(This article was first published at desicritics.org)
Mohammad Afzal Guru helped facilitate the attack on the Indian Parliament on Dec. 13, 2001. He was caught, put to trial under due processes of law, he confessed and was sentenced to death by the highest court of the land. However, there are many who vehemently oppose Afzal’s death by hanging. Let us see what their arguments are:
He wasn’t given a fair trial. He wasnt given a good lawyer. His confession was forced.
That he wasn’t given a fair trial is based on the argument that he wasn’t given a good lawyer and his confession was forced i.e., he was tortured brutally into confession.
1. That he was tortured brutally is purely the personal opinion of his wife in an article in Kashmiri Times. This opinion is purportedly subscribed to by a majority of Kashmiris. Everybody is entitled to an opinion but that opinion need not be the truth.
2. In the article, Afzal’s wife writes
“The police have made him falsely confess before the media even before the trial started.”
In the same article, she writes
“All over India people have condemned the attack on Parliament. And I agree that it was a terrorist attack and must be condemned.”
According to her, her husband has “falsely confessed” meaning that Afzal is innocent but she contradicts herself in the line “I agree it was a terrorist attack.”
3. If indeed the STF tortured Afzal into confession and if Afzal is indeed innocent, then how come Afzal himself has never said he is innocent?
4. If indeed the STF tortured Afzal but Afzal isn’t innocent, how can that be a reason for clemency? If indeed the STF tortured Afzal, then the STF may be guilty of human rights violations. And if that is so, Afzal’s wife should use the judicial powers that she has, that she’s so obviously using to plead for clemency for her husbad, to establish the guilt of the STF personnel who tortured Afzal and get them punishment. But that is no reason for granting clemency to Afzal. All those who deserved to be punished must be punished – be it Afzal or the STF personnel who allegedly tortured her husband.
“I am not saying Afzal is innocent. It is just that he has not been given justice” – SAR Geelani.
1. He merely says Afzal wasnt given justice but doesnt go into the specifics of how justice was denied, if at all.
2. Geelani himself was part of the judicial process in which Afzal, Geelani and Shaukat Guru were sentenced to death. The same judicial process also freed Geelani of guilt. Then, the argument that there was no justice and that the process was unfair doesnt hold water. What is Geelani trying to say? If the judicial process to which he was party was unfair, is he trying to say that his acquittal was also unfair? If clemency is given to Afzal and his sentence is reduced to life imprisonment on the grounds that the judicial process was unfair, then Geelani must be apprehended and put through the judicial process again because it would’ve been established by then that the judicial process was unfair.
‘The Government must see that hanging does not become a stigma on the Indian democracy as everyone, cutting across political lines in Kashmir, was opposing the move. It will be a strategic move forward,” Geelani said.
Stressing that Afzal was not given a proper ‘defence’, Geelani said the real planners of the crime were scot free in Pakistan and the government was doing nothing about it. Afzal was a third level accused.
“The situation in Kashmir needs to be taken into account before deciding on what he had done,” he added.
1. Not everyone is opposing the move. Only a few are.
2. When Geelani himself concedes “I’m not saying Afzal is innocent,” the argument that “Afzal was not given a proper ‘defence’” is futile and irrelevant.
3. The real planners of the crime may be in Pakistan. The Indian state will make all efforts to get them to justice as well. But that Afzal is a “third level accused” is no reason for clemency for Afzal. There’s no third level or first level here. An attack against the Indian state remains an attack on the Indian state.
Nobody, neither the state nor society has the right to take away the life of an individual.
This is the age old human rights argument. If neither the state nor the society has the right to take away the life of an individual, then does the state have the right to use the hardearned tax money of its citizens to finance the entire life imprisonment term of a person who has openly shown that he hates this society and wishes to disintegrate it?
Afzal’s hanging will make him a martyr – which can be used by terrorists to create more terrorists.
I feel Afzals’ clemency will create more Bajrang Dal activists in India than terrorists. I feel it comes to choosing between the two – a few terrorists or thousands of Bajrang Dal activists.
Afzal’s clemency will also be used by terrorist hijackers to do another IC-814 and get him and a few more terrorists released.
Afzal’s hanging will lead to widespread violence and chaos in Kashmir.
That Afzal’s hanging will lead to violence and chaos is based on the assumption that there will be violence and chaos. There’s no way of knowing that things will indeed turn out that way.
