Opposition to Capital Punishment .... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard / August 02, 2015

Opposition to Capital Punishment Should Not be a Matter of Opportunism

 

Conviction has become a matter of convenience for India’s rising numbers of Argumentative Ill-liberals. They invoke ideologically tenuous tenets whenever it is expedient. For the past few weeks in the bombastic build-up to Yakub Memon’s execution, myriad ersatz ideologues awoke from their self-serving stupor to proclaim their opposition to the death penalty. Indeed, some of them do have a credible record as campaigners against capital punishment. But there are many opportunists who sensed a bright opportunity to lure the limelight in the competitive world of opinion operators by joining the chorus. Last week’s decibel-driven debate on whether the gallows are a necessary deliverer for justice or not was seen by many as an attempt to prevent the hanging of Memon who was, by his own admission, associated with the macabre murders of over 250 innocents, including numerous Muslims. Even an erudite and articulate intellectual-turned politician like Congress MP Shashi Tharoor wasn’t gauging the sensitivity of the somber occasion when he tweeted, “Saddened by news that our government has hanged a human being. State-sponsored killing diminishes us all by reducing us to murderers too.” Coming as it did from a scholar like Tharoor, his social media post invited the ire of what the Ill-liberals call ‘Bhakts’. Terming the implementation of a verdict delivered and endorsed by the Supreme Court as state-sponsored killing, Tharoor denigrated the credibility of the Indian judicial system, which spent a record number of days, months and years deliberating the issue of hanging a man who had savaged the soul of India. Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justice Dipak Misra did stellar service to the judiciary by sitting late till dawn to hear the same arguments on Memon’s clemency petition all over again only to let the world know that the Indian judicial process may be slow sometimes, but is impeccably unimpeachable in its verdicts.

Tharoor’s wasn’t the lone litany in narrative of lament. Numerous heroes and zeroes from Bollywood and politics voiced the same concerns. But a genuine question that deserves merit is about the timing of their rant against the death penalty. Why do the Ill-Liberals froth at the mouth when an Afzal Guru or a Yakub Memon is hanged for their unpardonable crimes against the country and its unity? Why did they not raise their voices when hundreds of innocent Kashmiri Pandits were either killed or exiled from their homeland by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists? Why were they silent when the diabolically depraved 39-year-old Dhananjoy Chatterjee was sent to the gallows for raping and killing a minor girl? Chatterjee was hanged at sunrise at the Alipore Central Jail in Kolkata where he had spent the last 13 years in solitary confinement. The 84-year-old hangman Nata Mullick, assisted by his 21-year-old grandson, Prabhat, carried out the execution. It is ironical that the CPI(M), which took the lead in screaming bloody murder against Memon’s hanging was also the most vociferous supporter of Chatterjee being sent to the scaffold. Then West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and Left partner RSP had gone to the extent of asking the President to reject Chatterjee’s mercy petition. To prevent Memon’s hanging, however, they went knocking on all doors. Naturally, their sworn foe TMC opposed this ardor. But both came on the same page to protest sending Memon to the gibbet. When Afzal Guru was to be hanged for his role in the 2001 Parliament attacks, the professional pardonists argued fiercely that they were not supporting him, but were instead antagonistic towards the very principle of capital punishment. If this is the case, why aren’t the Ill-Liberals moving the legislatures to delete it from the statuette book? How many states ruled by the Left or supported by Ill-Liberals have adopted resolutions on this matter? How many of them have disrupted Parliament for saving the several convicts who are likely to meet their maker in the near future? There has never been either consistency or willingness on their part to take their cause to its logical end. Is it because their desires convert into action only when the name and religion of a convict facing the noose suits their agenda? Records of parliamentary proceedings proves that death penalty hasn’t been a favourite subject of rhetoric for those who are now straining their vocal chords on TV and writing caustic columns. It was shocking to see opinion-makers, including some in the media, discussing the merit of Memon’s punishment rather than the damage he caused to communal harmony of his own community. A few over-enthusiastic columnists crossed the line by even questioning the wisdom of a national icon like Pranab Mukherjee, forgetting the fact that the President, whether a vegetarian or not, is bound by the government’s final decision.

Memon was also used by Ill-Liberals as a viral weapon to polarise Indian society. As the Bihar elections draw near, most political parties and their maniacal megaphones are looking for an opportunity to garner sectarian support. For them, a serious observation and fear expressed by a governor is seized upon as a chance to politicise a ominous issue. Tripura Governor Tathagata Roy’s tweet caused a huge uproar among Ill-liberal contrarians. He had typed, “Intelligence shd keep a tab on all (expt relatives & close friends) who assembled bfr Yakub Memon’s corpse. Many are potential terrorists.” A few minutes later, he tweeted again, “Governors ought to be concerned abt security of state. Intelligence keeping tab on Yakub’s mourners is preventing terror. Better than cure.” Predictably he was targeted left, right and centre by the Left and their camp followers. Perhaps they conveniently forgot that every Governor sends a fortnightly report to the President about myriad issues, including law and order. Roy, however, had the last laugh when a report on Memon’s burial published in the Indian Express, which was seen as the apocalyptic future that lies in store for India. In a jointly written story by three astute, hard-working reporters namely Kavitha Iyer, Tabassum Barnagarwala and Aamir Khan, one of the mourners Tariq Sheikh told them, “Blast victims are calling it justice. But look at the Bada Kabristan, and tell me if this looks like closure, or the start of something.” Some may claim Sheikh has proved the governor right while others may call it the disquiet of a wounded community. The assassins of humanity cannot be allowed to live to be resurrected as archangels of death. Getting them to suffer the same fate they brought to others is the real test of conviction in the code of justice.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Judiciary above Suspicion..............Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ July 26, 2015

