intended to suit political interests.” Even as Parliament debated the bill, Muslim groups and civil rights organizations staged protests in the capital against the enactment of the proposed legislation.
