Terrorism Vs Democracy!

Real Democracy please for a civilised India!

“The right to exert all governmental powers in aid of maintaining our institutions and resisting their physical overthrow does not include intolerance of and persecution for ideas and opinions even though they be opposed and alien to dominant thinking of the person or persons in power.”

                                                                         -Justice Khanna             

 -Indian   Express. 21.5.85

This is Switzerland

“Every soldier meanwhile has his weapon, ammunition and uniform at home. There is no fear of revolutions. The Swiss are proud to have an accurate rifle”, declares in its publication, the Government of Switzerland which is a polyglot society and where compulsory military training is given to every citizen of the country.  We haven’t heard of any kind of terrorism here.

 

This is Belgium

The constitution proclaims very proudly that “Individual liberty is guaranteed” (Art.7); “The Press is free; no form of censorship may ever be instituted; no cautionary deposit may be demanded from writers, publishers or printers” (Art.18); and, to cap it all, “The secrecy of correspondence is inviolable” (Art.22). Such a liberty, in Belgium.  Yet we haven’t heard of any kind of terrorism there, although national discord was the malaise that plagued that tri-lingual nation up to 1832. A noteworthy aspect of the Belgian life is that all these Articles have never been modified, ever since they were incorporated in their constitution 169 years ago in the year 1831.

And this is India

But our Indian lawmakers are hell-bent on curbing the freedom of the people in India. When they introduced  the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2000,  the National Human Rights Commission expressed  reservations about it. But, the bureaucrats of the Home Ministry could not tolerate it. Mr. B.P. Jeevan Reddy, the Chairman of the Law Commission has indeed done a real service in making it public that “The project was not taken up by the Law Commission on its own. It was requested by the Ministry of Home Affairs to do so”(The Hindu- 27.7.2000).

And the Home Ministry’s official spokesman says that the “countries such as Britain and the U.S. which have faced the onslaught of international terrorism much less than India have comprehensive anti-terrorism laws with even stronger provisions”. But, this was not based on fact. The MHA officials always believe in propaganda to suit their interests. They do not want to run the nation as per the desires of the people. They want the people of the nation to behave as per the desire of the bureaucrats of the MHA. Mahatma Gandhi warned, “civil liberty is not criminal liberty”  (Harijan, 23.10.1937). But, the MHA bureaucrats have the habit of re-classifing civil liberty conferred upon the people into criminal offence.

As far as Britain is concerned, the arrested or convicted terrorists have a right of petition to the European Commission on Human Rights. The United Kingdom accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights even as early as in the Eighties, as could be seen from the booklet titled “Northern Ireland”, published by the British Government and supplied by the British High Commission. What is the comparable provision incorporated in the proposed Prevention of Terrorism Bill-2000? Will Mr. Venkaiah Naidu who was “unable to accept” (The Hindu. 15.7.2000) the views expressed by the NHRC answer this question?

  In the UK, the people have the right to bring action against the security forces. The Hindu wrote an editorial titled ‘Turning the tide in Punjab’ on 1.8.92 in which it acknowledged that the security forces had inflicted unmerited punishment on the people who are totally unconnected with the terrorist activities. “In a recent incident in Behla village in Amritsar district, the security forces were alleged to have used innocent persons as shields to fight hiding militants and at the end of the encounter the killed villagers were branded as terrorists. The episode raised storms of protest all over the State and the security forces had come in for harsh criticism for their callousness. It is incidents such as this that create resentment among the people who really want to see the end of the militancy in the State. The Government which is keen on adopting drastic security measures in Punjab cannot afford to alienate sections of the community. It is here that the administration has to take the greatest care and adopt a policy that will win for them the approbation of the people”. Is there any provision in the proposed Bill like the one in the UK to bring action against such  “security” forces? Will the official spokesman of the Ministry of Home Affairs answer this question?

In the UK, the procedure to combat terrorism conforms to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The traditional liberties, for example, the freedom of the Press and of the Broadcasting authorities is not meddled with.

But, Indian legislations need not. Because, India is not a signatory to the aforesaid UN Covenant, in spite of the fact that Mr. Jose Ayala Lasso, the UN Human Rights Commissioner had recommended to the Indian Government to bring the TADA provisions in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, when he visited India in May 1995 (The Hindu 13.5.1995). He wanted India to ratify the convention on torture and its additional protocol also.

