Author: Suhel Seth
Publication: Deccan Chronicle
Date: October 9, 2006
I am a bit alarmed at all the noise, the song and dance that is being made out over a hanging: that too of someone who was found guilty of a crime but is now, in some way, on his way to martyrdom even before he is dead. The logical fallacy is in the manner in which things are being handled. And like every time before this, we as a nation react only after the deed is done.
Let us take a look at the issues: there is a person who is accused of masterminding the terrorist attacks on India's Parliament. He then goes on trial and is finally awarded the death sentence. Now in order to commute the death sentence, every trick in the book is being deployed. Arundhati Roy has already joined the street protests. I am now waiting for Medha Patkar to join, unless of course she is overseas, garnering funds for her next hunger strike; and a charade is conveniently played out in front of all of us. I have no problems with what Arundhati Roy is doing. If she is fighting for a larger cause, which is in effect raising a voice against capital punishment, I am all for it. But to now extend that logic and force a national pardon is downright silly!
Equally astonishing is the logic offered by Ghulam Nabi Azad. His petition to the Prime Minister includes either commuting the sentence or postponing the hanging or else there will be a law and order problem. Not only is Azad being foolish but completely illogical too! Does Azad imply that no terrorists can ever be hung for crimes they commit only because there will be a resultant law and order problem? This is yet another form of urbane and subtle giving-in: everyone cursed Atal Behari Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh for giving in to the Taliban over the hijacked Indian Airlines flight. So how different is this? Besides, consider the signals you are sending out.
You are telling the world we have kangaroo courts that can't even deliver basic justice. Because this is what Afzal's family have been saying: they waited for the verdict to tell the world that they didn't get a fair trial. Nandita Haksar should have raised her voice all along. She didn't. You are also telling the law enforcement agencies that terrorists in this country can get away: one is sitting in Karachi and the others will be in prison, become media celebrities, but never pay for their crimes. You are also sending a signal of ineptness and weakness. I believe if Afzal is spared, it will be good, for I am against capital punishment. My point is that justice cannot be tempered or tampered on the pretext of law and order disruption. This, to my mind, is simply bizarre.
And in all this drama, the country's highest offices are being dragged in without any reason. How do you think the children of those who died in that attack on Parliament must be feeling when they see criminals get away only because our media knows no better? How do you think current members of the Watch and Ward Staff of Parliament must be feeling when they see how justice has been subverted at the altar of clever spin doctoring? In a country where a bomb blast trial takes 13 years, we should be happy that in this case justice has been delivered and delivered pretty quickly.
To now circumvent the process would be suicidal and a big blow to every institution we hold sacred. If Afzal's case re-opens the debate on capital punishment, then it is a fine cause to fight for. But surely you can't let people escape punishment only because of the consequences you believe will occur. If this were the case, you wouldn't need any form of justice, and the bigger the terrorist, the worse the possible fallout. So it would give every political crook a convenient handle to ensure justice is not executed!
The Ghulam Nabi Azads of this world are dangerous leaders and governance in their hands can go awry: for a man who is supposed to be the chief minister of India's most troubled State, he certainly sounds like a shaken schoolboy at the sight of the class bully. Azad must realise that justice must also be seen to be done and he cannot castigate the same judiciary, albeit indirectly, just because he wants to win some political brownie points.
Azad must realise that this case is not about Afzal alone. It is about a system that is willing to capitulate. About a government that is slowly crumbling when it comes to internal security. I have no issues with how this government is doing in the economic domain. But I do worry when I see Shivraj Patil at the Centre and people like Ghulam Nabi Azad in the States.
As for Dr Kalam, he has the time to meet a convicted man's family. I really wonder if he had the time to meet those children who lost their parents in the hands of terrorists that December outside India's Parliament. We are slowly becoming a weak nation, more prone to the shrillness of NGO noise than to simple logic.