Death or not? Yakub’s execution has sparked off a debate about the justice system in the country. Photo: Vijay Pandey
The sky was changing hue and day was turning into night. On 29 July, the clockwas ticking like a time bomb for Yakub Memon, one of the convicts in the 1993Mumbai bomb blasts case. Published accounts tell that Yakub looked calm and composed standing at the edge of life and death. However, those seeking clemencyfor him in Delhi and elsewhere were anything but calm.
Restlessness was etched on the face of those who had started flocking at Jantar Mantar at around 7 pm. Gatherings at Jantar Mantar, the nerve centre of protestsin Delhi, are a daily occurrence devoid of novelty. However, demands for clemencyfor a ‘terrorist’, convicted for killing hundreds of innocents was unprecedented. It was indeed historical.
While the protesters raised slogans demanding mercy for Yakub, a section of India waited impatiently for the clock to strike seven in the morning, when the killings of innocents in Mumbai blasts could be avenged. In the midst of this, some asked, who will avenge the killing of the thousands of innocents killed in the Mumbaicommunal violence, 1993 and the Gujarat anti-Muslim Pogrom, 2002?
In a sudden turn of events, news started flashing that lawyers have submitted a fresh mercy petition to the President seeking leniency for him. At around 10 pm, this too was rejected after the recommendations by the home ministry.
When all legal channels shut down, a few activists and lawyers knocked on the doors of the Chief Justice of India, HL Dattu. It was decided then that a Bench of three judges will hear a petition for stay on Yakub’s execution for 14 days. It is interesting to note that the bench of three comprised the same judges who had earlier rejected his mercy petition. The rush was now at the Supreme Courtgate where the protestors arrived with placards and banners both seeking and opposing mercy.
It was the first time in independent India that a court had opened its door at midnight. Fingers were crossed and eyes were fixated on the media updates. By four in the morning it was clear that Yakub’s life would come to an end in a couple of hours. The three-member Bench had rejected the stay petition and preparations for his hanging were already carried out in Nagpur central jail. Yakub was thus executed at 7 am in the morning and his death, confirmed by a team of doctors half an hour later.
What followed his execution had been predicted weeks beforehand. India was polarised on his death penalty. Daily newspapers carried columns with opinionson his execution. On one side of the divide, was liberal and secular India, standing by the Muslims that was engulfed in a feeling of betrayal. The general feeling among the community was that if Yakub could be hanged, why are the ‘saffron terrorists’ accused for butchering hundreds of innocents in different communal riots and acts of terror given differential treatment? On the other side, there were many who believed that justice had been served by hanging Yakub.
Adding fuel to fire was Asaduddin Owaisi, the leader of mim (Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen) who said, “Yakub was hanged because he was a Muslim.”Far from trying to reassure the Muslim community, Home Minister Rajnath Singh in Parliament advocated for not using the term ‘Hindu terror’ and argued that this term has softened India’s stand on terrorism.
For Shams (name changed), who participated in the funeral of Yakub, the slain man was no hero but a symbol of ‘injustice’ against Muslims at large. His words resonate the feeling of thousands of other people who had participated in the gathering. These people were referred to as ‘potential terrorists’ by the Tripura Governor Tathagata Roy.
“I am not here because I have sympathies for Yakub nor do I give him a clean chit. But, I am here to mark my protest against the government and system in India which is selective and has a dual approach in dealing with terrorists and hate mongers. On one side, we have people like Balwant Singh Rajoana who was part of the conspiracy to kill former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh. If his death penalty can be stayed and others like Bhullar can be given mercy, then why not Yakub? Was it because he was a Muslim?” asks Shams, before remarking that he does not feel safe now in his own country.
Ironically, the same argument was used by Owaisi, who had pointed out that there was no political party supporting Yakub, while for Rajoana, Akali Dal had actively campaigned against his death penalty. It seems the community could be heading towards a radical Muslim centric political leadership, something which senior journalist Saeed Naqvi also suggests. “In this situation, almost by default, the man on the white charger happen to be Owaisi. He pulls no punches and is more articulate than most political leaders and tv panelists. For his opponents, he is flawed because he holds his ground firmly with expert references to the constitution,” writes Naqvi, referring to dearth of any secular platform.
Though, Arun Jaitley reassured the community that the rioters implicated in different cases would also meet a similar fate, his assurance does not inspire much confidence considering all that has happened in the past. So far, no government inMaharashtra has been able to implement the findings of the Justice Sri Krishna Commission report which had clearly pointed out the role of late Shiv Sena leader,Bal Thackeray and others who had orchestrated the 1992 communal violence inMumbai. Further, there has been very few convictions in the riot cases that led to the inhumane Mumbai blasts in 1993.
Many political analysts are also of the opinion that the haste shown in turning down the mercy petition by the governor of Maharashtra and the President of India, on recommendation of the home ministry, hint towards an electorally motivated political angle.
“There are cases where the President and governors have sat on mercy petitions for a long time, then why was such haste shown here? Considering the nature of the BJP and its electoral calculations, one can sense that there was a political angle involved in this haste and it was not because of their desire to execute a process of law in hurry. This was also pointed out by Yakub’s lawyer Anand Grover,” says Apoorvanand, a Delhi University professor. “Any kind of communal polarisation has always helped bjp to sail its electoral ships, so why wouldn’t polarisation as an outcome of Yakub’s hanging help them? Bihar elections are not far away after all and hence the timing of his hanging becomes crucial,” he adds.
Unlike the neglected case of Afzal Guru, Yakub’s judicial killing has far reaching consequences. The nature of judicial pronouncements and the correlation between a convict’s social and religious identity with that of the punishment awarded by the court has now been exposed. Voices from within the system have already started registering their protests. Kurian Joseph, the veteran Supreme Court judge has been vocal against the judgement. Anup Surendranath, the deputy registrar(research), Supreme Court, has resigned calling the execution ‘judicial abdication’. A former judge from Gujarat, Himanshu Trivedi has revealed that he resigned because there was anti- Muslim bias in the courts of Gujarat.
In lieu of such an atmosphere, the Muslim community will look out for a ventilating space that might upset the electoral calculation of the secular parties. Electoral politics from here will be interesting to watch on.
No comments:
Post a Comment