they were amongst the staunchest defenders of POTA
when it was contested in Parliament. Mr Vaiko described it as a
"bitter pill" that must be swallowed--in "the national interest", of
course. The irony extends to the whole of the National Democratic
Alliance.

The NDA insisted on ramming, first, the POTO ordinance, and then the
POTA Bill through the Lok Sabha and then through its improperly
convened special joint session with the Rajya Sabha--despite
thoughtful advice not to do so from no less than the National Human
Rights Commission, and distinguished jurists and human rights
activists. Today, the MDMK, the NDA’s loyal Southern component and
the BJP’s staunchest and steadiest ally in Tamil Nadu, has become a
candidate for an outright ban under that very law. Whether or not it
is banned depends on the personal whims and political cunning of just
one individual: Ms J. Jayalalithaa.

Yet, it would be churlish to revel in the NDA’s embarrassment. Mr
Vaiko’s detention under this draconian law is wholly unjustified,
indeed repugnant to democratic and Constitutional principles. This is
not, as some NDA leaders argue, because POTA is being improperly
applied or misused. Section 21 of the Act clearly states: "A person
commits an offence … if he addresses a meeting for the purpose of
encouraging support for a terrorist organisation or to further its
activities." POTA defines "a meeting" as a gathering of "three or
more persons whether or not the public are admitted". It is not in
dispute that Mr Vaiko on June 29 addressed near Madurai a public
meeting praising, and extending support to the LTTE. Nor is Mr
Vaiko’s detention wrong because he represents a pro-LTTE opinion or
"sentiment", which BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley claims, is
widely shared in Tamil Nadu. Politics is no argument for condoning a
breach of the law, especially one meant to deter and punish
terrorism, if indeed it does so correctly and effectively.

However, the real problem is not the abuse of POTA, but its regular,
proper, designed, use. As POTA’s critics, including this Columnist,
had repeatedly argued, it is an intrinsically harsh law which makes
an omnibus definition of "terrorism", gives sweeping powers to detain
mere suspects, and allows for 10 or 14 years’ imprisonment for even
indirectly helping banned organisations. POTA is thus liable to be
used against the political opponents of those in power. Ms
Jayalalithaa has done just that--following the "due process" of
obtaining warrants from magistrates, etc.

Mr Vaiko is of course an unabashed supporter of the LTTE, with a long
personal association with Mr V. Prabhakaran. At his son’s wedding
four years ago, the chief guests were Mr Prabhakaran’s parents
(others being Messrs L.K. Advani and George Fernandes). Mr Vaiko has
organised countless meetings in aid of the LTTE and its fronts in
India and abroad. Mr Vaiko (wrongly) compares the LTTE with the
Palestine Liberation Organisation. He has never once criticised its
fascist-militarist ideology, its inhuman methods and its outrageous
terror tactics. This is morally wrong and politically as well as
legally unacceptable. Nevertheless, extending support to, or
justifying, a terrorist group’s "cause" is not the same thing as
participating in or practising violent terrorism. It is a much lesser
offence, which can be punished under Section 13 (1)(a) of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, or Sec 109 and 120(B) of
IPC. Hate speech or incitement to support violent
activities/organisations must be penalised. But that’s not terrorism.

That Ms Jayalalithaa could so easily--and "legally"invoke POTA
against Mr Vaiko takes the wind of the NDA’s argument that there are
"adequate safeguards" in the Act to prevent its abuse. The NDA is
left making contradictory and downright ludicrous statements on the
Vaiko case, while the weapon it fashioned is lethally used against
its own partner. In truth, POTA is fatally flawed. Its very
foundation subverts the principle of "innocent until proved guilty"
and admits non-judicial confessions as evidence--violating not just
the Evidence Act, but the notion of justice integral to fundamental
rights.

The casual manner in which POTA has been used is illustrated by the
case of some 400 Kashmiri citizens. They were first arrested in April
and May for a variety of criminal charges, including FERA violations.
Suddenly a chargesheet was filed against them under POTA after weeks
of detention. Nationally, the declaration of 30-odd groups as
"terrorist" organisations speaks of manifestly foul intentions. Not
one of them is a Hindutva group. Some are Naxalites who, however
misguided or violent they may be, aren’t "terrorists".