In the UK, “The trial is in open court.” What is the position here in the proposed Bill? Will the Home Ministry’s spokesman who said that Britain had “even stronger provisions”, answer this question?

TERRORISM Vs. DEMOCRACY

    Unlike the primitive man, the modern man has found that differences and disputes could be settled through discussions without resorting to violent methods. Yet, the modern world witnesses violence by man in three situations:

                (1) During the wars between two sovereign nations,

                (2) During the freedom struggles of the nations or nationalities and

                (3) By the disgruntled individuals who indulge in retail violence to achieve, what they call, their aim.

    The first type of violence is understandable as the warring nations generally explore and exhaust all other avenues for settlement of their disputes and involve themselves in wars only as a last resort. The second type of violence takes place only because the nations or nationalities that are struggling for freedom are subjugated mercilessly and are not permitted to take part in worthwhile negotiations. But, those who do not care for discussions and deliberations at all perpetrate the third type of violence.

    The people who indulge in the first and second types of violence build up public opinion. In addition to carrying their own people with them, they mobilize world opinion also for their cause. But, the people who resort to the third type of violence live in their own world and do not care for public opinion.

    Violence of all types is to be denounced. But, the denunciation of the first type violence, i.e., wars, is now practically left to the moralists. Only the second and third types of violence have become the subject for discussion among the political leaders, policy –makers and academicians around the world.

Conscience Vs. Convenience

   There can be no two opinions that indulging in the second type of violence is identified with heroism and struggle for freedom, while the third type of violence is equated with villainy and terrorism. But, one man’s hero being another man’s villain, the answer to the question whether a particular man is indulging in the second or third type of violence has just become a matter of opinion. But, if at least, the third parties are responsible enough to stand by the truth, the confusion, which arises from the identification of a terrorist, would not arise. But, many or all the nations of the modern world are not governed their conscience in policymaking but are concerned only with their own convenience. They are always prepared to compromise the principles of justice to suit their own political expediency. Their political outlook, survival outlook and selfish outlook are clothed in the finer phrase called national outlook, which is an equally narrow one. In the process, it is humanity that suffers; it is civilization that receives a setback.

 

Thus spake the High Court

     The second type of violence cannot be weeded out as long as one section of the humanity is subjugated or sought to be subjugated by another section. Even the Indian freedom struggle that was led by Mahatma Gandhi for 27 years had its own share of violence. And, that violence has also been recognized as political struggle. The High Court of Madras has held that even those who had not followed the path of non-violence in the country’s freedom struggle come within the definition of freedom fighters. In October 1984, the High court upheld the claim of Mr Kannan, Vice-President of the Tamil Nadu branch of the Freedom Fighters Organisation that he was a freedom fighter. Mr. Kannan and 19 others belonging to a revolutionary organization were charged with committing offences against the then Government between March 1932 and July 1933. Mr Kannan was found guilty in what was known as the Madras Conspiracy case. Mr Justice G. Ramanujam said that such people could not be excluded from the category of freedom fighters merely because they did not believe in non- violence or their approach was different from the path of non-violence. He observed: “Whether one pursues the path of non-violence or violence, the aim is to secure freedom”…  “and as such both categories could be called political sufferers (R.R.Dalavi Vs.Union Government of India, Indian Express Oct.21, 1984)

   

Thus spake the Centre

 Our Indian Government has rightly taken note of this imperative. While addressing a session in the UN General Assembly Mr. P. Shiv Shankar, the former External Affairs Minister had said, “Assassinations, hijackings bombings have meant the death of hundreds of men, women and children. I wish to reiterate the total opposition of my delegation to all acts of   terror, whether committed by individuals, groups or states. However, we support the struggle of people under colonial and racist regimes and all sort of foreign domination and occupation and of the national liberation movement against their oppressors.”… “Their struggle must not be confused with terrorism.”(Indian Express- September 28, 1986).

       When, soon after the SAARC summit in DEC. 1985 Mr Pritish Nandy of  the Illustrated Weekly of India asked Mr . Rajiv Gandhi about terrorism, Mr Rajiv Gandhi replied, “Well, it’s all a question of definitions. When is terrorism a    freedom movement? When does terrorism versus human rights come in? These are the sort of gray areas, you know”(Article of Mr.A.G.Noorani, ‘SAARC and Terrorism’ -Indian Express, February 21, 1986).

