Editor,
One year ago on 9th February, 2014, Afzal Guru (of Parliament attack fame) was executed after a protracted legal process. There is a large body of opinion that suggests that injustice was meted out to Afzal Guru by the Indian legal system, the National Media, the police and the investigating agencies. Much has been written on every aspect of this miscarriage of justice. Suffice to say that he was not given an opportunity to present his case properly and confessions were wrung out of him through torture. It is a remarkable fact that the Honourable Supreme Court set aside Afzal’s confession. But based only on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, decided that “his life should become extinct”. He was not given a chance of a last meeting with his wife and son before his execution. His body was buried within the Tihar Jail compound. The damning conclusion is that the sentence of death was a punishment that far exceeded the crime i.e. the peripheral role he played in the attack on Parliament. There is no doubt that Due Process and basic human rights were given short shrift.
The Indian Constitution in its Preamble grandly assures “the dignity of the individual” but it qualifies it by adding the words “and the unity and integrity of the nation”. This appendage is insidious to the extreme. The Supreme Court sentenced Afzal Guru to death on the ground that “the incident (attack on Parliament) ……… has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender”. Arundhati Roy, in her inimitable style, has retorted that this is nothing short of validating mob law. Who decides the “collective conscience” and what yard-stick can objectively measure such a vague entity?
The Supreme Court in a recent judgment of January 2014 ruled that inexplicable, inordinate delay in deciding on mercy plea of a death row convict is sufficient ground for commutation of death sentence to life. It further added that solitary confinement is unconstitutional, a time gap of 14 days between dismissal of the mercy petition and hanging of a convict should be maintained, a death convict and his family members must be informed after the mercy plea is rejected, and condemned prisoners must be given a chance to meet their family members before execution of death sentence.
All the above decisions would have done a lot of good to Afzal Guru ……. if he had been alive! The inference is that justice is selective and that the wheels of justice do grind slowly. Whether they grind exceedingly fine is another matter! The Supreme Court needs to live up to its reputation of being the last bastion of Indian democracy. If the law is humane and if the Indian State can comprehend even a small fraction of the sense of alienation of the people of Kashmir, a decision has to be taken to grant closure to the family of Afzal Guru by allowing a proper burial of his remains at a site of their choice. Continuing refusal on the ground of fears of “public unrest” or “creation of martyrs” would further enhance the perception that the Indian State has no respect for basic human rights and that Indian troops are an occupying force in Kashmir.
Some would argue that the small step of allowing a decent burial would be too little too late. But such an act would be a symbolic indication of a change of mindset if this is complemented by a thorough re-appraisal of what South Block calls the “Kashmir Policy”. India should wake up to the fact that a shield of half a million Indian troops in Kashmir has not been able to quell the flames of decades of unrest.
Yours etc.,
G. M. Bruce Sawkmie
Shillong – 3
