Feb. 15
JAPAN:
Murderer of single victim gets death despite no criminal record
A district court on Thursday sentenced a 30-year-old man from Osaka city to
death for killing a 27-year-old woman in Okayama city in September 2011, in
what appears to be the 1st death sentence given for the murder of a single
victim by a defendant with no prior criminal record.
Judge Kosuke Morioka, presiding over a panel of professional and lay judges
hearing the case of Koichi Sumida at the Okayama District Court, noted that the
victim has also been sexually assaulted, making the case "grave."
Sumida's lawyer filed an appeal the same day.
According to the ruling, Sumida robbed Misa Kato, a temp staff worker and
colleague, of around 24,000 yen in cash and some personal belongings at a
warehouse in Okayama city where they worked, on Sept. 30, 2011. He then
assaulted her sexually and stabbed her to death. He dismembered her body and
abandoned it in Osaka.
Sumida was accused of robbery, rape, murder and damaging and abandoning a body.
In an earlier hearing, he admitted to the indictment and also said he felt no
pity for the victim. In a Feb. 7 hearing, however, he apologized to the
victim's family with tears in his eyes. His lawyer asked for a less severe
sentence than the death penalty, saying Sumida was repentant.
He is the 16th defendant given death by a panel including citizen judges, a
system introduced in May 2009 to replace panels of professional judges only for
serious crimes. It is the 3rd time the death penalty has been imposed in a case
involving only 1 victim but in the previous 2 cases, the defendants committed
murder within months after they had finished serving time -- 1 for a murder and
the other for robbery resulting in injury.
"I thought we the ordinary citizens should be allowed to include in the ruling
a view that conforms to our times," one of the lay judges, a man in his 40s,
said about the death sentence decision.
Judge Morioka said the motive of the crime was to "work off sexual frustration"
and "there is little likelihood of rehabilitation."
The judge added that it was "not appropriate to consider" his lack of a
criminal record given that "the defendant's inclination toward committing a
crime cannot be ruled out."
(source: The Mainichi)
********************************************
Death penalty given to murderer with single victim and no criminal record
An Okayama district court sentenced 30-year old Koichi Sumida to death for
killing a 27-year old woman in September 2011. This is the 1st death sentence
in which there was only 1 victim and the accused has no previously recorded
crimes. Sumida's lawyer immediately filed an appeal on the same day.
Sumida was charged with the crimes of robbery, rape, murder and damaging and
abandoning a body. He had previously admitted to committing the crimes and said
that he felt no pity for his victim. In a most recent hearing, however, he was
in tears as he sought for the forgiveness of the victim's family. The ruling
confirmed that his victim, Misa Kato, was in fact a colleague. He robbed her
first prior to sexually assaulting her and stabbing her to death. He then
dismembered her body and abandoned it in Osaka.
Sumida is the 16th recipient of a death penalty from a judging panel which
included private citizens - a system introduced in May 2009. Judge Morioka, who
presided over the panel of professional and lay judges hearing the case,
highlighted that the motive was to "work off sexual frustration" and "there is
little likelihood of rehabilitation." He said Sumida's lack of criminal record
was an inappropriate consideration to lessen the penalty where "the defendant's
inclination toward committing a crime cannot be ruled out."
(source: The Japan Daily Press)
JORDAN:
11 Jordanian terror suspects plead not guilty
11 men suspected of links to Al-Qaeda have pleaded not guilty to terrorism
charges related to an alleged plot to attack the US Embassy and shopping malls
in Jordan.
The suspects - 2 Jordanians and 9 Jordanians of Palestinian origin - entered
their pleas Thursday at the opening session of their trial at a military court
in Amman.
The men have been in police custody since last October.
The indictment accuses them of plotting simultaneous attacks on 2 shopping
malls in the Jordanian capital to distract police as they assaulted the US
Embassy.
The plot allegedly called for gunmen killing diplomats on the embassy grounds.
The men face the death penalty, if convicted.
The prosecution said the cell had targeted major shopping malls in the capital
and was planning a bombing campaign in the capital's affluent Abdoun
neighbourhood, where many foreign embassies are located.
The indictment said the group planned to attack the embassy with mortar rounds
and then blast its way inside with suicide bombs, but gave no further details.
Jordanian authorities have arrested scores of hardliners in recent months along
its northern border with Syria as they were about to cross the frontier to join
jihadist groups fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.
Jordan regularly arrests suspects and puts them on trial in military courts
that human rights groups say are illegal and lack proper legal safeguards. Many
civil society groups say many of the cases are politically motivated.
In 2005, Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for 3 suicide bombings that ripped
through luxury hotels in Jordan's capital, killing dozens of people.
(source: Saudi Gazette)
INDIA:
1,455 death penalties awarded in India since 2001: Report
Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) in its report "The State of Death Penalty
in India 2013" stated that as per the records of the National Crimes Records
Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, a total of 1,455
convicts or an average of 132.27 convicts per year were given death penalty
during 2001 to 2011.
During the same period, the highest number of death penalty was imposed in
Uttar Pradesh (370) followed by Bihar (132), Maharashtra (125), Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu (95 each), Madhya Pradesh (87), Jharkhand (81), West Bengal (79),
Delhi (71), Gujarat (57), Rajasthan (38), Kerala (34), Odisha (33), Haryana
(31), Assam (21), Jammu and Kashmir (20), Punjab (19), Chhattisgarh (18),
Uttaranchal (16), Andhra Pradesh (8), Meghalaya (6), Chandigarh and Daman and
Diu (4 each), Manipur and Himachal Pradesh (3 each), Tripura and Pondichery (2
each) and Goa (1).
