There is something prima facie obnoxious about the death penalty. It turns the state into a killer by the force of law, whereas its primary responsibility is to act as the protector of the life and limbs of all its citizens. Yes, it can be argued that the exception is to be made in case of criminals who commit such heinous crimes that they deserve to die. Moreover it can be argued further that in our country, we have a judicial system and questioning the death penalty in any case is like expressing a vote of no confidence in the Supreme Court, and this is akin to blasphemy.
But the moral argument against death penalty simply does not leave any scope for this final form of punishment. Whatever be the legal sanctity and collective judicial wisdom, the Supreme Court is ultimately manned by humans. Now humans, even if they are mighty judges of the Supreme Court cannot give life to anyone, so it stands to reason that they should not have the power to take anyone’s life. Thus rests the case against death penalty. The sooner we abolish it from our legal system, the better it will be for us to become a more civilized country. There are other aspects to the entire debate about death penalty like its futility in checking crime, but this moral element is the strongest factor against it.
The debate has come alive after it has been decided that Yakub the chartered accountant from the jointly family of Memons charged with the conspiracy to engineer the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts that claimed 257 lives should be hanged. Among the many arguments for hanging Yakub is the proposition that it shall bring closure to the victims of the serial blasts. This of course is apart from the judicial verdict that has pronounced him guilty of engineering those blasts. In the last few days, we have heard arguments from politicians and celebrities alike that Yakub is being hanged for being a Muslim. But this is the season of disclosures from spooks. An entire book devoted to such disclosures by a former IB and RAW chief Amarjit Singh Dulat is in the public domain, and after the Yakub hanging was announced there is another article by a respected ex- IB and RAW chief B Raman doing the rounds which points to the mitigating circumstances that go against a death penalty for him. Interestingly, another article in the same context by a journalist shows that as Yakub had told the courts, his brother Tiger’s (the mastermind of the blasts and still in Pakistan under ISI protection) assessment of the situation has proved very accurate: “Tum Gandhiwadi ban ke ja rahe ho, lekin wahan atankwadi qarar kiye jaoge (You are going as a Gandhian, but over there you will be labelled a terrorist).”
Simply put if Yakub was expecting that at least his life would be spared for cooperating with the Indian authorities in coming back from Pakistan, where along with his entire family he was under the protection of the ISI, then his hopes have been dashed. Unable to get his brother Tiger and Ayub, the two persons who actually masterminded the crime, the authorities seem content with hanging. They have no time for such niceties as the supposed promise at the time of his ‘surrender’ in Kathmandu that his role in exposing the ISI’s involvement in the serial blasts would be rewarded. It is a matter of relief that Raman, the man who played a major role in getting the Memons from the clutches of the ISI, and helped to nail the role of the Pakistani agency in this act of terror is no longer alive. Or else, he would be a troubled man. His word given on behalf of the sovereign Indian state has been clearly betrayed.
The emerging Indian state is too keen to display its strength. It has an abhorrence to be even being perceived as a soft state, more so in the context of Pakistan. So whatever be his role, in this case Yakub is seen as the ‘driving spirit’ behind the crime and the person has to be punished to the fullest possible extent. This was the case with Afzal Guru who was nowhere near Parliament when it was attacked in December 2001, but was sentenced to death and hanged. In handing out such death penalty, the Supreme Court also does not insist that the actual ‘murder’ be committed by the person. Perhaps, the sense of public outrage associated with the crime is more of a compelling reason than actual use of the weapon to kill by the accused. But what kind of closure will Yakub’s death by hanging mean when his brother Tiger and Ayub are out of the reach of our authorities? What kind of show of strength would it amount to, when the main culprits are free? Would it mean that the Indian state is now more empowered to fight the terror battles? Would it any way persuade the Pakistanis to cooperate in the trial of the accused in Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks? Or would it help us get Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi who is now in ISI’s safe house?
If hanging Yakub is expected to provide closure for the victims of the 93 riots, it can be seen as a mitigating cause in favour death penalty, without compromising on the basic opposition to that idea itself, in the sense that it serves the cause of the wider community coming to terms with that tragedy. But then it is seldom that other person’s death serves as a consolation for the loss of your own loved ones. This is essentially an argument that comes from those arm chair moralists and preachers on television debates who have never suffered such loss. Grief at the death of a loved one is very personal, as poet Sahir Ludhianvi once put it so eloquently in Mohammad Rafi’s Hum Dono song: ”Kaun rota hai kisi aur ki baat pe ai dost, sabko apni hi kisi baat pe rona aaya”…
