Abolish Death Penalty India: Rajiv’s Killers Versus Afzal Guru

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Rajiv’s Killers Versus Afzal Guru

SRINAGAR, WEDNESDAY, 25 RABI-AL-THANI 1435 ; 26 FEBRUARY 2014 CE

- RIYAZ AHMAD

The contrast also compares the two democracies, Tamil Nadu, J&K.

There were two developments that riveted our attention last week. And the mayhem in the state Assembly was not one of them despite the injury to a PDP legislator or the slapping of a marshal by one of the party’s legislators. One, was the commutation of the death sentence of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s killers to the life imprisonment by the Apex Court. And second the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha’s decision to release all the seven of them and the ensuing confrontation with centre. The clash made for a gripping political drama and heady television. But Kashmir was hooked for a different reason.

One, that the killers of a former prime minister of India and a member of the ruling dynasty who were on death row for the past eleven years were granted a due recourse to law and their plea accepted by the court. Second, Tamil Nadu CM dramatically deciding to set them free and setting a three day deadline for the centre to respond.

New Delhi went into a tizzy, objecting to the release. Supreme Court stayed the move but that was not what was important. The important thing was that even the killers of a prime minister of India, if they are not from Kashmir, can expect not only a fairer process of justice but even clemency with a Chief Minister’s support to boot. Contrast this with what happened to Muhammad Afzal Guru who, by Apex Court’s own order had a circumstantial link to the parliament attack. So he had to die to “satisfy the collective consciousness” of India. He was pulled out of the death row queue where he was at around number 30 and sent to gallows without his family getting a wind of it. He was told about the rejection of his mercy petition by the president only an hour before his death. And his mortal remains continue to be withheld from his family.

And all the political class in the state has behaved as if they could do little about it. More so, the Chief Minister whose response has veered from publicly complaining about his advise against hanging being ignored by the centre to being kept in dark about the hanging itself. And ever since CM may have issued statements against the hanging, warned of a fallout in Kashmir and Afzal’s long term iconization for the new generation of Kashmiri youth, even seeking his mortal remains but there has never been an occasion when he has made us confident of his will or ability to do something about it.

Unlike Tamil Nadu government, his government couldn’t get up the courage to pass the resolution on Afzal and nor does his government build a pressure or even make a case for the return of Afzal’s mortal remains. The truth is that behind the CM’s Afzal outrage – honestly felt or politically dictated – there has been a little veiled squeamishness about being too strongly identified with him. But no such defensiveness for Jayalalitha. Not also for Badal, who has BJP as an ally. Rajiv’s and Beant Singh’s killers respectively are not only an opportunity for political posturing and playing to their constituencies but also for some credible action which forces centre to rethink and revise its decision.

The point here is not to fan an already deep sense of victimhood in Kashmir but to highlight a persisting democratic paradox in the state: the inability of the so called democratic representatives to adequately represent, respond or even play to the legitimate grievances and sentiments of their people. True, mainstream politics in the state cannot project the sentiment of Azadi but this was also never expected of them. Majority of the people who vote for them are conscious of this fact. But what they want from them is not only to deliver the good governance but also fight for their interests and rights and take an unambiguous stand when New Delhi seems to have discriminated against the state.

And not only talk about it in no uncertain terms but be seen to act to undo it. But what we get is either apathy, a cryptic silence, may be sometimes a statement or two expressing an opinion or simply a show of silence. If anything, the case of Rajiv’s killers exposes the democracy in the state for what it is always suspected to be – a government by the people but obliged to if not representative of New Delhi.

Source: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2014/Feb/26/rajiv-s-killers-versus-afzal-guru-8.asp [accessed 24 April 2014]

No comments:

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of the 193 countries that retains death penalty. There has always been a few imminent judges who have pronounced compelling verdicts upholding the rights of prisoners on death row. There has been increasing debate in various platforms advocating abolition of death penalty or at least to rethink sentencing policies in India. The Indian government has however always been committed to the retention of the death penalty, irrespective of their political ideology. India has voted against a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) draft resolution on the use of death penalty, saying it goes against the statutory law of the country where an execution is carried out in the "rarest of rare" cases. India retains the death penalty as punishment for a number of crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or a mentally-retarded person and has more recently in 2013 come to include the offence of rape in certain circumstances. Most recently, there is an outrage over child rape and murder.

