NIA Bill Debate – LK Advani’s Speech

Salient points in the speech by Shri L.K. Advani in the debate in the Lok Sabha on 17 December 2008 on the two anti-terror bills introduced by the UPA Government

Mr. Speaker Sir,

The government has introduced two Bills in this House — one to set up a National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the other to amend the law to bring in more stringent provisions to deal with terror crimes. Home Minister Shri P. Chidambaram introduced these two bills The National Investigation Agency Bill 2008 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2008.

At the outset, I wish to state categorically that the entire country is united in the war against terrorism. And, therefore, the BJP and the NDA will support all steps the Government will take against terrorism. We broadly support the two Bills.
Shri Chidambaram has said that the two Bills should be passed today itself. We feel that they should have been sent to the Standing Committee for examination. The Government should consider sending them to the Standing Committee even now instead of hoping to get them passed straight away.

Mr. Speaker Sir, less than five months have remained in the term of the 14th Lok Sabha. Everyone within this House and in the country at large realizes that this is the fag end of the Government and the current Lok Sabha.

And it is at this fag end of its own tenure that the Government is bringing in two important Bills which, going by their importance and relevance for India, ought to have been introduced at the very beginning of its term. By now, these ought to have been part of our Statute book.

Mr. Speaker Sir, I want to ask the Government: Is November 26 the first time India was attacked by terrorists? During the UPA Government’s own rule, terror attacks have taken place in Jammu, Ayodhya, Varanasi, Bangalore, Samjhauta Express in Haryana, Imphal, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Malegaon, Jaipur, Delhi, Guwahati, Mumbai. In Mumbai itself, there were serial bomb blasts on running trains, carried out with military precision, on 11th July 2006, in which nearly 200 people died.

Altogether, in the last four and a half years alone, more than four thousand people have died in various incidents of terrorist and extremist violence, more than in any other country in the world, except Iraq, which of course is a country at war.

India is not a country at war. Yet, it has continued to be a victim of a Proxy War from Pakistan.

Nevertheless, it is a matter of satisfaction but not happiness that the stand the Congress leadership has taken in the last ten years has changed.

Let me remind the House the global and national context that made the NDA Government to enact the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2002. After 9/11 in the United States, the United Nations Security Council adopted the Resolution 1373, which directed all member-countries to enact suitable laws to prevent and combat terrorism. The US, UK, Germany, many democracies enacted new anti-terror laws. Even Pakistan did the same.

India, of course, had been a victim of cross-border terrorism long before 9/11. Hence, we already were acutely aware of the need for a strong anti-terror law, especially since TADA was no longer in existence.

I can quote here from the speeches of the Prime Minister, Congress President Smt. Sonia Gandhi, the then Home Minister Shri Shivraj Patil, several Congress spokesmen, and many leaders of the UPA saying how existing laws were adequate to deal with terrorism.

Here is a news item, a PTI story filed from Guwahati and carried in Indian Express on April 13, 2002. It is about Congress President Smt. Sonia Gandhi’s reaction to POTA after a meeting of Congress chief ministers in Guwahati.

No need for POTA; existing laws adequate: Sonia
Press Trust of India
Posted online: Saturday, April 13, 2002
 
Guwahati, April 13: Congress President Sonia Gandhi said on Saturday that there was no need for the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and the existing laws at the Centre and in states were “perfectly adequate” to deal with terrorism. (Emphasis mine)
“There were strong feelings at the Chief Ministers’ meeting here that the existing laws at the centre and in states are perfectly adequate to deal with the law and order problem,” she remarked.
* * *
I’m proud we repealed POTA: PM

INDIAN EXPRESS; September 3,  2005

Chennai : Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today said his government had fulfilled its promise to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act which had “caused unnecessary harassment to many sections”.
“Our government had made a commitment to repeal POTA and we have faithfully fulfilled the promise made at the time of last Lok Sabha elections,” he said.
* * *
In this very House, while replying to a debate on 30th August 2007 on the Adjournment Motion after the twin blasts in Hyderabad, the then Home Minister Shri Shivraj Patil rejected the demand for a stringent anti-terror law and said, ”We already have a substantial law to deal with terrorism.” Shri Patil is no longer the Home Minister, but what he said only last year reflected the thinking and attitude of the Government.

It is a matter or satisfaction but not of happiness that the government is now finally placing these Bills in Parliament. By doing so the government has accepted that it was in the wrong for all these years.
 
The UPA should return to POTA. Unless the country is strict problems will multiply.

Such laws are not against minorities but are against terrorism. Terrorism is not a law and order issue but a special evil.

