Afzal - To hang or not to hang

Last week, one of the most crucial topic debated in the capital was not about farmer's suicide, the nuclear deal with US, or even the SEZs. It was whether to hang Mohd. Afzal Guru or not.

For the late comers, Mohd. Afzal Guru has been convicted by Supreme Court to be hanged until death for conspiring the Parliament attack in 2001. The attack killed seven security gaurds, shook the politial leadership and shocked the media-savvy citizens.

Post-attack, Indian govenment took up one of it biggest offensive preparations against Pakistan. Nearly half of our army was positioned at the borders. And of course, Pakistan moved theirs and for close to two years we were in an 'eye-ball-to-eye-ball' conflict with our neighbour. This caused the death of nearly 20 soldiers due to stress and adverse weather conditions.

The economic impact notwithstanding, it is undeniable that the Parliament attack was one of the most crucial event in the history of Islamic Terrorism in India.

According to Supreme Court, Afzal Guru has been instrumental in conspiring the act, coordinating the terrorists and being in contact with the terror heads in Pakistan. This, based on the impact it would have caused had the attackers succeeded and the enormity of the intention, is considered 'rarest of rare' cases that deserves the capital punishment.

What is my stand in this? I strongly feel that Afzal should be hanged.

It is because, this verdict was not given by a sessions bench nor was it proclaimed within 10 days of the trial. This verdict came nearly after five years of trial and has traveled from the Special Court to Supreme Court. Throughout the trial, Afzal never claimed innocent and even after the verdict, did not file the clemency petition. Now what is with the President is what his wife submitted.

He has been convicted by our highest court and we cannot say that the verdict is faltered. If we can't consider the verdict of Supreme Court as the final, those who scream for mercy should state what should be.

I consider that we have to respect Supreme Court as the final authority on dictating terms on constitution and law and order in this land. What it says on Reservation, Ayodhya, or even Narmada should be respected and adhered to. What it has said on Narmada is not I would have liked. But that's too bad. I just have to swallow my sorrow and move on.

Some say that the Kashmiri terrorists will gain a new lease of blood if Afzal is hanged and he might end up being a martyr for their cause and hence he should not be hanged. I want to ask them whether the terrorism in Kashmir would come down if we do not hang him. I think not. And I don't even agree with some writers who state that this issue has 'sharply' divided the nation. Most of the public really doesn't care and those who do have different opinions.

Some say that the capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, meaning to say that just because there is a threat, the crime rate doens't go down. This is true especially with terrorists. I mean why do they care when they anyway want to die as suicide bombers? But I'm saying hang him and prevent him from becoming a suicide bomber, because if he does, he takes a lot more innocent ones with him.

The terrorists should know that India will not tolerate their reckless and criminal behaviour. I want to feel strong and aggressive about my country. It seems that during the War Against Terror in Afghanistan, one of the B2 bombers had 'Eat This Osama' painted over it in huge letters. When we hang Afzal, I am not asking write something like this on the hood that cover his face. But I'm saying cover his face.

As Supreme Court stated, 'his life should become extinct'. This may not make terrorism extinct in this land.

But at least, we can build a hope.

Massacring Mahatma



It's the flavour of the season to write or talk about Gandhi. In India and elsewhere, every writer worth his salt has to write a piece about Gandhi, what with magazines dedicating cover stories and movies eulogising his principles these days. I, an aspiring one, has also been pushed to the corner to prove that I'm worth my salt. So I have piece of Gandhi now.

Unfortunately, many of these writings show me just one thing, that they have grossly misunderstood Gandhi. In the best case, they adopt their own interpretations. I am not referring to Lage Raho Munnabhai because I'm yet to see the movie.

Nevertheless, one of the silliest I can quote is when the writer discusses how Gandhi can be used in everyday life. One of the examples: What if the Auto guy demands extra money. One is to argue or fight with him. Another (the Gandhian) one, is to understand that Auto drivers are poor and the extra money will help them and yield to it.

My question: Won't yielding to the demand encourage the auto drivers from extorting fare from the passengers? What if the passenger herself is poor? And the worst, aren't we encouraging dishonesty? Would Gandhi approve of dishonesty?

On the big picture, this is a passive behaviour and I'm not sure whether Gandhi stood for it. As far as I know, he stood for staunch and active honesty and the tireless effort to hold onto one's principles.

Another essay allured that Gandhi was a success because his enemies were British. The author commented that Gandhi's disobedience succeeded because the ruling British were law-abiding. If you were to replace the English with the Nazi, Gandhi could not have crossed one mile into his Dandi march.

Though the author commented that this is only hypothetical, I consider this blatantly preposterous. This way, we can bring down anybody's success. Your son scored a centum because the paper was easy, you folks won the rowing competition because the head of the competitive team had a flu, etc.

This apart, the colonial British didn't do much with Gandhi because in my opinion, they were clueless. They didn't know how to handle him. Also, during Dandi, he was too big to be touched. Remember that the same British hanged Bagat Singh, Vanji Nathan, deported Tilak and dumped Veer Savarkar in Kalapani. They couldn't do much with Gandhi except arresting him once in a while because it was too sensitive. All hell would have broken loose had he been touched.

I sincerely hope these stupid hypotheses and advices on 'Gandhian Lifestyles' will stop soon. Though he was a legend, many of Gandhi's principles cannot be practiced today. Perhaps his way of life would suit an individual but how can a nation state adopt it as a policy? For instance, can we afford to not hang Afzal Guru because Gandhi was against capital punishment? Can we not multiply our military prowess against Pakistan because Gandhi wanted us to be friends with them?

I consider Gandhi as one of the greatest leaders ever walked on this earth. He was smart, shrewd, honest, and above all, loved the people he fought for. He single-handedly waged a highly unconventional war against a huge and mighty empire and well, won it handsomly. The British, who called him a 'half-naked fakir', years later ended up making a movie on his life. Many of his ideas such as rural-centered governance, an almost-fanatic passion for cleanliness, and environmentalism are still relevant and need implementation on a war-footing.

But going beyond this is unnecessary. And well, preaching things like encouraging dishonest auto-drivers or hypothesising Gandhi vs. Hitler would be insulting his memories.

Let's stop insulting that poor half-naked gentleman.