Once the British Parliament was against a deadline. The Judiciary had said certain foreign terrorists could not be held in prison any longer because the law was discriminatory as they were not able to hold British terrorists as well. Thus, there was a human rights violation. Parliament had to pass a new law within four weeks. Still, both Houses of Parliament went through all the stages of the passage—Second Reading, Committee, Report, Third Reading. Then at the final stage the two Houses had to reconcile the differences in their versions. This is called ping-pong as the Bill goes back and forth across the few hundred feet separating the two chambers. The House of Lords was unhappy about the Government’s desire to hold the suspects for more than a week. Since time was running out, procedurally the Houses could not rise. So we had a 36-hour seating with many Lords, myself including, sleeping in the House of Lords library. From Thursday morning till Friday afternoon we sorted the Bill out after four rounds of ping pong. The House of Lords won its point and suspects had to be presented before a judge to get extension of detention before trial each extra week.I am relating this story because I am mystified by the way in which the Indian Parliament can pass an important Bill in just two afternoon sessions, after ‘Second Reading’, i.e., general waffly speeches. There seems to be no detailed scrutiny and the Executive pretty much gets its way. Speed, however, is not a guarantee of effectiveness. The only time we suspended our procedures and passed an anti-terrorism bill in a single seating was after the bombing in Omagh in Northern Ireland which had killed 250 people. The Bill proved to be completely useless and indeed one of the retired Law Lords said as much during the passage of the Bill. The law just passed by the Indian Parliament is unlikely to survive a PIL which challenges its violation of human rights. The problem is not having a new law but improving counter-terrorist practice. There is immense laxity in how evidence is gathered and indeed broadcast. What Qasab said, what he ate, what he wrote to the Pakistan High Commission are not matters which British anti-terrorist police would reveal till they presented the suspect before a judge. The evidence gathered cannot be admissible in a court of law because it is obtained under duress. As it is Qasab can already argue that he will not have a fair trial given all the adverse publicity. Many Indians are ready to hang him without trial, but the Rule of Law has to be followed.Counter-terrorism can be tough as long as the personnel are well-resourced and co-ordinated. There has to be a lot of preventative work which cannot be in the public domain. In the UK, when houses are raided to arrest suspects, even their names are not released till they are presented before a judge. It reduces the likelihood of other terrorists being warned off and strengthens the police case. The public also has to be trained to be aware of risky items like unattended baggage, as we have been in the UK during the last 40 years of terrorist attacks. Also, all political parties have to agree that fighting terrorism is a national priority and not a party political game.Since 1989, if not the Emergency, every area of Indian public life has been politicised. Even worse, it is entirely subject to a vote bank calculus. The politician does not see India as such, but Hindus and Muslims, and OBCs and SC/ST and then Marathas and Gujjars and so on. The Nation does not matter, only the vote banks. Why otherwise should Antulay shoot off his mouth in a case which has not even come to court yet, and, should he not have been sacked on the spot for embarrassing the UPA, and 150 million Muslims, plus the rest of India, just at the time when it had a reasonable good complaint about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism? Could we swap him for Nawaz Sharif, please?
