Laws in any society are crucial for administration and keeping order. In earlier times autocrats and emperors would make laws that would change with their moods. In the modern civilized world, especially in democracies, lawmaking is a vital activity guided by the larger good.
But Kashmir offers a peculiar case, where laws have remained a source of disorder.
Take Public Safety Act, for instance. This law was supposedly enacted to tackle timber smugglers that the then government claimed had taken over the society. But eventually it became one of the many tools used by the governments to cage political opponents.
This deadly piece of legislation lets the police detain people for up to two years without a trial or even without any charge, simply on the suspicion that they might do something dangerous. Its section 10 (a) may lack parallels anywhere in the civilized world. It says the order of detention (under PSA usually signed by the district magistrate) cannot be deemed to be invalid even if the grounds of such detention are vague, non-existent, not relevant and not connected with the person to be detained.
That is perhaps why this law is being used against all – from a political leader to a minor stone pelter.
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is another nightmare. Almost everybody, at least in Kashmir, is apparently desperate to bury this law. Some people in Kashmir feel that state government should create an example by humanizing PSA before asking the central government to revoke AFSPA.
Laws would continue to remain a source of disorder until they are guided by public welfare. The erstwhile Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) is one example that explains how a law can ruin lives. The then government in J&K was keen to create an example by taking lead in implementing it. By the time the law was rolled back by the UPA regime, hundreds of families had landed in unimaginable situations. The first victim of the law was acquitted recently as the case failed to stand scrutiny in court of law. The very first case proved to be an instance of abuse of power by the police.
Under a law that was aimed at preventing timber smuggling, it is the detained who has to prove his innocence! It simply means that if government slaps charges of timber smuggling on anybody, he can go in as long as he does not get a bail and hunt the evidence to prove otherwise.
Can Kashmir hope for a lawmaking that has enough room to accommodate the basic human requirements? Is it possible in 21century?
