The Indian judiciary may not be the paragon of virtue that the Goddess of Justice would have been proud to acclaim as her own, and yet it is as dignified and respectable as any judiciary is in a developed country, and even better in some cases. Its decision to reject the appeal of Mr. Mohammed Afzal is one rooted in common sense; no crime can be allowed to go unpunished, no criminal may presume that his/her act against society will be pardoned with the largesse that he/she denies that very society.
Whether Mr. Afzal is guilty or not is a matter that the good judges have debated over for weeks together, and I have full confidence in their impartiality in this, as in many other matters.
But it would seem that those whom we entrust the responsibility of safeguarding these laws are themselves set to undermine their efficacy. The Chief Ministers of Jammu & Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu, in their official capacities, have entreated the President to grant Mr. Afzal clemency and commute his sentence to life imprisonment.
The CM of Jammu & Kashmir, the native state of Mr. Afzal, reckons that should the Government of India fail to accept this request, the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir would erupt into flames. While it is true that popular sentiment is on the side of Mr. Afzal in some sections of society there, surely that is no excuse to deny those deserve justice their due. And if the CM is so very sure of his inability to control any conceivable situation, let him abdicate his chair, and let a more competent individual occupy it. But at least do not make such a mockery of the State that you claim to represent, from which you derive the legitimacy of your authority. And please, don't make this into a India vs a particular state affair, or a particular religion's matter because it is ever so much the affair of every denizen of this nation, irrespective of religious and regional affiliations.
Terrorism begets terrorism, and yet, the death penalty for Mr. Afzal is perhaps the least we can do in our society to people who have plotted against their nation, against their people, for whatever their reasons may have been, no matter how benevolent their motives may have been. Mr. Afzal has committed treason, and there ought to be no pardoning such crimes, for then what remains the efficacy of the laws?
True, laws are made for men, not the other way around, and yet I appeal to the better sense of the powers that be to refuse any demands for leniency. In 1989, we released a few terrorists and unleashed terror on the Vale. In 1999, we released another terrorist, and reinvigorated the flagging struggle. Let not Mr. Afzal become another symbol for these demons, who would kill innocents for their own ends!
I presume Mr. Afzal to be guilty, and yet, if he be innocent and has been framed, then he will be served justice in a Higher court, but on earth, let the laws of men take their course.
No comments:
Post a Comment