Clemency for the right reasons?

BY sr r| IN Media Practice | 09/10/2006
  

Clemency for the right reasons?

 

 

 

 

Are there two sets of standards for the Hindu group, one for the majority communalism and the other for minority communalism or jihadism?

 

 

 

S R Ramanujan

 

 

The Hindu, India’s national newspaper since 1878 that had been in the forefront of the freedom struggle championing the national cause, has taken a new avatar in espousing the cause of terrorists though not directly. In its editorial (October 9, 2006), the national daily has argued : "..if Afzal deserves a life sentence rather than death by hanging, it is because the death penalty is abhorrent under any circumstances." Of course, while making this argument, it has the precaution to ensure that it should be not be clubbed with those professional activists who have been alleging a "flawed trial" nor with the hyped up Kashmiri sentiments. Well, it also carried a letter to the Editor who felt that sympathizers of jihadis cannot have a forked tongue. On one hand it is said that terrorists have no religion nor does he belong to any region. On the other hands when he is convicted why should there be a protest from a particular community or region. That was the argument of the letter writer. But why then does the Mount Road Maha Vishnu want Mohd Afzal  let off the hook? According to its editorial titled Clemency for the right reasons - "The Hindu for some decades now, been calling for the abolition of the death penalty - and this consistent editorial position will naturally be valid for Afzal’s case as well."

 

There can be any number of arguments for and against capital punishment which many progressive democracies have abolished while some vibrant democracies have retained. China and most of the Islamic countries still hang their criminals for even lesser crimes than what Afzal is charged with. The newspaper, however, makes out a case for a broader discussion on "whether India can retain on its statute book something so abhorrent to human rights as the death penalty -  and should move boldly towards its abolition". However, it does not want a debate nor removal of the death penalty from the statute book following due Constitutional process, when it recommends "Meanwhile, in the specific case of Mohaammad Afzal, the death sentence must be commuted to imprisonment for life". Why should this be treated as a special case though he was convicted after a fair trial? "The pleading by Afzal’s wife and seven-year-old son and his background as a surrendered militant who cooperated with the authorities are reasons sound enough to exercise the executive power of clemency, which may be subject to broad judicial scrutiny  but still retains a large measure of discretion".  

 

Interestingly, the daily carried on the very same day a report from its Special Correspondent that two dozen mercy petitions were pending which included those convicted in Rajiv assassination case and four Punjab convicts who have been facing execution since 1992. There was no mention of these cases in the editorial whether the pleadings of the family would be a "sound enough reason" to grant clemency, because Nalini’s family did seek clemency and Sonia Gandhi, a direct victim of Rajiv’s assassination, wanted Nalini to be pardoned.

 

Be that as it may, is it a fact that The Hindu has been calling for the abolition of death penalty for decades? When Dara Singh was convicted by the CBI designated court in the Graham Staines’ murder case, this is what the Hindu had to say in its editorial (Justice Done) on Sept 17, 2003 : "The conviction of Rabindra Kumar Pal - better known by the assumed name of Dara Singh - and 12 others for the gruesome murder of the Australian misskionary Graham Stuart Staines and his two sons in Orissa, is indeed a cause for satisfaction. This grisly act, described by President K R Narayanan as belonging to the "world’s inventory of black deeds" was a challenge posed to the administration as much as to the civil society". Perhaps, terrorism does not come under such "black deeds".

 

When the Orissa High Court commuted Dara’s death sentence to life imprisonment, the Hindu’s sister publication Frontline carried a piece which dubbed the verdict "A lenient verdict" (June 4 - 17, 2005) "The CBI, hopefully, would appeal against the High court’s judgment in the Supreme Court and pave the way for justice in a case that has disturbed the conscience of the nation". The Hindu Business Line (May 21, 2005) stand on that occasion was diametrically opposite to the position taken by the Hindu in the case of Afzal.The Business Line edit ran like this: "The point, however, is that to millions of Indian citizens who, like civilized human beings, abhor any and everything that smacks of communalism and sectarianism, the commutation of the death sentence has come as a severe blow because of the belief that someone who needs to pay with his life for having taken the life of another human being and that too because of communal reasons, has been spared his life, which goes against the very basic tenets of natural justice". Compare this with the argument in the Hindu editorial in the case of Afzal "..however grave or gruesome the crime, the taking of a human life by the state under the banner of justice dehumanizes society as a whole".

 

Are there two sets of standards for the Hindu group, one for the majority communalism and the other for minority communalism or jihadism? Incidentally, all the three publications of the Hindu group have a common editor-in-chief. 

 

 

Contact: s_ramanujan9@yahoo.co.in
TAGS
Clemency
Subscribe To The Newsletter
The new term for self censorship is voluntary censorship, as proposed by companies like Netflix and Hotstar. ET reports that streaming video service Amazon Prime is opposing a move by its peers to adopt a voluntary censorship code in anticipation of the Indian government coming up with its own rules. Amazon is resisting because it fears that it may alienate paying subscribers.                   

Clearly, the run to the 2019 elections is on. A journalist received a call from someone saying they were from Aajtak channel and were conducting a survey, asking whom she was going to vote for in 2019. On being told that her vote was secret, the caller assumed she wasn't going to vote for 'Modiji'. The caller, a woman, also didn't identify herself. A month or two earlier the same journalist received a call, this time from a man, asking if she was going to vote for the BSP.                 

View More