 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we're talking about a crucial issue of the National Investigative Agency. So yesterday in the parliament, in the upper house, the Rajya Sabha as well, the bill has been passed without any contestation. And we have with us Gautam Navlaka. Thank you, Gautam, for joining us. And over the last few months, there is a lot of furor and a lot of hue and cry about national security. It has become a very important political pitch. Elections were contested on this. And the BJP is very actively in a sense pushing for these changes that have happened. And Amit Shah as well, yesterday he has made very strong statements about the NIA. So what kind of, like currently in this atmosphere, what do you make of the statements? What has he said? And what is, what should be the key message that we should understand from this? This government is committed to pursuing cases against those that it considers, one should lay emphasis on that, that the BJP considers as terrorists and therefore strengthening the laws as they believe, empowering the investigating and the investigating agencies, primarily the National Investigating Agency, as well as the prosecutors of NIA, which is going to make the life of accused who fall into the trap even more difficult as it is with anti-terror laws that we have, the rights and whatever little protection that they, you know, and accused have is provided by a number of procedures, which are part of the Indian Penal Code. It's pretty apparent that it's the powers of the investigating and prosecutorial agencies, which is increasing at the expense of the rights of an ordinary citizen. Absolutely. And so Amit Shah, yesterday, he's been saying that there were no, there was not much evidence in the Samjhautab last case. And recently, all the accused were also acquitted. And they're also saying that the linking of Hinduism with the acts of terror has been political vendetta by the UPA government. Well, there's too much, but a lot of politicking in the statements that the new Home Minister Amit Shah has made on a variety of issues and NIA and UAP are no exception. And he's also very, it's what is problematic is that they are all politicians and all ministers are little careful in sharing all the information and data. But in his case, I think it surpasses even those. For instance, he made it a point that POTA was never misused. There's not a single instance, which is not true. We know of cases. I mean, I recollect from my memory a case from Jharkhand where more than 28 people amongst them, there were women and children who had been picked up and POTA had been invoked against them. It's only because there were a lot of Cuban Kai and public protests that the government had to back down. As far as Samjhotha goes, Samjhotha is a very interesting case. Nobody had thought of, I mean, before Heman Karkare's uncovering of the of the of the Hindutva plot in in Malagaum Blast of 2006, 2008, if my memory serves me right, until then, investigative agency is never, never, I mean, the only leads they would chase would be of Lashkare, Taiba, ISI and Simi. But coming back to Samjhotha, Samjhotha, when the case began, automatically, they were looking at Lashkare Taiba's hand. And it took, it was two or three years before when they had run out of any, I mean, it was leading nowhere. They had arrested a lot of people, but the investigators investigations were leaving, leading nowhere. And that was the time that the Hindutva angle came up, that the NIA started looking into Samjhotha of fresh. So there was a time lag between the original crime, which took place in 2007. And by the time NIA got into the picture, a gap of about three years, by which time the crime scene, the leads, the evidence had already weakened, despite that, they managed to file chart sheet. Now the interesting thing about the chart sheet and what the judgment says is the fact that, you know, it's impossible that any chart sheet would be filed by, without being looked at by the law officers, by the prosecutors. Now, if the chart sheet filed and claimed that they had sufficient evidence, they had witnesses, they had solid electronic evidence, et cetera, et cetera, CCTV, camera footage, et cetera, from old daily railway stations from the Samjhotha train, used to depart and arrive, things like that, or records of the hostile stays and things like that, or the make of the bomb, and from that, seeing the link between this bomb and the other bombs that had been discovered in other Hindutva cases. Now, miraculously, when the trial started after 2013, and especially during the previous, in the last five years of Narendra Modi government one, miraculously, electronic evidence was never produced, CCTV, camera footage it claimed was never existed. Now, how is it possible for law officers of NIA to have overlooked all this, and to have proved the filing of the chart sheet before the NIA court? It's impossible, unless they are so bad at their job that they allowed such a weak chart sheet to be filed, and to pursue then trial under that. So, there are a lot of mysterious things that have happened, and we know from NIA's conduct, in the case, I mean from, if you're Rohini, I forget her name, I mean the prosecute, NIA prosecutor who in 2015 revealed that she was coming under pressure from her bosses to take it easy, and not to oppose very strongly, bail being granted to some of the Hindutva accused. And then subsequent revelations that have also come made it very clear that NIA's role is not as, they're not as guilt free as it is being made to appear. And at this juncture of sorts, there are being extra powers are being given to the agency, and it is all being