yesterday morning i read on the internet about an execution. it was a long-awaited event by many in our country, and greeted with a range of emotions, ranging from a sense of satisfaction of justice finally having been done, to a sense of glee. we had proved that we are not a "soft" state, after all.
but i have a sense of disquiet. given the judgement and verdict in the highest court of the land, which said that though the evidence against the accused is only circumstantial, given the nature of the crime, the collective conscience of society would only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender. is this any basis to take someone's life? arundhati roy states it more clearly here.
in addition, what worries me is the manner in which the execution was carried out. after years of delaying a decision on the mercy petition, and keeping the convicted man on death row (which amounts to torture, according to the same highest court in our country), it is rejected, the family is given no time to come and meet him one last time, and now they are denied the body for burial. is there no dignity in death for a person killed by the state? does his family have no rights at all? - they are all innocent victims of the whole process. one of the righteous on TV argued yesterday that since he did not think of the families of the victims when he attacked Parliament (he was not one of the attackers, incidentally), his family does not deserve any such consideration in turn. but is that a reason for the state not to be humane? where are we headed as a nation?
but i have a sense of disquiet. given the judgement and verdict in the highest court of the land, which said that though the evidence against the accused is only circumstantial, given the nature of the crime, the collective conscience of society would only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender. is this any basis to take someone's life? arundhati roy states it more clearly here.
in addition, what worries me is the manner in which the execution was carried out. after years of delaying a decision on the mercy petition, and keeping the convicted man on death row (which amounts to torture, according to the same highest court in our country), it is rejected, the family is given no time to come and meet him one last time, and now they are denied the body for burial. is there no dignity in death for a person killed by the state? does his family have no rights at all? - they are all innocent victims of the whole process. one of the righteous on TV argued yesterday that since he did not think of the families of the victims when he attacked Parliament (he was not one of the attackers, incidentally), his family does not deserve any such consideration in turn. but is that a reason for the state not to be humane? where are we headed as a nation?
I think he was the kind of person that we should have had a good dialogue with and found a solution for the problem he had with the Indian state.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just about hanging a person who didn't actually take part in the attack. The challenge is to make people understand the value of a life. This casual and silly attitude we as Indians and the state that represents us towards the value of life is reflected in the lip service we pay to education, primary health, road safety and other things that destroy lives and dreams by the thousands every day across India.