Unwarranted and controversial clauses in MPISA have overshadowed all the good it could have done by securing lives against terror attacks
Salman Khan fans may rejoice as the Dabangg franchise will continue and they will not be subjected to watching stone-faced cop characters that were played by yesteryear’s Iftekhar and Jagdish Raj. Ajay Devgn will continue to flex his muscles and crack a joke or two while playing Bajirao Singham. Inspector Daya of the telethriller ‘CID’ will still follow his boss ACP Pradyuman’s familiar command, “Daya, darvaaza tod do.”
Such characters could have become a thing of the past, thanks to the proposed draft of Maharashtra Protection of Internal Security Act (MPISA) 2016, which includes a provision that any person who personates a police officer for the purposes of entertainment, will be liable to face police action. Once the law was in place, the police could have interpreted actors playing police characters as interference in their functioning. They could have applied the rule to theatre, which often uses police hawaldar caricatures to entertain the audience.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the actors can continue to don the khaki uniform for their roles. Instead, it is now MPISA that will likely become a thing of the past, in view of the strong opposition to it from civil activists and the Opposition. Several other stringent provisions are under the scanner, following which the state government has decided to discuss the draft law at an all-party meeting before legislating it. Opposition says that the law, if passed, will give police immense powers and will bring about a situation akin to the Emergency.
Not many draft laws have evoked such uproar; usually the Opposition was heard only during debates in the Legislature. So why has this particular draft law landed the BJP government in trouble?
What nailed the Anti-Terrorism Squad and Home Department officials who drafted MPISA, was the covering letter that accompanied it. It was this note, signed by the deputy home secretary, that explained what was in store.
Stating that an assembly of 100 or more persons would need police permission or be treated a punishable offence, the note immediately raised hackles among politicians and activists alike. The home department’s bureaucratic head, KP Bakshi, and BJP spokespersons went all out to defend MPISA, and argued that the figure 100 does not appear anywhere in the draft law itself. But they haven’t been able to explain how the deputy secretary interpreted the draft law that way. Or was the draft Act deliberately left vague, for the benefit of police?
However, the penalty for personating police officers does indeed exist somewhere in the draft’s jargon. Bakshi and Co. should explain why the police department thought of resorting to such an extreme course, instead of simply sensitising the entertainment industry if they really felt so hurt about the ‘bad cop’ image on the silver screen. And if sensitisation is not possible, then the police should simply create a people-friendly image, instead of arming themselves with unwarranted laws.
The deputy secretary’s covering letter also lists several other points that make one shudder, particularly in view of the near absolute powers granted to the police. Now, the covering letter has been withdrawn under the claim that it isn’t part of the draft law. But the damage has already been done.
The BJP government’s intentions are now being increasingly questioned. This time, the fault lies with cops and bureaucrats who thought they could get away with anything. By Bakshi’s admission, the draft law was put online for public scrutiny on the CM’s insistence.
But question remains whether the CM, who also heads the Home department, was briefed on the objectionable clauses — which he couldn’t have approved of if he was in Opposition.
On the other hand, some provisions in MPISA, if implemented in spirit and letter, could have ensured an unprecedented mechanism to prevent loss of lives and property. The best part of the draft is that it makes all of us stakeholders in the state’s internal security.
But this intention of securing lives against terror attacks seems to have taken a backseat because of the controversy. Once again, it is the people who stand to lose.
Dharmendra Jore is political editor, mid-day. He tweets @dharmendrajore. Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
