The Death Penalty Debate

The Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict on the fate of the assassins of Shri Rajiv Gandhi has opened up a Pandora's box in Indian criminal law debate. Advocates sworn to the law and to serve humanity have seemingly decided that the best way to do it is to save hardened criminals from the noose and allow them the status of free and ordinary men. This, they claim, is what is becoming and expected of a democracy that is committed to human rights. As is to be expected, they line up, and deliver politically and legally correct statements on how they welcome this decision and how it serves to reinforce the ideals of human society. I cannot help but scratch my head in both confusion (that people of their eminence are saying all this) and frustration (if it is so simple as they make it out to be then why can't I bring myself to agree) to the repeated and passionate gushing about upholding human rights (surely there is some mistake?). I therefore decide to broadcast my own insignificant opinion, with the hope that like-minded people will come together. The next generation in my opinion needs people to be more logical and truthful than this one, this is what I think before writing all this (hopefully its not all nonsense).

Firstly, however, let me make it clear, that I am no fan of Rajiv Gandhi. My opinion of him is the same as my opinion for all other members of this family: anti nationals, short-sighted, autocratic and corrupt. However, political differences notwithstanding, I also understand and agree that he was the Prime Minister of India, one elected by popular mandate as it should be in our country. His assassination was, figuratively speaking, beheading of India. As such it is a grave crime, combined with the fact that it was an act of terror. We must understand, since we are arguably, one of the countries which has been worst hit by terror, that terrorism is a political tool to undermine a country's institutions. While it may be so that those who commit such acts consider themselves to be revolutionaries or freedom fighters that does not imply that we begin to consider them that way. They are acting against us, against our country and their acts will weaken our country, demoralize and terrorize its inhabitants (our brothers and sisters) and overall threaten our existence. In light of all this it is not difficult to understand that the death penalty was well deserved. It was not carried out due to politics is overall an unfortunate and telling commentary on how immoral our politicians have become. The worst part may be that the wife of the man who died, herself dragged her feet and postured herself in a manner that made it possible for this day to come to pass. There can be no greater betrayal nor stooping any lower, but then my imagination has always been very limited. In the days to come, if Supreme Court lawyer KTS Tulsi's rambling about human rights is anything to go by, we will see more terrorists being shown clemency this time Bhullar and Rajoana. It is indeed a strange spectacle that we are falling over ourselves to show clemency to those who meted out cruelty and endangered the Nation while we seem to have decided that the victims are certainly not human enough to deserve human rights.

The above cases are of one category, where the actions were political and solely intended for political purposes. In all fairness, it cannot be argued either way as to whether the nameless victims were actually killed intentionally. Even so, to suggest that the culprits had not foreseen that people other than their primary target will die, is in my opinion an insult to the intelligence of some highly meticulous criminals. Let us take the case however where not politics but brutality is in question. Let us take the Nirbhaya gang-rape case. Five of the six accused have been hanged. Yet the sixth accused, argued to be a juvenile is likely to walk free this year in July or maybe August. The reason: when he committed the crime he was 17 years and six months old. Obviously on his eighteenth birthday, which was coming in six months time he would have been bestowed with divine intelligence that would have surely caused him to refrain from becoming an animal on the streets of Delhi. He wouldn't have initiated the rape, wouldn't have tortured the victim by jumping on her hip or plunging a rod in her gut and would have surely stopped the other five since they were drunk and he was not. This is what the legal interpretation of the whole matter is. Believe it or not, there are out there, both men and women, who sit in lush offices wearing pristinely tailored suits and saris and exuding all the air of nobility and responsibility who claim that this is justice and make no mistake it is all for humanity. We are fools, because had we been able to protect Nirbhaya for six months more then we may have saved her. All of this is assuming that he really is that age, since his counsel was quick to strike down demands for Bone Ossification test that would have determined his real age. They say routine does not surprise but I am an exception, I guess, because this is news to me that there was a lawyer who went out of his way to keep this demon alive and I am always surprised when something like this happens although it is routine.

I will not come across to most of these people as a very humane person, since I obviously do not understand the grand concept of human rights which is being followed in all the world and which has been pioneered by the greatest civilisation of all time (that is their opinion not mine), the European civilisation. It becomes a matter of opinion, because seeing the emotional and social hellholes which the Europeans and Americans have gone into, come out of and then gone into newer ones altogether I am convinced that I do not want their models, thank you very much. I prefer to apply logic. My logic screams to me that it is not fair that those who did all this be allowed to get away so easily simply because a piece of paper was not imaginative or thoughtful enough to predict that this is how it will be interpreted. My heart bleeds to think of what those who lost their loved ones go through when the society and laws that swore to protect them and deliver justice mock them in a million ways each more cruel than the last. There is only so long that the public sympathy will last and after sometime it even becomes painful. Above all the person who is lost has gone through something irreparable and irreversible. Nirbhaya is not coming back. Who knows what contribution she may have done for humanity. At the very least she could have kept her parents' hearts from breaking, brought a smile or two on those old and weary faces but she is gone now and not coming back. Just like the fourteen policemen killed in Rajiv Gandhi's defense. Their children had lopsided lives, their wives and lovers only unrequited longings. Those who did all this are well cared for, celebrities even, with people of eminence lining up to save them, help them and applaud them.

I can only conclude that these advocates of humanity are its biggest enemies, words laced with sweetest nectar, so sweet that it is alcoholic, and hearts filled with poison so deadly that I doubt whether Lord Shiva could have held it in his throat to save us and not thrown up. Humanity cannot be served by infesting it with demons and demonic ideas. Ideas are only valid as long as there are people to propound them. In a society where, association with or defense of, criminals is not looked down upon criminality will be the norm and we are already seeing it everywhere. India needs the death penalty to save humanity. Do away with it and you will have more murderers than your jails can hold, more rapes than you have women and men (yes men too can be raped and we will see crime become creative very soon if its not already) and overall a mess of violence and blood-lust that will leave us wondering as to what could have possibly gone so wrong. Murder and rape are crimes which must be awarded the death penalty to safeguard the most fundamental human value: life. As they say dead men tell no tales.