Gujarat anti-terror bill: It's more about politics, less about national security

While defending the old Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Bill (GUJCOC), passed on March 31 by the Gujarat state legislative Assembly under a new name, Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi had in 2009 said: "There is dire need for such an Act not only for punishing the perpetrators of terrorism but also deterring educated youth from being drawn into the terrorist ideology."

Modi's plea had come after two presidents APJ Abdul Kalam in 2004 and Pratibha Patil in 2013, both of whom refused to clear the GUJCOC Bill due to its alleged draconian stipulations for civil liberty.

If the opposition to the Bill has always had political overtones its resurrection now under a stronger label also doesn't appear to be without political overtones, besides of course concerns to do with national security in a state which shares land and sea border with Pakistan.

And the political overtones were clearly visible. Having suffered damage to his strongman image on the national security front following Kashmir-related developments in the past month, Modi might be wanting to correct that image through his protégé in Gujarat, chief minister Anandiben Patel. On her part, Patell too needs to project herself as strong leader in run-up to the 2017 Gujarat Assembly elections. According to political pundits, the BJP is facing a challenge in the state with the arrival of the combative former Union minister Bharatsinh Solanki, son of former Congress strongman Madhavsinh Solanki, as the Congress's chief in the state.

The Bill might also be part of foundation building for an ever-ready Modi to bring a new anti-terror law in Parliament in future if the need so arises. The passing of the mini-version of the law in his home state and at the hands of his protégé obviously helps to prepare the groundwork.

Interestingly, the one provision of the law that has riled the Opposition is that it gives police the power to tape telephonic conversations and intercept internet chats. Perhaps this is because many in the Opposition believe that the BJP government in Gujarat is prone to keeping tabs on their telephonic conversations. This provision in the bill can of course be invoked only in the case of organised crime, but many fear it can be misused.

The four objectionable provisions in the bill for human rights activists and the Congress are:

1. Statement before superintendent level police officer admissible as evidence.

2. Remand period up to 30 days in place of 15 days at present.

3. Period for filing a chargesheet changed from 90 days at present to 80 days

4. Powers to police to tap telephone conversations and intercept internet chats and include them as evidence.

But the most surprising part of the debate in this episode is that Congress governments in many states, such as neighbouring Maharashtra, had enacted similar laws with exactly the same provisions and with the same objectives. Clearly, the debate is more about politics than principles, at a time when there is a need for political parties to at least have consensus on national security related issues.