This is no MISA

IN 1969, Henry Kissinger, newly appointed national security adviser, was talking off the record to the media. ‘‘Will you repeat your predecessors’ mistakes in Vietnam?’’ was one of the first questions. ‘‘Of course not!’’ Kissinger replied, ‘‘We will make new mistakes — and they shall be entirely our own!’’ There was laughter at the comeback, but how many people realised there was truth in it too?

Six years later, one of Kissinger’s colleagues at Harvard, Professor Ernest May, wrote a brilliant book Lessons Of The Past. Professor May pointed out that political leaders, contrary to common perception, do try to learn from history. But the central thesis of the work was that these leaders generally make decisions based on imprecise readings of the past.

Case in point: the United States’ reactions to events in South-East Asia. It was determined not to repeat the mistakes made by Britain when it appeased Nazi Germany and decided to intervene militarily when it saw a challenge in Vietnam. Later, in the post-Vietnam era, a war-weary US decided to stay out of Cambodia — abandoning it to the murderous Pol Pot. (Ironically, it would be the Vietnamese who would engineer the downfall of the bloody Khmer Rouge regime.)
Professor May’s thesis is as applicable to Indian domestic politics as to American foreign policy. I refer specifically to the furore over Poto.

Part of the noise is certainly attributable to some people trying to make an election issue out of it; with the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha polls around the corner, there is a concerted attempt to corner votes by telling Muslims that they shall be made targets. However, let us pay our lords and masters the compliment of assuming that some of them have genuine doubts about the proposed legislation.

They are, in my opinion, misreading the lessons of the past — specifically all that went wrong with the Preventive Detention Act, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, and TADA. While TADA is uppermost in the mind because it was the most recent, it was actually MISA that was the most abused, especially during the Emergency. Public memory is short, but surely not everyone has forgotten that this was sponsored by the Congress and backed by the Communist Party of India.

For the record, the Emergency came into force because of ‘‘information received that a grave threat to India’’ existed — or so the then prime minister said. It was on this flimsy assurance, not backed then or later by a shred of proof, that democracy was thrust aside. Blank forms — ones where the name of the proposed detainee wasn’t filled in — were signed by ‘competent authorities’ by the truckload.

So yes, MISA was abused. But the point is that it was meant to be misused. There was never any threat to India’s security in 1975; only one to Indira Gandhi’s chair. But is that any reason to question the utility of such laws? Let me ask Congressmen this: would the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case have had the same bite if not for TADA? Could you have put Dawood Ibrahim’s associates behind bars in Mumbai if not for such a law?

My point is that you shouldn’t mix up the two issues: the intent and the utility. Frankly, there is little point debating the former; every citizen must make up his own mind whether you can trust the current ministry. All I say is that you shouldn’t be diverted by red herrings such as imaginary threats to journalistic freedom!

If the utility of Poto needn’t be questioned and the intent behind its introduction cannot be debated, what does that leave? How about the necessity of such legislation?

Before going on, let me point out a couple of instances from history. Abraham Lincoln has gone down in legend as ‘‘the Great Emancipator’’. How many people remember that the man who freed the slaves was the same person who suspended Habeas Corpus? Or that the same right was withdrawn for the duration of the conflict by the British Parliament during World War II?

I have deliberately chosen examples from nations that were at war. We may not like the implications, we may shrink from the sacrifices it requires, but the stark fact is that India is at war. This is a war against terrorism, and it is a conflict we must win.

This struggle began when the Taliban was little more than a nightmare rising up in Mullah Omar’s fevered brain. But it is worth noting that Omar and his brother fundamentalists have no illusions about India’s place in the war. The Taliban warlord has identified India, Israel, Russia, and the United States as his chief foes. If anyone missed the point, his fellow terrorist Osama bin Laden pointed to Chechnya, Palestine, and Kashmir as areas where he would like to be involved.

Take a look at the map. Which country do you think is closest to the Omar-bin Laden duo’s current base of operations? Here is the next question. Which do you think is the softest target of the four countries?

Many adjectives come to mind when thinking of Russia or Israel, but ‘soft’ is not one of them. (Investigators in the Philippines cracked captured Muslim fundamentalists by threatening to send them to Israel!) Under pressure of events, the US is setting up military tribunals to try aliens.

India has lost more citizens to terrorism than the US, Russia, and Israel put together. Yet, Lord help us, we are still debating whether we need a convincing anti-terrorism law!

There is one final point: maintaining law and order is as much a job for the state governments as for the Government of India. Maharashtra already has laws on the books that bear a striking resemblance to Poto, and the West Bengal ministry has accepted that India’s security requires stringent action. Does Poto suddenly become a tyrannical tool just because its sponsors in Delhi belong neither to the Congress (I) nor to the Left Front?

Poto — call it whatever you want — is required. Surround it with safeguards by all means if you will. But please don’t raise the spectre of 1975 to throw it out altogether. Whatever errors in judgment this administration makes, they will be its own, not those of Indira Gandhi!

Earlier Columns