The House re-assembed at twenty-five minutes past three

of the clock, MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair.



MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The House is adjourned for ten minutes.


(The House then adjourned at twenty-five minutes

past three of the clock.)

(Followed by 2l/sss)


The House reassembled at thirty-five minutes past three of the clock,



..׻ֵ: ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ֤ ֵԾ ã֟ ׮ כ ֲָ ״ֻ , ָ ֟ ״֟ ֵ օ ֟ ִֵ ٻִֵ ֈ ֲ ã ָ ָ ׻ ֲ ֤ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ӟ׸ ӲӬ ־ֲ ִ ־ֲ ״ֻ ֋ ׻֋ Ͽ ֤ ִ֮ , ֤ ߕ ־ֲ ֮ ן֌֟ , ן֌֟ ӿ ֤ ן֌֟ ֋ ָ ִֵ ָ ֮ ״ֻ ֟ ֵ֤ ן ִ֮ ־֮ ֯, ׸ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ִ֮ ־֮ פ ׯ֔ ֤ ֤ ֮ ָ ֻ֟ ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן: , ֟

..׻ֵ: ׌ Ͽ ָ - ָ֡ Ӭ ָ ־ֻ ׻ֵ ֯ ֟ , ׻֋ ֵ֤ , ָ , - ֛ ֵֻ, ׻֋ ...(־֮֬)

֕ ӿ ־֮ ։ ™ߵ ֻ , ׻֋ ֤ ִ֮ ָ ָ ן֌֟ ־֮ ֟ ֮ ־֕ ֤ ׸ ֺ և ׮ כ ִ֬ ָ ֲָ ֋Ӆ ָ ׾ ֟ ֵ ָ ִ ָ ״ֻ , ß־ ״ֻ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

ӡ ( ׿־ָ֕ . י): ߴ֮, ׻ֵ , ֿ֟ ֟ , ֯ ̟֕ Ӯ ׻ֵ ֱ ִֵ ֣-֣ ִ , þֳ־ ֮֟ ׌ ־֕ ֟ , פ ִ , ָ ָ ׌ ֟ , ֮ פ ̲֕ ֟ , ֟־ָ ֮֮ ™ , ׌֟ ӲӬ ™ , ׻֋ ֤ ־֮ ֟ ß ָ ӲӬ ן ß ִ֟ ו ֯ פ , ־֕ פ ֯ ֯ ׾֮֟ ֯ ֋, ֣ ָ ִ


ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ: ָ, ָ ֓ , ָ ֛ ֣ ֛

ֳ֯ן: , ...(־֮֬) ״׮Ù ֯ ׸և ߮ ו ...(־֮֬) (2m ָ )


ֳ֯ : ֯ ߮

ָ ֻ ӛ־ֻ : ֙ ִ ״ֻ

ֳ֯ : , ֤


׿־ָ֕ 0 י : ߴ֮, ִ ӛ ߸, Ù Ù , ֌ֻև Ù ֻ ֟ ָ ϵ , ֻ ϵ ִ ӟָ ֮ ָ ֟ ָ ֟ ֮ ֟֓ߟ ִ֬ ֮ ֟֓ߟ ִ֬ ֮ ϵ ֺ ֤ ָ ֤ ֵ֟ ֵ ֣ ֟֓ߟ ָָ ֟֓ߟ ־ֻ ִ֮ ֮ ֟֓ߟ ֺ ֲ ֟֓ߟ ֻ ֣-֣ ׮ָָ֬ ֤״ֵ ߱ ָ ָ ֻ , ֮-ֻ ֮ , , ֮ ֮ ֮ ִֻ ֟֓ߟ ִ֬ ֺ ָ ֲ ֟֓ߟ ֻ ֲ ֮ ֮ וִָ ָָ ֛ ִϟ ָָ וִָ ׮ֳ֮ ֛ , ™ ָ ֣ ֟֓ߟ ֣ ן ãׯ֟ , ֟֓ߟ פ ֮ ֻ ָ ϵ ָ ֛ ™ ֣ ֟֓ߟ ß֮ ֣ ֟֓ߟ ֻ֤ ֣ ֟֓ߟ , ֣ ֟֓ߟ , ֣ ֟֓ߟ , ֮ ֣ ֟֓ߟ Ӵָ ֣ ֟֓ߟ , ™ , ָ ִ Ͽ ׮ִ ֟ , ו ֕ ֮ , ֟֓ߟ ֟֓ߟ ֣ Ͽ ϵ ֵ ׮ֵ ֤֟ ֓ ֛ ֮ ָ , և Ӥ ָ ׸ ָ ָ ָ ָ ֓ԋ ϵ ֻ ׮ֵ ָ ֲ ״ֻ ׮ָָ֬ ֮ ֻ ֣ ׻֋ ֮ ֲ ״ֻ ֮ ׻֋ ™ ָ ™ ָ ָ ֮ ֮ ףֵָ ֛ ֮ ָ ֟ ָ ָ ָ ׻֋ ֟ , ָ ֮ , ִ ϵ ָ ׻ ָָ ִ ֻ , ֻ ܵ ֜ ִ , ָ և , ß ָ ӲӬ ֮ ֓ - ָ ß Ӥ ֓ ָ ־ֻ ָ ָ ןֵ ֮֯ ֛ What is your short-term, medium-term and long-term policies? I have been speaking about these policies very often on the floor of the House. On the contrary, it is very helpful to discuss these policies. If you have any suggestions to make with respect to the policies, please make those suggestions here, on the floor of the House, or outside the House, by writing a letter or personally talking to us and your suggestions are always welcome. We will consider them and we will not stand on prestige and say that because they are coming from someone who is not a part of the Government we are not going to accept it. We will, on the contrary, treat those suggestions as most welcome and treat those suggestions as an opportunity to improve upon the situation. This is what I was trying to say. (CONTD. BY VP "2N")


