The nation’s attention has once again riveted on Bangalore. Earlier, it there was a sense of alarm with Kafeel and Sabeels’ involvement in the botched terror attacks. This time around, there was an air of celebration. And it was justifiably so, for Dr Mohammed Haneef, the Bangalore doctor working in Brisbane under Queensland Health Service, had been acquitted of all charges of association with terror groups. But surely, celebration was not only for Dr Haneef and his immediate family and friends,  but for all those who believe in liberal and secular values and the “rule of law.”
Haneef was arrested in Australia by the police for his alleged connection with the terror attacks in UK. It was not surprising John Howard’s Australia was a core member of the “coalition of the willing” which was enthusiastically carrying out the “global war on terror.” But the familiar sequence suffered a jolt as soon as the legal team defending Haneef started raising questions on the grounds of investigations.
On hind-sight, it appeared that the Australian Federal Police charged the doctor with “providing support to a terrorist group” in connection with the “terror plots” merely on his act of provision of the SIM card for the use of the UK terror group. The defence legal team of Peter Russo and Barrister Stephen Keim marshalled not only their legal skills but also innovated. Countering the selective leakage of the interview that the investigators had with the accused, which is so familiar with agencies in India as well, the AFP tried to influence public opinion and prejudice the judicial scrutiny.
But it was not just the legal defence that raised extraordinary levels of attention on the Haneef case in Australia. The civil society movement came out in full strength raising questions on the very nature of Haneef’s detention. The Australian Law Council and its president Tim Bugg pointed out that the course of the investigation was leading to indefinite detention of Haneef under a guise.
 Bugg pointed out that this has now brought out to the fore a system which has “simply introduced indefinite detention by stealth.” The media was also up in arms. The leading newspaper of the nation The Sydney Morning Herald in its editorial titled “Hapless case of Mohammed Haneef” characterised the case as a “shambles.” Advising the government not to “cry wolf on national security,” it observed that “suspicion breeds suspicion, and increasingly, the general public smells a rat.”
It is ultimately the civil society and the legal institution in Australia that has to its credit achieved the extreme challenge of salvaging Dr Haneef and his honour. The challenge was daunting with not only the Howard government, but also the major opposition – the Labour Party displaying a convergence of approach in “fighting terror.”
 The Australian new terror law of 2004 was one more of those new generation laws which were enacted by many Parliaments fashioned along the US Patriot Act. Contrast this to our own situation where the stiff opposition by most of the parties which are now part of the UPA and the Left, the POTA was actually defeated in the Upper House. It is that battle which has now ultimately led to the scrapping of POTA.
Haneef’s case once again shows the dangers of draconian laws which tends to invert the time-tested principle of jurisprudence that “an accused will be deemed innocent, till proven guilty.” That the AFP had to openly admit in the court that there was a “mistake” proves this. Even their earlier contention that Haneef’s involvement was more of recklessness than prompted by any intention could not be sustained is a further proof of the misplaced premise of global war on terror.
 Terror cannot be fought by suspending human rights. That the Australian government has not learned a proper lesson is clear from the refusal of the Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to reverse his earlier decision to revoke Haneef’s visa even though the court granted a bail.
Actually, it is hard for people with a mindset to face a reality which rebuffs their beliefs. The Huntington-inspired obnoxious ideas of stereotyping and racial profiling have set their roots so deep that people like Kevin Andrews find it difficult to accept. In this he shares the same traits we found in our own L K Advani and Arun Jaitley. Iftikar Gilani, the Kashmiri journalist, had to spend seven months in jail being the victim of similar mindset.
But the Haneef case is a watershed. Dr Haneef and more importantly his wife – Firdous appear as symbols of dignity and righteousness. And for a change, the mainstream media in India has dealt the issue with sensitivity, understanding and empathy. The Indian government also acted admirably. They raised the question of ensuring Haneef's right to a fair trial with their Australian counterparts. 
So, it is indeed celebration time. Dr Haneef holed up in the confinement of a solitary cell in Brisbane prison and his subsequent triumphant return to Bangalore to a hero’s welcome are indeed, endearing images of the new times. Terror has to be fought by respecting the rule of law, that is the message sinking in. Happily, the mainstream media has for once understood it.
(The writer is a member of CPM’s Central Secretariat.)