Any terrorism is an attack on libertarian values. -P.J.O'Rourke
India has slowly and gradually built a formidable democracy. It has come to be known for its justice, morality, and honor in the judicial and administrative proceedings. People all over the world see this country as liberal and providing the due opportunity to anybody accused of some grave crime to defend themselves and their honor.
This has given the bestial and radical instincts within the political body a restraining effect. Nothing happens in a jiffy, and every move of every organ of the nation undergoes scrutiny and checks before it can be established as appropriate and accurate.
This, however, is entirely different from the concern that is in question today. A terrorist, having gone through with his evil aims of killing, maiming, and destroying the lives of people, has been caught on camera and then is proceeded to be taken into judicial custody. Is this justified?
Or do we hang him on the spot, under the effect of passions? This has to be a carefully deliberated move. What we decide through our deliberation in the present analysis may not be implemented, but it gives a peek into the passions and emotions gushing within many Indians.
The debate is not, in this case, about right or wrong, but about functionality and emotional implementation. It is completely justified when people- thousands at that- have undergone serious, devastating incidents where either they have been rendered physically incapacitated for life, or have lost their loved ones, to feel a seething hatred towards these insensitive, radical, incendiaries. These people have suffered, and many still experience the trauma of these incidents.
We cannot become armchair activists, simply sitting in the comfort of our homes and lobbying for the human rights of the perpetrators; neither can we sit and lament the sudden impetuousness percolating within the Indian judiciary because even though their suffering cannot be undone, the least these innocent victims can expect is justice. “Justice delayed is justice denied”- why will we make our own people suffer simply to show the world how prudent we are?
The flip side
Now that the one side has been discussed, it is equally important to view the other side. Is it practically possible to ensure this immediate hanging? While taking into consideration some minor limitations, we also have to look at the bigger picture. When such a dastardly act occurs, the nation suffers; yet, is the nation an actual body? It is composed of numerous people in positions of power, and they each have to fulfill their duty, for this process to be completed. Even if the person has been caught on camera and everyone knows the truth, someone still has to be in a position of authority to view the tape and accordingly sentence the person to death. Add to that the work of assigning the entire process to some executioner, deciding on the time, venue, and method. Everything has its practical limitations.
This short time-lapse, in no way, means that the authorities are against the imposition of a suitable penalty for terrorists. They are following the protocol, the same protocol that has held the nation upright for so many years. Discipline, due process, and protocol cannot be done away within a country that governs a population of a billion people and tries to serve all their needs.
An incident that explains this better
There comes to mind no better incident than the capturing of the lone terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab, both on camera as well as by the police in connection with the 26 November terror attacks of 2008 in Mumbai. Despite there being foolproof evidence of his involvement in the attacks, the police and government tried their best to understand how and why plans transpired to attack the country. It took more than a year-17 months to be exact- to finally secure a conviction and then a surreptitiously executed hanging put the matter to rest.
During the entire process of the investigation and trial, Kasab was blithe, nonchalant, and remorseless. He joked around and could not care less about the trial and its verdict. Killing hundreds of people had not shattered his soul, and this evoked enraged reactions from the public.
The trial prolonged for a very long time, and public passions could not be quelled. But considering the languishing trials in the Indian judiciary, this was a comparatively expedited process and served as a good example of how, despite practical considerations, the terrorists can be brought to book, and retributive justice comes into play.
Understanding the difference
No belief in this regard is wrong or right. When Kasab or Afzal Guru was being hanged, thousands came out in support for their human rights. They did not want such people to be hanged. Hanging, according to many and even the United Nations, is not the answer to terrorism. It can neither deter nor instill a sense of morality among these murderers.
This is why the court had to perform such hangings without much brouhaha and provide justice in line with the constitutional retributions. While the afflicted stand by the worst punishment possible for these beasts, many still believe in the human rights that these people possess simply by being born human.
What then should the court or government do? The government itself might not be a cohesive body; many representatives of the people might support the stalling of such extreme measures. Thus, even as the people may be divided, the Constitution of India is not. The judiciary, sentencing as per the Constitutional guidelines, leaves no room for doubt or questioning by the people or international bodies.
When the due process has been followed, nobody can check the sovereignty of the country or question the humanitarian treatment provided by the country to the accused. It is only in countries that take extreme and impulsive measures against the criminals that several human rights violations are slapped against their leaders. India is not one of them.
Conclusion
The Constitution of India has provided several methods to check arbitrary measures of justice. It shall be for the best that we do not destroy the sanctity of these measures. When a terrorist has been caught on camera indulging in such a massacre, the best mode of action would be for the authorities to expedite the trial and ensure fast sentencing of the criminal to death.
When it is left to the people to provide justice, the outcome is mob lynching. If such a means is sanctified, anarchy does not remain far behind. The government cannot let chaos prevail, and for that reason alone, it is important to ensure a fair trial. International bodies will also not fear to interfere in our processes if we do not follow the international norms laid down by the bodies such as the UN or Amnesty International. This will only create further delays and irreparably harm the reputation of this nation as a free, fair, and democratic country.
No comparison with any radical country can justify such passionate executions. The divisions that exist in this country would never let such a quick execution be lived out. There could never be a peaceful way to decide this without causing unease, rioting and protests; some being in favour of the execution, some against. It, therefore, is best that the court follows the entire procedure to the t.
The entire debate exists because this is a democratic country.
Each of us can express our views and differ in the conclusions. This leaves room for much argument in case of executions as well. So better it is that arguments and inconclusive debates be kept aside and in a matter as serious as penalising the destroyers of peace, it is best left to the adroit legislation drawn up by our forefathers who have shown us the way to justice and moral retribution.
