 |
||
|
||
|
||
Author: Dr. Indulata Das
Publication: Organiser
Date: December 17, 2006
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=161&page=5
A look into Indian tradition of justice and punishment
Crime and punishment have been matters of grave concern in the country. It causes concern when criminals, whom hundreds have witnessed committing severe crime like murder, are acquitted in the court of law. It causes concern when leaders in a house pass unanimous resolution for freeing a person accused of heinous crime like bomb blasts in public places in which several people die. It causes concern when organisations in the name of human rights stand up to support rogues. It causes concern when brouhahas are raised against capital punishment, no matter how serious the crime might be.
India is the only country where politicians plead for the life of a terrorist who works against the interest of the country. Therefore death sentence to Afzal has shamelessly triggered a debate in the country. Some openly advocate the acquittal of the convict while some intelligently do the same in a round-about way. Some say that they are not against punishment but against death sentence in general. "Man is not supposed to take the life of another man since he cannot create a life," they argue. Some say, "Death sentence is against the will of God. If a tooth is extracted for a tooth, an eye is gouged out for an eye then there will be no tooth or eye left in the world." Some go to the extent of calling capital punishment a state-sponsored murder.
While formulating views on the subject, it is relevant and desirable to look into the Indian tradition of punishment and justice.
Punishment or danda in Indian tradition is another name for Dharma or righteousness. "It was Dharma," says Yajnavalkya Smriti, which was given the shape of danda (punishment) by creator Bramha . Devi Bhagavata says, "People would not stick to the right path if there is no punishment"
The creation of a ruler (king), according to Manu, is meant to punish the rogues so that innocents are protected from their clutches. The king is conferred with the appropriate appellation dandadhara (holder of punishment) because awarding punishment to scoundrels is his foremost duty.
According to Kautilya, if punishment is not meted out to the guilty, the fishes' law prevails in the society. Just as bigger fishes devour smaller ones, so also stronger people overpower weaker ones and rob them of their life and property if there is no fear of punishment for doing so.
In fact, there is a hidden demon inside every human being, which has a propensity to do wrong. Arjun refers to this force in the Bhagavadgita when he asks:
(O Krishna, being compelled by whom a man performs sinful work even if he himself doesn't want to do so).
To this Sri Krishna replies: "There is a negative instinct in man which incessantly drives him towards sin. It is a formidable enemy present in every human being"
A constant vigil therefore is unavoidable from inside or from outside to neutralize this trend in men. Where there is no self-control, it has to be controlled from outside. Because man being a social animal this sinful instinct, if not controlled from inside or outside, would prove fatal for others. Manu rightly says, "If the king doesn't remain ever alert in punishing the guilty, the stronger people would roast the weaker ones like fishes"
Danda or punishment, therefore, is the ever-vigilant guard of the society. It remains awake so that innocents can have a peaceful sleep
Kautilya rightly observes, "It is punishment and punishment only which has the power to protect this world".
Since punishment is so vital an instrument to set the society in order, Indian tradition is very particular about its careful execution. Punishment is meant for the guilty not for the innocent. In fact, the culprit earns his own punishment according to the crime he commits. Therefore, punishment has to be proportionate to the offence committed. If it is severe in proportion to the offence, it creates repulsion and anger towards the system. If it is light in comparison to the crime, it acts like an encouragement to the criminals and citizens lose faith in the administration.
Indian tradition believes that punishment has to be impartial always. The culprit's status or influence in the society or his relation with the influential people or even with the ruler has nothing to do with the kind or quantum of penalty he deserves. The ruler is bound to punish equally for equal crimes no matter if the culprit is his enemy or his own son.
Nobody in Indian tradition is above law. The ruler has no discretion in deciding, enhancing, reducing, minimizing or pardoning a punishment. While meting out a punishment, the authority is bound by two limitations. It cannot punish an innocent and at the same time cannot spare a guilty-
(If the king punishes an innocent or pardons a guilty, he earns bad name in the world and goes to hell after death.)
In fact, the death of a wicked is always welcomed by the Indian tradition. It is said in the Vishnupurana-
(If many innocents are benefited by the death of one wicked, killing such a person is a sacred act.)
The Bhagavata, even if a scripture of devotion and spiritual love, goes one step further and asserts that crushing the wicked ensures the welfare of good people.
In fact, punishment and justice are two sides of the same coin. Where there is no punishment there is no justice.
It is quite misleading to say that death sentences are against the will of God. Had it been so He (God) would not have assumed so many incarnations to kill wicked people like Ravana, Kamsa, Sisupala, Hiranyakashyap and the likes to save innocent souls.
Indian tradition believes that non-violence is the greatest virtue. But that non-violence is meant for innocents, not for criminals. Rishis of ancient India who were great votaries of non-violence used to take the help of warriors in eliminating demons who were damaging benevolent yajnas and killing innocents. Non-violence towards people like Afzal means violence towards thousands of innocents.
It is true that if a tooth is not extracted for a tooth or an eye is not taken out for an eye, there will be many teeth and many eyes left in the world. But those teeth and those eyes would be the eyes and teeth of killers, not of innocents, because there will be no innocent left in the world if the killers are left unbridled.
|
||
|
||
|
||