Harsh acts take away people's right of defence in an open court of law, a normal recourse in a democratic structure. Strange as it may sound, India has had one or the other type of preventive detention acts for 48 out of 57 years of independence.

A government can perhaps argue that emergent situations demand emergent remedies. But they have to be emergent, short and quick. When such steps go on and on and come to be included even in the constitution, the intention of rulers begins to be doubted. If nothing else, it gives peep into their bent of mind which suggests that they want extra power. Needless to say that the individual will accept compulsions only up to a point, not indefinitely. He may be forced to express himself through violence or militancy.

This is what has happened in Manipur and, to a large extent, in Kashmir. Terrorism may well be a sign of desperation but when driven to the wall, the "committed" see no other way out. A law passed as far back as in 1958 to meet "a piquant situation" at that time has continued for 46 years. People have suffered at its hand to the last family in the two states. A jawan still has the right to search a place on suspicion, to detain anyone without a warrant and to kill with impunity. Comical as it may sound, Article 21 of the constitution guarantees our right to life and personal liberty.

Why has the law with such sweeping powers as the AFSPA continued so long is the question. Obviously, the authorities have got used to untrammeled powers and they want to retain them. A poignant remark by the Manipur Students' Association tells it all: Are our rights merely a gift of the state that can be violated at any time?

Take the attitude of security forces. They pick up woman activist Manorama from her house in Manipur, torture and leave her dead on the roadside with bullet marks on her body. There is yet another case of Miss Sharmila who has been fasting unto death since November 6, 2000. The authorities keep her alive through forced feeding but do not go into the causes why she wants to sacrifice her life.

Secession is probably the biggest crime. But there has been no such demand in Manipur. People's main grievance is that the state has empowered the armed forces to ensure that they do not complain against the excesses committed against them to register their entity. Even the demand for jobs or development is taken as an example of defiance.

Instead of attending to such things, Home Minister Shivraj Patel and Defence Minister Pranab Mukerjee say that the AFSPA will not be withdrawn. It is not an exhibition of authority, but authoritarianism. In this way, the rulers only display their ugly side of power. This type of arrogance had created doubts about the abrogation of POTA. The good news is that the government says it will introduce a bill during the current session of parliament to repeal POTA. Why couldn't it do so through an ordinance when it was included in the common minimum programme (CMP) and when the United Progressive Allinace (UPA) assumed power? The delay only heightened suspicion.

It is a belated reaction but Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha has at least withdrawn the POTA cases against her political opponent Vaiko. New Delhi should have also announced that all cases relating to POTA would lapse once the law is scrapped. However, the official word is that POTA will apply with retrospective effect. In other words, those who commit the "same crime" today will not be touched but those who were responsible for a similar crime yesterday will not be released.

The record of the central government is full of stains. It has continued to pursue the cases of the detainees under TADA which lapsed nine years ago. It is obvious that in the eyes of the authorities, TADA detenues are a dangerous lot. If it is so let the government try them in open courts. It should realise that a rescinded law has no validity and any punishment under it is illegal.

Still more disconcerting is the government's move to reenact certain provisions of POTA. Jaipal Reddy has said on behalf of the government that the new legislation will be enacted to "take care of concerns of internal security." That the innocent will not be touched was his assurance. But this is what the BJP-led government said when it enacted POTA. Its misuse is well known. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi went to the extent of invoking it against the Muslims.

The UPA government which is considered liberal in comparison to the one led by the BJP should have turned a new leaf, a rule without any draconian law. The Congress-led government should realise that the reason why the Left and its different organisations have supported the Manmohan Singh government is the belief that it will not detain dissenters and not chastise those who want to preserve their own entity. The revolt of "insurgents," whether in Manipur or in other parts of the country, is not against India's federal structure but against conformity.

The question is not that of violation of human rights but that of a political system which gives no leeway to those who challenge its outmoded structure. The "insurgents" are, no doubt, different from the rulers socially, culturally and ideologically. But all that they want is to have their own space. They want parivartan (change), something which Jayaprakash Narayan advocated to give the lower half a place under the sun. The upper castes, the landlords and the vested interests do not want this to happen. The authorities support them in their nefarious deeds. This is what the different groups, who are known as the Naxalites, tried to convey when they met at New Delhi a few days ago. The media, for reasons best known to it, ignored the four-hour meeting where some 800 activists from all over the country were present. Their objective was clear: the nation does not have to be ruled through oppressive laws and political subterfuge, even after 57 years of independence.

People cannot be labelled unpatriotic just because they raise the demand for a normal, legal and transparent rule. They too want to participate in the country's development provided the intelligence agencies and the security forces leave them alone and not involve them in one framed-up case or the other. Their fault is they think differently and believe that the policies that New Delhi pursues benefit only a few. A readiness to comprehend such forces is needed, not measures to suppress them.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.