In the rest of the States (Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim) and
Union Territories (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and
Lakswadweep), no death penalty was imposed.
"This implies that on average one convict is awarded death penalty in less than
every 3rd day in India. The rarest of rare case doctrine for application of
death penalty has become routine. Death penalty is no longer the exception but
the rule," said Suhas Chakma, coordinator, National Campaign for Abolition of
Death Penalty in India and Director of ACHR.
Thousands of convicts remain on death row. This is established by the fact that
during 2001 to 2011, sentences for 4,321 persons were commuted from death
penalty to life imprisonment with the highest number of commutation in Delhi
(2462) followed by Uttar Pradesh (458), Bihar (343), Jharkhand (300),
Maharashtra (175), West Bengal (98), Assam (97), Odisha (68), Madhya Pradesh
(62), Uttaranchal (46), Rajasthan (33), Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Chhattisgarh (24
each), Haryana and Kerala (23 each), Jammu and Kashmir (18).
ACHR called for abolition of death penalty stating that "The execution of
Nathuram Vinayak Godse for assassination of none other than the father of the
nation, Mahatma Gandhi, has not acted as a deterrent against assassination of
many prominent political leaders including former prime ministers Indira Gandhi
and Rajiv Gandhi, former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh, MP Lalit Maken and
many other prominent political leaders."
There is no scientific or empirical basis to suggest that death penalty acts as
a deterrent against any crime. Though no execution had been carried out since
the execution of Dhananjoy Chatterjee on August 14, 2004, the number of murder
cases have been reducing.
According to the National Crimes Record Bureau, in 2001 a total of 36,202
murder cases were registered in India. Though the population of India increased
from 1.028 billion in 2001 to 1.21 billion in 2011, the murder cases indeed
reduced to 34,305 in 2011.
Commenting on the execution of Afzal Guru, ACHR stated that India must assuage
the sentiments of the Afzal Guru's family members who have effectively been not
informed about the impending execution on February 9, 2013.
The state itself must not be flouting or circumvents the rules as it erodes the
belief in the rule of law.
Guru was hanged out of the queue and was denied the right to appeal against the
rejection of mercy petition.
"The interventions of the Supreme Court against rejection of mercy petition of
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, the Guwahati high court against rejection of mercy
petition of Mahendra Nath Das and the Madras high court against rejection of
mercy petitions of Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan have established that the
decision of the President of India on mercy petitions is further subject to
judicial review and this opportunity to appeal has been denied to Afzal Guru,"
said Chakma.
On the recent rejection of mercy petitions of 4 accused namely Gnanprakasham,
Simon, Meesekar Madaiah and Bilavendran who were sentenced to death by the
Supreme Court in January 2004 in connection with the killing of 21 policemen in
a landmine blast at Palar in Karnataka in 1993, Chakma said: "It appears that
the Government of India in its attempt to address political fallout of the
botched up execution of Afzal Guru and the expressed position of the members of
the UPA Government on death penalty in certain cases will carry out further
executions of death row convicts not connected with political sensitivities."
According to ACHR, India must follow its own civilisational values. Mythologies
of India are full of stories about criminals being reformed.
Valmiki, the author of the epic Ramayana, was a highway robber known as
Ratnakara until he came under the influence of Maharshi Narada to leave the
paths of sin. Similarly, according to Buddhist literature, Daku Angulimala
(dacoit who wears finger necklace/ garland of fingers) was a ruthless killer
who was redeemed by a sincere conversion to Buddhism.
India as the land of Valmiki, Lord Buddha and Gandhi must follow its own
civilisational values and take effective measures to join the countries which
have abandoned retributive justice system and abolished death penalty.
(source: The Times of India)
**********************
Amend Judicial Review Of President's Decision On Death Penalty
The execution of Afzal Guru was secretive and swift much like Ajmal Kasab's.
Besides that being in common, the hangings themselves seemed excessive in the
way they were perpetrated...without the transparency that lies at the very core
of democracy. The merits of their sentencing aside, it will be reasoned that
they both were deprived of an opportunity to move the Supreme Court against the
Presidential refusal for mercy.
Now, that the 2 were deprived of the opportunity to possibly delay the
inevitable through a process of law is deplorable and needs to be addressed
with a sense of judicial urgency. Rajiv Gandhi's killers Murugan, Peravivalan
and Santhan have challenged a belated presidential rejection of their mercy
pleas in court...and survived, albeit for now. This option was just not made
available to Afzal Guru or Ajmal Kasab.
The State's recently-adopted trend to execute swiftly and sans transparency
oddly derives strength from the recent public uproar in favour of the death
sentence following the Delhi gang-rape. After the regulatory amendments to the
rape law complete through an act of legislation, the State has launched a
blitzkrieg against those facing the death row. President Pranab Mukherjee has
rejected 3 pleas in just 7 months and with Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru hanged,
the 3rd - S. N. Natikar who murdered his 1st wife and then the second and
daughter before attempting suicide - is yet to be hanged. India has witnessed
more executions in the last 7 months than in its preceding 15 years.
Lauding the State for an act that's beyond due process of law is foolhardy as
it???s plain???asking for trouble! Sadly, the delay in hanging and judicial
process itself was being perceived as a failing on the part of the State guilty
of politicising the issue of terror particularly on the borders. The legal
process needs to be speedier failing which the State risks losing the plot
itself. Fears of retaliatory attacks and delays aimed to appease sections of
people have contributed to deferrals in the process itself. Instead of tackling
these and furthering transparency, which is the basic tenet of democracy, the
State went ahead and sprung a surprise on its people.
Sadly, as is often the case, any expression of concern over the process of the
recent hangings themselves is swiftly construed as being sympathetic to terror
or its perpetrators. Communal compassion towards terrorists particularly when
felt independent of reason should be addressed firmly and promptly yet to
force-mute a reasoned protest of the hangings is equally excessive and bears
direct parallels to Taliban-like bigotry. So, if you express any concern on the
process of the recent hangings or wish to discuss merits of (in) action, you're
against India and conversely if you're celebrating the deaths of Ajmal Kasab
and, now, Afzal Guru, you're a patriot. No political party will risk expressing
any protests vis-a-vis the hangings, however reasoned, for fear of losing
public support and in that, they're all opportunistically populist.
Transparency holds one of the key to a democracy. You just can't act in an
arbitrary manner and expect the masses to take it lying down. Public memory may
be short but there will be sections in the nation, and beyond, who're waiting
for the State to slip in order to gain political mileage for their own vested
sakes. Omar Abdullah has gone on to criticize the Centre for refusing to allow
Afzal's family 1 last meeting with him, saying it was "one of biggest tragedies
of the execution," adding it would lead to further alienation of Kashmiris from
the Indian mainstream. And, this is just the beginning.
The Centre's decision to bury terrorists within jail premises as was in the
case of Kasab (Inside Yerwada Jail) and Guru (Inside Tihar Jail) has obviously
been well thought of, even deliberated upon, before being executed. However, in
the face of a venue identified as a burial spot, violent demands to 'return the
body' can be expected to hit a feverish pitch in the years to follow. Needless
to say, that will not happen but the demands surely will.
Making calls of this nature lies at the core of terrorist ideology and
secessionist thinking. If India gives in to their demands, they'll make shrines
on the burial spots and have their 'Jehadis' spray the customary rounds in the
air, even televise it for public consumption. If India doesn't, they'll
mobilise Jehadis to perpetuate attacks on the innocent. Worse still is that,
this time around, there isn't just the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front to
contend with as was the case following Maqbool Bhat's execution in 1984,
there's Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Tayeba too...not to forget a sea of
home-grown sympatisers like Akbarrudin Owaisi bleeding India from within.
It's a tough call but one that needs to be taken at all times. India's identity
lies in her democracy which needs to be to be upheld at all costs. The Centre
has more on its plate than ever before. Handling political pressure from within
and beyond while appeasing sections from all over, without seeming excessive
like the enemy, is a tall order. The process of law has to be followed and if
need be, the Constitution itself amended to hasten the process. There is a need
to examine the validity of judicial review of the Presidential decision in the
case of death sentences. Compromising on transparency is compromising on
democracy...and that should never happen.
(source: Op-Ed; Gajanan Khergamker, Eurasia Review)
****************************
Hangings, limits on speech and intolerant politicians mark a troubling moment
for liberalism in India
After 2 years of wary peace, Kashmir is under siege again. This week the
authorities banned newspapers, blocked television and the internet, and imposed
a curfew in Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, and beyond.
Police battled with protesting youths, 3 of whom died.
It was all sadly predictable after the hanging on February 9th of a Kashmiri,
Afzal Guru, in Delhi. His family was officially told by post fully 2 days
later, and so far has been refused his body. Convicted for his part in a
terrorist attack in 2001 on India's parliament, Mr Guru had been on death row
for years. Recently, politicians grew anxious to see him hanged.
Once Pranab Mukherjee became India's president last year, it was assumed that
an unofficial moratorium on the death penalty would end. November brought the
1st execution in 8 years, of Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani convicted for his role in
a dreadful terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008. India's public and press
cheered.
Almost immediately Narendra Modi, a hardline figure who is fast rising on the
right of Indian politics, suggested that Mr Guru should hang too. Mr Modi, of
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is seen by many as a likely leader of India
after the next general election, due in 2014. More hangings are possible. Omar
Abdullah, Kashmir's embattled chief minister and an ally of the ruling Congress
Party, says authorities must show executions are not political, targeting only
Muslims. Why now delay executions of 3 Tamils or a Punjabi, all convicted for
assassinations of high-profile politicians?
Politics are at play. Last month the home minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde,
clumsily accused the BJP of promoting "saffron", ie, Hindu, terrorism in India.
Furious, the opposition said it would boycott meetings with him and accused the
government of being friendly to Islamist terrorists. Soon after, Mr Shinde
suddenly announced that Mr Guru had swung. It was, says Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a
liberal columnist, an appallingly opportunistic move.
To some, it fits a troubling pattern. Politics are today more moderate than in
the 1990s, when communal violence flared, or than under Indira Gandhi's state
of emergency in the 1970s. Yet a host of incidents suggests a newly intolerant
trend.
