'The Existing Laws Are Sufficient'

The full transcript of the BBC Hindi special programme Aapki Baat BBC Ke Saath with the HomeMinister Shivraj Patil on: Would the new government be able to provide security and justice as promised?

Nagendar Sharma : Would your government be able to ensure security and justice for all aspromised by the Congress party, its allies and the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the UPA?

Shivraj Patil : Yes, it would be able to do so and this would be our duty in the coming days, forthis we would do all that is required from us in the coming days.

Nagendar Sharma : What are your priorities as the Home Minister of the country ?

Shivraj Patil : The first is, the central government through its Home Ministry would try todevelop an effective atmosphere of understanding and harmony between the centre and the state governments. Secondly, the country is faced with a challenge of militancy, we would try to tackle this andbring down these activities with all means possible. Thirdly, our effort would be have harmony in the society, and remove obstacles that are createdin this regard. We would work for the economic development of the country also. 

BBC listener from Allahabad : Sir, the militants have stepped up their activities in Kashmirwarning the new government of the challenges ahead. Your government says that talks with Pakistan would alsobe on nuclear disarmament--won’t this weaken the internal security of India, and how far can Pakistan betrusted on the entire matter?

Shivraj Patil : There are many questions facing the country at the moment, and I would like tosay that it is important to talk. We would try to improve the prevailing situation through talks, and once thesituation improves, it should yield good results, this would be our endeavour. If a different path other thanthat of talks is seen as effective for improvement in the situation, there is no bar on us for that too. Butwe have chosen the path of talks.

Now whatever any other government or the country is saying on a particular subject, wewould react after carefully studying the pros and cons of their statements, and all this should lead toimprovement in situation--that is the goal we are trying to achieve.

Nagendar Sharma : Mr Patil, you recently announced that talks with Hurriyat would be held nextmonths. Would your government restrict the dialogue to Hurriyat only or would you extend it to other Kashmiriorganisations as well ?

Shivraj Patil : We would talk to Hurriyat, and make efforts to talk to others who would be ready to talkto us. When to talk, what to talk, how to talk and where to talk could be decided after receiving detailsfrom those willing for a dialogue.

BBC listener from Lucknow :  Sir, militancy is a main problem facing the country at themoment. Many states face the Naxal problem, insurgency in North East, and the militants of Kashmir have madetheir intentions clear once again, flexing their muscles on the new government, what do you intend to do?

Shivraj Patil : What we need to understand is with one government going and the other coming in itsplace, it would not be right to hope that the problem of militancy would be solved overnight, or a drasticreduction would be there in such activities all of a sudden.  I feel it is not correct to form such an opinion. We have to make all possible efforts in alldirections to improve the situation. The efforts would include political, economic, social measures, throughtalks and all other appropriate measures required for improvement. We would continue to work in thisdirection.

Nagendar Sharma : But Mr Patil with at least four states facing serious Naxalite violence, the new central governmenthas deciding to repeal POTA. Is it correct to take a political decision whenfaced with such a situation?

Shivraj Patil : In fact, firstly, it is said that this urge of fighting for the cause of militancy takesbirth in the human brain and mind, so there should be an effort to remove this. Secondly, the economic reasonsare also there for turning to such violence. Such reasons would have to be addressed and an atmospherecreated so that such a feeling does not remain, and it is to be ensured that there is justice for all. So to say that this is happening now and soon is like creating an impression as if suchactivities have started taking place now and were not happening earlier, which is not correct.

I would like to assure the countrymen that if there were to be a spurt in militant activities ora war like situation, within the country or outside, we would try to restore normalcy and in such situations,the dialogue is an effective means. If other steps are required, we would be taking those appropriate stepsalso, as and when required, depending on the situation, we would be ready.

BBC listener from Dubai : Sir, reports from Human Rights organisations say out of 248people arrested under POTA in Gujarat, 247 were Muslims. Similarly, the number of people arrested underprevious anti-terrorism law, TADA, the maximum number of those arrested were either Muslims or Sikhs. Arethese laws only to harass minorities? Why does the government hesitate in having a regulatory mechanism whileenacting such laws? Could we expect anything different from the law which would replace POTA?

