POTO: What Exactly is A Citizen?

POTO: What Exactly is A Citizen?

By Shankar Gopalakrishnan

In the growing firestorm around the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), there has been much discussion about the rights of journalists and access to sources. Despite some claims by Law Minister Arun Jaitley and Minister for Disinvestment Arun Shourie, few outside the government seem to accept that POTO will not be a serious blow to journalism and freedom of the press.

Undoubtedly, as Outlook magazine put it, the ordinance has already created a ¿fear psychosis¿ among presspersons.

The response to these fears has been simple: conservatives and the government argue that ¿journalists do not have any more rights than ordinary citizens.¿ As such, since POTO applies to everybody, why should journalists be an exception? Parts of the media answered, justifiably enough, that journalists play a critical role in society and freedom of the press is a central plank of any democratic government. In other words, journalists are not ¿ordinary citizens.¿

But the problem with this response is that it accepts the government¿s notion of an ¿ordinary citizen¿. Thereby, it misses the most powerful reason to reject POTO: no one in a democratic society - journalist or not - should be subject to such a law. After all, POTO allows for three months of police custody for essentially no reason, preventive detention for inordinate amounts of time, and justifies police brutality and torture by making confessions to police admissible in court. It breaks rules of jurisprudence by placing the burden of proof on the accused (when asking for bail) and allowing for in camera trials. It criminalizes most speech in support of any organization that the government chooses to designate as ¿terrorist.¿ In the meantime, human rights groups have been crying themselves hoarse about the fact that under TADA - the inspiration for POTO - less than one percent of those arrested were ever found guilty. Many spent years on end suffering in jail for no reason other than indiscriminate police investigations or an official¿s spite.

In addition, a little history suffices to indicate what priorities governments use when designating ¿terrorist¿ organizations. Nelson Mandela¿s African National Congress was labeled a terrorist organization by the apartheid government (as well as the United States). Israel considers every Palestinian resister, from suicide bomber to stone-throwing eleven year old, to be a terrorist. In India, on the other hand, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, which renounced violence in 1996, is still considered a ¿terrorist¿ group. Its leaders claim that the security forces have killed 600 of its members since 1996, in their opinion for no apparent reason. As for the brutality of militant organizations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the government has yet to explain how it has consistently failed to show any evidence of a victory against them despite 12 years of war, including many ¿internal security¿ laws like POTO. There are many, however, who would argue that it is precisely such indiscriminate laws - and the government highhandedness and brutality that they encourage - that generates sympathy and cadres for the militants where none existed before.

One of the foundations of democracy is the fact that citizens are not servants of the government but critically thinking individuals. Such critical thought requires