Eight years ago, the Supreme Court condemned Muhammad Afzal Guru to be hanged for his role in the 2001 attack on Parliament House, saying, astonishingly, that “the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” Guru was walked to the gallows Saturday morning at the end of the macabre rite governments enact from time to time to propitiate that most angry of gods, a vengeful public. Through this grim, secret ceremony, however, India has been gravely diminished. The reasons for this are not just the obvious ones — among them, that Guru was a bit-actor in the attack on Parliament, and his trial marred by procedural and substantive errors. These arguments were examined by the highest court in the country and found wanting. There is one argument, though, that wasn't ever examined — which is precisely why Guru, like scores of other Indians, ended up on death row in the first place. The answer has a great deal to do with expedience, and nothing to do with justice.
The hideous truth is this: judicial executions in India have all the rationality of the roulette table. Last month, Justices P Sathasivam and Fakkir Kalifullah commuted the death penalty given to Mohinder Singh for killing both his daughter and wife -- this while out of prison on parole where he was serving time for earlier raping the girl. The judges argued that the death penalty ought only be considered when a perpetrator posed “a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society.” One week later, Justices Sathasivam and Jagdish Khehar upheld death for Sundararajan, who kidnapped and then killed a seven year old boy. The judges noted, among other things the “agony for parents for the loss of their male child, who would have carried further the family lineage.” Besides the obvious imprint of gender values on judicial reasoning, it is the arbitrariness of outcome in cases that are similar which tells us something is seriously wrong. In a signal article published recently in this newspaper. V. Venkatesan noted how the Supreme Court has itself admitted that many of those on death row are there because of“erroneous legal precedents set by itself.” (December 10, 2012) Yet, both the judiciary and the government have been reluctant to announce a moratorium on executions until a thoroughgoing review is carried out. This ought not to surprise us: in case after case, the course of criminal justice has been shaped by public anger and special-interest lobbying. Indians must remember the foundational principle of our Republic, the guardian of all our rights and freedoms, isn't popular sentiment: it is justice, which in turn is based on the consistent application of principles. For one overriding reason, Guru’s hanging ought to concern even those unmoved by his particular case, or the growing ethics-based global consensus against the death penalty. There is no principle underpinning the death penalty in India today except vengeance. And vengeance is no principle at all.
Keywords: Afzal Guru, JeM, 2001 parliament attack, Tihar Jail, death penalty, Supreme Court
Mr Sudershan Shukla
You and some others assert that the death penalty would deter crime. Not true !
The National Academies based in Washington DC, (www.nationalacademies.org)
has analysed dubious and quasi scientific claims such as yours made during the
last 30 years and published the findings in the book “Deterrence And The Death
Penalty”
I cite from the summary:
“...concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide
rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases,
or has no effect on these rates. The key question is whether capital punishment is
less or more effective as a deterrent than alternative punishments, such as a life
sentence without...parole...”
India’s corrupt and politicised police forces are incapable of proper forensics and
even the innocent can be easily framed. Against this backdrop, retention of the
death penalty is dangerous and prone to being used a political tool - as this case
has amply shown.
There is much to admire The Hindu's principled opposition to capital punishment.
But without suggesting an alternative, there is no way we can abolish it in India with all the threats it faces. So, why not advocate a comprehensive change in our criminal justice system, and include abolishment of capital punishment as part of it.
In the current system, for example, the Delhi gang rape culprits, if convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, could be released anytime between 8-14 years. They would all be in their 30's then. What travesty it would be for them to be walking free on the same streets they committed the henious crime they did, still young and strong enough to pose a similar threat to any young woman or man. Would we want that ? Is that how we make our streets safe ?
Do not them, imprison them until they die - is acceptable.
Do not hang them, but lets not talk about how much time they get is not.
We must note that the act of execution is actually intended to be a deterrence for future would be criminals. The society does not derive pleasure in killing a human being, but it wants its safety ensured at any cost. Horrible offenders like Afzal Guru need to be hanged to ensure such safety. In this case one can argue that had Afzal been hanged in time a strong signal would have gone to the enemy and probably would have averted 26/11when 164 Indian citizen lost their lives and 300 more got maimed. It is beyond my comprehension why the judiciary proffer silly reasons to avoid as death sentence.
Yesterday's editorial was very excellent. When horrendeous events took
place, your editorial was the only saving and sane voice to remind, that
the basic tenet of our constitution is justice and consistent
application of principles, and vengeance is no principle at all.
I would thank for the fine and truthful editorial values that The Hindu
upholds.
