To try cases relating to terrorism we have an overburdened judiciary that isn’t equipped to deal with such cases. No one expects a Supreme Court judge to try these offences, but designated courts with trained judicial officers would certainly go a long way in disposing of such cases. Fancy malls in Delhi and Bombay have better security arrangements than the district courts trying these cases.

If the government has an anti-terrorism policy, they are doing a good job of keeping it confidential. After more than two decades of being affected by terrorism, the prime minister now realises the need for a centralised agency along the lines of the FBI. The Chief Justice of India has also suggested an effective and stringent law. You didn’t have to be the chief justice to make that suggestion — there isn’t any law. Until then perhaps we will convict terrorists for indecent behaviour or reckless driving. After all, Al Capone was convicted only of tax evasion.

The absence of a law, an effective agency and an equipped judiciary is quite apparent. Police officers being convicted rather than terrorists, trials conducted without the accused present, innocent individuals in lock-up, an alarming reach of terrorists throughout India, the changing profile of the Indian terrorist — the litany of sorrow is long. In the midst of all of this, the multi-disciplinary monitoring agency probing Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination got an extension — after 10 years. The facts speak for themselves. National security undoubtedly demands secrecy and confidentiality, but the general scramble and divergent versions following an attack reveal a lack of coordination and not secrecy.

... contd.