Authorities readily limit expression. Tamil Nadu's government banned a film
unless it was re-edited to placate Muslim critics. Also hoping to please Muslim
voters, regional politicians routinely bar Salman Rushdie, whose "The Satanic
Verses" prompted a fatwa by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, from public
appearances: West Bengal's chief minister, Mamata Banerjee, is the latest
culprit. And politicians ban books they dislike, as Mr Modi did in Gujarat with
a biography of Mahatma Gandhi, the state's best-known son. Religious leaders
are often intolerant. A teenage girl band in Kashmir this month hung up its
guitars after the Grand Mufti, the highest-ranking clergyman, called its
members "unislamic", and vitriolic abuse spread online.
In November police arrested a woman in Maharashtra state for grumbling, on
Facebook, that Mumbai had been shut for the funeral of Bal Thackery, a
thuggish, hard-right Hindu politician. Police then arrested a young friend who
"liked" her comment. Supposedly, they had hurt religious feelings. In recent
weeks prudish Hindu protesters marched on a gallery in Delhi and threatened one
in Bangalore, demanding the removal of paintings of nudes.
Intolerance is not new (though depicting sex in religious art has a proud
history, see picture). But politicians pandering to interest groups are
perfectly happy to limit speech. Last year over 8,400 protesters against a
nuclear-power plant in Tamil Nadu were charged with sedition. Cartoonists
critical of politicians have also been charged with the same offence. Last
month a sociologist at the Jaipur Literature Festival said corruption was
rampant among the lower castes, who qualify for certain privileges in
government and education. Egged on by a politician, police prepared charges.
Public figures rarely defend individuals' "right to offend", as Manish Tewari,
the information minister, said on February 9th. The reason is that politicians
compete for blocks of votes defined by religion or caste. Block solidarity
grows when leaders declaim against even a mild, or imagined, offence.
Mr Mehta says that mobilisation around hurt feelings is as old as Indian
democracy. Yet three new factors may now be at play. Increasingly lively media,
especially cable-news shows, thrive on shallow, angry debate. They help stoke
controversy by seeking out extreme voices and those ready to be offended.
Second, regional leaders are growing more influential, and readier to stir up
their main supporters. Whereas a national party may see virtue in compromise or
in such values as free speech, a regional figure usually gains by stoking
indignation. Mayawati, a former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and a leader of
dalits (untouchables), is a case in point.
Last comes the role of a growing, urban middle class. Mostly young and less
likely to define themselves by religion or caste, in theory such voters might
favour a more liberal politics. In practice, the evidence is mixed. Many who
decried the gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi in December called
for public hangings, and even torture of the perpetrators. Others want
vigilante squads to roam the cities.
Such voters may not reliably prove to be liberal. A rising middle class,
convinced of Indian might, may become just as nationalistic, for instance,
towards Pakistan as voters were in the past. Along with India's press, the
middle class was notably bellicose over a spat on the border last month in
which 2 Indian soldiers and 3 Pakistanis died.
(source: The Economist)
***********************************
Rajiv Gandhi killers' counsel to represent Veerappan aides
Senior lawyer and anti-death penalty campaigner Yug Mohit Chowdhry who
challenged the death penalty for Rajiv Gandhi's killers in Madras high court
might be representing the 4 Veerappan associates facing gallows in a Belgaum
court.
"Chowdhry will arrive tomorrow, file vakalat and take on from there," advocate
B.N. Devadass who has been fighting their case for a decade now told DC.
Besides challenging death penalty, he would seek retrial of Palar blast case by
CBI. "Based on my petition to then President Ms Prathiba Patil, CBI wrote to
me. I have enough records to establish a case for retrial," he asserted
wondering if government would get back 4 lives after a fresh probe proves
otherwise. He contends the very conduct of the trial under TADA (Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act), which "wreaked havoc" in the lives of
3 other Tamil youths in the Rajiv Assassination Case, also tried under the
draconian law scrapped in 1995.
"In both cases, the accused were held guilty based on confessions obtained in
police custody, which holds good under TADA that deprived them an appeal in
High Court," says advocate S. Balamurugan of PUCL (people's union for civil
liberties).
"Of the 124 accused, only 3 could hire separate lawyers. The rest had only 4
advocates to represent," pointed out out Kolathur Mani of Dravidar Viduthazhai
Kazhagam.
Death row convict Gnanaprakash was arrested at the church he worked in, but
chargesheet says police rounded him up in forest, Mani said.
"All 4 accused were ordinary people. If they informed STF, Veerappan attacked,
if they informed Veerappan, STF attacked. Hence they played double agents for
survival," said Devadass appealing to Karnataka government to save the lives of
Veerappan's associates.
Accused are innocent, say kin
(source: Deccan Chronicle)
****************************
Uneasy questions
The Supreme Court noted that there is no direct evidence (only circum-stantial
evidence) of his involvement.
With the execution of Mohammad Afzal Guru, one hopes that the 'collective
conscience' of the nation has been mollified. Nationalists like the BJP should
be happy because Afzal's hanging was their imprimatur of patriotism. The
Congress, jittery over the showcasing of Narendra Modi as counterfoil to Rahul
Gandhi, should be happy because this hanging helped them score brownie points
over them. The voluble common people should be happy because a traitor has been
ultimately punished. Our foreign policy mandarins are happy that with this
hanging they could drive home the point that when it comes to the battle
against terror, they mean business - hoping secretly that this hanging would
make Pakistan cower in fear.