Shivraj Patil :  We are saying that POTA was not compulsorily required, as it could neither stop norbring down militancy, on the other hand there were cases of POTA misuse. It is for this reason only that theprevious government also talked about amending POTA, and we are for repealing it. I think nobody should haveobjection to this. The existing laws which have been in place for more than 100-150 years--the Indian Penal Code,the Evidence Act, the Criminal Procedure Code., and similar laws--when they are used effectively, nobodyshould have objection when these are used.

If someone is saying that in the changing situation a new law would be enacted and then only POTAwould be repealed, this is not right. We are not saying that a new law would replace POTA, what we aresaying is clear, that the existing laws are sufficient to deal with the situation today. In future, if a situation arises, in which we feel,and all others feel, that in the givencircumstances, some changes in the existing laws are required or a new law is required, then with unanimity,and with the permission of Parliament, we could proceed in that direction.               

BBC listener from Raipur : Sir, riots in India do not take place, they are made to take place andthen it takes months to control the situation, and afterwards the entire talk of victims is restricted tominorities. For example if 90 percent of those killed in Gujarat were Muslims, then 10 percent were Hindus.Why nobody talks about Hindu victims?

Shivraj Patil : Well, a lot has been said in Parliament, in media, and other forums, but if those whohave to listen do not listen, then whose fault is it? Remember all the riot victims and sufferers, whether they be Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs orChristians, all of them are our brothers and sisters. It is our blood that has been shed, and we feel the painin our hearts. But by taking the name of a particular caste or religion, justice cannot be done. Justice has tobe done for humanity, but those who wish to listen only what is convenient for them, then there is little thatwe could do.

Nagendar Sharma : But Mr Patil, the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 and the Gujarat riots are a blot on India’sinternational image. It take years for riot cases to reach the courts and the guilty are rarely booked insuch cases. Is your government willing to make a new beginning?

Shivraj Patil : You are absolutely right. Increasing the number of courts--if that is required, we wouldlook into that feasibility, and also of encouraging the witnesses to come forward and depose. Similarly, to start anew process, we would have to work for a new law. When a case reaches the court of law after investigation, there is an established view inIndia, and at the world level too, that no innocent should be wrongly convicted. Keeping this view, the Indiansystem works, and all facts are carefully scrutinised. 

However, if justice is delayed it leads to a loss of faith in the judicial set-up, thegovernment, the courts and law enforcing agencies, and the concerned people--especially the victim and theirrelatives--lose hope. To restore this faith, first and foremost, this viewpoint needs to be changed. Oureffort is to develop a correct viewpoint. Next, we would try to improve the investigative machinery of thepolice. Then, these inordinate delays due to certain procedures would have to be cut down, and if an increasein the number of courts is required, and if we could do it, we would certainly do so. Finally, the news andviews that reach the people of the country through the media in such situations, should be balanced, notone-sided and politically motivated, this also we would try to do.

BBC listener from Patna : Sir, the past Congress regimes have seen anti-Sikh riots and demolitionof Babri Masjid. Would this time be different or the same old Congress regime?

Shivraj Patil : Our perspective of looking at things is that all human beings are equal, and theycannot be divided on the basis of caste and religion. This is our difference with those who say their religionis superior to others’, and that others should follow their religion. Our perspective of treating everybody equally, would help us in havinglong-lasting peace andharmony in the country.

BBC listener from Ahmedabad :  Sir, the Gujarat state government has not followed the ruleof law--it s clear, even human rights activists are being threatened. What would the centre do? After theshifting of Best Bakery trial outside the state, some hope has been raised. Is the centre doing anything toshift all riots cases outside the state and hand over  investigation to CBI for proper justice? 

Shivraj Patil : After the Supreme Court decision, there is no need for the central government’sview.  Before naming anyone we would like to have all the facts in front of us. After the court decision,the media’s view and what concerned people like you say--though I think now things are happening in line with whatyou want--the steps that are necessary in accordance with the law and the Constitution of the country,could be taken.

At the same time it has be seen that those given the responsibility of fulfilling their dutyshould do it, and they are given time for it in a democracy.  Whether they do it or not, is closelywatched by the people, the courts and the government of the country. Whatever is required to be done inaccordance with the law and constitution, should be done, and that is precisely what this government wouldalso do.

Nagendar Sharma : Mr Patil would your government stick to the settlement of Ayodhya dispute through courtverdict only?

Shivraj Patil : Our stand is that religions should unite the people of the country together and notdivide them. Our stand is temples, mosques, churches are all places of binding people with God, they shouldnot be used for dividing people. This is our viewpoint. Now if there is an issue which has led to demolition, then the solution would have to come fromthe court of law, before which this issue is there. Whatever be the verdict of the court, it would be legallybinding on all, and that would be followed. 

If someone is making efforts to resolve this outside the court, we would not say that do not makesuch efforts. But for such a solution to be acceptable to the whole country, it would have to be in the formof a decree of the court of law, giving it a legal sanction.  So the solution of this issue thorough any process is a welcome step, however if it is not beingresolved, then the right solution is though the court of law only.

BBC listener from Delhi :  Sir, when your party was in opposition, it made noises oncorruption of the NDA government. That government has been punished by the people of the country. But now yourown government has several charge-sheeted ministers. What is the difference?

Nagendar Sharma : And to this I add there are at least one hundred MPs this time who have charge-sheetsagainst them in criminal matters. Where is Indian parliamentary democracy headed to ?

Shivraj Patil : I would like to say it is for the court of law to see who is guilty and has beenconvicted, and who is innocent. Let us not forget that those convicted by the courts for major offences, arenot allowed to contest the elections. However if the offence is not major, then even the law does not debarsuch persons from contesting the elections. Those who reach the Parliament are elected by the people--you cannot ignorethis; now it is forthe court of law to decide. Our effort is to try and stop the criminalisation of politics, or at least bringit down, through whatever process.

But what is dangerous is that if you register a case against someone and then brand them ascriminal, then by merely registering a case against everyone, you could say they cannot even fight elections,there would be nobody left to even contest the elections. That is a worry. Look at those trying to raise the voice on thisissue today--they are the ones who committed crimes in broad daylight in the presence of not hundreds, not thousands but lakhs of people. And as a resultof their crimes, thousands of innocents lost their lives and properties. But now what they mean to say is that they can remain in the cabinet despite having cases againstthem, but they are giving us sermons on this issue!

I am repeating this time and again, criminalisation of politics has to be rooted out--theCongress party would continue its efforts on this.

BBC listener from Jamshedpur : Sir, you had recently said that law & order situation in UP isworrying...

Shivraj Patil (interrupts) : May I know who said it?

BBC listener (continues) : Sir it was reported in the newspapers...

Shivraj Patil : Then you should ask that newspaper please; do not ask me. To whom this statement hasbeen attributed in himself wanting to know!

BBC listener (continues) : Sir, what I am asking you is since the ruling party in Bihar issupporting you, nothing is being said by the centre on law and order, so, Sir, why these political statements?

Shivraj Patil :  I am not in favour of any political statements--such questions are asked with apolitical motive and answers could be political too.  I am not in the business of political statements and this usual spit-spat. If there is a genuinequestion, I would answer that.

What we want to say is if there is any crime anywhere, if any innocent is being troubled in anypart, that should not happen. It could be the government of anyone--it is the duty of governments to provideprotection to those being victimised. Whether it be Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh or Rajasthan--itcould be anywhere. It is the duty of governments, it is their rajdharma – it should be followed and that isour effort.

Nagendar Sharma : But, Mr Patil, though law and order is a state subject,  an impression is there thatthe law and order in states like UP and Bihar is worse than the rest of the country. Would the centre givesome suggestions to these state governments how they could bring improvement?                 

Shivraj Patil : It looks as if something is happening everywhere, it is high in some places and lowin others, the situation should be under control--that is the effort. The centre would make conscious efforts in this regard, and we hope that the state governmentswould also take steps. We think they would also take into account those who are expressing their feelings inthis regard. If steps are not taken we would discuss with them, the processes which would lead to improvement. Talking to state governments through the media does not help, it just adds a political dimensionto the whole thing and does not  lead towards any solution.

Therefore what I am saying is that if some undesirable activities are taking place somewhere, to checkthose certain corrective measures could be taken such as  police training, improvement in informationnetwork, creation of a good social environment and similar other steps which could be helpful for a betterlife.