    These quotations prove that there exists the possibility, if not necessity, for violence to creep into the freedom struggles. But, when does a freedom movement acquire terrorism in its character? When does a freedom fighter become a terrorist?

 

Thus spake the Hindu

     The Hindu of Chennai has answered this question beautifully. In substance, it said that a terrorist is one who takes recourse to non – peaceful method, either without exploring the peaceful path or without exhausting the non- violent methods for the redressal of one’s grievances. If a solution could be achieved through constitutional methods, i.e., when it appears that there is solution within the rules of the game, when progress along constitutional lines are not blocked and when the normal and legitimate political expectations are not repeatedly frustrated, any resort to violence is not justified. (The Hindu Editorial July 7, 1984) Also, a terrorist is one who indulges in the killings of the innocent civilians in his pursuit, irrespective of the fact whether he had or had not explored the constitutional path, irrespective of the fact whether his grievance is a genuine one or not, and irrespective of the fact whether his ideals are lofty or not.


 “The second point concerns the bogey of "terrorism"  which Colombo imagines it can use in a bid to place India on the defensive. Since the very use of the term "terrorist‟ tends to pre-empt the argument it must be clarified that the phenomenon of militancy among the Lankan Tamil youth is primarily a political phenomenon, reflecting the maturing of the crisis. When progress along the constitutional lines becomes blocked, when normal and legitimate political expectations are repeatedly frustrated, when it appears that there is no solution within the rules of the game, historical experience demonstrates it is a situation tailor-made, for the development of militancy, including that part of it which takes recourse to non-peaceful methods”.

 -Editorial in the Hindu on July 7, 1984

     Any discussion on the ways and means of containing terrorism should proceed only on this basis, if it is to result in a meaningful decision. The line thus drawn would then help us find out when the people who indulge in the second type of violence cross their limits and become terrorists indulging in the third type of violence. It is without losing sight of this fact and with the conviction that the third type of violence must be condemned and contained, that we must proceed for the anatomy of terrorism.

Declaring that the LTTE was not indulging in terrorism, The Hindu said as under: 

This is Britain

     Here, the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland and the ways and means adopted by the British Government have been taken up for comparison and contrast with the situation obtaining in India. Let us go through the version of the British Government in this regard.

“A nationalist uprising in the Easter of 1916 was suppressed, but the volunteer force known as the Irish Republican Army continued to wage a Guerilla campaign against British administration to force its withdrawal from Ireland. …After the 1969 disturbances, a group calling itself the provisional IRA broke away from what became the official IRA and embarked on a campaign of murder, bombing and violence with the aim of re-uniting Ireland on its own terms. …From the start of the civil disturbances in 1969 to mid –July 1984 a total of 2389 people (of this, 1668 were civilians) have died as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland and 26,418 (of this, 17, 797 were civilians) have received injuries. The civilian deaths have included women and children; many of the injured have been left with severe permanent disabilities such as blindness, deafness or loss of limbs. Many of the deaths and injuries have been the result of bombs exploding in crowded places like public houses, shops and trains and by bombs hidden in vehicles. Many others have been caused by sectarian shootings, frequently carried out in the victim’s homes and even in places of worship. Over a thousand people, including youths have suffered injuries from ‘punishment’ shootings: these have often taken the form of knee-capping’, shooting in the back of the leg and shattering the knee-cap.”

      “In Great Britain too, there have been, since 1973, intermittent outbreaks of terrorist violence, for which the provisional IRA or the Irish National Liberation Army had claimed responsibility. Terrorist acts have been chiefly in the form of letter bombs, car bombs, and explosive devices hidden in public places, including public houses; a total of 78 people have been killed and 1371 injured and, as in Northern Ireland, a large proportion of the victims have been civilians”. Here, although the Irish youth called themselves as freedom – fighters, their activities bring them only within purview of the people who indulge in the third type of violence. They are, therefore, to be categorized as terrorists only. This, in spite of the sacrifice of Bobby Sands and nine others who lost their lives by fasting unto death in 1981, demanding the status of political prisoners. (Earlier, the European Commission on Human Rights had, in June 1980, ruled that the IRA prisoners were not entitled to the status of political prisoners either under the European Convention on Human Rights or under the existing norms of international Law).

   These paragraphs give us an idea of the magnitude of terrorism in England. The magnitude of terrorism in India is too well known to describe. Now, let us examine the approach of the respective government to tackle this menace.