But why are some people carping over his death? Afzal was sentenced to death
way back in December 2002 after being convicted of the conspiracy to attack
Parliament of India, waging war against India and murder in December 2001 - an
act that led India and Pakistan almost at the brink of another war. One hoped
Afzal was a larger-than-life terrorist on whom the entire edifice of
sub-continental peace depended. Afzal, for one, pointed out by Amnesty
International, was tried by a special court designated under the Prevention of
Terrorism Act (POTA), a law which fell short of international fair trial
standards and has since been repealed, in 2004, after serious allegations of
its widespread abuse. All 3 courts including the Supreme Court have acquitted
him of the charges of belonging to either a terrorist organisation or a
terrorist gang, under POTA. The Supreme Court also noted that there is no
direct evidence (only circumstantial evidence was available) of his
involvement.
Colin Gonsalves, who once defended Afzal, noted that his case rested on 2
"gross infirmities", the 1st of which was "trial by media", which rendered the
doing of justice to Afzal impossible, and the 2nd was that the trial court
denied him a lawyer. It bears recall that in the trial which took place, the
provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had not
been respected. When Ram Jethmalani offered to be his lawyer, the Hindutva
goons attacked his office. With all respect to the verdict of the apex court,
it is also noted that the foundations of the judgment has been built on some
questionable police methods.
Amnesty International also pointed out to the opacity of his execution as it is
not known whether Afzal Guru was given the opportunity to seek a judicial
review of the rejection of his mercy petition. Worse, Afzal Guru's family in
Kashmir was not informed of his imminent execution, in violation of
international standards on the use of the death penalty. The body was also not
returned to the family to perform the last rites and burial, again, in
violation of international standards. Afzal's wife Tabassum had filed a
clemency petition, in which she, besides demanding justice for her husband,
also pointed out how Afzal was continuously harassed by the notorious the State
Task Force (STF) of Jammu and Kashmir.
Time to cross-check
Now that Afzal has been hanged, it is time to examine and cross-check his
narrative of the putative high-handedness of the Indian Army and the STF -
spells of detention, intimidation and torture. What was worse was his
implication of the involvement of some STF officers in the chain of events that
led to the orchestration of Parliament attack because it is a question of our
national security. When it comes to Kashmir, many versions of truth operate,
and it is exceedingly difficult to separate the grain from the chaff. In 1
estimate, since 1990, when the struggle for self-determination became militant,
68,000 people have died, 10,000 have disappeared, and at least 1,00,000 have
been tortured.
Pankaj Mishra in his book Temptations of the west: How to be modern in India,
Pakistan, Tibet, and beyond wrote in a thoughtful essay titled 'Kashmir: The
cost of nationalism' about the controversy surrounding the Indian Army's
'killing' of 5 men in Pathribal in Kashmir. The army claimed that these men
were the terrorists who had carried out, a few days earlier, the massacre of 38
Sikh villagers in Chittisinghpora during Bill Clinton's visit to India in 2000.
This account was challenged following accusations of torture and forensic
subterfuge, and exhumations, investigations and controversy followed.
Mishra holds the national press and the majoritarian voices responsible for
turning a blind eye to the atrocities in Kashmir where tens of thousands have
been killed, tens of thousands more have been tortured, raped or gone missing,
where countless Indian soldiers have laid down their lives. It is just but
natural that Mishra has been denounced by senior Indian columnists for
pandering to "pro-Muslim audiences in the west" in his reporting on Kashmir,
and riled for his "pro-Pakistan proclivities". And when somebody mentions
Kashmir as 'disputed', jingoists among us resent the status, never questioning
why India cannot lay a rightful claim to Pak-Occupied-Kashmir (PoK) that is
home to many terror training camps?
In his column in The Statesman, Rajinder Puri relevantly questions why there is
as yet no explanation by the government on how security agencies cleared a
function to be attended by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at Mumbai's Trident
Hotel after the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had specifically
warned the government that terrorist attacks from the sea had been planned
against three hotels, including the Trident. Why, Puri asks, the National
Investigation Agency (NIA) probing Hindu terror continues to accumulate
evidence on the Samjhauta Express bomb blasts is not addressing in its probe
the detailed UN Resolution that named 5 Pakistanis for that terror act and even
imposed sanctions against Hafiz Saeed for his responsibility for the blasts.
Could it be because of the Chinese veto in the UN to block the sanctions, he
asks.
Afzal might not be innocent. But he was just a pawn in the bigger, darker game
of sub-continental politics mired in a volatile mix of nationalism and
religion. As the terror machine remains intact and the sense of alienation in
the valley refuses to go away, it is time to ask: is India as a state innocent
as driven snow? It is time the Indian state redrew its Kashmir policy.
(source: Deccan Herald)
***************************
UK Parliamentarians to debate the issue of the Death Penalty in India
It is learnt that the UK Parliamentarians shall debate on the issue of death
penalty in India on February 28, 2013.
It is notable that on December 10, 2012 Kesri Lehar campaigners had handed over
a petition with 1,18,000 signatures to UK's Prime Minister David Cameron. The
focus of the petition was to urge the UK parliament to request India to sign
and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN
Charter against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading treatment or
punishment, which encompasses the 'death penalty'. The petition had sought
debate on the issue of death penalty and human rights in India.
The recent announcement regarding the date of debate came from Fabian Hamilton
Labour MP for Leeds North East and also the Chair of the All Party
Parliamentary Group for British Sikhs.
Fabian Hamilton announced live on Sangat TV on February 14, 2013 that he had
applied for a debate in the UK Parliament about the Abolition of the Death
Penalty in India.
"The debate will be taking place on Thursday February 28, 2013 in the main
chamber of the House of Commons" he reportedly informed.
It will be the 1st debate following Departmental and Business Questions as well
as any statements, so it could start as early as 11.30 am or possibly 12.30 pm
depending on that morning???s business.
It was announced on the 'Raj Karega Khalsa' programme on Sangat TV that the
Sikh Federation (UK) had promised to ensure around 25-30 MPs speak in that
debate and would be providing them detailed briefing on the death penalty in
India and more specifically the case of Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar and
Balwant Singh Rajoana.
Bhai Amrik Singh, Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK) said in a statement: 'There
are many aspects of the case of Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar that we
will ask MPs to set out in the debate. The case of Balwant Singh Rajoana is
different and the most important thing to highlight is the gross human rights
violations perpetrated by the Beant Singh led Punjab Government.'
'In addition, the debate provides an opportunity to expose the level of
political corruption in India at the highest levels and a judicial system that
has major flaws and means a minority community like the Sikhs can never get
justice in India.
The Sikh Federation (UK) also informed viewers that it had been reported that
Pranab Mukherjee, India's President, has reportedly rejected the mercy
petitions of 4 others on Tuesday. The President had now ordered the death
penalty for 7 convicts in the last 7 months, more than any Indian President in
the last 15 years.
(source: Sikhsiyasat.com)
****************************************
A FINE BALANCE - The UPA cannot benefit politically from Afzal Guru's hanging
The functionaries of the government of India who took the decision last Friday
to proceed with the execution of the convicted terrorist conspirator, Afzal
Guru, the next morning, didn't merely concern themselves with the letter and
the spirit of the law. They were equally mindful of the political ramifications
of a case that had, over the years, become an intensely partisan issue.
Having allowed the mercy petition to meander its way through various ministries
in Delhi and the departments of at least 2 state governments, the Centre was
fully conscious that Afzal Guru had become a nightmare issue. The United
Progressive Alliance government's non-decision on carrying out the sentence had
given the street corner ultra-nationalists of various hues a convenient stick
with which to attack a supposedly weak and indecisive executive. Public
opinion, backed by volubly aggressive television chat show hosts, too was
firmly behind the harshest exemplary punishment being awarded to an Indian
national who had colluded with radical Islamist groups in organizing an
audacious attack on the Indian Parliament on the morning of December 13, 2001.
Indeed, it can be said with certainty that the baying for Afzal's blood had
overwhelming popular sanction.
Nor can it be said that the clamour for retribution was unwarranted. The attack
on Parliament, carried out by a determined group of indoctrinated mujahedin
from Pakistan, was a daring operation that had the potential of causing
grievous damage to India's democracy and even triggering another India-Pakistan
war. Had it not been for the quick thinking on the part of a few policemen and
employees of Parliament - 9 of whom died in the attack - who shut the main
door, it is entirely possible that there would have been a prolonged siege and
even a massacre of members of parliament and ministers who happened to be
inside the building at the time. Along with the hijack of the Indian Airlines
flight to Kandahar in December 1999 and the 26/11 massacre in Mumbai, the
Parliament House attack would have been added to the litany of jihadi
triumphalism.
The government quite legitimately calculated that the execution of Ajmal Kasab
and Afzal Guru in quick succession would firmly put an end to the charge of the
Bharatiya Janata Party that it was "soft on terrorism". Coming as it did in the
wake of a ghoulish environment that followed the brutal gang-rape of a young
student in Delhi, the government's belief that Afzal's execution would
reinforce its moral credentials wasn't entirely out of place. The growing
euphoria around the robust, no-nonsense leadership style of the Gujarat chief
minister, Narendra Modi, also contributed to the last-minute show of urgency.
It is not that Congress strategists actually believed that the execution of
Kasab and Afzal would transform the public mood and serve to equate Manmohan
Singh or, for that matter, Sonia Gandhi with Indira Gandhi, who remains the
all-time icon of resolute governance. At best, they clung to the belief that
with the Afzal issue out of the way, a Modi-led campaign would have one less
issue to confront the incumbent government.
One day, when one of those privy to the final decision decides to go public,
the real story of the timing of Afzal's execution will be known. However,
pending this wait, there is some basis to the belief that the government was
hostage to the fear of a possible legal stay on the execution. The Supreme
Court had upheld the death sentence on Afzal in its judgment of August 4, 2005
when it also proclaimed that "The collective conscience of the (sic) society
will be satisfied only if the death penalty is awarded to Afzal Guru." The
sentence was initially due to have been carried out on October 20, 2006 but was
stayed following a mercy petition to the president of India. This meant that
Afzal remained on death row for more than 7 years, an inordinately long time by
any reckoning.
The prolonged delay in carrying out the sentence meant that there was a
possibility (though not a certainty) that the Supreme Court could use
precedents set by itself to commute the sentence to life imprisonment. In 1983,
the apex court had suggested that mercy petitions be decided in 3 months.