After observing an unofficial moratorium of 8 years in India, the Indian Government in November 2012 carried out the execution of Ajmal Kasab, convicted in the Mumbai attacks case, without public knowledge. This was followed by the secret execution of Afzal Guru, convicted in the Parliament attack case of 2001, in February 2013, under similar circumstances, without intimating his immediate family or affording a chance of judicial review. In both cases, the executions were carried out under covert operations conducted by the Government immediately upon rejection of their mercy petitions. Before these executions, the last execution to be carried out in India was that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in 2004 who was convicted of rape and murder and which sentence was carried out after he had spent 13 years in solitary confinement. Following this, several mercy petitions of death row convicts have come to be rejected. The fear of execution of such convicts is imminent. Bolstered by the Government's unapologetic conduct and public outcry, especially in recent cases of rape and murder reported in the country, the courts are continuing to hand down death sentences at an alarming rate.

In the recent past, there have been a few empirical studies (mainly four) conducted with prisoners on death row. This has highlighted the situation of prisoners on death row.

(1) Most recently the India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found that fair trial rights and guarantees are reduced to a nullity and seeks to breach the citadel of the collective silence. It further said that Convicts on death row in India belong to groups marginalised along the axes of caste, religion, economic vulnerability and educational deprivation, and their fair trial rights, though a part of the Right to Life guaranteed by the Constitution, are invariably non-existent, a survey of 371 out of the 385 persons living under the death sentence and their families has revealed.

(2) Another study was The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) which was conceived with an aim to document the socio-economic profile of prisoners sentenced to death in India and map their experience within the criminal justice system.

There were two other academic studies that were done conducted by Dr. Reena Mary George –

(3)“Voices of prisoners surviving the death row in India” (2014) done through the University of Vienna under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Christoph Reinprecht (Sociology) and Prof. Dr. Manfred Nowak (Law and Ex-United Nations Rapporteur on Torture). George’s research highlights three salient features, namely: poverty, social exclusion and marginalisation are antecedent to death penalty; death penalty is a constructed account by the state machinery; and prisoners on death row situate dignity higher in the juxtaposition of death and dignity.

(4) Another one “Death Penalty – A Human Rights Perspective” (2009) done through the University of Mumbai under the guidance of Retired Justice Hosbet Suresh. This was a study in Maharashtra with the objectives to firstly study the impact of death penalty on the social, mental, and physical being of the inmate and secondly, to study the perception of opinion leaders on death penalty with reference to human rights. All the above reports are public documents.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics 2015, there are 101 prisoners sentenced to death. The actual figure of sentences originally awarded is much higher considering the death sentences of 49 convicts came to be commuted to life imprisonment in the said period. As of today, almost in 2019, the figures are unknown through government statistics, however, research centres claim this figure to be around 371 convicts. During the 1980s the Supreme Court sought to restrict the use of the death penalty by characterizing it as a punishment reserved only for the “rarest of the rare” cases. The doctrine has not had the desired effect. According to a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Rajindar Sachar: “after the rarest of rare doctrine was introduced in 1980, the Supreme Court confirmed death penalty in 40 per cent of cases in the period 1980-90 while it was 37.7 per cent between 1970 and 1980. For the high courts it rose from 59 per cent in 1970-80 to 65 per cent during 1980-90”. Over the past two decades the death penalty has been extended to include more crimes and been handed down with increasing frequency.

Most recently while commuting a sentence in Supreme Court (2018), Justice Joseph did not seek the reconsideration of the Bachan Singh judgment, but only sought to re-examine the purpose and practice of the death penalty, and whether as a punishment, it serves any goal at all. In other words, the death penalty can continue to remain constitutionally valid because of the Bachan Singh judgment, but its application in substantive cases coming before the court must be restricted to only those cases which meet the criteria laid down in that case.

While updating the blog and conducting my own empirical studies, I observed the heinous nature of the crimes that were committed and thought about the families, about their loss, about the victims who for no fault of their own died. If I lost my relative or a dear friend, would I still oppose death penalty and would I still advocate to abolish the death sentence? Having worked in the criminal justice system and also having the seen the other side, where often it is the marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed who are on death row makes me want to advocate for abolition of this punishment. Victims should definitely get justice for their loss, for their pain. No one should escape the rule of law. As long as humanity exists; crime will exist. Should we not re-consider our sentencing policies?

Reena Mary George

Abolish Death Penalty India

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Rajiv’s Killers Versus Afzal Guru

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers