Nine years after the unforgettable IC 814 Kandahar hijacking, the government has drawn up an unsparing anti-hijacking law that will not only consider a hijacking bid as an “act of aggression” against the country but also leave little space for negotiations with hijackers.
The tough clauses in the law, should it be implemented, will give airport personnel authority to take instant action to immobilise aircrafts at the airport itself. It also proposes the death penalty for hijackers. The government is anxious to have an over-arching anti-hijacking legislation in place given the speedy growth in number of aircrafts and airports in the country. It is planning to seek approval of the uncompromising provisions in the anti-hijacking law at the union cabinet meeting on Thursday.
In the event that the aircraft is hijacked, it will become mandatory for IAF fighter planes to escort the aircraft. Should there be any attempt to use the hijacked aircraft as a missile to hit strategic targets or thickly populated areas or buildings similar to the 9/11 World Trade Tower attack, the Air Force will be authorised to declare the aircraft “hostile” and take suitable action.
Along the lines of similar clauses in Israel, the proposed law also rejects holding any negotiations on the demands of the hijackers. The proposal of death penalty for hijackers is also an upgradation from “life imprisonment” that is provided under the Anti-Hijacking act, 1982.
The Congress, which is currently engaged in a war of words on the terror issue with the opposition BJP, has always taunted the latter for letting dreaded terrorists go scotfree after holding negotiations with hijackers of the IC 814 aircraft, who took it to Kandahar. The UPA government’s move to have the anti-hijacking law in place is certain to discomfort the BJP further.
By terming a hijacking bid as an “act of aggression” against the country, the government wants to send an unambiguous signal that hijackers will not be spared. An earlier draft had proposed that hijacking be dubbed as a “terrorist act” but the substituted description was thought to encompass all situations.