Again, on September 18, 2009, it reminded the government of its obligation to
come to a decision on 26 mercy petitions pending with the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
The former president, Pratibha Patil, is the only person who can reveal whether
there was wilful procrastination on the part of the government. But for a very
long time, the suspicion in political circles was that the government would
craftily fall back on legal subterfuge to save itself from the political
complications arising from not merely the Afzal case, but also those involving
the killers of Rajiv Gandhi and the former Punjab chief minister, Beant Singh.
Each of these cases had become intensely politicized.
Falling back on the judiciary to settle an issue that is in the executive
domain has become a habitual practice for this government. Yet, even assuming a
'liberal' bench had deemed that a prolonged delay in carrying out a death
sentence should automatically lead to the sentence being commuted to life
imprisonment, it is doubtful whether the government could have evaded
responsibility for dragging its feet on the Afzal case. On the contrary, the
failure to execute a man who plotted the attack on Parliament would have been
pinned on the UPA's alleged 'minorityism'. However, this was a risk the
government could have taken if no fresh terrorist attack had intervened to make
it a top-of-the-mind issue. The argument that hanging Afzal wasn't worth the
resulting complications in the Kashmir valley would not have been brushed aside
by a Middle India whose verdict on the UPA in the general election isn't going
to be moulded by the khoon ka badla khoon principle.
So why did the calculations go awry? The government was aware that Afzal's
execution would give the separatist movement a boost in the valley and lead to
mainstream politicians echoing the rhetoric of the extremists. It was also
mindful that the overall insensitivity that marked the transmission of news to
the condemned man's family - sending the notice of execution by speed post -
would offend ordinary standards of decency. And yet, it proceeded with
remarkable ham-handedness, pleasing neither the ultra-nationalists nor the
uber-liberals.
"Hang Afzal" was not a slogan that was naturally associated with the Congress;
it belonged to the BJP. If the Congress looked like being electorally
vulnerable, it wasn't on account of its perceived reluctance to put a noose
round Afzal Guru's neck. Indeed, there was nothing in the public reaction to
Kasab's execution barely 3 months ago to suggest that the UPA government had
suddenly acquired a muscular image.
The situation hasn't altered with Afzal's execution. On the contrary, the
Congress has to contend with the sectarian propaganda that it has one standard
for some sections and another standard for Muslims. Such low-level politics
should not be given any respectability but at the same time, it can hardly be
denied that this is precisely the message that will be disseminated from the
pulpits.
The muddle the government finds itself in prompts some unfortunate conclusions.
First, that it reacted in a knee-jerk manner to the president's rejection of
Afzal's mercy petition on February 3. Perhaps it was even taken by surprise by
the president's decision to actually apply his mind and had no forewarning of
the decision. This may explain why its administrative response was so utterly
ham-handed that it lost any potential political benefits from doing what
unfortunately had to be done.
(source: Opinion, The Calcutta Telegraph)
********************************
Wife of convict on death row cries for mercy
60-year-old Thangamma has no energy left in her frail body to fight anymore for
her husband's life. Justice had been denied to her, she claimed on Thursday.
Her husband Sekar 'Meesai' Madaiah (65) is 1 of the 4 convicts facing death
sentence following the rejection of their mercy petitions by the President.
Arraigned as associates of forest brigand Veerappan, they were awarded the
death penalty for their role in a landmine blast at Palar in 1993 case that
claimed 22 lives.
Her hopes of seeing her husband back in their native Karunkallur Kottamaduvu
village in Kolathur block after 2 decades have dimmed. The blast was triggered
by Veerappan's gang during the Special Task Force's combing operations to nab
him. STF personnel were among those killed in the blast.
Thangamma said her husband had served 2 decades of incarceration in various
Karnataka prisons. "My husband has served his sentence. Punishing him further
is cruel," Thangamma said.
Her husband and 3 others, also associates of Veerappan, have been in prison
since 1993 and remained on death row since 2004 when the Supreme Court enhanced
their life sentence to death penalty.
"Today, after nearly a decade, their mercy petitions have been rejected. The
accused and we in their families have undergone enough trauma," she asked.
Noting that many organisations and even the State government had come forward
to support the 3 convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case, who obtained a stay
on their hanging after the rejection of their pleas for clemency, she said:
"But we have none. Can't the State at least provide us legal aid?"
The rustic couple of Thangamma and 'Meesai' Madaiah led a peaceful life in the
early 1960s with their 3 children in the village, until Veerappan, a distant
relative, came into the picture.
Her eldest son Mathesh was killed by Karnataka police in 1993 when he was
barely 20. Her husband's 2 brothers, Muniyan and Sundan Vellaiyan, were also
killed in police encounters. All, according to STF sources, were involved in
illegal operations under Veerappan. "Now, I am left with just my youngest son,
who was 7 years old when the Palar blast took place. We live together to
support each other," she added.
(source: The Hindu)
BANGLADESH:
Bangladesh's 'Tahrir Square' protest demands death for war criminals----Object
of public wrath is Islamist politician found guilty of war crimes during
Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971
Festering resentment among a youthful population super-charged by social media
is by now a familiar ingredient to mass protest movements around the world.
But the latest example of the phenomenon in the Shahbag area of the capital of
Dhaka that has been dubbed Bangladesh's "Tahrir Square" is not attempting to
topple a military dictatorship.
A crowd estimated to be hundreds of thousands strong has been camped on the
streets for 10 days demanding the execution of war criminals.