The government has equally cavalierly invoked POTA against Kashmir
Times New Delhi Bureau chief Iftikhar Geelani and charged him with
possessing dangerous literature, and "classified" information on
Indian troop movements. It now turns out that the "classified"
information is old, publicly available, material. Embarrassed, the
police accuse Geelani of distributing pornographic literature, which
was found on his computer. But such material is circulated
unsolicited on the Internet!

Equally condemnable is the government’s systematic harassment of
Tehelka.com, which has been starved of investment through the
persecution of venture-capitalist Shankar Sharma, who has been raided
25 times and served over 200 summons. Tehelka’s "sting" reporters too
have been falsely charged under the Wildlife Conservation Act. This,
the earlier tax raids on Outlook owners, the government’s prickliness
over the Alex Perry case, the deportation of the Al-Jazeera
correspondent for his critical reports on Gujarat, all amply clarify
a single purpose: media censorship and muzzling of dissent. Every
well-informed journalist in the Capital believes there is a "hit
list" of editors/reporters critical of the government. Newspaper
owners are being told to restrain or sack them.

One of the most insidious forms of such muzzling is the government’s
interference with the Central Press Accreditation Committee (CPAC)
through which journalists get registered and accredited to the Press
Information Bureau (PIB). This gives them access to government
offices, and certain legitimate benefits like duty-free import of
professional equipment. Recently, the Information and Broadcasting
Ministry, which controls the PIB, nominated eight persons, many
linked to the RSS, to the 20-member CPAC. They included Tarun Vijay,
editor of the RSS organ Panchajanya, known for his vitriolic attacks
upon Hindutva critics and his ludicrous equation of Marx, Macaulay
and Madrassas. These new members have been stridently demanding
dis-accreditation of journalists like Perry on the ground that they
"hurt the nation’s sentiments".

This is pernicious nonsense. Even during the Emergency, the
government did not dare mess around with the CPAC, which has long
been a journalist-controlled body. Today, by packing that committee,
it is arming itself with nasty powers and undermining the integrity
of the accreditation process. It seems undeterred by strong protests
from the Press Association, Indian Journalists’ Union, Working News
Cameramen’s Association, All India Newspaper Editors’ Conference and
the All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation.

Shocking as this is, it is part of an emerging authoritarian pattern.
On July 11, the Delhi police swooped down on 13 persons attending a
meeting of the Indo-Nepal People’s Solidarity Forum, including
Economic & Political Weekly assistant editor Gautam Navlakha, writers
Anand Swaroop Verma and Pankaj Singh, and four Nepali citizens,
including three journalists. The Forum (for no earthly reason other
than official bloody-mindedness) has been banned under POTA. Not all
those arrested were its members. The detainees were interrogated for
three hours and all but the four Nepalis were released after intense
protests by various editors and columnists. The next day, activists
obtained a legal stay on the deportation of the four Nepalis who,
they feared, could be lynched after being branded "Maoists". But by 6
a.m., the four had already been deported--in contravention of a
treaty which gives Nepali citizens equal treatment, and in violation
of well-established norms.

A government which gets so paranoid about a meeting demanding a
dialogue between the government and the Maoists in Nepal, and which
fears dissenting opinion in the media so mortally, can go to any
extent in gagging the press. No wonder it is trying to pressure some
of the biggest newspapers by encouraging foreign investment into some
pro-Hindutva papers. Tomorrow, it can bung any journalist or writer
into jail on mere suspicion, by planting incriminating material on
his/her person, or by spreading rumours. This dangerous trend must be
reversed before it causes further damage.

Postscript: It is truly shameful that the Bhopal gas disaster victims
had to go on a 19-day-long hunger-strike to demand that the
government follow the Supreme Court’s own order on the criminal
prosecution of Union Carbide chairman, Warren Anderson. The CBI has
gratuitously diluted charges against him. The victims want that the
Rs. 1,300 crores left of the compensation due to them should not
distributed among the gas-unaffected population of Bhopal. This is
only logical and just. But what can be more disgraceful than the
government's callous response to the victims’ protest?