England Vs India - The contrast in approach 

    Given the magnitude of terrorism, the British Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and the Home Minister Mr Brittan thought of inflicting capital punishment on the terrorists. They viewed that the fear of capital punishment would bring the law and order situation to a considerable degree. In this background, a private bill was placed before the House of Commons in July 1983. The motion was for the restoration of capital punishment for murder (of any kind). But, “much of the debate was concentrated on the question of terrorism.” Those who were asking for the restoration of hanging, abolished 20 years back, had in the back of their mind, the Irish terrorism and an increase in the number of robberies and some other categories of murder. But, considering the nation–wide emotion the bill had aroused, no Party Whip was used during the voting in the House of Commons. The MPs were allowed to vote according to their conscience. The result: the bill was defeated by a majority of 145.

   The former Prime Minister Edward Heath, the cabinet colleagues of Mrs Thatcher, Mr. Michael Heseltine and Sir Keits Joseph were among those who voted against capital punishment. The pressures from clergymen, moralists, intellectual jurists, etc., on the Parliamentarians, against death penalty had been so great that they could not help rejecting the motion. Wrote B. K Tiwari, a columnist, in the Indian Express, “Mrs Thatcher must be feeling very sad that none of the six categories of murder, not even death by shooting, explosion, or terrorism was accepted (by the House of Commons) as a serious offence to call for capital punishment”. (News item titled ‘Snub for Mrs. Thatcher’, by B.K. Tiwari – Indian Express- July 16, 1983) That was the case with the Lawmakers in Britain.

   

   In India, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 which provides for capital punishment for anyone who commits a terrorist act   if such act has resulted in the death of any person, got through the parliament without any debate worth its name in respect of this provision. It is presumed that it was because the capital punishment had already been there in our statue books. But, the Supreme Court had, in April 1983, struck down mandatory and automatic death sentence for life-convicts found guilty of murder.(Indian Express April 12, 1983). Yet it was lost sight of.

    It is nobody’s case that those who deny others their right to live should be let off lightly. But, the fact that our parliamentarians did not even think that the issue was worth a debate speaks volumes of the caliber of the people’s representatives in India. We have to understand the difference between the perspectives of the Indians and those of Britishers in regard to capital punishment, if we are to understand the other even more important issues.

    The law enforcing machinery in England has also been given exceptional powers to deal with and prevent terrorist activities. But, there is an essential difference between them and the Indian legislations both in approach and in content. The British legislations approach the problem keeping in mind the International Covenant. on Civil and Political Rights. But India is not a signatory to it and its legislations are, therefore, not in conformity with that Covenant. In content, the British legislations see to it that the central principles of British justice are maintained. But, India, which modelled its democracy on British lines, has dispensed with these principles in its enactments.

      The Northern Ireland (Emergency provisions) Act, 1978(revised in 1984) provides for certain serious offences to be tried by a High Court judge sitting alone without a jury. Such ending of jury trials for those offences became necessary partly because of the intimidation of juries and partly because of the danger in the divided community of juries reading perverse verdicts. But, in spite of the absence of the jury, the central principles of British justice are maintained; “the trial is open court; the onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” But, in India, Sec.13 (1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 says, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, all proceedings before a designated court shall be conducted in camera; Provided that where public prosecutor so applies, any proceedings or part thereof may be held in open court”. Even the judge of the designated court has no discretion in holding the enquiry in the open court. It is the public prosecutor, i.e., the government, which has that discretion. The onus is also, for all practical purposes, on the accused and not on the prosecution.

      In Britain, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary provisions) Act, 1984 gives the police powers to arrest without warrant people whom they reasonably suspect of being involved in terrorism (whether international or related to Northern Ireland) and to hold them for 48 hours, and with the approval of the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for up to a further five days. But, in India the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 empowered the police to haul a man on the vaguest of suspicions, place him before an executive magistrate, not a judicial one, and hold him in detention for as long as a year without having to furnish any one within that time the slightest bit of evidence to show that they have a charge to make him answer to in a court of law.

