On November 20, 2012, India was one of 39 countries that voted against the U.N. General Assembly draft resolution, which called for the abolition of the death penalty. A day later, Ajmal Kasab was hanged after being pronounced guilty of perpetrating terrorist attacks on Mumbai on November 26, 2008. Afzal Guru was executed on February 9, 2013. Although there is a world of difference between the two cases, there are questions that arise in common in relation to the death penalty.
The eschewing of the death penalty is not a matter of judicial reason alone. It is not the prerogative of courts. In fact, the writ of the courts is limited. It is essentially a matter of politics. On what basis did the government vote to retain the death penalty? On what basis did the former President turn down a mercy petition? On what basis does the UPA government push for the rejection of mercy petitions by the President?
These questions have a context that we have lost sight of. Sonia Gandhi, the Chairperson of UPA, has gone on record in a letter to President Narayanan arguing strongly in favour of clemency for those convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, and she also spoke on behalf of both her children, one of whom is now a Member of Parliament representing the Congress Party, and an acknowledged leader. The pain and loss was deeply personal. But it was also political. It concerned the assassination of a former Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition. In taking this principled stand, Sonia Gandhi was also putting the practice of politics and the public good above the personal loss she and her children suffered. In doing this, she drew a radical convergence between the personal and the political that should have become the guiding principle for the entire Indian parliament’s political stand on the death penalty. In what is a deep and unexplainable contradiction, the government led by her party has undermined her own stand on this matter. Was there a discussion? What is the justification for this contradiction?
The loss of memory of deliberative politics has tragic consequences in our time. Memory is not honoured or kept alive by taking life “lawfully” (or “justly” even if unlawfully). There is no justice in the death penalty. We need today, more than ever, to remember that there is an irreversible principle Sonia Gandhi and her children established in the matter of the death penalty — a principle that separates personal anger and grief from the idea of justice. It is this principle that should guide parliamentary and governmental deliberations on the death penalty — and indeed also guide presidential deliberations on clemency, thereby setting new measures for the practice of politics — and indeed governance in India. Its repeated negation in letter and spirit is a very worrying sign of our times.
(Kalpana Kannabiran is Professor and Director, Council for Social Development, Hyderabad.)
Keywords: Sonia Gandhi, death penalty, Afzal Guru, 2001 parliament attack
I've been hearing voices in the media about how Sonia's act was interfering with the due logical process of law. But if humanitarian considerations are totally taken out the judicial process', it'll will defeat the basic purpose fo which laws are made for. Ultimately, laws are made for people, and people are not made for laws.
Kudos to Sonia and her family for the courageous act !!
kasab and Guru cases are far cry from each other, one was caught on
camera shooting indiscriminately and hence deserved the gallows,
concrete evidence was produced to legitimize the death sentence, on
the other hand Guru role still not conspicuous, no one knows the
truth apart from those who implicated and chargesheeted, how come
Geelani was exonerated. One more convict is a free man now been
released from the jail. Guru was kept on death row for 11 years, that
was the strong reason which could have provided him a judicial review,
least govt could have waited until SC completes hearing on his
petition. Inordinate delay of 11 years can be a strong reason to
commute death sentence, but govt acted in a hurry to reap the benefit
of the public mood. Sonia Gandhi, who requested to commute death
sentence of her husband's killers ,is yet to comment on this issue
QUOTE The eschewing of the death penalty is not a matter of judicial
reason alone. It is not the prerogative of courts. In fact, the writ
of the courts is limited. It is essentially a matter of politics.
UNQUOTE Yes it is essentially a matter of politics. Rajiv was gone and
what best advantage that can be derived by his death to the party,
nay, the dynasty is indeed a political calculation and a prudent
political decision even in the midst of personal loss the family
suffered. The radical convergence between the personal and the
political was the need of the hour for the dynasty. No other option
would have fitted well in to that agenda.
The good Professor is trying to make a case here quoting the charity of a person whose spouse was killed and as if the specific assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi is similar to all cases. This is simply untrue and holds no water. In the case of the hanging of Mr. Ajmal Kasab, the crime was of an entirely different motive and magnitude. In Mr. Rajiv Gandhi's case, he was the prime and specific target and the motive, invalid as it may have been, was revenge for the actions attributed to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi that led to the deaths of several innocents of the ethnic group to which the assassins belonged; in Mr. Ajmal Kasab's case, it was an act of terrorism which unleashed mayhem on common and lay people who did no harm to the killers or their families. It was not an act of revenge - just random and brutal shooting and killing. For a slew of reasons, Mr. Kasab was richly deserving of his end at the gallows. Mercifully, there are people in this nation who will not let a killer deserving of a death sentence to get away with merely a life imprisonment sentence.
Please Email the Editor