What a shameful day, when the Govt. decides to take such steps in a
secret mission and the convict, his family, the judiciary, the citizens
are kept in the dark. Really, something is wrong in the state of affairs
of this Govt.
One cannot argue that the death penalty is never warranted. I would
submit that the perpetrators of the recent rape in Delhi deserve it.
That said, in a case like Afzal's, where the case for the guilt of the
individual is dubious and primarily from coerced confession, the
honesty of the system must be questioned. He was not hung for his
crime. He was hung because it was politically expedient to do so right
now.
He was by no means an Ajmal. He wasn't more than a bit player in the
entire scheme. At worst, he deserved a life in prison.
In the larger picture, it is hard to argue that the death penalty,
when applied, is arbitrarily applied in our country. I'm not
necessarily opposed to the death penalty, but could we please at least
wait until the *collective* conscience of the nation (not just a few
misinformed jingoists) is clear about the guilt of the perpetrator,
and the justice (or lack thereof) of giving him or her a death
penalty? Of the gender injustice -- well, what can one say?
It was wrong on the part of the UPA government to inordinately delay the execution of Afzal Guru on the pretext that the Prsidents's verdict on the clemency petition was awaited.For six long years no decision was taken and now all of a sudden the Government unduly hastened the process and executed Afzal Guru in great hurry. This was uncalled for. You had not done it for six years, so why now? I am no fan of Afzal Guru and I think he deserved capital punishment. However, by delaying the process in this manner, the Government has made a mockery of the system.Had Afzal been executed in 2007 no eyebrows would have raised. But in 2013 it appears politicaly motivated
I think death penalty should be continued. But as the Editor has
pointed out correctly, if there is so much arbitrariness, then one
should think at the grass root level.
When viewed from a different perspective - that of the cost of such executions - this is doubly concerning. The cost here is not pecuniary but that incurred to societal harmony and the health and vibrancy of our democracy. Every such miscarriage of justice inevitably leaves behind a disaffected, disillusioned community that feels utterly alienated by the nation and society at large. With no promise of restitution, is it any wonder that many harbor lifelong ill will. The story is recurring in many corners of the country: the northeast for decades; Kandhamal; Delhi (circa 1984) or even Godhra in 2002.
really nice editorial. but I am in conflict with myself to look at
people's crime and death penalty. though their crimes are heinous how
can we as fellow human beings kill someone and what difference does it
make to let them rot in a prison or hang them. The same is true for the
hanging of kasab. he was just a deranged teenager who was made an easy
target. What message are we sending by killing a brainwashed kid ?
i am not understanding why you people are so upset about the execution of terrorist,who had killed our so many brave soldiers.even the apex court has condemned his heinous crime.why are we so obsessed about kashmiri muslims only.India has done so much for their developement.We have given special status to them.now what else they want.You can't please everyone all the time.this hanging is a strong message to the people who want to destroy our sovereignity.
There is no doubt that courts may have failed to keep to a water-tight criteria for death penalty.
Legitimate questions arise: (i) was death justified in Kasab case?(ii) would it be justified in the case of 5 accused in the Delhi rape and murder case? or (iii) would it be justified if Hafiz Sayeed or Daood are ever brought to India?
It is unseemly to howl for blood. The glee over death is medieval, but vengeance has always been a part of justice. If it were not so, then Osama would not have been followed across the globe and killed.
Call it retribution, call it vengeance,or a measure which ensure that one who"is a menace to the society," "should become extinct", as Supreme Court called it.
Look around you. Your mind will recall many cases, where the criminals are yet unpunished, where death is the only justified punishment.
Human rights and dignity of the accused are important. But don't forget the victim.
The whole concept of capital punishment is flawed, in my opinion. Even
more flawed is the fluid notion of rarest of rare cases. I have no
doubt it will be arbitrary however hard one may try to make it "equal
for all". Having said that I do not agree with The Hindu editorial
when it says "There is no principle underpinning the death penalty in
India today except vengeance." I do not see how that is true in the
case of the last two executions - that of Kasab in 2002 and of
Dhananjay Chatterjee some ten years ago. In my opinion, The Hindu in
its attempt to play to its own gallery has lost its journalistic
balance. I mean you can take on the Supreme Court and challenge it
threadbare on the legal principles of why its judgement is in error
but to make sweeping statement on vengeance being the only operating
principle behind capital punishment in India is off the mark as well
How else do we send messages to Terrorists and perpetrators of heinous
crimes.
Not too sure why we can concluded that it was a case of Vengeance?
Do we not see that there was no remorse at all on the part of the Perpetrators, nor of their taking reckless and unrepentant acts for
which innocents pay with their lives.