SHRI SHIVRAJ VISHWANATH PATIL (CONTD.): One of the things was raised by the hon. Members here, and, I think that that thing should be discussed by us. And, that is about the law. When we were discussing about the laws which are used to control the terrorist activities in the country, two kinds of views were expressed. According to one view, the law should be deterrent and stringent. But, according to the other view, the law should not be so deterrent, so stringent and so difficult to enforce that the laws themselves would be utilised by some persons to perpetrate some kind of terrorism against you. These were the two kinds of views. Mr. Ram Jethmalani was here, and he was every eloquent in saying, try to protect the human rights, and do not make laws like POTA. But, then, from the other side a plea was made that POTA is necessary, a law like POTA is necessary. We should have something like that on the Statute Book. Without having that kind of a thing on the Statute Book, it will be difficult.

My submission is that the truth lies in between the two extreme positions. It is necessary that we should have laws. But, it is also necessary that if the laws are not humane, they can be misused also. And, instead of solving the problem, they can make the problem more difficult to solve. If an innocent man is harassed, if an innocent man is imprisoned, he and his family members are going to be very angry. If they become angry, they can turn into a hostile section of the society. They can become very angry with the Government, and they can adopt some measures. So, that has to be avoided. At the same time, the laws have also to be useful. So, the truth lies in between the two extremes and that is very necessary.

Very rightly Shrimati Brinda Karatji raised the issue with respect to the Special Powers' Act. I am not in a position to give a very specific answer to the question, which she has raised here. But, I can say that that law was considered, and the other laws were also considered by the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has given a ruling in which they have laid down a procedure which should be followed by the police while dealing with the terrorists. They have said that this and this should be done, but, this and this should not be done. As a matter of fact, what is treated by the Supreme Court is a kind of law which has to be followed by us. And, I think, there shall be no difficulty in adopting those suggestions into the laws, which we are having here. We will, certainly, look into all these aspects. We will try to see as to how the obnoxious provisions in some of the laws are deleted. In one or two laws, I am not mentioning the laws themselves, but, in one or two laws it is said that action can be taken.


And, to the extent of killing also, action can be taken. It is an obnoxious provision in the law. It is not necessary to mention the law in these words. So, if it is necessary, we can, certainly, look at it. But the point which Smt. Brindaji has made on the floor of the House is, certainly, a point which is to be carefully looked into. I assure you that we will, definitely, look into it. I am not in a position to say whether the law will be repealed or it will be amended in this fashion or that law will not be amended or will not be repealed. Neither I am replying to this point in exact negative nor in exact positive terms. But, I am not giving an assurance on your suggestion on the floor of the House that the law would be made more humane. Of course, laws should be made such that they should not be used in a manner to create problems for the innocent people. This will be kept in mind. We will, definitely, take steps in that direction, and you will come to know about that. I am not in a position to say anything more than this because this is a matter which has to be considered by the entire Government as such; by the Law Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the Home Ministry and others. I can say this much about that.

