TERRORISTS CAMPS ARE FLOURISHING ON THE BORDER AREA OF BENGLA DESH AND MIGRATION OF IMMIGRANTS DENGEROUS FOR INTEGRITY AND TADA POTA POLICS

Editorials october 4, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

though, is that the two anti-terrorism statutes that the BJP today makes much of – the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987 (TADA) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002 (POTA) – have been instruments of State terror and victimisation of the vulnerable, rather than credible mecha­nisms of justice. Convictions secured under TADA were a dismally low proportion of the total number of cases lodged. And the only significant case prosecuted under POTA – the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament compound – ended in a fiasco, with some of the country’s most senior lawyers arguing the case for the accused in the Supreme Court and denouncing the Delhi police for flagrantly concocting evidence.

To allow confessions made to the police as evidence in terrorism trials would do little else than arbitrarily empower an already lawless and unaccountable police force. It would deepen institutional prejudices against the religious minorities and enlarge the scope for criminal collusion between police forces all over the country and the agents of majoritarian mayhem and disorder, such as the Bajrang Dal. Clearly, the country does not need a more powerful police force or a judiciary that has the authority to dispense summary justice. Without a firm reiteration and institutionalisation of the long-forgotten verity of equality before the law, the war against terrorism may well be lost even before it is joined. Branded for Life The State shows no sensitivity to the needs of the denotified and nomadic tribes who remain on the fringes of society. The plight of India’s 150 million denotified and nomadic tribes (DNT) rarely figures in the public discourse. Recent­ly, the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (NCDNSNT) proposed that these people should be notified as a scheduled community by amending the Constitution and 10 per cent of government jobs should be re­served for them even if the total reservation quota exceeds the 50 per cent ceiling imposed by the Supreme Court. However, the ministry of social justice, under which the NCDNSNT was set up, expressed “strong reservations” against such an amendment to create a new category and a separate quota.

A majority of the DNT (approximately 1,500 nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes and 198 denotified tribes) are classified as scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST) or other backward classes (OBC). To complicate matters, the same tribe is classified differently in different states. For example, the banjaras are classified as ST in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa and else­where, SC in Karnataka, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and a few other states, as OBC in Uttar Pradesh and as DNT in Maharashtra. It is the same with the other denotified tribes like the berad, kaikadi, pardhis, sansis, budhuks, vadars and so on and the nomadic tribes like the gondhalis, garuds, chitrakathis, kalbelias, bazigars, nats, madaris, kanjars. However, despite being thus categorised, welfare measures meant for the SC/ST/OBC communities are of little use considering their singular backwardness. They live in tents on vacant lands on the out­skirts of villages or in the flimsiest of shanties in urban areas where basic amenities are unknown. The lack of a permanent address, ration cards or any official documents and the resultant difficulty in getting caste certificates ensure that they are offi­cially non-existent and hence ineligible for any benefits. (The NCDNSNT has recommended a “tent to tent” survey within six months and a community-wise census.)

Traditionally, these groups were pastoralists and hunter-gatherer nomads (shepherds and small game hunters like the dhangars, kuruba and pardhis), providers of community services (black­smiths like the ghisadi, stone dressers like the vadars, transporters and salt traders like the banjaras, roof-thatchers like the chap­parband) and entertainers (acrobats and jugglers like the dom­baris, snake charmers like the madaris). The British administra­tion refused to acknowledge the impact of its rule on the livelihoods of these tribes, which made many of them turn to crime. The infa­mous Criminal Tribes Act 1871 provided for the registration, surveil­lance and control of these tribes whom the local administration believed, were addicted to the systematic commission of non-bail­able offences”, giving them no recourse to the judicial system, herding them into settlements and extracting hard labour from them in factories, quarries and plantations.

Ironically, while this law was repealed following independence (tribes notified as criminals were thus “denotified”), it was replaced by the Habitual Offenders Act 1959. The latter asks police to investigate a suspect’s criminal tendencies and whether his/her occupation is “conducive to a settled way of life”. It has resulted in the police and local authorities systematically hounding these tribes, deepening popular prejudices against them in the public mind. In February 2000, the National Human Rights Commis­sion recommended that the 1952 Act be repealed and in March 2007 the United Nations Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination suggested the same. In the urban areas, legisla­tion regarding inhibition of beggary, prevention of cruelty to ani­mals, and objectionable advertisements are used to harass the DNT. While these laws are enforced, there is no well-thought out plan to provide the tribes with other means of livelihood.

The ministry of social justice does not favour the setting up of a permanent commission for them because it cannot find evi­dence of large-scale atrocities (the NCDNSNT has recommended bringing them under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989). DNT leaders (the formation of tribe-wise associations has led to the absence of a cohesive leadership that can speak on behalf of all the denotified tribes) want the government to add a chapter in the Third Schedule of the Constitution and categorise them as Scheduled DNT.

The complex history of the DNT and their abysmal living conditions now call for programmes that include sensitisation editorials It is a matter of great alarm that the Union Home Ministry has not taken the draft national counter-terrorism doctrine seriously, and as a result has not even come close to implementing it. This draft doctrine was formulated in 2006 by the Intelligence Bureau in consultation with the police forces of some States and Central Police organisations. The Government’s lethargy in taking counter-terrorism seriously is inexplicable given the threat to national security that terrorism poses. The doctrine stresses the use of pre-emptive strikes and covert action to protect national security. It also puts forward compelling arguments in favour of using adequate force instead of minimum force to combat terrorist activities. More importantly, the doctrine stresses that the country should employ all means, including diplomatic, economic, administrative, legal and military, to counter terrorism. Such a policy has long been needed as in its absence the country has been seriously handicapped on the security front. This has allowed terrorists to get away with many outrages which could have been prevented. So far, especially so under the UPA regime, the country has followed a soft line against terrorism. This is in stark contrast to the hardline stand that countries like Israel maintain for which they have been better off. The United States took strong measures immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attack, as a result of which since then there hasn’t been a single terror strike on US soil. But despite several attacks over the last five years, the UPA Government has not deemed it fit to formulate a strong action plan against terror. This is totally unacceptable and goes to show the extent to which certain political parties are dictated to by vote-bank politics.