done in the name of strengthening national security. So, what are these changes that are being made, and what are the kind of implications that we can expect? Well, some of the number of, you know, when NIA act, if you go to the NIA act, it lays down which are the schedule acts where NIA can intervene, okay, and take up the cases. This has been expanded. So, the number of issues from, in fact, now they can even look into cases of explosives and substance act, although there is a separate act for that, but NIA can look into those cases also. But four major areas of changes quite apart from that is, one is that until now NIA had had powers, did not have same powers as police officers across the country in terms of investigating cases and all. Now they are being brought at par. In fact, in NIA's case, now it was earlier mentioned that only a deputy superintendent of police would investigate such cases. Now they have lowered that threshold and they made it possible for an inspector of NIA to also investigate the cases. Secondly, the central government now has power to set up sessions court or designate various sessions court on its own to as special NIA court to hear NIA cases, which was not there earlier. In fact, you required the concurrence of the state of the high court of that particular state to designate that. So, there was an element of some, some what could say some protection, some insurance against the central government acting arbitrarily on its own. Then there is the most remarkable of course is that NIA now has powers to investigate cases outside India. So, these are broadly four areas where NIA's powers have been enhanced. But it is if you look at the NIA act and the gradual manner in which its powers have been, there has been incremental growth in their powers. It makes it very clear that NIA now is the preferred investigative agency for the central government. Now the CBI has been reduced to a joke. NIA has been, is rising as the new star on the horizon. But the most, the most dangerous thing with these changes is not so much in terms of mere empowerment of these agencies or amendments in its charter. It is in the context in which we are operating. Please understand in a country of our size to declare on the floor of the parliament virtually that where this seems to be the norm that elements, I mean in this country today we would say that if there is any terror that faces it and it is across the country, it is a terror unleashed by the lynch mobs and Gaurakshaks. That is the living reality today. The number of cases, yes there is a fear of ISIS and Al Qaeda entering but there is no incident that has taken place in India so far. Whereas in the last five years you have had any number of cases where people have been terrorized and then that's the policy also. That will never get covered by any of the anti-terror laws. Very simply why? Because the manner in which terrorism is described and defined under these laws, it, it inherently carries a bias because any crime can get designated as a terrorist crime if the central government or the government, state government or the police believe that it threatens the unity and integrity of the nation. So if you go and murder but if it can be linked to unity and integrity then it becomes a terror crime so it doesn't remain a homicide. Now in the case of Hindutva you'll find it invariably now that it's taken for granted that they never threatened the unity and integrity of the nation because they are Hindus. That's the dangerous point because it is not understood. It's not accepted, acknowledged that actually creating divisions in the society and working to terrorize say minorities or other more vulnerable and marginal section threatens the unity and integrity if not far more than other instances of crime but at least at par with those crimes if not less, if not more. My point is that if Amit Shah who made it so clear on the floor of the parliament and he claimed and boasted that the NIA and his government will not allow it to be misused, the point is the misuse begins from the very understanding of what is terrorism, what is how do you define it, how do you define Hindutva, how do you define and differentiate between Hinduism and Hindutva, what is the great danger that poses us on an everyday basis in terms of lynch mobs and Gaurakshaks who are running amok in this country. They are not recognized as terrorists despite the fact that they cause terror and the aim is and the objective is to terrorize either the entire population or a section of the population. So it could be minorities or it could be a whole lot of other people across the countries who come, I mean it could be farmers, it could be anyone. Now that doesn't get recognized and that's the unfortunate reality. So you may have very good investigators and officers working in NIA, very competent and there is no doubt that they would be. But the point is if the law is construed in such a way and the context within which this law operates today is so tilted against minorities, political dissidents and other vulnerable and marginal people then it's obvious that it would work in a manner which would be prejudicial to the interest of large mass of people in this country. It is not something which will inspire confidence or trust in the ability of NIA to come out with scientifically you know more scientific and rigorous investigation and a solid case with evidence etc. It won't inspire in confidence in their ability to deliver justice to everyone. We end this interview. We hope that we've been able to explain to our viewers more about the inherent contradictions in this bill. Thank you so much for watching. Thank you for your insights. Thank you.