When the whole world is talking about Pakistan’s flip-flop on the issue of nailing and nabbing the terrorists, the best India could have done is stated a clear position and spoken in one voice. Reservations, if any could have been expressed in private to the concerned authority, after all, who was stopping a senior member of the major party in ruling coalition. A politician of his experience cannot say that he does not know when, how and whom to convey the message. Is this a mere slip of tongue? If yes, then perhaps, it’s high time to give younger leaders the opportunity to take control of his position and he should retire from politics citing weak mental condition.

People like Antulay and company are no less than the black sheep within our polity. He has successfully given Karkare’s martyrdom colour of communalism. Is resignation enough for such a stupid remark? Well that only seems to be the solution as far as politicians are concerned. What is imperative at this juncture is that the NIA Bill should take care of these remarks and the agency should be given the power to deal with such remarks and carry on the investigations to check the veracity of the claim made by our leaders.

There are enough instances to quote, which demand such type of law. We have seen how the lifting of ban on SIMI has drawn appreciation from certain quarters. Statements like these act as confidence-enhancing boosters for those involved in subversive activities and to some extent legitimises the claims of anti-social and anti-national elements. Though the ban on SIMI was reimposed by the Supreme Court the country is yet to get an explanation from these SIMI sympathisers regarding their remark on welcoming the decision of lifting the ban on SIMI.

We have seen the way Batla House encounter is being used to not only malign the image of the country but also label the entire administration as anti-minority. Can Amar Singh make sure that if those allegedly involved in Batla House shoot-out are proved guilty he will also serve the same quantum of punishment as the convicts? Is there any provision, which can nail those sympathisers who in no way are related to these messiah of terror yet they support them? Can anyone explain the rationale behind providing for legal defence to the alleged terrorist? Why only deter the fundraisers of terrorists and not those who unequivocally support them without letting the investigations to conclude their finding? It is high time we hold our politicians responsible for each and every statement made by them and tell them that in a democracy they definitely owe an explanation for whatever they say to the whole nation, be it Antulay or any other politician.