The fight against terrorism is no different from a war. There has to be unity and above all the will to win the war.

Mr. Speaker Sir, my Party and the NDA Government never viewed POTA or any anti-terror law through the prism of “majority” versus “minority”. Sadly, it is the Congress and the UPA that did so.

I would be the LAST PERSON to want to see any law not only an anti-terror law but ANY law to be used either against any community or against innocent persons. I have made it clear time and again that terrorism is not to be equated with any religion or community.

But it saddens me that the Congress party and the UPA carried on a sustained propaganda against POTA as a “communal” law and an “anti-Muslim” law.

Let me remind my friends here in the Congress party that when Rajiv Gandhi’s government introduced TADA (Terrorism and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act) in 1987, the BJP did not oppose it. I think Shri Chidambaram was the Minister of State for Internal Security at the time. So he knows fully well why TADA had become necessary. TADA was in existence for nearly 10 years. It was sometimes misused against the political opponents of the ruling party, as happened against BJP workers in Gujarat. But we never demanded its repeal.

There is criticism that strict laws can be misused. But is there any law that cannot be misused? It is wrong to say that a strong anti-terror law should not be passed because it can be misused.

Shri Chidambaram will also remember that some of the same people who later opposed POTA were also opposed to TADA, and for the same reasons namely, that it is draconian. After the 1993 serial bomb blasts in Mumbai, when TADA was invoked, TADA was also called “anti-minorities”.

I am saying all this just to drive home the point that, in looking at what kind of laws we need to protect the nation and its people from the scourge of terrorism.
* * *
Anti-terror amendment not stringent enough

Mr. Speaker Sir, I am disappointed that the Government has still not learnt the right lesson from Mumbai and all the previous acts of cross-border terrorism committed earlier.

Why is the Government bringing in only an amendment to an existing law and not a new law that is focused on fighting terrorism? The right thing for the Government to have done is to bring back POTA. Unless the country takes a stringent approach to terrorism, our problems will multiply.

Let me now make a few comments on the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2008.

The amended bill has no provision to make confession before police officer admissible in court.  I think this is a major flaw. Let us take the example of the sole Pakistani terrorist who has been arrested after the terror attacks in Mumbai. If his statement before the police is not even admissible in court, are we not weakening the case against him – and also against Pakistan-based terrorist organizations – at the very outset of the trial process.

The seniority of the police officers before whom confessions can be made can be prescribed. In cases of terrorism it is difficult to get witnesses because they are scared. Normal standards cannot apply in such situations.

Similarly, if phone records are not admissible, are we not weakening the investigation and prosecution of cases of cross-border terrorism?

I am all for care and integrity in the functioning of crime investigation agencies. But let us not pre-judge that they will always misuse their powers. The internal security apparatus must be free and sufficiently empowered to deal with any threat that seeks to weaken India. And as representatives of the People of India, it is our bounden duty to enact laws whose power is commensurate to the grave threat posed by international terrorism.

I have another suggestion. Membership of a banned terrorist organisation should be considered a crime. For example, SIMI is banned organization. But we have a strange situation in our country in which members of the Union Cabinet openly praise and support SIMI.

* * *
We support setting up National Investigation Agency

Mr. Speaker Sir, my Party broadly supports the proposed National Investigation Agency (NIA), which will have suo motu powers to investigate and prosecute ‘scheduled offences’ — relating to terror, fake Indian currency notes, narcotics smuggling and hijacking of aircraft — across states, with the Centre retaining the discretion on whether or not a case is fit to be investigated by the agency.

This proposal is being debated for a long time. We in the NDA Government had also initiated a debate on this with State Governments. There was no consensus at the time. I hope that the UPA Government has been able to create the necessary consensus after proper consultation with all State governments.

Mindset change needed to fight cross-border terrorism

Mr. Speaker Sir, my final observation is that we in India, especially all those of us in the political and governance establishments, need to cultivate a strong mindset to effectively combat cross-border terrorism.

There is an additional dimension to the attacks in Mumbai. The Marriot, Oberoi, Trident, and Nariman House were chosen because there were foreign nationals staying there. This was not just an attack on Indians.

After the Mumbai terror attacks, we had a debate in this House last week which demonstrated broad unity in the political class in respect of whatever steps the Government plans to take against Pakistan. The people of India appreciated this show of unity.

Let us show the same kind of unity in all the internal measures we need to take to combat the evil of terrorism.

Thank you.

Filed under: War on Mumbai, War on Terror, betrayal of aam admi