No one can deny that the provocations for a tough response to terror have been strong. From the attack on Parliament to the shocking fidayeen strike on Mumbai last year, scores of innocent men, women and children have fallen victim to terrorism. These attacks have also created a sense of insecurity among the people which also needs to be overturned and confidence restored. The soft policy of the Indian state has allowed terrorist cells to proliferate in the country and has enabled them to widen their ambit of operations by gathering funds, setting up training camps, and recruiting fresh foot-soldiers to their heinous cause. At the same time terrorist camps have flourished in India’s neighbourhood, both across the LoC and in Bangladesh. These camps should also have been dealt with an iron fist. It is therefore a must for the incoming Government to keep the national counter-terrorism doctrine high on the agenda when it comes to power.

7

Economic & Political Weekly EPW october 4, 2008

of the police, the bureaucracy, and the citizenry, the provision of free and compulsory education and low-cost housing. Until now, the DNT have physically and figuratively been on the fringes of Indian society. To draw them in will need the joint efforts of their fractured leadership, the State and civil society. Crisis in Bolivia Eva Morales uses democratic and diplomatic means to tackle right-wing opposition.The domestic and international reaction to the Left parties that are in office in a number of countries in South America – most notably in Bolivia and Venezuela – has tended to utilise violent, non-democratic and even means of sabotage to destabilise the regimes. The ongoing developments in Bolivia are the most notable examples of the tactics of the opposition.

Bolivia is home to one of the most concentrated landownership patterns, particularly in the east, where a handful of big estate owners control large tracts of land. It is also home to vast reserves of natural gas and oil. In response to moves by the government headed by the socialist Eva Morales for a more equitable distribu­tion of resources, the recent months have seen multiple attempts by a variety of right-wing, conservative and propertied forces to destabilise the country, allegedly aided and abetted by the United States (which needless to state has always gone out of its way to undermine elected Left governments in South America).

Eva Morales, the leader of the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), is the first person of indigenous origin to be elected president of the country. Since coming to power in 2005, his government has tried to address the various inequalities in the vastly poor and land-locked country through land reforms, redistribution of re­turns from oil and natural gas production, and by enacting a new egalitarian constitution. The draft constitution, prepared after Morales came to power, envisages redistribution of wealth garnered from the extraction of natural resources to poorer provinces in the west and for use in funding welfare programmes that will benefit the poor, most of whom belong to long suppressed indige­nous communities living on poor wages and by subsistence farming.

Predictably, these moves have received stiff resistance from the conservative elites in the country, particularly those govern­ing the energy-rich and mestizo (people of mixed, European and indigenous, ancestry) dominated provinces in the east, such as Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija. To pre-empt these moves, the governors of the eastern provinces organised referendums on autonomy, which were deemed separatist and illegal by the central authority. In response to these referendums, Morales announced a national recall referendum for himself and vice president Alvaro Garcia, a risky move but one that paid off for Morales as he won 67 per cent of the vote, much higher than the percentage garnered in the elections in 2005.

Morales, following his victory, has tried to back a new political constitution set to be put to vote next year through another national referendum. This draft constitution includes concessions on autonomy as demanded by the provincial governors, who have formed a right-wing umbrella organisation, the National Demo­cratic Council (Conalde), in opposition to Morales’ MAS. Yet, the response by Conalde since the recall referendum has been to take absolute control of these provinces by the use of force in capturing central government-run institutions, particularly the land reform offices and gas companies.

The crisis in September was precipitated when Morales alleged that the US was playing the role of an agent provocateur and charged the US ambassador of conspiring with the rebel governors. Relations between the US and the Morales-led government have never been very cordial, with the former using its policy of “War against Drugs” to undercut its relations with the Bolivian govern­ment. Morales has steadfastly opposed any moves to ban coca farming, as this is used for medicinal and herbal treatment purposes in the country.

When the crisis grew and violent incidents in the provinces began taking place, the US ambassador to Bolivia was expelled, triggering a reciprocal response by Washington. The role of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in funding initiatives by these provincial governors in the near past has also been called into question. This is not surprising, as the US has a history of meddling and intervening in South American countries going back to the Salvador Allende era in Chile, a trend that has been infused with new vigour after the shift to the left in many countries in the continent.

The Morales government has reacted with restraint to the violent tactics of the conservative opposition. It has garnered support in many countries in South America, which have rallied to the side of the Bolivian government and have denounced any moves that would be detrimental to the unity of the country. Resisting pressure from many quarters to stop being “pacifist” in dealing with the violent opposition groups, the Morales govern­ment has held on to this path despite provocations such as the massacre of MAS supporters in the Pando province. Morales’ pa­tient and steady response has yielded a few dividends as the army – whose leadership is dominated by conservatives – has now come out on the side of the central government placing the opposition on the defensive.

The Bolivian story shows once again that the right-wing opposition in the continent will use any tactic to defeat radical re­form, even of the social democratic variety. In this case, the con­servatives in the rich provinces of the east have exploited the issue of regional autonomy to undermine the programmes to address centuries of economic exploitation and inequity in Bolivia. The constant mobilisation of the people through democratic means and building solidarity with international players must continue for the reform process to succeed. In this regard, the Morales government is on the right track.