On Diwali eve this year, security personnel gunned down two men, in the basement of the crowded Ansal Plaza shopping mall in New Delhi. The special cell involved in the operation claimed that it was a terrorist encounter. The operation was so swift that business continued as usual just minutes after the suspected terrorists were killed. No wonder the incident has turned into a controversy regarding the authenticity of the encounter. A Delhi based doctor has stated that he is an eyewitness to the incident and according to his account, police personnel in plainclothes fired indiscriminately on the two unarmed men. The interference by the NHRC based on a complaint filed by Member of Parliament Kuldip Nayar and journalist Praful Bidwai has further complicated this matter. As terrorism is an accepted menace to the world, the questions raised by this incident place the democratic societies in a critical dilemma. 

  In a modern democratic state the idea of human rights, defining the fundamental moral limits of individual and collective behaviour, is interwoven with the legal framework. The recent upsurge of terrorist activities by non-state, transnational actors for achieving political ends has initiated a new debate about the primacy of human rights and the role of security forces. Here the questions of striking a balance between new methods to fight against terrorism and protecting human rights has become delicate. The issues are:   

• Whether the legal system should be strengthened with special laws against terrorist activities?

• If special laws are made then what are the safeguards to ensure that these laws are not misused?

• How to make the security forces accountable in their anti-terrorists operations?

  Regarding the Ansal Plaza incident a section of society believes that what the police did is right. According to this perspective national security is of prime importance, and we cannot pamper terrorists in the name of Human Rights, which they do not follow. Hence, to prevent terrorism the legal measures should be strengthened and security forces provided with necessary safeguards. The intervention by the National Human Rights Commission in anti-terrorist operations is criticized on the grounds that the human rights of citizens are more important than those of the terrorists. This kind of intervention is seen as demoralising for the police forces. On the other hand it is also seen as morale boosting for the terrorists. The media and human rights organisations are seen as agents of the terrorists. 

  It is beyond doubt that terrorism is an act negating civilized life, and the implementation of measures to prevent and deter terrorism are essential and urgent. The media and human rights organisations should act responsibly, instead of going out for publicity. But the root causes of terrorism should not be missed. Terrorism is not only a law and order and security related problem. Most terrorists are born out of poor governance and atrocities by the security forces. If only terrorism is addressed with stringent security measures, this will aggravate the problem instead of controlling it.

  The following suggestions can be considered as a way out for democratic societies in this difficult situation:

• Firm legal measures should go hand in hand with addressing the root causes of terrorism such as misgovernance, inequalities, politicisation of security, and related issues. These legal measures should be clear and specific with adequate safeguards. A provision for periodical reviews is also necessary for such laws.

• Terrorism being a civil and not military problem, the role of armed forces should be minimal. Special Forces, trained physically and mentally to deal with terrorists, are a better option for anti-terrorist operations. The security forces, especially police forces, should be made accountable for their actions. Severe but departmental prosecution can be considered for any misuse of legal powers by police personnel. This will make the police forces more accountable without the fear of demoralizing them. 

• The media should evolve a code of conduct about reporting terrorist strikes. The print media in India has decided incidentally not to mention the specific community concerned in cases of communal violence. In their competition for broadcasting sensational news they should not glorify the acts of terror or create fear in the people.

  Terrorism is here to stay for decades, which is a harsh reality. Democratic societies would confront with severe dilemmas in their fight against terrorism. As this fight is designed to protect fundamental democratic values, the protection of human rights must be seen as an integral part of the war against terrorism, and not as an obstacle to it.