The Mohammed Haneef case sets a good precedent

Much to the surprise, and a sense of justice, of Mohammed Haneef, the Australian government has made amends for its serious error in detaining the Indian doctor as a terror suspect in 2007 by agreeing to pay compensation and closing the case.

Haneef was linked to the Glasgow terror bombings. Australia has garnered the reputation of harbouring racist prejudice, both at the official and societal levels. This gesture should help in partly restoring its credibility as a liberal and open country, which it is in more ways than one. While the amount that the Australian government will pay Haneef remains confidential as per the settlement between the two, news reports say it is in the region of $1 million (about Rs4.5 crore).

No one will deny that terrorism has to be fought vigorously. But in the process of doing so, innocent persons, particularly Muslims, are detained without reason, often for days on end. It is to be hoped that after Haneef’s case, officials in Australia and around the world, will be more civil while  dealing with mere suspects. If there are reasons for suspicion, the person can be questioned but he or she cannot be deprived of basic rights that every person is entitled to under the law.

The Australian gesture in Haneef’s case should serve a precedent in other countries, including India. The Indian government and citizens should not feel vindicated by the honourable discharge and compensation

Haneef got from Australia. The government should adapt a similar approach to Muslims and others that the security agencies regularly arrest on suspicion of terror links. If the suspicion turns out to be unfounded, then it is but fair that the authorities should make due amends in the form of apology and compensation.

This has been done in the case of the Muslim youth who were arrested and tortured by the police in Hyderabad after the Mecca Masjid bomb blast and the police firing that ensued in the clash that followed. The Bhaskar Rao commission had exonerated and discharged the youth. But this was a lone example and it has gone unnoticed. An appeal has now been filed for compensation.