The passage of two anti-terror laws by Parliament last week marked the second occasion in the last few months?the Amarnath impasse being the first?when the UPA and opposition NDA appeared to come together for a cause. True, debates in the Lok Sabha and then the Rajya Sabha, were acrimonious. But the two national parties? agreement on the basic framework for anti-terror legislation was evident.
By all accounts, it began when newly-appointed home minister P Chidambaram met leader of Opposition L K Advani on December 4 to seek support for a federal agency to tackle acts of terror. While Advani asserted that the federal agency without an anti-terror law would be like a toothless tiger, Chidambaram?s gesture of driving down to Advani?s residence, and initiating a dialogue, went down well with BJP leaders.
In a policy statement on Pakistan-sponsored terror, titled ?India Challenged?, the BJP made its position clear on that very day. It would support any legislation on a federal agency to fight terror?initially mooted during L K Advani?s stint as home minister?provided there was an attendant national law ?as stringent or more stringent than POTA?. The party stressed that the Congress-led alliance must keep it in the loop on the matter. Advani deputed party general secretary Arun Jaitley for further deliberations with the government.
With assured though qualified support from the BJP on the twin laws, the debates in the two Houses of Parliament were more of academic interest. When the Lok Sabha debated the issue on December 11, the day belonged to Advani, Kapil Sibal and Chidambaram, with Mumbai South MP Milind Deora?in whose constituency the terror attack happened?making pointed interventions.
Advani?s argument was straightforward. ?Why did you sleep over the urgent need to legislate on an anti-terror law for the years that you have been in power? Why did you scrap TADA? And will you still view anti-terror legislations from the prism of community interests,? he asked. Chidambaram asserted that all laws, except personal laws, are secular, but it was Sibal who led the party?s charge. The minister for science and technology argued that it was his party that had first legislated on an anti-terror law, and that the Congress had lost two of its prominent leaders to terror.
Stressing the need to make custodial confessions admissible in court, and citing the 173rd Law Commission report in support of his argument, Advani asked the Congress to accept that it had made a mistake by not moving this bill much earlier. The debate continued in a similar vein in the Rajya Sabha, with Jaitley, Sitaram Yechury and Sibal making forceful interventions.
Left leaders like CPI?s Gurudas Dasgupta and CPM?s Mohd Salim and Basudeb Acharia expressed discomfort with measures regarding the admissibility of confessions in court of law; these parties earlier asked for safeguards against the misuse of the law. In the NDA too, certain BJP allies like the JD(U) emphasised the need for adequate safeguards.
Barring a few dissenting voices?Basudeb Acharia?s amendments were rejected and the CPM decided not to pursue the matter?the Lok Sabha passed the two bills unanimously, with the Rajya Sabha giving its nod to the bills the following day.
The united front forged in Parliament, however, developed cracks soon thereafter with minister for minority affairs A R Antulay raking up the killing of Maharashtra ATS officer Hemant Karkare. The BJP has charged the minister of playing into the hands of forces inimical to India.
Officially, the Congress didn?t share the minister?s opinion, but AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh has since come out in Antulay?s support. Others like JD(U)?s Rajya Sabha MP Ejaz Ali, and BSP?s Ilyas Azmi also saw merit in Antulay?s demand.