Justice or Revenge

Justice or Revenge?
The death penalty has no place in a civilised society, but India seems to celebrate it. ndia’s first execution of a death penalty in eight years, the speed with which Ajmal Kasab (the only perpetrator of the 26 November 2008 killings to have been held) was hanged after his mercy petition was rejected by the president, the public celebrations that erupted in a few parts of the country and the manner in which the media has reported/commented on the hanging in Pune on 21 November must force us to ask ourselves: Are we a society that seeks justice or prefers to lust for revenge? Kasab’s action four years ago on the night of 26 November was no ordinary crime. He was a volunteer in a plan to show India’s state and society that a small group could inflict largescale violence and wreak massive human tragedy in public places. Kasab himself was part of the two-member team that caused the largest number of deaths and injuries that terrible night, mowing down dozens of innocents on the concourse of Mumbai’s main railway station. The cold-blooded murders that Kasab committed may qualify for the Supreme Court’s “rarest of rare cases” criterion under which capital punishment could be handed down. Yet, has justice been served in the Mumbai killings by the hanging of Kasab? Is justice in general served by the death penalty? The full extent of the planning and execution of the Mumbai crimes is yet to come to light and the masterminds who recruited the foot soldiers remain free. There will be no closure with the death of Kasab and there can be no end to the grief of the hundreds of families who suffered that night. EPW has consistently argued against the continuation of the provision for capital punishment on India’s statute books (most recently the editorials on 15 May 2010 and 3 September 2011). The arguments against the death penalty are well known. First, the right to life of all citizens is inalienable and cannot be taken away by anyone, not even the state, as punishment for murders. Second, there can be a miscarriage of justice because of judicial errors, biases and the like. Third, a philosophy of an “eye for an eye” belongs to the pre-civilisational era and does not befit a society that values compassion. The “wrong” sentencing argument does not apply to Kasab, but an inalienable right to life argument does, notwithstanding the extremity of his crime. As of 2011, according to Amnesty International, 140 countries had either abolished the death penalty or had placed a moratorium, while 58 countries – including India – kept the provision for this barbaric practice in their law books.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

I

The capture of Kasab, due entirely to a monumental act of bravery by a policeman who gave his life in the process, was one of those rare events when a mass murderer is captured at the scene of the crime. While this gave investigators another route to track the origins of the crime to terrorist groups in Pakistan, Kasab also became a symbol of hate for groups and individuals for whom enmity with Pakistan is a core belief. India cannot claim that the hanging of Kasab demonstrates its commitment to deliver justice in the aftermath of mass murders. If anything, the Kasab case is the exception. The list of mass murders from the past three decades where justice is yet to be fully delivered is a long one: New Delhi, Kanpur and Bokaro (1984), Meerut (1987), Bhagalpur (1989), postRath Yatra violence (1990), post-Babri Masjid violence, Bombay (1993) and Gujarat (2002). The handful of convictions secured in Gujarat is the exception; elsewhere, for decades the organisers and perpetrators of mass violence have freely roamed the streets. Kasab was hanged in a rush because there were far too many pressures and forces acting on a weak and short-sighted government to demonstrate that India is a strong state. No political formation or group has been brave enough to condemn India’s use of the death penalty. The only thing we should be grateful for is the government’s wisdom in not announcing the date of execution beforehand. When Kasab was sentenced to death in 2010, the media went overboard in reporting the approval of political personalities and individuals. There were few dissenting voices in the electronic and print media. That phenomenon has been repeated many times over in the aftermath of the hanging. The media could not but have reported the instances that did happen of sweets being distributed, firecrackers being burst and a mood of “happiness”. But did it have to seek out the voices of approval? Did it have to forsake its responsibility of critically engaging with the issue of capital punishment? Did India’s “independent” media have to go along with the barbaric sentiment of an “eye for an eye”? The Ajmal Kasab case was an opportunity for India to rethink its position on the death penalty. It was an opportunity for the country to show the world that it sought justice not revenge. It was an opportunity for the government and the political parties to show that they could rise above cynical considerations of the need to mobilise support. And it was an opportunity for the media to act as the nation’s conscience. We have failed on all counts.