The movement has created such strong feelings that some expatriate Bangladeshis
have flown home to support the call for the death penalty. Children have been
filmed with the slogan "We want death by hanging" painted across their cheeks
and torsos.
The object of the public wrath is Abdul Quader Mollah, an Islamist politician
found guilty this month of crimes including massacres, torture and rapes during
Bangladesh's bloody war of independence from Pakistan in 1971.
Another 8 members of Mollah's Jamaat-e-Islami party are also on trial, as are 2
members of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, including a former
government minister.
The men had attempted to resist efforts by what was then called "East Pakistan"
to break away from the rest of Pakistan, triggering an immensely violent
conflict. It is estimated that anywhere between 300,000 and 3 million people
were killed by the Pakistani army and their allied local militias.
The prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, was elected on a platform of making the
prosecution of war crimes a priority of her government.
Although Mollah's conviction was a moment of immense symbolism in a country
whose politics was forged by the brutal 9-month conflict, a large section of
Bangladeshis were angered that he was only given a life sentence.
One observer, prominent media analyst Gazi Nasiruddin Ahmed, said the protests
demonstrated the power of the young people who helped propel the ruling Awami
League to a landslide victory in 2008.
"The youth believes the war criminals and collaborators of the occupation
Pakistan army must be tried to give the families of the liberation war martyrs
a sense of closure," Ahmed said.
Many people have given credit to a group called the Blogger and Online Activist
Network for first calling people to the streets. Websites continue to fuel the
mood of national outrage, with laptop wielding bloggers camping on the road,
uploading photos and live streaming speeches.
Public fury at the impunity many war criminals have enjoyed in the last 42
years grew further when Mollah, nicknamed the "Butcher of Mirpur" for his
crimes, flashed a "V" for victory sign when he came out of the courtroom.
Analysts in Dhaka say many people believed Mollah was so cocksure because he
believes he could be pardoned under a possible change of government. Even some
human rights activists who normally abhor the death penalty have supported it
in this case. The trial was criticised by some legal experts for failing to
follow due process.
Supporters of his Jamaat-e-Islami party have held counter-protests around the
country.
On Thursday Shahbag, which protesters have renamed "New Generation Roundabout",
became a sea of candles, lit to mark those killed during the 1971 war. "I never
thought I'd see something magnificent like this," said Imran Ashraf Chowdhury,
a man in his late 40s. "The young ones have done us a great favour by awakening
national consciousness in people."
Police said that 1 man died of head injuries after being beaten by
Jamaat-e-Islami supporters on Wednesday during fights between the police and
the Islamists in the capital's main business district. At least 2 supporters of
Jamaat-e-Islami have died after clashes with police.
(source: The Guardian)
MALAYSIA:
Dominic Bird hope in Kuala Lumpur drug case
There are fresh hopes a Perth man facing a death sentence in Malaysia for
alleged drug trafficking may be acquitted in the wake of evidence pointing to
widespread corruption on the part of police involved in his arrest.
Dominic Bird was arrested in a police sting on March 1, 2012 at a cafe near his
apartment in Kuala Lumpur as he allegedly handed over a package containing 167
grams of methamphetamine to an undercover police officer, who had been posing
as a drug dealer.
The 32-year-old faces a mandatory death sentence if convicted.
But in a stunning twist, the police officer who arranged the deal with Bird was
yesterday accused of major corruption, including trafficking in drugs and
bribing a fellow officer who was present when he threatened a witness in the
case.
Lawyers for Bird told the Kuala Lumpur High Court they have uncovered evidence
that Inspector Luther Nurjib had used the proceeds gained from shaking down
other drug dealers to pay for a lavish lifestyle, including the purchase of 2
luxury apartments.
Bird's lawyer, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, said there was also evidence that
downpayments on two cars owned by Insp Nurjib had been made by drug traffickers
with whom he was associated.
It was also revealed that Insp Nurjib had threatened his informant, who is a
witness in the case, to keep quiet about their relationship and details of how
the police officer had given him a sample of drugs allegedly obtained from
Bird.
The meeting between Insp Nurjib and his informant, named Farizal, was witnessed
by another police officer, the court was told.
Insp Nurjib had previously been ordered not to approach any witnesses or other
people involved in the case.
"There was another officer there. He then took out RM400 and bribed him," Mr
Shafee said.
"We have demolished his credibility from the fact that he has admitted he
inappropriately took money from [Farizal], who is a trafficker."
"I have informed the court that as soon as this case is over, I will definitely
write [to request] an investigation into his conduct so that he can be
prosecuted."
Insp Nurjib has already admitted in court to having given Farizal a sample of
drugs allegedly obtained from Bird weeks before his arrest.
He has also admitted using so-called "flash money" which he took from Farizal
to allegedly obtain the sample of drugs from Bird.
"What he is in short admitting to is he has become a trafficker himself," Mr
Shafee said.
Mr Shafee has also raised allegations of more widespread corruption within the
Dang Wangi drug squad, where Insp Nurjib is assigned.
"It is not just this officer who is involved in improprieties and misconduct.
It is in fact a whole contingent in that particular division of the police," he
said.
The developments have raised fresh hopes that Bird's case could be thrown out
of court.
"Here we are dealing with an officer who lied throughout his testimony," Mr
Shafee said.
"He's a drug trafficker himself. His entire division is involved.
"At the prosecution level itself, we submit that there is no case to answer."
The trial continues.
(source: The Australian)