 Hands off the Traditional Liberties

    In Britain, the procedure to combat terrorism conforms to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The “traditional” liberties for example, the freedom of the press and broadcasting authorities are not meddled with. The people are free to form their own opinions and take their own decisions by hearing both sides. But, the Indian legislations effectively curb the press freedom. The term ‘disruptive activity’ has been given such a wide definition that it hangs like the Damocles’ sword” over the heads of the journalists. Under Sec 5 of the Act, even the legitimate grievances expressed by a section of the people can be prevented from publication on the plea that it would cause dissatisfaction or alarm or promote feelings of ill will, enmity or hatred between different sections. We do not find any such enactment in the British soil, where press freedom is held sacrosanct.

    The Second Press Commission had, in its report presented to the Parliament in November, 1982, said “If insurrection and secessionist activities have their roots in economic neglect or exploitation or apprehension of loss of cultural identity, the press could play a useful role on two counts –one by bringing these to public notice and the other by advocating adherence to lawful methods to grievances”. But there are no takers.

      In Britain, the B. B.C. refused to oblige the government even during the Falklands war. It was regularly broadcasting the versions of both the British and the Argentine Governments during the war. When this drew criticism from many sections of the society, the Director General of the B.B.C. said, “Sadly, the first casualty in wars is Truth”. The B.B.C. however did not allow truth to become a casualty even during the war and, in spite of protests from various sections of the British society.

     But, in India, we have AIR and TV whose credibility is always at the lowest ebb. Their bounden duty is only to assist the government in manipulating the public opinion. They succeed in their venture to some extent too. But, in the process, they do not render justice to all. Justice, in fact, is found defeated by them.

Tackling the ‘effect’ and not the ‘cause’

    The legislations that provide for severe punishment to the terrorists deal only with the ‘effect’ of terrorism. It is only the assured freedom of the media that deals with the ‘cause’ of terrorism. It also helps the nation find out the ways and means, for removing the ‘cause’. In Britain, the policy makers not only deal with the ‘effect’ factor effectively, but also see that there exists no ‘cause’ for terrorists to build up public sympathy. That is why they assure the freedom of the press and broadcasting authorities. But the Indian policy makers do not only leave the ‘cause’ factor deliberately out of their considerations but that they see to it that the ‘cause’ does not get any publicity.

    By attempting to convert the journalists into spies the present government paves way for keeping the people in dark about the other side of every case. The way the Indian Express had access to the narcotic king and published in the year 1989 how all the political parties had been accepting doles from him might not be repeated hereafter. The way Mr. Vinod Mehta’s ‘ Independent’ had published in 1988 the stories of the underground Kashmiri terrorists will not be possible hereafter. The Nakkeeran may not take up the issue of Veerappan. These culprits may not make themselves available to the newsmen anymore.

   In Britain, the people have the right to bring action against the security forces. This provision would appear to be strange for Indians.

     To cap it all, in Britain, the arrested or convicted terrorists have a right of petition to the European Commission on Human Rights. The United Kingdom Government accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Such phenomenon is absent in India.

Yet it was claimed by the Indian policy-makers that the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, which was made even more stringent in the year 1987 with the incorporation of a provision for the attachment of the property of the terrorists, would be useful for weeding out terrorism. The claim was a dubious one, especially when our policy-makers were afraid of free discussion of various basic issues in the Press. But, the chances of its being used or misused for political purposes were very much there, and the experience has proved it to be so regarding the implementation of TADA. When MISA was enacted in the early seventies, the opposition parties vehemently opposed it on the ground that it would be used for political purposes. But, the Government assured them more than once that it would not happen. But, what we saw later was recent history.

   Likewise, when the anti-terrorist bill was placed in the Parliament the Opposition members expressed similar fears. But, Mr S.B Chavan, the Home Minister sought to allay the fears “by asserting that the law would not be used under any circumstances against political movements”(Indian Express May 21, 1985). “He was at pains to establish a distinction between a political movement which has a stated objective and terrorism which has no purpose”(The Hindu May 21, 1985). What must however be noted is that the legislation concerned does not contain any such specific provision against such eventuality. We have only the solemn promise, the verbal assurance, of the Minister in this regard.

  And, ours is a land where there is a tradition of giving promises, which are not in accordance with the letter of the law we enact. The people also generally tend to believe that the unwritten promises are more valid than the written enactments. We saw Hindi being imposed on the non-Hindi people by our Constitution. But, we also saw Nehru promising the people that he would leave it to the non-Hindi people to decide when to replace English with Hindi. We also saw the Indo-Sri Lankan agreement of 1987, which went side by side with some diametrically opposite promises to the Tamil groups. In these cases and in other such situations, it was only the written law or agreement which prevailed and the verbal promises were not kept.  History bears ample testimony to this fact.

