RAID TERROR OPINION
MANISHA SETHI
THIS LAW IS AN ASS Arresting activists is an attack on dissent in keeping with UAPA ’ s history
ON August 28 , the Pune police mounted raids across several cities , taking into custody five civil liberties activists , invoking that dreaded anti-terror law , the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act ( UAPA ). They were acc used of inciting violence in Bhima Koregaon in January , and generally of aiding the banned Maoist party . The police ’ s swift operation — oiled by a section of the media that flashed dubious letters about a conspiracy , and a lower judiciary that speedily signed transfer remands — has received a jolt for now .
The run of events evoked a sense of déjà vu . Have we not seen a vicious trial by media every time an agency presented its latest arrests as operatives of whichever group was in the home ministry ’ s favour that season ? Have we not seen courts signing blank cheques for investigators — be it extended remands or ignoring signs of custodial torture ? The ever-expanding circle of suspects since January , the stubborn refusal by the police to book Hindu right groups inv olved in the Bhima Koregaon violence , the convenient recoveries of self-incriminating letters — all of it fits the template of arrests made under UAPA .
Who would know better than Arun Ferreira , now under house arrest , saved from the Pune penitentiary by the Supreme Court ’ s grace ? In 2007 , he was picked up , accused of conspiring to blow up a monument in Deekshabhoomi in Nagpur . Eventually , 10 more cases were filed against him , including arson , assault , murder and firing on police ; one was said to have occurred while he was in jail . A pen drive supposedly recovered from him was the sum of the evidence . He was acquitted after five years in jail .
This is how cases under UAPA are registered and prosecuted . Charges multiply . Bail is rarely granted . But it isn ’ t merely the procedure that blights this law . Passed in 1967 and amended repeatedly , UAPA enables the Centre to declare an association “ unlawful ” if it is seen as a threat or pot ential threat to the country ’ s “ sovereignty and integrity ”, or is seen as promoting “ enmity between different groups ”, or for “ imputations prejudicial to national integration ”— all subjective criteria contingent on the ideology of the government of the day . The ban on the Students ’ Islamic Movement of India ( SIMI ) in 2001 saw arrests of hundreds of Muslim
UAPA lets the Centre criminalise any idea , thought , art or writing that challenges the dominant narratives . youth across the country for allegedly furthering the group ’ s activities , and is still a potent wea pon to render the community perennially suspect .
The sections most often invoked — 3 , 10 and 13 — refer not to violence , but to membership of unlawful and terrorist associations . But how to prove membership and participation in an organisation that no longer exists ? This is resolved by investigators ‘ seizing ’ literature of the organisation . In the case of SIMI , in an overwhelming number of cases the evidence centred on copies of the group ’ s organ , Islamic Movement , all antedating the ban , or pamphlets of programmes held by SIMI when lawful , or photocopies of these , or the same magazine in multiple cases in different cities with a different set of accused !
Under UAPA , the ‘ intention ’ of the suspect is central in condemning him or her as a terrorist (“ whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity , integrity , security or sovereignty of India ”). ‘ Unlawful activity ’ defined as “ an act or by words , either spoken or written , or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise ”, practically grants the government the power to criminalise any idea , thought , art or writing that challenges the dominant narratives of development , governance and social inequality . Commission of violence has thus become peripheral to the charge of terrorism .
It is true that some judicial pronouncements have sought to temper the law ’ s razor edge by distinguishing between active and passive membership of banned organisations . That hasn ’ t discouraged pros ecutors from citing the accused ’ s commitment to jus tice and equality as inc riminating evidence , or discouraged the courts from accepting this . So G . N . Saibaba — wheelchair-bound and 90 per cent disabled — has been sentenced to life , mainly for his ideas .
And yet , this was a spectacular operation — a psy-op if ever there was one . The ‘ shock-and-awe ’ nature of the multi-city raids was meant to force us all into submission , and to congeal the ‘ Urban Naxal ’ legend in this government ’ s relentless pursuit of foes . And while the Opposition decries it — rightly — as an attack on dissent , it must itself commit to the repeal of this law , which in the past it created and nourished . O
( Manisha Sethi is the author of Kafkaland : Law , Prejudice and Counterterrorism in India .)
18 OUTLOOK 17 September 2018