I have assumptions to make as well. I assume (I emphasize… assume, not exhort) that clemency to Afzal will rattle the BJP, RSS, VHP and the Bajrang Dal. This may have two undesirable effects:
1. It may be used for recruiting thousands of activists by the hardline Hindu right wing parties.
2. Clemency to Afzal may lead to violence and chaos throughout India as well. The 150 million Muslims living in India might come under grave threat from Bajrang Dal activists who think the Indian state is doing gross injustice by giving clemency to Afzal just like the Kashmiri seperatists who think the Indian state is doing gross injustice by hanging Afzal to death. A pogrom may be organised to vent out the frustration of these groups and this might result in thousands of Muslims being slaughtered ala Godhra 2002 throughout India.
We have a choice to make – a few stones pelted and a few grenade attacks on security personnel in Srinagar or thousands of our Muslim brothers being killed in pogroms. (This is based on assumptions mind you. The same kind of assumption that is used to justify the chaos and violence that may erupt in Srinagar if Afzal is hanged or any terrorist attacks that might ensue.)
Since I have a heart and care for all my Muslim brothers with whom I share this country, I choose the former. I dont want clemency to be granted to Afzal as it may lead to the organised murder of Muslims in thousands.
Allah is merciful but he’s very strict against those who violate the human rights of others and Allah is harsh against those who kill innocent people whatever their objective may be – something that Mohammad Afzal did to the 9 security personnel he killed or helped to kill.
Afzal is fighting for an Azad Kashmir which will be governed by Islamic Law. According to Islamic Law, waging war against another human being amounts to waging war upon Allah and His Messenger since all creation is the property of Allah.
5:33 “The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom…”
Insh’allah, Afzal should get the right punishment as Allah sees it fit. Since we live in a modern democratic country in the 21st century, however, we should not crucify him or cut off his limbs. Death by hanging is a more humane punishment.
PS: Ridiculing the decision of the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of India, amounts to contempt of court.
(If you think clemency to Afzal is a grossly incorrect act and there should be no revision of death penalty, you can register your protest by sending an automated e-letter to the President by participating in this online signature drive.)

13 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 7, 2006 at 12:52 am
Polite Indian
Whether Afzal Guru Should be punsihed or not that is not the question. The question is whether capital punishment is the right way to do it.
This is a twisted argument. Taking life vs spending money? You think the saving hard earned money is jutification enough to hang him?
Whether it will cause violence in Kashmir is speculative and besides that should definitely not be the reason to grant clemency to anybody. That is a sign of a weak nation.
In general Capital punishment doesn’t achieve anything. It does not act as a deterrent. It never will.
Repition of IC-814 is a well founded fear and I think the governement then did a big mistake succumbing to the terrorists demands. That again is a sign of weakness. If we had not negotiated then IC-814 repitition would not be a possibility now. This fear is also founded in the belief that if it were to happen again our governement will succumb again. That is pretty poor trust in our govt.
The quran quoting is pointless.
Whether Afzal gets hanged or not the question that India needs to answer is…Should we abolish capital punishment or not?
I think we should.
October 7, 2006 at 2:55 am
Sandeep Shilawat
Polite Indian:
What do you suggest we shall do with Afzal? Do you think court has judeged him right?
October 7, 2006 at 4:49 am
Aftab - India
People have been saying that capital punishment is an inhumane act but do they realise that a man who helped killed 9 innocent people is also hardly a human???
I believe clemency should be given to Afzal Guru only if the government thinks that it will result in something similar to what had happenend after Maqbool Bhat’s(JKLF Founder) hanging.
October 7, 2006 at 4:52 am
Aftab
That Aftab -India was used to mock that Joe-usa fella
)..Didnt notice tht it was still there..
October 7, 2006 at 10:32 am
Polite Indian
Sandeep:
I think we should commute it to a life sentence.
It is hard for me to judge whether the court has judged him right or wrong but I will place my trust in the judicial system and say that they must have done due dilligence.
However there are indications that the trial might not have been fair.
In general I don’t think capital punishment should exist.
October 7, 2006 at 11:52 am
atlantean
So it all comes down to whether capital punishment should be abolished or not. I’d like to go by Aftab’s words here:
“People have been saying that capital punishment is an inhumane act but do they realise that a man who helped killed 9 innocent people is also hardly a human???”
