The right-wing eminence grise of bleeding heart liberals like myself, the Wall Street Journal, occasionally seems to allow an uncharacteristic liberalism to sully the war-mongering in defence of power and privilege normally reflected in its columns, especially when it comes to issues like human rights in India. It had reported the protest of the Nobel laureates against Dr. Binayak Sen's imprisonment after he received the Jonathan Mann award for his contributions to public health as a human right highlighted. It had earlier written sympathetically about Dr. Sen himself. And now, in the wake of the Mumbai outrages, Salil Tripathi writes in its opinion columns that India doesn't need any new anti-terror laws.
After citing the numerous laws that are already in the books that can be used as weapons in the armoury against terrorism, Tripathi also points to instances when laws were passed and abused for political purposes, and had to be repealed later, like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) which he mentions, or the Terrorist Activities Disruption Act (TADA) which he does not.
But the main weight of the argument comes at the end:
Instead of creating a more intrusive law, India needs to invest in its legal infrastructure. This means it must fill the vacancies on the bench, prevent politicians from interfering in politically sensitive investigations, ensure that intelligence community and prosecutors share information across states, and gather evidence properly and present the case to the courts within the legally permitted period. India is a democracy; it should live up to its own standards to demonstrate clearly how its approach to justice is vastly different from that of its enemies.
To be sure, there needs to be a fundamental debate about the appropriateness of antiterror laws in a democratic society. Human-rights law acknowledges that certain rights can be suspended during emergencies. The failure in India, however, is not of the lack of laws, but the lack of clarity in procedures, and of political leadership. India's Constitution is as grand as the Taj Mahal Hotel before it was attacked. It does not need a wrecking ball.
It keeps coming back to the Constitution. In fact, in their insistence on implementing the provisions of the Constitution, human rights activists like Dr. Binayak Sen are far more trenchant than those on the right who wish to wreck it to turn it into something more appropriate for the Hindu fascist-nationalist state of their dreams.
The fascists think the country - or their version of it - needs to be protected from the Constitution. The activists on the other hand think the country - meaning its people - ought to be protected with it.
That's why we need a new political movement in the country, like a second independence movement, based on the restoration of the Constitution to protect and promote the interests of the vast majority of our country who are sick, hungry and afraid, and denied education, justice, dignity and a minimally decent life.
Thanks to Mary Ganguli for the reference to the WSJ article.
Comments