Congressional Statements

Pallone defends India's Terrorist Ordinance against Attack from Burton

Press Release
November 5, 2001

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), founder of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, gave the following speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this afternoon in response to statements made by U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) in October regarding India's new Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance.

Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about recent statements made by one of my colleagues, Rep. Dan Burton, about India. We will soon be voting on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. We will be providing very limited aid to India, the world's largest democracy and our strong friend in the politically unstable South Asia region. Rep. Burton recently made critical statements to the press about India in an effort to persuade Members to not provide aid to India, or to resume sanctions against India.

He specifically referenced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), and stated that it was the most repressive law that India has ever considered.

For the past 50 years, India has been forced to deal with severe cross-border terrorism in Kashmir and an upsurge of terrorist attacks throughout their nation. Since the September 11th attacks here in the U.S., India has experienced heightened terrorism in Kashmir and quite frankly, I've been reading about murders of innocent Kashmiris by Islamic militants on nearly a daily basis. Just this morning, I read about two new incidents that occurred yesterday. Suspected terrorists shot and killed a judge in Kashmir, along with his friend and two guards. This is the first attack on the judiciary of Jammu & Kashmir state. The other incident was a suicide squad of a Pakistani-based guerrilla group that killed at least five people at an Indian army camp in Kashmir. This latest suicide attack is to be added to a long series of suicide attacks that have killed many innocent Kashmiris.

As a result of violent terrorist attacks against India, the Indian President has issued the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO). POTO would make provisions for Indian law enforcement officials to prevent and deal with terrorist activities. The current criminal justice system in India is not sufficient in prosecuting terrorists and with passage of POTO, India will be provided the necessary law enforcement tools to prevent and effectively deal with terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that Rep. Burton or anyone else should not be able to speak out against POTO if they desire. India is a vibrant democracy with an open political system. Its free press and democratic nature allows all voices and opinions to be heard.

However, I think the criticism is undeserved. I'd like to draw an analogy between what's happening with POTO in India and what's happening with the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (PATRIOT) in the US. This analogy was conveniently overlooked by my colleague from Indiana.

In October this year, the U.S. Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, which gave law enforcement officials more tools to detect, apprehend and prosecute terrorists. In the aftermath of September 11th, Congress was required to act quickly to pass measures to address the immediate and long-term security, recovery and financial needs of the country.

There was controversy, and there still remains criticism, of the PATRIOT bill from both the right and left. Members protested that it would grant the government too much power and endanger civil liberties. However, the administration called for immediate action and while moving the bill through Congress, several provisions were either dropped or modified and a bill did pass.

From what I understand, the Indian Parliament is planning on going through a similar process of modifying some provisions in the ordinance. It is likely that the bill will pass and be enacted into law, thereby affording Indian officials the authority to deal with the growing terrorist threats facing India that the normal criminal justice system couldn't address sufficiently.

Unusual circumstances in the US called for these types of measures, and the same holds true for India. A true parallel can be drawn here for the two largest, most vibrant democracies in the world. Unfortunately, both of these countries are now combating terrorism.

Rep. Burton is incorrect in accusing India of being repressive by enacting this law. His strategy to bash India is clear in its pattern, and it is no surprise that these types of statements come at a time when we are providing aid to India. There is no justification for ending the limited aid that we provide to India and there is no rhyme or reason to putting back in place the sanctions against India that should have been lifted long ago. Rep. Burton's efforts to implement such things are simply wrong.