. Because, no foolproof arrangement had been made in the legislation to safeguard the nation against such a possibility.

    There was another piece of legislation passed by the Rajiv Government and sent for the assent of the President with the avowed intention of curbing terrorism. And it did not have any equivalent legislation in the British land. It was the Indian Post Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1986, which gave unbridled power to the government to intercept the mails. While introducing the bill, the Minister for Communications said that the interception of mail would be undertaken only “if it was required or expedient to, in the interest of the public safety or tranquility, sovereignty, integrity and security to the country. Letters could also be intercepted to safeguard friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any offence”. (Indian Express Dec.11, 1986).

     He had, at that time, assured the opposition “that the Government had no intention of harassing political parties”. This is another instance of promising for something without incorporating anything in black and white to that effect in the legislation concerned. Nobody knows whether the persons who indulge in the aforesaid anti-national activities rely upon the services of the postal department. To the eternal fame of the then President Mr. Zail Singh, the notorious legislation did not see the light of the day.  The tendency of the Indian policy-makers is just to terrorize the public by citing the ‘effects’ of terrorism and amass and acquire draconian powers to the powers that be and the executive and ultimately use that power only for the suppression of the political opponents.

The only remedy

    Terrorism as we have seen in the open paragraphs is born out of stupidity. Terrorism of this kind and magnitude can be contained only through public opinion. Public opinion would be on the right side if -only if -we practice democracy, the perfect democracy. Democracy will have pave way for the development of free society, which alone is the healthy society. The universal conscience of such a society will never falter and it will take care to see that there exists no reason for anyone to resort to terrorism of any kind. For, it is not the voice of one man or two men but it is the voice of entire mankind that is heard in democracy. “Man may doubt here and there, but mankind does not doubt. The universal conscience is larger than the individual conscience, and that constantly comes in to correct and check our own infidelity”, said H.R Haweis.

Others show the way

The contemporary history also teaches us that the nations, which allowed the universal conscience to control their affairs, are free from the menace of terrorism. Belgium, a trilingual nation, a democracy worth its name in practice but monarchy in appearance holds some lessons for us to learn. National discord was the malaise that plagued this nation for long. Yet, the Belgians have demonstrated that the people of diverse language and culture could live together and find unity in diversity. Their constitution proclaims: “All Belgians are equal in the eyes of law” (Art. 6) “Individual liberty is guaranteed” (Art. 7); The Press is free; no form of censorship may ever be instituted; no cautionary deposit may be demanded from writers, publishers or printers” (Art 18). And, to cap it all, Article 22 proclaims, “The secrecy of correspondence is inviolable”. A noteworthy aspect of the Belgian life is that all these Articles have never been modified, ever since they were incorporated in their constitution 169 years ago, in the year 1831. And we haven’t heard of terrorism of any kind in this trilingual Belgium.

   And what is the case with the poly-glot Switzerland? The Swiss are given compulsory military training. “A Rifle For Every Man” has been the declared principle of the Government of Switzerland. The Swiss Government proudly proclaims to the world that “every soldier …..has his weapon, ammunition and uniform at home. There is no fear of revolutions. The Swiss are proud to have a accurate rifle”(“Switzerland” – by Herbert Meier – Information paper published by the Swiss Government – Sixth Edition 4/81). Why does the Swiss Government have no fear of revolutions? Why haven’t we heard of terrorism of any kind in this part of the earth, especially when everyone is in possession of a rifle and ammunitions?

  The reasons are not far to seek. These people, the Belgians and the Swiss, practice democracy- the actual democracy. Terrorism and democracy are contradictory to each other. We, the Indians, have not, so far made any serious attempt to practice democracy. Let us face the reality. Men are imperfect. But these imperfects have to live together. They have to live; they have to live together. Nature has, however, provided a built in mechanism for these imperfects to live together and make it a perfect society. And that mechanism is democracy, in its truest sense. But, the million-dollar question is whether we are assertive enough to make use of that mechanism. There is no need for any separate new law to curb terrorism. 

Let us curb terrorism by safeguarding the real freedom of the press.

Terrorism is a crime.

Human nature is against crime.

So, terrorism is against human nature.