UPA tackles terror, national security better than NDA: Patil

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Save & Share Article

What’s this?

Digg	My Yahoo	Fark
del.icio.us	Newsvine	Reddit

Rate This Article

Rating:  0

Ahead of an all-party delegation to Jammu and Kashmir to try and defuse the situation in the wake of the Amarnath land row, union home minister Shivraj Patil had claimed that the UPA’s performance in tackling terror and security-related issues in the country has been better than that of the NDA.

Patil’s contention, while coming in defence of his handling of the security situation which has come under severe criticism from all quarters especially the opposition, is unlikely to go down well with the NDA leadership. The union home minister refuted opposition charges that the UPA was ‘‘soft on terror’’ in a television interview, in which he has also held that if such an approach helped the situation, then the government would not hesitate in pursuing it.

‘‘If you look at the statistics of incidents, casualties, injuries and property damage in last four years’ time and four years before that and if the statistics is favourable for this government, you cannot say we are soft on terror,’’ the home minister is reported to have said. Patil has also rejected the need for a TADA or POTA-like law, arguing that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act had enough provisions to deal with the menace of terrorism.

Patil will be leading the 15 member delegation to J&K on Saturday, which includes senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley. The inclusion of Jaitley has brought relief to UPA managers trying to work out a consensual approach with the opposition. On Thursday, the BJP was having second thoughts on being part of the delegation, arguing that land alloted to the Amarnath Shrine Board be returned before taking any further steps. It had also demanded the removal of governor NN Vohra.

Patil has however maintained that the government will go ‘‘step by step’’ in finding an amicable solution, adding that the all party team would hear from the agitators what they desired and ‘‘cull out common points to do something in a manner to give satisfaction to all concerned’’. He refused to be drawn into any debate whether bifurcation or trifucation of the state could be a solution.