The point I am making is, let us not depend too much on laws. I remember a story, which, probably, I have stated on the floor of the House also. A man goes for hunting, and he says, "When I go for hunting, I carry only the gun, not bullets." (Continued by PK/2o)


SHRI SHIVRAJ VISHWANATH PATIL (CONTD.): I show the gun to the tiger and the tiger is killed." The other man says, :That is nothing; I do something better than what you do. I don't even carry the gun and bullets. I carry only the licence in my pocket and show the licence to him and the tiger is killed." Just laws cannot be helpful. Laws can be helpful after what happens and to prevent also, sometimes, it can be helpful. This aspect has to be borne in mind and we are of the firm view that the existing laws are in a position to help the Government and the police to discharge their duties in a manner in which they should be. Even if you make these laws stiffer, probably, better results will not be produced. When the stiff laws were in existence, incidents had taken place, explosions had taken place, and people had died. I am not going to refer to any of these things, but yet the laws themselves were not in a position to control the situation, and to see that the incidents do not occur. We will keep this in mind. The Government of India's policy is to use the existing laws in a manner which will be effective, and in a manner which will not create problems for the innocent people. If in some respects, some modifications are required, the Government of India will not be reluctant to bring about those modifications in the existing laws. I need not say anything more than this on this point. Shri Manohar Joshi made a statement and told me that he would have very much liked to be in the House to hear the reply, but the reply was postponed; so he said, " Would you mind if I am not in the House?" He did make two, three points. The two points which he made were that the big cities require better security arrangements; mega cities require better security arrangements : Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Madras, Bangalore and such other places. I am just mentioning a few names; that does not mean that there are no other cities which require better security arrangements. But the question is, terrorists are in a position to hide themselves in forests, but they are in a position to hide themselves in the cities also, and city policing requires a different kind of approach. Shri Alexander is not here, but he has been telling me that we should have a special plan for providing security to mega cities. He has been saying that and we have accepted this suggestion. We have asked the State Governments to prepare plans and submit them to the Government of India. They should also be ready to spend a little more money on providing better security arrangements in mega cities and the Government of India would also like to help them in this respect. Shri Joshi suggested that coastlines are vulnerable, and he is very right; the coastlines are vulnerable. We have constructed the fence on the international border and the LoC and other borders also, and it is not possible for the infiltrators to cross those international borders on the land and come into the Indian territory. That is why they are going to other countries, and flying from other countries to our country. When they are flying, they go to different countries and then they go to the places where they intend to create problems. They are also following the sea routes, and we have taken a decision to help the State Governments on the coastlines to provide better security. Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and all these States will be given a lot of money to provide better security. We have decided to spend nearly Rs.400 crore on that; not only that, but we have decided to provide petrol and vehicles also for three years to the State Governments to provide security on the coastline. In brief, I would like to say that the Government is alive to the fact that the sea routes have become more important and are likely to be used by the terrorists to come to India and spread into different parts of the country and to create problems; so, we have taken precaution in this respect also.

(Contd. by 2P/HK)


SHRI SHIVRAJ VISHWANATH PATIL (CONTD.): One of the points which was made, and that would be my last point in this respect, is that Police should be very careful in investigating the cases relating to the terrorist activities that have taken place in the country. Some hon. Members, who spoke, explained as to how some people were put to inconvenience and insulted, and they narrated the stories in great details. I am of the same view that the Police should be careful in investigating these cases. It is necessary for the Police to see that the innocent people are not put to difficulties or they are not put into jail unnecessarily or some kind of harsh methods are not used against them. We are of the same view. The existing laws provide that if anything of this nature is done by the Police, the matter can be looked into. It has been looked into also and it will be looked into. We will definitely see that while trying to investigate these matters and trying to arrest the persons who are responsible for it and trying to prosecute these persons, we would take care to see that the innocent people are not harassed. We will try to do that. But there is one more aspect which has to be kept in mind and that aspect is that sometimes when the investigation is done by the Police and if we, without verifying the facts, accept the stories which are told to us and discuss those stories, the result is that the Police which has to investigate gets demoralised. This aspect also cannot be forgotten. The Police, which are coming from one part of the country and acting in another part of the country, face the bullet and death and sometimes they sacrifice themselves -- they make the supreme sacrifice -- in order to protect the lives, the limbs and the properties of people. If we criticise them without getting full information, they are likely to be demoralised and if they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the lives and the properties of others, we should not be unkind to them, and that is why it has become necessary for us that on one hand we should see that innocent persons are not harassed, and on the other, we shall have to see that those who are doing their duties are also not demoralised. If this is not done, the intention of seeing that the violent methods used by some people are controlled will not be achieved. Here, we shall have to strike a balance. One of the things which has been said by many people -- and sometimes we do it without understanding the implications of it also -- is that sometimes we come to the conclusion that a particular section of the society or people belonging to a particular religion are likely to be involved in terrorist activities more than others. This kind of conclusion is not correct. The Government of India does not subscribe to this kind of theory. We do think that there are good people in all religions, in all parts of our country and there are bad people, there may be bad people in all religions and all parts of the country. We are against those people who are out to create difficulties, and we are not against any religion as such, whether they belong to one religion or another. Simply because they belong to a particular religion, we should not come to the conclusion. We are of the firm view that no person belonging to a particular religion should be treated as a terrorist simply because he belongs to that particular religion. (Contd. by 2q/SKC)