Unreasonable Debate

We are heading towards a possibility of abolishing death penalty; or possibly a speedier trials and speedier sentences in future. Regardless of what kind of ramifications it will have towards judiciary in particular and terrorism in general, the event that ensured this possibility is worth exploring.

Ironically it was not a ‘liberation’ organisation in Kashmir or Manipur that has triggered it but events in Tamil Nadu. The resolution, ‘unanimously’, passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly seeking clemency and the clamours by the pro-Eelam groups, the usual suspects, and the media’s zealous support of this cause, for whatever reasons, have ensured that his debate is now out in the open. People are already talking about such copycat resolutions in Kashmir and other places. It is also now almost certain that Afsal Guru, the convict of 2001 Parliament attack, would not be executed in the near future, or possibly never at all. Ajmal Kasab can rest assured that, although he may never come out of the jail, he may not be sent to the gallows for at least another two decades.

What are the issues on hand?

• Rajiv Gandhi’s murder and the people who were involved in the conspiracy.
• Death penalty as a human rights issue and its necessity as a deterrent.
• The qualification of the clamour raised by the people supporting the clemency.

First off, Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination is possibly one of the most gruesome murders involving a national leader, not just nationally but even internationally and I’m not including the murders of cruel dictators in the hands of their civil war rebels. The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was not only the cruellest but it changed India irrevocably. It changed the political landscape, paved way to Prime Ministers that were grumpy and moody (Rao), drowsy and illiterate (Gowda) and quiet and inactive (Gujral). Today’s Prime Minister cannot be described in two or three adjectives and may require a separate blog piece, so we’ll skip that. We were set behind a decade on political growth. Also, sadly, Prabhakaran achieved what he wanted through the murder: of India’s abstinence from the Sri Lankan Tamil issue, that absence of a large, powerful neighbour led to countless civil wars and murder of thousands of innocent Tamils and Sinhalese. It had taken nearly twenty years for this most lethal terrorist organisation to be decimated, which would have happened in a matter of two years if Rajiv Gandhi had been alive. The political rights to Sri Lankan Tamils, which is still elusive, would also have been achieved. In a cruel paradox, the conspirators of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination have suffered a self-imposed punishment already.

However, as a nation, India needs reprieve, rather than retribution, from that heinous crime. Would it happen if those three men were hanged? Possibly. Would it happen if those three men were pardoned? Even more effectively. By choosing to leave the death penalty behind, India would also traverse a step closer towards becoming a mature democracy. An eye for an eye would not only make the whole world blind, it would also keep people busy in gouging each other’s eyes rather than indulging in anything productive. Has death penalty served any purpose as a deterrent in India so far? Hardly. It has only made the prison sentence more meaningless because we believe that punishment is meted out only if someone’s put to death but not as long as they are in jail. Having lived in jail for more than twenty years, mostly in solitary confinement, is punishment enough, not to mention the ever hanging Damocles’ sword. Abolishing death penalty would add value to these jail sentences. Today, prisoners languish in jails whilst the trails go on interminably. These undeclared and non-convicted prison sentences would be severely criticised in future thereby paving way for speedy trials. We may well be inching towards a true justice system.

But what about these three people? The arguments for or against death penalty aside, do these people deserve clemency? Their involvement in the conspiracy is beyond any argument today. Whether they were involved in ‘just’ buying battery or ‘just’ arranging car hire or whatever they did, does not matter anymore. Those debates and arguments were made repeatedly and elaborately for more than a decade during when their trial clambered from one court to another. Karthikeyan, who headed the team that investigated the case, remarked that the mercy petition becomes meaningful only if they show remorse or atonement. Unfortunately, there are still people claiming the ‘innocence’ of these three, which would have been laughable were it not for the severity of the topic in discussion. That those three were involved in the conspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi is beyond any doubt now. The conspiracy was hatched by LTTE and masterminded by Prabhakaran is also beyond any question as it was proven in the court, acknowledged by Prabhakaran himself and, in a way, quite blatantly evident due to circumstances and the people involved. So the three in question should stop this ‘innocence’ nonsense and show remorse and atone for this heinous act. Even Prabhakaran showed some bit of remorse by terming it as a ‘tragic event,’ and that’s as close to remorse as the ruthless megalomaniac can demonstrate. So what is Vaiko or Nedumaran or Seeman or Santhan or Perarivalan or Murugan’s take on this? Putting all these people in one list is not unintentional.

So what is Vaiko’s take on the death penalty for Afsal Guru or Ajmal Kasab? Why didn’t Vaiko fight for the clemency of Dhanajoy Chatterjee who was hanged in 2004 for raping and killing a school girl? In fact Vaiko and Ramadoss’ parties were members of the coalition government in the centre until 2004 and they could have stopped Chatterjee’s death penalty. Claiming to be pardoned just because the people involved are Tamils is abysmally parochial at best and reckless hypocrisy at worst. Abolition of death penalty is a very important, serious and sensitive subject. It is unfortunate that this is being taken up by a group of which the key members are Ramadoss who came up the political ranks through violent protests, another member, Nedumaran who was a friend and emissary of a notorious bandit and, finally, the last member Vaiko who was an ardent supporter of the most lethal terrorist organisation in the world, known for its most gruesome and merciless murders including, of course, that of Rajiv Gandhi. These three people are the least qualified to use the words ‘mercy’ and ‘clemency’ and ‘justice’ and it’s a tragic irony that, today, they are the sole proprietors of these terms.

This debate today may lead to speedier trials or even abolition of death penalty in India, either of them would be good outcomes. However, the emotional clamour seen today in Tamil Nadu and the qualities of the flag bearers seen in this movement might end up leaving a great dent on reasonable debates, national unity, and of course justice, the very term with which these noises are being drummed up.