IIt has been a month since the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO)-an emergency law to combat terrorism-was promulgated. Ordinarily, the bill seeking to replace it should have been placed before Parliament in the first week of the winter session that began on November 19. That has not happened. Not because consensus is eluding this legislation. The truth is that no one is seeking it. Neither the Government nor the Opposition wants a cease-fire in the POTO war.

WIN-WIN SITUATION: Vajpayee and Advani (above) are keeping the Opposition on tenterhooks while Sonia (below) knows opposing the ordinance may have an adverse fallout

Rather, both the Government and the Opposition are keeping the issue alive outside Parliament with an eye on the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. At her meeting with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on November 17, Congress President Sonia Gandhi assured him of the passage of POTO in the budget session if he referred the bill to the joint select committee of Parliament. Translation: she does not want the law until the Uttar Pradesh elections are over.

Thus, the vote bank compulsions of the Congress, as expressed by its leader, made it possible for the BJP Government to enact smarter moves to paint the Congress into a corner. In the past week, the Government has been deliberately sending mixed signals about its plans to evolve a consensus. It first called off a scheduled all-party meeting. It indicated that this was because it wanted to understand the opposition parties' positions at the Home Ministry's consultative committee meeting on November 23 before convening an all-party meeting on the issue. A day later it hinted that it was fully equipped to have the bill passed in a joint sitting of both the houses of Parliament.

"We are prepared to carry out amendments that will allay apprehensions about misuse of the law but we will do nothing that will weaken the law," asserts Union Law Minister Arun Jaitley. He, however, emphasises that the Government will first endeavour to evolve consensus in the Rajya Sabha. If that fails, the Government may contemplate going for a joint parliamentary sitting. Or else encourage states ruled by the BJP-there are only three of them-to promulgate POTO.

POTO

No presumption of guilt. Courts can draw only adverse inference if arms or explosives are recovered. Confession admissible but it has to be recorded with a chief judicial magistrate within 48 hours. Confession not admissible as evidence against co-accused Bail if magistrate is satisfied about innocence of the accused. Maximum period of policy custody up to 30 days and 180 days for judicial custody. Appeal can be filed in a high court.

TADA

Presumption of guilt if arms or explosives are recovered from possession of the accused. Confession made before police officer of the rank of superintendent of police admissible as evidence. Confession is also admissible as evidence against co-accused Bail if magistrate feels the accused will not commit a similar offence Maximum period of police remand up to 60 days and for judicial custody up to one year. Appeal to Supreme Court only.

LEASHING TERROR: Captured by the Mumbai Police, these men are accused of being Hizb-ul Mujahideen guerrillas

Jaitley's colleague, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pramod Mahajan, makes it amply clear that his Government is in no hurry to introduce the bill. "We want to transact important legislative business before we get down to POTO. After all we know the stated positions of all political parties."

He says the Government is only willing to incorporate minor changes suggested by National Democratic Alliance partners like the Telugu Desam Party and MDMK leader Vaiko. While N. Chandrababu Naidu suggested dropping sections 3(8) and 14 to allay the fears of the media, Vaiko had proposed that those apprehended under the law should be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours instead of the proposed 48 hours.

These conflicting signals had the desired impact on the opposition parties,including the Congress and the CPI(M), making them respond warily. "The Government has no intention of discussing the bill. It wants the ordinance to lapse and blame us for it," says CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee.

Senior Congress leader Pranab Mukherjee cautions the Government about the pitfalls of going ahead with the bill. "We have been in office for long. We had a bad experience with TADA. We know where the shoe pinches. The Government will benefit if it listens to us." His party colleagues, however, privately worry about the political fallout of the Congress stand. "If POTO lapses and a terrorist strike takes place, the Congress will get the blame. People want a quick-fix solution like POTO. The party leadership must recognise that," says a Congress MP.

This seems to fit in neatly with the Government's game plan: exploit such paranoia among Congressmen. Even though the main opposition party in Lok Sabha is no major player in Uttar Pradesh politics, it is angling for increased seats this time round and the Government wants to exploit the Congressmen's dilemma to the fullest. Also, unlike the Samajwadi Party and the Left Front, the Congress admits there is a need for a new anti-terror law and it is only quibbling over the timing of the legislation.

"We are not bothered about jholawala opposition. We are only concerned about convincing the Congress. It has after all been a party of governance," says Jaitley. The law minister has been meeting up with a number of senior Congress leaders. The Government also used the inter-state council meeting to impress on the Congress chief ministers the need for POTO. "Under ordinary laws, the conviction rate is 6.5 per cent. Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh has said that under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the conviction rate is 78 per cent. If we can have draconian laws for local criminals, why can't we have such a law for the Lashkar-e-Toiba?"

Congress leaders admit that the party is not naturally inclined to oppose the anti-terrorism law. They concede that it had stretched it a little too far in opposing the ordinance. After all, there had been legal provision for preventive detention since Nehru's days.

One Congress chief minister even suggested that its current position on POTO was perhaps thrust on the party by its spokesperson S. Jaipal Reddy. "Reddy may possibly have consulted Sonia. Nevertheless we could not have retracted after he articulated a libertarian position," he says. Not all lawyers in the party feel that POTO and MCOCA are as different as "apples and potatoes." Former Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee president Salman Khursheed feels bail provisions in mcoca must be amended. When amendments were suggested to Deshmukh, he politely refused by stating that he has to consult his coalition partner, the NCP.

POTO's future is uncertain.But both the Government and the Opposition are hoping that the politics of POTO will have a bright electoral future. If the anti-POTOists want to appease the Muslims, can it be said that the BJP Government's agenda is the polarisation of the Hindu votes ? "It is perfectly legitimate to ask for support to fight terrorists. What is this politics of going soft on terrorist and asking for votes? How can any one oppose POTO when we have lost over 61,013 lives to terrorist violence in the past 15 years?" asks Jaitley. That's a point the Opposition will be hard put to rebut.