Thursday, 30 July 2015
Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr
There is need for the right-wingers to be less belligerent in their attacks on their liberal opponents. In a similar manner, those who had pleaded for the commutation of Yakub’s death sentence will have to accept that the Indian legal system is not vindictive, and that Yakub was given a fair opportunity at all stages of the judicial process.
The sentiment across the jingoistic media, whipping up the emotion of people, is that the execution of Yakub Memon, the first accused (A1), in the 1993 Bombay Blasts Case, brings closure to the trauma of the victims – the families of the 257 dead and the 750 injured -- of the terror blasts on March 12, 1993. There was also the corollary that anyone who talked of commuting the death sentence of Yakub to a life term is unpatriotic. Both the views are misplaced.
It has to be understood that the closure to the families of the victims came the day Judge P.D. Kode of the TADA Court delivered the verdict in 2006. He sentenced the more than 100 accused different periods of imprisonment, and he gave the death sentence to Yakub Memon and 10 others. The Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence of the 10 to a life term, and upheld the death sentence of Yakub Memon. If in due legal course of review and curative appeals, the Supreme Court had reversed the death sentence of Yakub as it did in the case of 10 others, it would not have meant that there has been no closure. What brought closure to the blasts case was the legal verdict of the TADA court. Death sentence was not a necessary part of the closure.
In the meanwhile, there came to light an article by former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief B.Raman, who had expressed the opinion that Yakub Memon had returned to India voluntarily and that he had cooperated with the prosecution and he had passed on crucial information about the location of the masterminds of the blasts – Dawood Ibrahim and Yakub’s elder-brother, Tiger Memon – in Karachi. This information was collaborated by senior journalist Maseeh Rehman, who had talked to Yakub in 1994. The family members of Yakub had also said that the investigation agencies had promised that they he would be dealt with leniently because of his cooperation. The point made by Raman and Rehman was that Yakub had come back voluntarily because he realised his folly, he was willing to face the punishment for his crime and he expected that he would be given a fair chance by the Indian legal system and his cooperation would be given due weight when fixing his punishment.
It is based on this information that Yakub had surrendered, that he had cooperated with the prosecution that many eminent persons and civil society activists came out pleading that Yakub’s death should be commuted to a life term. Some of them based their appeal on their belief that death sentence is a barbaric practice and that states should give up death sentence altogether. This is a principled plea. It is not necessary to agree with this view. But it does not follow that these people were supporting Yakub’s crime or that they are condoning terrorism.
There are others in the group who were of the view that there is need to include the information about his surrender and cooperation, and that these should form part of the extenuating or mitigating circumstances for the crime committed by Yakub. It is questionable that if this part could have ever been weighed as legal evidence because India does not follow the convention of ‘plea bargain’, where the prosecution pleads for a lesser sentence. It is a common practice in the United Stated legal system but it is not as yet part of Indian legal conventions. In the present case, the prosecution did not disclose that Yakub has turned an approver. Public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam had said that he did not know that there was any tacit understanding between Yakub and the investigating agencies. The question is as to why the investigation agencies did not take the prosecution into confidence, and as to why Yakub’s lawyers did not reveal this information about Yakub’s surrender and cooperation with the investigation agencies. It appears that the prosecution did not want to weaken its case in any way, and the defence team too believed that it would not be right to concede to Yakub’s guilt right at the beginning. But we will not know the truth unless Yakub’s family or lawyers reveal the facts. There is reason to doubt the versions of Raman and Rehman. What we need to know is as to why the investigators changed their mind as they prepared the case along with the legal team.
We turn now to the politics of it. Unfortunately, there is the political dimension to the issue. The political right-wingers, though majority of them belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies, the hardliners are to be found in all political parties, and they all believe that the hanging of Yakub Memon is necessary and that it will send out a strong message that India is not a soft state. There are the far-right supporters who hold the view that the death of Yakub Memon will bring a sense of justice to the victims of the blasts. The far-right activists are infuriated by the gesture of the civil rights activists who sought a life term for Yakub. They are interpreting it as an anti-national gesture and of sympathising with terrorists who had killed innocent civilians.
The people who had argued for commuting Yakub’s death to a life sentence were not condoning the terror act of Yakub and they are not soft on terrorism. And to be sure, they are not unpatriotic or anti-national. There is need for the right-wingers to be less belligerent in their attacks on their liberal opponents. In a similar manner, those who had pleaded for the commutation of Yakub’s death sentence will have to accept that the Indian legal system is not vindictive, and that Yakub was given a fair opportunity at all stages of the judicial process.
It is also very important to note the fact that Yakub had been sent to the gallows under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is being a conspirator. It is also necessary to remember that the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 does not prescribe death sentence. Yaakub had been sentenced to death of conspiring to cause death of people. He was not condemned for treason. Yakub and his family are Indians and they hold on to their Indian nationality. Yakub had died for his crime and he died as an Indian. He had not renounced his national identity.
As it was a terrifying fact that hundreds of people had died or were injured on March 12, 1993, the hanging of Yakub Memon will remain a grim act. The death of even a convict cannot bring cheer to even the families of the victims. This should indeed be the civil and humane way of dealing with each other. Yakub Memon’s family cannot be treated with either suspicion or hostility after this. It is cessation of bitterness on all sides that is the real closure. There is no room for triumphalism. Justice is not revenge.
Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr
There is need for the right-wingers to be less belligerent in their attacks on their liberal opponents. In a similar manner, those who had pleaded for the commutation of Yakub’s death sentence will have to accept that the Indian legal system is not vindictive, and that Yakub was given a fair opportunity at all stages of the judicial process.
The sentiment across the jingoistic media, whipping up the emotion of people, is that the execution of Yakub Memon, the first accused (A1), in the 1993 Bombay Blasts Case, brings closure to the trauma of the victims – the families of the 257 dead and the 750 injured -- of the terror blasts on March 12, 1993. There was also the corollary that anyone who talked of commuting the death sentence of Yakub to a life term is unpatriotic. Both the views are misplaced.
It has to be understood that the closure to the families of the victims came the day Judge P.D. Kode of the TADA Court delivered the verdict in 2006. He sentenced the more than 100 accused different periods of imprisonment, and he gave the death sentence to Yakub Memon and 10 others. The Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence of the 10 to a life term, and upheld the death sentence of Yakub Memon. If in due legal course of review and curative appeals, the Supreme Court had reversed the death sentence of Yakub as it did in the case of 10 others, it would not have meant that there has been no closure. What brought closure to the blasts case was the legal verdict of the TADA court. Death sentence was not a necessary part of the closure.
In the meanwhile, there came to light an article by former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief B.Raman, who had expressed the opinion that Yakub Memon had returned to India voluntarily and that he had cooperated with the prosecution and he had passed on crucial information about the location of the masterminds of the blasts – Dawood Ibrahim and Yakub’s elder-brother, Tiger Memon – in Karachi. This information was collaborated by senior journalist Maseeh Rehman, who had talked to Yakub in 1994. The family members of Yakub had also said that the investigation agencies had promised that they he would be dealt with leniently because of his cooperation. The point made by Raman and Rehman was that Yakub had come back voluntarily because he realised his folly, he was willing to face the punishment for his crime and he expected that he would be given a fair chance by the Indian legal system and his cooperation would be given due weight when fixing his punishment.
It is based on this information that Yakub had surrendered, that he had cooperated with the prosecution that many eminent persons and civil society activists came out pleading that Yakub’s death should be commuted to a life term. Some of them based their appeal on their belief that death sentence is a barbaric practice and that states should give up death sentence altogether. This is a principled plea. It is not necessary to agree with this view. But it does not follow that these people were supporting Yakub’s crime or that they are condoning terrorism.
There are others in the group who were of the view that there is need to include the information about his surrender and cooperation, and that these should form part of the extenuating or mitigating circumstances for the crime committed by Yakub. It is questionable that if this part could have ever been weighed as legal evidence because India does not follow the convention of ‘plea bargain’, where the prosecution pleads for a lesser sentence. It is a common practice in the United Stated legal system but it is not as yet part of Indian legal conventions. In the present case, the prosecution did not disclose that Yakub has turned an approver. Public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam had said that he did not know that there was any tacit understanding between Yakub and the investigating agencies. The question is as to why the investigation agencies did not take the prosecution into confidence, and as to why Yakub’s lawyers did not reveal this information about Yakub’s surrender and cooperation with the investigation agencies. It appears that the prosecution did not want to weaken its case in any way, and the defence team too believed that it would not be right to concede to Yakub’s guilt right at the beginning. But we will not know the truth unless Yakub’s family or lawyers reveal the facts. There is reason to doubt the versions of Raman and Rehman. What we need to know is as to why the investigators changed their mind as they prepared the case along with the legal team.
We turn now to the politics of it. Unfortunately, there is the political dimension to the issue. The political right-wingers, though majority of them belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies, the hardliners are to be found in all political parties, and they all believe that the hanging of Yakub Memon is necessary and that it will send out a strong message that India is not a soft state. There are the far-right supporters who hold the view that the death of Yakub Memon will bring a sense of justice to the victims of the blasts. The far-right activists are infuriated by the gesture of the civil rights activists who sought a life term for Yakub. They are interpreting it as an anti-national gesture and of sympathising with terrorists who had killed innocent civilians.
The people who had argued for commuting Yakub’s death to a life sentence were not condoning the terror act of Yakub and they are not soft on terrorism. And to be sure, they are not unpatriotic or anti-national. There is need for the right-wingers to be less belligerent in their attacks on their liberal opponents. In a similar manner, those who had pleaded for the commutation of Yakub’s death sentence will have to accept that the Indian legal system is not vindictive, and that Yakub was given a fair opportunity at all stages of the judicial process.
It is also very important to note the fact that Yakub had been sent to the gallows under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is being a conspirator. It is also necessary to remember that the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 does not prescribe death sentence. Yaakub had been sentenced to death of conspiring to cause death of people. He was not condemned for treason. Yakub and his family are Indians and they hold on to their Indian nationality. Yakub had died for his crime and he died as an Indian. He had not renounced his national identity.
As it was a terrifying fact that hundreds of people had died or were injured on March 12, 1993, the hanging of Yakub Memon will remain a grim act. The death of even a convict cannot bring cheer to even the families of the victims. This should indeed be the civil and humane way of dealing with each other. Yakub Memon’s family cannot be treated with either suspicion or hostility after this. It is cessation of bitterness on all sides that is the real closure. There is no room for triumphalism. Justice is not revenge.
Source: dnaindia
No comments:
Post a Comment