I am confused by this editorial. There is no proof offerred to justify the claim that the motive was vengeance on the part of the court for ordering the hanging till death. The two contradictory instances mentioned where one who ought to have been hanged by the standard of the second hanging but was not, are not pertinent to the headline which claims that the court indulges in vengeance.
If there are procedural mistakes and mis-steps in judgement, that has to be addressed separately from punishment phase. Punishment assumes guilt by definition. Capital punishment may be justified in some instances but should not be arbitrary.
The editorial also accuses the court of adhoc delivery of justice with no guiding principles. It also throws in the issue of ethics. Overall, it is a jumble of opinions.
An eye-opening editorial.....every Indian should read and come out of popular perception that 'all's well in our democracy". Various things, including loop holes in our legal system (as pointed out by Supreme Court itself) must be revisited. Thanks The Hindu!
Though a regular reader of HINDU I am strongly protesting the way you are sensationalizing this issue. This is not a good spirit of journalism. The published photo of Bajrangadal activist and special editorial and all are totally uncalled for. Being a reputed news paper you have to restrain yourself at least some extent.
Lastly when criminals wage war on us, I would say that it is more than okay for us to go after them with a vengeance. Moreover it isn't exactly justice that someone who waged war upon us, attacked brazenly, openly, with impunity and fully recognizing the same the heart of our Republic should be allowed to live and consume resources that we the people (who give the Republic its legitimacy) have put together for the government to fulfill our needs. An eye for an eye may make the whole world blind but when the choice is between violence and cowardice the former is better.
This leaves a really bad taste. I do not know what is worse - that we still have death penalty or that a crime against a female is considered to be less heinous than a crime against a male. I really thought years of our rich and tolerant culture must have given us a sense to appreciate the monstrosity of a human being passing a judgement as to whether another human being can live or not. Yes, crimes should be punished, criminals should be containted, but death penalty has no place in a civilized society. The Hindu, thank you for voicing a note of sane reason and reiterating human values amidst all the passions.
The article really raises a great concerning point but people like Afzal
Guru have indeed posed “a menace and threat to the harmonious and
peaceful coexistence of the society” and so I believe this hanging is
justified.
A very thoughtful editorial. Yes indeed, vengeance isn't a principle at
all in jurisprudence.
I am a proud and happy reader of The Hindu, which I think is the only
sane media endeavouring to keep this degenerating country in sane
condition.
I fully endorse this editorial. My faith in the system is shaken. We
have been made to live in a place by self serving politicians and
such blatant inconsistencies in judicial rulings hurt those who don;t
have the wealth to throw for defending themselves
Where else, except in the Hindu, will you read such an objective Editorial? Every TV Channel has been showering praise on all Political Parties. The reality is that Afghal Guru was an easy target that all Parties could conveniently put away. Why else will they condone blatant bias in Punjab and Tamilnadu? We cannot act thus and expect the Kasmiris to love us! Sad day in our evolution as a Nation!
A sane voice in a mad world.
The track record of government in handling mercy petitions has been inconsistent driven by cheap political calculations. Mercy petitions should be disposed in a time bound manner but in the present case there has been extreme delay which was politically exploited. The hanging of a person for gruesome act against our nation has been the just end.
People like Guru were malefactors for society and they always will
be.Why do you want to commute their penalty? I know that vengeance is
not one of the fundamental principles of our country but we have to give
some potent reaction to such barbarous acts,and not cater these perverts
any more.
Not considering the flaws in judicial process while convicting Afzal Guru, the very fact that he "confessed" without any pressure from police is enough to grant him Life imprisonment. This is important because Supreme Court has admitted that there is only a circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence of his involvement.This death sentence will unfortunately deter future convicts from confessing and further complicate the legal process.
The editorial is out of tune with the realities of public sentiment in India.One doesn't know whose human rights the writer is concerned about?
Of terrorists? The arguments are purely for argument sake.Think of the plight of the family members of those policemen who were killed.
It is crime perpetuated on India's Parliament. That is equivalent to
waging war on Indian state. This gentleman had confessed his role in
this crime. The highest court in the land awarded him death penalty.
Societies only have one choice weather ban death penalty or go with
death penalty. It is unfortunate in current times of the human
history, no country was able to find suitable punishment to substitute
death penalty to deter the criminals in committing the extreme and
inhuman crimes. It is disgusting to see the political establishment
playing on each other for brownie points over this forgetting the loss
of life of the security personnel and youth of Kashmir being drawn into
this unending violence.
Please Email the Editor