Saying that a person who killed 9 innocent people still deserves a human rights consideration is an insult to the rest of humanity. Human rights considerations actually call for the elimination of people who involve in human rights violations of innocent lawabiding citizens day in and day out.
Not even the most savage animal commits such horrible crimes as a rapist who rapes the victim and slits her throat, a murderer who stabs the victim and hacks him into small pieces, a terrorist who bombs from behind and takes the lives of innocent men, women and small children who havent yet reached puberty and who havent really seen what life is all about.
A tiger kills for food, a lion kills for food, a crocodile kills for food but only a man kills out of sheer hatred. Such a creature is not worthy of the title “human.” Such a creature is not even worthy of being compared with such magnificent and noble creatures as lions, tigers and crocodiles. Therefore, no human rights apply to this savagest of the savage creature whatever be his biological status.
October 7, 2006 at 2:53 pm
pranay
Hmmmm…although this point of whether capital punishment should exist has come into my mind often I’ve finally succumbed to the acceptance of it. I did used to think
1) it is of no value as it ends misery for the criminal in the first place
2)if we actually have the right to end someone’s life as we have not given it.
And even if we should hang somone I am not convinced by your argument on it. No matter how less of a human and more of a devil you consider the criminal, it is not the criteria for judging if he should be lilled or not the main criteria is what are we? No matter what he is or what he does the punishment is decided by what we are. The taliban may kill a criminal by beheading, some by torturing, some by hanging It just tells us how the punishment giver is and not how big the crime was.
So what should be decide is whether we are as (fo lack of a better word) ruthless to kill somebody.
It’s not how you treat someone who helps you but how you treat someone who hurts you that decide how noble you are. You can’t justify using abusive language and acting insane just by proving that the provocation was enough reason. it could have been tackled gentlemanly.
hope you get my point.
I was gonna sign the signature drive but the stress on hinduism and not India put me off.
Terrorists don’t just attack Hindus.
Nice post.
October 7, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Afzal and the “Hanging” Dilemma « Polite Indian
[...] It is not a point of contention whether Afzal guru is guilty or not. I have a similar debate with atlantean. I can understand why such emotions run high but that doesn’t justify killing someone. Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye will make the world blind”. This is so very true. To reciprocate an evil with another is not civilised and that is what pranay is trying to say here. [...]
October 7, 2006 at 8:21 pm
atlantean
“it is not the criteria for judging if he should be lilled or not the main criteria is what are we? No matter what he is or what he does the punishment is decided by what we are.”
Yeah true. And because we are different and we’re not the Taliban, we dont straight away behead him. We have something called a judiciary. We put the criminals through a long judicial process and arrive at sentences only after intense deliberation. We give capital punishments only in the rarest of the rare cases.
“it could have been tackled gentlemanly.”
In some situations, being gentlemanly is not possible or illadvised as we’re merely human and at the end of the day, animals:
1. Wife being raped and her throat being slit.
2. Father being killed in a bomb attack.
Sorry, I wouldnt be very “gentlemanly” in such situations. Call me selfish or “lacking morals” if you like. Put your self in such situations and please tell us how “gentlemanly” you’d be.
October 7, 2006 at 11:41 pm
pranay
Agreed atlantean, in that situation we would act that way. About acting in a gentlemanly manner i was referring to just the afore mentioned example which is about a guy on the street and not about the judiciary.
And although we don’t behead but after finding a criminal guilty we kill him right. I am not saying we are as bad as Taliban but I am not comparing ourselves to them. I am comparing ourselves to someone even better. I am not saying we should let them go but at least you can accept that in some cases there is a more peaceful way of punishing. It’s all about what part of the spectrum we are. We are not Taliban but we are not Gandhi either. I am just speaking of going a bit up the ladder. not practically but ideally.
October 12, 2006 at 2:10 am
Anonymous
The attack on parliament was organised by the STF.
Afzal was used as a pawn.
police officers got their medals.
BJP got the chance to enact POTO and show the world how patriotic they are.
now they are trying to hanfg afzal and kill the last remaining proof of the bogusness of “attack on parliament”
this is similar to gulf of tonkin or Reichstag fire.
October 19, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Ashwin
We all talking about this matter? Will we all fight with the same vigour to treat Modi, if Godra incident happens to be a brain child of him
December 24, 2007 at 3:40 pm
rohan
Mr. Anonymous, u need treatment , go to psychologist. U r sick of BJP , nothing else.