Judiciary Above Suspicion in Pronouncing Justice, Irrespective of Blood Colour of Criminals

Yakub Memon is not a religion. It’s a proper noun like other names, such as Kehar Singh who was hanged for the assassination of Indira Gandhi, and Renuka Shinde and sister Seema Gavit who are on death row for murdering five children. All of them belong to different faiths and communities. But they share one thing in common. All have committed the rarest of rare crimes and were sentenced to go to the gallows. Yet, some ill-liberals have chosen to splash communal paint on the verdicts as if some names are above the law while the owners of some others must face the noose if they have taken the lives of others. Unfortunately, such insensitive remarks are being raised by a couple of minority community leaders who forget that it is the Indian judiciary that has always corrected illegal distortions in its own system. Ever since the Supreme Court rejected Memon’s clemency petitions, the knives are out to destroy its credibility. Shamelessly spraying criminal justice with communal hues, a few self-appointed leaders belonging to India’s peace-loving Muslim community are questioning the independence of the judiciary. They choose to forget that it has taken over 22 years for the prosecuting agencies to get justice for the 257 innocents who were massacred in the 1993 Mumbai blasts. Starting from the trial court all the way to the apex court, Memon, helped by his advocates and ill-liberal accomplices, was given enough fair opportunities to prove his innocence. It is only in India that the judiciary and the executive take such time-consuming and vigorous scrutiny of each and every piece of evidence at multiple levels. Many times, the prosecution and the judiciary have been at the receiving end of vituperative vocabulary for unnecessarily delaying the delivery of criminal justice. It is quite possible that a section of the judiciary may have erred in some cases, but their intent has never been malicious or prejudiced.

Now, the Indian judiciary is being accused of a communal bias. It is stupendously shocking to note the rising tendency among conscience-peddlers to attack or support court verdicts selectively. Obstreperous social activists are sitting in judgment to decide the merit of judicial verdicts. Judges are expected to deliver sentences to suit the convictions of these amoral advocates of expedience, and not by the law book. If a verdict is against their political ideology or personal preferences they take to the streets, condemning it as unsound and illogical. For them, Yakub’s death sentence is not a correct interpretation of evidence. They conveniently forget that for one Yakub Memon, there are more than a hundred Pulaham Rama Raos, Kattar Singhs, Gurdeep Singhs, Babbanna Patils and Mukul Behari Lals who have been hanged during the past 70 years. Why don’t the liberal lamenters find fault with the judiciary for singling out Hindus for capital punishment? Of the 700-odd criminals hanged since Independence, not more than 65 are Muslims. In a majority-minority state like Jammu and Kashmir, not a single Muslim has ever been hanged. This doesn’t mean the local judiciary has spared criminals with any particular religious tag. In fact, it has considered each case on its merit and not by the name of the accused. For the past few months, even heinous crimes like rapes have acquired political and religious pigmentation. While rape and abduction cases in states like West Bengal are either ignored or underplayed by the ill-liberals, the spotlight is directed on the ones occurring in states run by NDA governments. From their commentaries on social media, it can be gleaned that the colour of Yakub’s blood is different from that of Sharma, Yadav, Reddy, Jacob, Singh and Tomar.

It is only the Indian judiciary, which keeps India’s inclusive character intact. The increase in opinionated attacks on the justice system is aimed at maiming the secular character of our Constitution. In the past, the judiciary has faced criticism for catering to class interests, but has rarely been accused of a communal bias. The idea behind questioning verdicts against terrorists like Yakub, Afzal Guru and Kasab smacks of a conspiracy to divide not only political parties but also the judiciary along communal lines. The latter has usually chosen the path of leniency or mild censure instead of taking penal action against even those who have made personal accusations against the integrity of senior judges. But, what is most dangerous for a vibrant and tolerant democracy like India is the rising agitational anarchy in the name of secularism which aims to deliberately link judicial pronouncements with vote banks.

It is usual for leaders of various political parties to take up cudgels on behalf of criminals belonging to a particular community in order to mobilise votes. Illogical arguments are bandied to condemn judicial decisions. For example, Yakub’s supporters are saying that while he is likely to be hanged, those behind other riots have been spared, or are treated with kid gloves. Some of the Memonites have even gone to ridiculous lengths to debate whether Yakub was actually arrested or whether he surrendered himself—as if this differentiation would atone for the loss of human lives.

It is only in India that freedom of expression is turned into an excuse to diminish the credibility of institutions. Since the Indian judiciary has stood the test of difficult times and stood steadfast with total independence, it acts as the only check on anarchist and undemocratic forces. It has judiciously applied the best standards of scrutiny on every criminal, irrespective of whether he or she was a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim or from any other religion. Many a time, the judiciary has faced threats to its independence from the executive and the political establishment. Now, a formidable coalition of ill-liberals, communalists, internationalists and atheists are trying to intimidate it. Since there is no section in any law book that provides a palette of different colours for blood, the Indian judiciary is being pressured to pick one and deliver justice going by the colour of the blood of a criminal or a terrorist. Fortunately, in the Indian judiciary, justice is not blind.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla