Ghalib Guru and the Media Circus

Should the son of a man considered a terrorist be feted for scoring 95 per cent marks and topping the 10th board exams? 

Afzal Guru is now legend. He was hanged to death for his supposed role in the 2001 Parliament attack. He was an educated man. His son Ghalib, named after the poet, seems to be academically inclined too. He is now in the news. Mainstream newspapers are doing profiles on him. Are they, in the process, already profiling him as the heir? 

This is my concern. It is not in the same league as sensationalists glorifying a criminal for copy. In this case, the young man is being pinned against a wall on which they've already stuck his father's posters. It is not Ghalib the media is interested in, but the ghost of Afzal Guru.

Probably the worst line of questioning came from The Times of India. Sagarika Ghose starts with these words:

"The Pathankot attackers said they wanted revenge for the hanging of Afzal Guru; and in the Kashmir valley, Afzal Guru's "martyrdom" has becoming a rallying cry in the valley. But Afzal Guru's 17-year-old son Ghalib Abdul Guru says he has nothing to do with the azaadi (freedom) sentiment and wants to become a doctor and study at AIIMS."

This is such a cheap shot. By including the recent attacks in Pathankot, the interviewer is updating Ghalib's profile. There are many doctors, who have studied at prime institutes, who continue to believe in azaadi. The two are not at odds. 

The interrogation is sneaky with the subject being given key queries from which there is no escape. Since this is not a Q&A format, the inquisitor can get away. 

Ghalib is indirectly quoted as saying he wanted to get an MBBS "just like his dad" (interviewer's words). This is followed with:

"I used to meet dad in prison. The Crime Patrol told me he had done something bad and had hurt some people that's why he was in jail. When I met him he used to tell me to study hard all the time and do well at my studies, to look after my mother and read the Quran."

Isn't it clear what is going on here? The boy is being prodded to talk about his father. This guy is happy with his marks and a journalist goes on hammering him not about aspirations and how the young in Kashmir think, but about Afzal Guru. 

What are his memories of his father? "I don't remember him very well. All I remember is he used to always stay with his books, always reading and studying. He used to tell me to do the same. He used to say everything is in the hands of the Almighty. Whatever is written in your naseeb (fate), that's what will happen."

This gives Ms. Ghose another chance to pounce with, "So is Ghalib also religious?" Not "is Ghalib religious?" but "also religious". Like his father, like the man who he seems to be following, from medical practice to the Quran? This is what the media likes to build up. 

When he says, "I want to work in Kashmir because there is a shortage of doctors here. I wanted to also join the IAS, but my family was against that", the brave questioner has nothing to ask or say. No comment on how the youth of Kashmir wanting to contribute to it is more mainstream than some weird idea of allegiance to the nation. 

It is pertinent to note that he wanted to join the Indian Administrative Services, but his family opposed it. Many young people start out with naïve dreams, but the past returns. It is not what they inherit but that history does repeat itself in circles of deceit.

Towards the end of the interview, we get this:

What does he think about the Pathankot attack where the attackers claimed they wanted to avenge the death of his father? "I don't know much about that. People should not try to harm others. But yes if the Indian government has done something wrong then they will be punished.

And does he agree with the azaadi sentiment? "I don't think about that. I stay with my studies and my work. I work very hard as that's what my mother tells me."

I do not expect a 17-year-old not to be politicised, especially one who is surrounded by politics, and who has to bear the burden of being the son of a shaheed. But why should he be dragged into such indirect battles when the media claims it is celebrating his 94% achievement? To end the interview in this manner seems to be projecting a future martyr. 

A reader left this comment at the end of the piece:

Why are U championing the son of a terrorist as if he is some great Yuga Purusha? There are countless children of soldiers who excel in their studies and career. Why dont U feature them? For all that U know, this son of a 3rd rated terrorist and traitor would still be supporting his father and his philosophy of Jehaad and may be nursing a feeling of revenge towards the nation for the hanging of his father...

This is how deviously some liberals work. They seem to 'champion' a cause, so that it plays right into the hands of patriots frothing at the mouth. The reason they do not feature the children of soldiers or others is because the real aim is to highlight jihad, draw people out so that others perceive it the way this reader has. (Note the last sentence here and of the second last para of Ghalib's interview.)

Such binaries emanate from their own comatose perceptions to benefit only themselves. 

Veerappan's Legacy and a Sleeping State

Veerappan

Veerappan was probably the last of the bandits. Shot dead in 2004 by the security forces that he eluded for a good few decades, he is back in the news. The Supreme Court has stayed the death sentence of his four associates.

It again raises the question about whether the mental agony and physical confinement due to delayed execution is humane. Besides this, the courts must ask themselves whether the severe punishment to deter further such acts of crime serves its purpose. The Veerappan gang survived in the jungles across three states – Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. It started with poaching, and went on to smuggling of ivory and sandalwood available in the forests.

How he and his band of dacoits survived for this long has spawned many stories, including the complicity of certain forces and the romantic notion of him being protected by the villagers.

I mention this in the context of how the legal pattern of the mercy petition on behalf of his aides is being dealt with. Gnanprakasam, Simon, Meesaikara Madhaian and Bilavendran will have to wait until tomorrow to know whether the amended version of their plea will alter the punishment.

It is frightening to think about the political games that might play themselves. Afzal Guru’s case has already showcased how fast-tracking is done with ulterior motives. There are other precedents, all waiting for the noose. Sandalwood smugglers do not matter as much as an attack on Parliament in the general scheme, but now that the government has displayed brawn it cannot turn wimpy. If it flexed muscles in Kashmir, will it be forced to do the same in Kanya Kumari?

What is particularly intriguing is the Attorney General G E Vahanvati’s reasoning about denying that mercy in this case:

He said Veerappan’s gang members had committed a crime against the state by triggering a landmine blast that killed 22 people— five policemen, 15 police informers and two forest guards. Opposing the petition, the AG said, “These are crimes against the state and must be distinguished from crimes against society.”

A chief minister is killed. Does he constitute the state? Does the state not include society? One understands the validity of symbols, but without wishing to sound insensitive how are policemen, aware of the dangers of their job, more important than others? Going by the AG’s statement, is it not the business of the state to protect society and, therefore, crimes against the latter could also make the state responsible for laxity?

Where was the state when Veerappan was committing the crimes? People might recall that the police went full force only when Kannada superstar Rajkumar was kidnapped and held captive for over three months. This gave the Centre enough ammo to get Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to fight it out. 

Elephants, sandalwood, ivory may be state property, but they are also about business. Whose business? How did the dacoit manage to have an army with him? Had he not been shot dead, he and his men would still be on the run, continuing with their activities.

It is important to understand Veerappan a bit. At the age of ten, he picked up a gun and killed his first elephant. Was it for a lark or were these the makings of a criminal? One suspects it was pathological, for there were instances where he did not just snuff out a life, but beheaded the victims and even choked a six-month old lest its cries alert the police. And he never expressed remorse for any of his actions.

Yet, he remained in touch with those in power. He offered to surrender on the condition that he got a presidential pardon, the right to continue to hold arms and a movie to be made on his life. Part of it could be attributed to his close observing of Phoolan Devi whose post-dacoit ‘mainstream’ life he was beginning to be inspired by.  His numerous video cassettes were less about communicating to the outside world than to project himself as an invincible man; it was the trailer of the film he hoped would one day be made by a director of international standing.

Veerappan decided he was a messiah of the whole region. When he sent his list of demands, there was nothing for himself. What he said sounded like a politician’s manifesto – a solution to the Cauvery dispute, Tamil as the administrative language of Karnataka, and an ensured daily wage for the Manjoloi estate workers in Tirunelvelli. He wanted to portray himself as the king of Tamil Nadu, a real-life version of the celluloid MGR.

He even compared himself with Jayalalitha, saying that if she could be chief minister with cases pending against her, why could he not be set free? The fact is he would never get any credence as a free man. His appearance was geared to cause fear as a bandit. In the urban jungle, he would become a part of the history of thuggery. So he ensured he remained in the news every few months, and propped up his image as a folk hero.

He often said he respected women and hated the security forces who raped them under the ruse of trying to find him. It is true that women were arrested for helping him, for providing him information and food.  Then there were his aides.  It is possible that he captured them and they worked for him under duress.

The government and police forces that rely on informants ought to know how they use their powers to keep such people safe. It is barter. What applies to them would apply to the criminal too.

These people constitute society. They could well be victims, of the bandits/terrorists and the state, and one cannot with certainty tell anymore what comes first.

The killing of Veerappan was justified because it was a case of one force against another. But getting four aides executed now reeks of political opportunism.  For argument’s sake, if the state is convinced that capital punishment is the best way to deal with criminals (it is not and it will have to face the music by right-thinking citizens), then instead of looking back in anger, it ought to immediately address recent cases of terror against the state and announce the death sentence. Only then can it afford to take a high moral ground.

Justice seen to be done is not always justice. It is sometimes a coverup con job by those in charge of booking cons.

© Farzana Versey

Anna Effect on Delhi Blast

We all know that terrorist groups like claiming responsibility for terror attacks. The reason is not always to mislead, unless there is a syndicate involved. This is power by default, like college Romeos pointing out to sundry girls and saying, “She is mine”. 

Yesterday, September 7, at 10.15 am, there was a blast near the main gate of the reception area of the Delhi High Court.12 people have died and over 70 injured. The bomb was in a briefcase. The questions will be about everything except an unattended briefcase. 

The Pakistan-based Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami (HuJI) sent an email to the media: 

"We own the responsibility for today's blasts at Delhi high court. Our demand is that Mohammed Afzal Guru's death sentence should be repealed immediately else we would target major high courts and the Supreme Court of India."

Believable? Yes. Except that other terrorist groups have also jumped in, and the suspects are from Kashmir to Kanyakumari to wherever the HuJI operates from.

The media cacophony has begun, and I am still restricting it to the print media. Read this bit from a Rediff report:

Considering that the blast has taken place outside a court, there are two angles that will come under the scanner. The first would point towards someone who is upset with the judiciary, or someone has had a case lodged there.

The other obvious angle would be terror, and by carrying out a blast outside the court a message is being sent out regarding the various cases being tried against some of the accused of both the Students Islamic Movement of India and the Indian Mujahideen.

Is this some version of the Ramlila grounds, where angry over certain issues people are taking over and pushing for ‘reform’? This implicates several innocent people, including undertrial prisoners. We have had a few rare cases of shootouts in the courtroom itself, so it is facile to suggest that because it took place outside a court someone was “upset with the judiciary”. Everyone is upset with cases dragging on, including people filing for divorce, and there are thousands of cases lodged there.

Now we come to the “obvious angle”. Despite the reference to Afzal Guru, why does the report dig out SIMI and the IM?

Let me give two angles here:

1. After the Rajiv killers’ delayed sentence by the Tamil Nadu High Court and Assembly, certain sections of the media want to ensure that it is not seen as a precedent for Afzal Guru. Keeping silent about any mention of him is smart.  
2. It is good opportunity to work on some home-grown terror groups, especially the Johnies-come-lately, because there is obfuscation regarding their motives and they are easier to round up as suspects.

The government has put the Delhi Police on the backburner immediately and given the case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Newspapers call it a “no-confidence motion” against the police force. The fact that the NIA has already arrested three people in Kishtwar is laudable, but makes one wonder:

• That was quick.
• The Kashmir angle will give the government its own ammo to deal with Afzal Guru rather than be seen as following HuJI’s diktat.
• Did the Intelligence Bureau know that the judiciary would be targeted? Even if it did, how could it handle the situation? Insist that people tag along sniffer dogs with them?

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said:

"There are obviously unresolved problems and weaknesses in our system and the terrorists are taking advantage of that. We must work hard to plug those weaknesses."

I am afraid but the job of terrorists and their ideology is not geared to merely take advantage of weaknesses. When they set their minds to something, they plan it and they can enter the most fortified citadel. It is one power centre against another. It is pretty disgusting to read what one IB source said:

"It is too early to call this is a terror attack. It appears to be a low intensity blast, and the modus operandi for now looks like it is the job of some miscreants… but we are still investigating."

This is surprising because there was no such mention of miscreants in the Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Dadar case. Then there was talk about how outside forces were jealous of India’s economic progress. Honestly, during the London riots too no one went to Bond Street. And please do not get into the 26/11 Taj/Trident hotels reference. These were two places among others – and the idea, besides the terrorist one, was to ensure live telecast. The case has still not been resolved since we are waiting for Godot.

This seems to be the pattern. However, the IB, according to some reports, believes that such blast patterns could also mean that “there are several fringe elements on the loose capable of carrying out such attacks”.

What is surprising is that there have been some of us who have often talked about looking at the criminal angle, outside of the terror motive, but it was always the terror angle and the war on it that took up prime space. So, why this change in stand? Why is there an attempt at a more cautious approach, which should be as a matter of course?

One might assume that this sobriety makes better sense as compared to the earlier prominent ones. Perhaps from the point of the government, yes. But is it the Anna effect where hitting out at the establishment does not make the ‘enough is enough’ brigade start their chest-thumping since they are supposed to ‘fight’ the government machinery?

Look at a couple of quotes that seem like a hangover of the rally.

“India is seen soft targets for terror attacks as political system protects only its own” – Shekhar Kapur

“Wake up Mr. Home Minister. Please protect the citizens of this country. Innocent and ordinary lives are equally important” – Anupam Kher

While most who die in terrorist attacks are the innocents – just as it is the ordinary who immolate themselves for their heroes – there have been prominent people targeted as well. It would be frightening to think that this group overtakes the corrupt security agencies angle, a reality but it cannot explain such plots. Surely, this is not like match-fixing. 

Politicians, a naturally much-reviled species, are not the only ones playing politics. There are cries against Parliament being adjourned to express solidarity with the victims. Had they gone about the business, there would be flinging of slippers, banging of tables and shouting of slogans. How would that send out any signal that we will not be intimidated by terrorists? 

Parliament is in session when bomb blasts take place; politicians are in their constituencies.

Gestures of the government getting ‘back to work’ convey nothing. At best, they are akin to messages in a bottle.


(c) Farzana Versey

Right said Omar?

Omar Abdullah is trapped between the BJP and the Hurriyat. At any other time it would have been a wonderful place to be in, berated by two extremist groups. Unfortunately for him, their reasons for putting him on the mat are vastly different.

The chief minister has been quoted from Twitter as saying:

"If the J&K assembly had passed a resolution similar to the one in Tamil Nadu on Afzal Guru would the reaction have been as muted? I think not."

The death penalty for Rajiv Gandhi's killers has been delayed by state intervention. This is unusual.

Omar is right in that there are different standards. Interestingly, the muted reaction he was complaining about has agitated people and 'unmuted' them. The BJP is going hoarse with sudden concern for Rajiv Gandhi. (They are quiet over the acquittal of Haren Pandya's killers. Pandya was a BJP man who later had a fallout with Modi.)

The BJP uses the phrase "sovereignty of the nation" rather loosely. Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, unfortunate as it was, had its own dynamics that had to do with policy. The LTTE is not an Indian organisation, although it has its supporters. Such support results in huge electoral gains.

The BJP is worried about this aspect. After all, Priyanka Gandhi had met Nalini, one of her father's killers, in Vellore jail in 2008. The death verdict was given 11 years ago. Why did the BJP not put pressure to expedite it as they have done on a regular basis in the case of Afzal Guru, an Indian?

Omar Abdullah was pointing out the double standards, and one should see this as part of a thriving democracy that we are so chuffed about, with people out in the street.

However, the Hurriyat's Mirwaiz Omar Farooq has wondered why if he is so concerned about Afzal does he not resign. Again, we are faced with a missing the wood for the trees situation.

Omar Abdullah was in fact speaking as a political leader and expressing the helpless predicament of dealing with Kashmir. He chose the wrong forum to do so.

A few 'other' questions too need to be asked:

1. Would he raise the issue in the J&K assembly?

2. If so, would it mean he is doing so on humanitarian grounds or on a legal/factual basis?

3. If the latter, then would he risk providing possible loopholes?

4. How often do fake encounters figure in the assembly?

5. Does exposing political hypocrisy - I am assuming the muted reference was to politicians - enough?

This is a question for all parties. We do live in times when terrorists too have a vote bank, that is those who are not behind establishment-buffered terror.

Answers need to be sought in the right place, unless the 'people's movement' has seeped into the system's bones. In that case, stone pelters should be excused.

Afzal Guru: No Noose is Good Noose

Every few months the Afzal Guru mercy petition is brought out for airing. This time the government has advised the President to reject his plea. Everybody likes a nice linear structure, and no one better than the Times of India.

Guru, along with some others, was accused of plotting the audacious attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001 in which a group of jihadis came very close to wiping out India’s political brass. The aggression almost provoked an Indo-Pak war, with India mobilizing troops along the border to force Pakistan to cut its support to terror groups.

This is plain over-the-top dramatic. Where are the points about how a group can enter Parliament? Let us also not forget that Professor S.A.R. Geelani was arrested for being part of the “group of jihadis” but had to be released. Do read some detailed posts I had written.

And here is the precious sanctimonious ‘TIMES VIEW’ that ends in a typically foolish manner:

As a philosophy, this paper is opposed to the death penalty. One of the very few exceptions we make is with terrorists—when guilt is beyond the shadow of a doubt. Guru execution will take weight off Cong back

Sure, TOI knows all about guilt. Or is it more keen on easing the onus on the Congress?

It will be interesting to see some turncoat behaviour, too. I am particularly curious about Dr Farooque Abdullah’s stand. Back in 2006 he had said:

“You want to hang him? Go ahead and hang him. But the consequences of hanging him must also be remembered. One of the consequences will be... we have paid the price of Maqbool Butt’s hanging by the judge who was shot in Kashmir. Those judges will need to be protected like anything.”

Judges have been shot at in courtrooms by goondas and the underworld too. And people in the public eye in controversial cases are always at risk. That is the reason our country has Z or is it “Zzzzz” security.

He also said the nation would go up in flames. This is the language Bal Thackeray uses all the time, and of course everyone just indulges him; some even feel he is right.

There are too many questions and I will reproduce one of my earlier pieces in full:

Get real about Mohammad Afzal  

India would not have got Independence had hanging served as a deterrent to terrorist activity. Our freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, Rajguru -- all dubbed terrorists by the British who ran this country -- were responsible for the killing of innocents as part of their strategy; their target was never innocents.

Therefore, please let us not make the Mohammad Afzal very real dilemma into a frikkin soap opera. I have given my point of view in the blog of 29.9.06 (Why should Mohammad Afzal be hanged? ), but these ‘human’ stories should be left out for the moment. Afzal’s son, apparently, tried to tie a rope round his neck…his mother said something about him trying to feel the pain of his father. Sorry, the kid is seven and I am aware that children exposed to such extreme trauma do grow up fast, but this is no time or occasion for pop psychology.

We do have the other side where the widow of a CRPF jawaan, killed in the Parliament attack, who was posthumously awarded the Ashoka Chakra has threatened to return the medal if Afzal is not given the death sentence. No time for blackmail too.

Time to stick to the bare essentials:

1. The Congress (that has suddenly got chicken) now says they are against clemency; the BJP has always said so; the Shiv Sena…who the heck cares for it…Wait a minute. Political parties cannot decide on this issue. It is solely Presidential discretion.   

 2. Afzal is an Indian. It is clear we believe Indians are not capable of heinous acts on their own. As his lawyer Nandita Haksar pointed out, despite the apex court having acquitted Afzal of charges of belonging to any terrorist organisation, he is still referred to as a JeM (Jaish-e-Mohammed) operative.

3. Why the hell has the Hurriyat Conference’s Mirwaiz Umar Farooq taken up the issue of Afzal death sentence with the Bush administration in New York and sought their intervention towards seeking clemency for him? Does he not understand that the US is one of the biggest ‘civilised’ terror factories? Can we not handle the issue ourselves? This will send out the wrong signal to the Indian government.

4. A group of concerned citizens had written to the prime minister in December 2004. They had put forth a few pertinent points:

• -The prosecution produced 80 witnesses. None of them even mentioned that the four persons accused of conspiring to attack the Parliament have any link to any illegal or banned organisation. All of them were acquitted of charges of belonging to a terrorist organisation.
  
• -If Afzal was a surrendered militant how would the Pak-based JeM use him?
  
• -His confessions were made under conditions of torture and the police made him implicate himself before the media.
  
• -One of the other accused, Prof. S.A.R. Geelani, was framed on the basis of forged documents and fabricated evidence. After his acquittal, he has been speaking out and giving details about the conditions under which prisoners in the high risk cells are kept. The National Human Rights Commission instead of investigating the allegations closed the case filed by Mr Geelani on the ground that the jail authorities have denied the charges.
  

What do you expect jail authorities to do?

No one expects an emotional response. These are practical issues that need to be addressed. And for those who have accused me of bringing in other cases, like the Bombay riots, the authorities are doing it all the time. Giving examples of what happens in Pakistan. Get real. Pakistan is a different country now.

I am interested in India. Aren’t you?

Questions for Kasab's new lawyer

Almost as soon as he took over as Ajmal Kasab's lawyer, Abbas Kazmi said he wasn't sure if his client was a Pakistani. As a defence attorney, this could have been a great strategy and the Indian Constitution does provide for a fair trial.

Now, here are some queries that Mr. Kazmi will face (besides, of course, the one of him being a Pakistani soul in Indian body!):

* The Pakistani government has accepted Kasab, so how does he disprove that?

* The Pakistani media has tracked his house and family - does he disown them?

* Kasab himself has mentioned his village and country, can he retract that?

* Even if he says he was pressurised to make a false confession, the question remains as to why he asked for a Pakistani lawyer then.

* By giving out his main line of argument, is the lawyer trying to disassociate with Pakistan because of the baggage involved for an Indian Muslim?

* Has he given some thought to the fact that despite having represented the accused in the 1993 blasts case, he was chosen over a few others?

* Given his declaration about doubts regarding his client's nationality, does he realise that options for evidence would be limited? What happens to the counter-queries the Pakistani government has sent us after receiving the dossier?

---

Now we come to some crucial points.

This reportage of Kasab's trial has already become a joke. What he wore, what he ate, how he smiled, who he looked at...this isn't a soap opera. We had enough of that following the attack.

Terrorism is being made into an election issue and will be misused. Last night a young BJP member said that people were asking her about Afzal Guru. Oh dear. The youth have other problems and am glad for once Jayanti Natarajan of the Congress responded that the cases against Rajiv Gandhi's killers are still pending. Every political party is going to use what it can.

The Left is happily posing with Vaiko who has made anti-national statements.

The Naxalites went on a killing spree and all we hear about is the voter turnout.

Please note that we get all bothered only when one country is mentioned: Pakistan.

Therefore, the Kasab trial should be put on hold until the elections are over. He is behind bars and in our custody.

Time to take care of our Maoists and their demands. The Indian state has to deal with the Indian state first.

Why is Afzal Guru rooting for Advani?

Afzal Guru is under pressure. Psychological and of some other kind. Yes, go ahead and accuse me of harbouring one more conspiracy theory. The man who has been convicted for the attack on Parliament (although he was not part of the actual act) now wants L.K.Advani to become prime minister so that he can get a death sentence in peace!

Hum kya ghaas kha rahe hai? Who the hell is fooling whom? I am no fan of the Congress party but clemency decisions are not taken with great speed – and not by the PM but the President. There are several factors that have to be taken into account. Afzal is cribbing about three years – what about the undertrials, little kids, old men, who have been arrested on fake charges (sometimes not even that courtesy was extended; they were just hauled up) who are waiting for justice for years?

“I really wish LK Advani becomes India's next prime minister as he is the only one who can take a decision and hang me. At least my pain and daily suffering would ease then.”

Yes, and what about those of us who will not be hanged? What about the possibility of India finally giving up the pretence of being a democracy, which it has been steadfastly before the early 90s? A man who watches a mosque being demolished as though he is a spectator of some epic film (he love movies, does he not?) will be in power. Give his speech at the Red Fort. What will he tell us? Does he have any manifesto other than building a temple?

“I have also requested that till the time they (government) take a decision, they shift me to a Kashmir jail.”

Why? A prison is a prison. And he has himself noted, “I only asked for pardon to stop millions of Kashmiri people hitting the streets. If I am hanged, I would take it as a sacrifice towards the people of Kashmir.”

Being in Kashmir would only exacerbate the issue and there is still time for Advani to become PM.

Now let me elaborate a bit on what I imagine are the undercurrents (how I love the word).

Afzal asks to be shifted to Kashmir. There is pressure on Ghulam Nabi Azad. Congress gets even more jittery. The National Conference which happily slept with the NDA will start making noises, like the Omar boy did when the lady Prez held a gun and smiled. NC will start preparing for an alliance with the BJP. Position on top.

Now if Afzal does get the death penalty, then he asked for it and in fact Advani was the right man to convey him towards that ‘release’.

If his mercy petition is heeded to, then it will be a coup for the saffron brigade. Look, how large-hearted we are.

Afzal will then sit in some prison and pen songs for them. He will become an example of the reformed jihadi.

Afzal is reading India wins freedom by Maulana Azad about the country's independence movement. Sweet. Ironical too. The Kashmiris would not quite get it, the Kashmiris who he is fighting for.

Human rights activists have been really pursuing his case and I personally feel this is a big blow to their work. Some of us played a lesser role, but we did raise our voices to bring to light various aspects of the case.

There is too much politics going on now, and even terrorists are learning to play it. Sad.

Afzal Guru’s son has been named Ghalib. I assume it is after the poet who said:

nuktaacheen hai gham-e-dil usako sunaaye na bane
kya bane baat jahaan baat banaaye na bane

Some news...

It's not our duty to expedite Afzal's execution, says SC

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions to the Government to expedite execution of the death sentence of Mohammad Afzal, convicted in the 2001 Parliament attack case.

"It is not our duty. It is for the executive to decide how to consider the matter. We cannot pass such a direction," observed a Bench presided by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

"This court cannot give such directions. We already passed the final order. You go to the executive," the Bench told the petitioner, Lashkar-e-Hind, an NGO.

I have already held forth at length on the case in two blogposts:

Parliament attack: Why should Mohammed Afzal be hanged?

Mohammed Afzal ko ghussa kyon nahin aata?

Bal Thackeray and the President

Thackeray's 'Hairy' Encounter
By Farzana Versey
01 February, 2007, Countercurrents

Instead of asking Bal Thackeray to apologise to the President of India for saying, “His hair is falling over his eyes and blinding him, or perhaps he is seeing stars or the moon before his eyes”, we ought to thank him.

If the Shiv Sena chief can be accused of frivolity, then the responses are just about as flippant. They say he has insulted the highest office in the land by taking personal pot-shots. President Kalam’s hair had been the topic of discussion from the day he was in the running for the post. Newspapers had put up computer-generated images of him in various hairstyles that would ‘suit him’. No one objected then.

Even today, the Prez happily takes up assignments as guest editor and writes articles. Don’t these go against the dignity of the office he holds? Is one to assume he agrees with the policy of the medium of communication?

We must not forget that President Kalam was chosen by the NDA government. It was a smart move. You got your token Muslim who was not bearded, who said he was impressed by sadhus seated around in a trance and who could quote from the Bhagwad Gita.

If this is what keeps the Hindutva lobby happy, then the Congress has its own reasons. As the Mumbai chief of the party, Gurudas Kamat, said, “In a desperate measure to seek votes, Thackeray is attacking Kalam, who gave ‘Agni’ to the nation.”

What if he had not given the nation this macho little toy that could frighten the enemy across the border? Would his loyalty too, like that of a few million in this country, be suspect?

Thackeray’s statement can have a more dreadful impact than one may imagine. Will the President be compelled to fall prey to such pressures when the fact is that the Mohammed Afzal case is not a watertight one and deserves clemency? Afzal has killed no one. What he did is in the court papers; on the day when Parliament was attacked he fiddled around, just like Narendra Modi did during the Gujarat riots.

Thackeray’s own record during the riots of 1992-93 is no better. His interest in the ‘Muslim problem’ was largely because he realised that Islam was the new pop cult and he did not want to lose out on the mileage it would get him. A television anchor asked his lawyer about his recent comments. Among the usual things, the reply also mentioned that “this is a Hindu rashtra”. Much to my amazement, the anchor did not counter-question. They were still harping on the rape of the President’s locks.

Do you understand? The malaise goes beyond Matoshree where ‘saheb’ sits like a Mogambo in an ornate chair and dispenses a form of urban Panchayati Raj justice. This is the man who had said that if anything happened to him then the city would burn. A bit ironical for he has never contested an election and cannot move around without security guards. What is he afraid of?

He gives the impression of leading from the front and being upfront when he is safely ensconced in hypocrisies.

He has spoken against dynastic rule, but the Sena is nothing more than a family-run small-scale industry.

He has a problem with anything western, but when it suited him he sucked up to ENRON.

He had been a strong proponent of TADA, but when Sanjay Dutt was arrested under the Act and the case was still sub-judice he had no problem in pronouncing him “a nice boy”.

He flaunts the Hindutva card – “Garv se kaho hum Hindu hai” is a Thackeray coinage – yet he is selective about the Hindus he speaks up for. Shiv Sainiks from the lower rung of the caste hierarchy or outsiders are soon shown where they belong. Chhagan Bhujbal, Sanjay Nirupam, Narayan Rane were all loyalists who left.

His boys are told to uphold Indian culture; they destroy stuffed teddy bears and tinsel-covered hearts, they round up couples in parks and tear posters they deem vulgar. Yet, to protest against his support for the film ‘Fire’, they went on a mission to actor Dilip Kumar’s house dressed in nothing but underwear.

He tarnishes the public display of one particular religion as jihad, but it was his party that took the maha-artis out in the streets.

If underworld dons forced film stars and singers to perform and do their bidding, then the Shiv Sena does the same.

Industry bigwigs go to his house to seek his ‘blessings’. Everyone knows the price.

These are issues that ought to bother us. The Presidential post is above religion and there is no need to be touchy about careless comments. Instead, Thackeray should be made accountable for being an irresponsible citizen.

They are still trying to save Mohammed Afzal

Another petition to the President for clemency for Mohammed Afzal. You decide. There is already enough material on the web, most of you have formed opinions, so it is your take. Should you wish to read my views, just click on the 'afzal' label below. Thanks.

The Mohammed Afzal saga continues: Big brother joins in

I felt I was watching a Manmohan Desai film, you know about lost-and-found brothers. Only this time there was a Ramgopal Verma twist to it together with a Hollywoodish touch.

Now hold your breath. CNN-IBN, our local friendly neighbourhood TV channel, has woken up to the Mohammed Afzal saga by bringing in a new character.

After having so many panel discussions about capital punishment and blah, they now ask the question: Was he a surrendered militant?

Afzal has said he was tortured by the Kashmir Special Task Force (STF). This happens, as we all know. But who are we to know? The authoritative TV channel says, “But investigations conducted by CNN-IBN’s Special Investigation Team, revealed that Afzal may have never surrendered.”

First, who has given them the right to have this special investigative team to try and act as a jury? They are free to opine, not judge.

Second, do we then have to disregard all their earlier reports and discussions?

Third, where did they find this brother of Afzal, and how are we to accept that what he says is true? Is this anywhere close to investigation? Look at this comment: “On the question of his past, Afzal does say that he is a surrendered militant. So does the Delhi Police and the Supreme Court. But his elder brother says he never surrendered.”

Oh my gawd, aren’t we getting into this big bro thing too seriously, or upholding some Karan Johar fantasy of family values?

Aijaz bhai is a character. I watched him in action. This was his moment and he moved several parts of his body to make sure he was seen adequately from some angle. Anyone could see the man was playing to the gallery and faking it. But CNN-IBN’s investigating team got a super quote: “I will talk straight. I swear to Khuda that Afzal was a Jaish-e-Mohammad operative. Through Jaish he had helped in terror attacks in India.”

I say, arrest him. Why did he keep quiet? Where was his Khuda all this while? If Afzal was being forced into making a confession, then someone is getting Aijaz to speak up too. Who is it? Does a respected channel have to act as his courier boy? Or is he acting as someone’s courier boy with the channel?

His warm-the-cockles-of-every-Indian-heart comment is this: “Whatever the country has decided for him is the right decision.”

Huh? Has the country decided anything? Does the bloke not know that this is not some SMS poll about “Maar diya jaye ya chhod diya jaye…”?

What are his credentials to talk about right and wrong?

And this is breaking news…wake up and smell the copy.

Mohammed Afzal ko ghussa kyon nahin aata?

Whoopee! Two of the biggest cuckoo cases have jumped onto the ‘Guru ho ja shuroo’ bandwagon.

Instead of reading Urdu novels and the Quran in prison, Mohammed Afzal Guru ought to display some fire and ask some of the siyaasatdars to lay off.

Tomorrow, Rahul Mahajan, son of late BJP leader Pramod Mahajan, will sit in a protest rally, looking very committed and innocent, to press for the death sentence on Afzal Guru for his role in the Parliament attack case. "I feel Afzal should be hanged and to register my protest against those seeking pardon for him, I will sit on a dharna," he said.

Rahul has a case in court against him for a drug binge in which his father’s secretary died under mysterious circumstances, he was himself put in prison and is now out on bail and a few others (including a Kashmiri whose credentials are said to be iffy) were arrested.

Since the case is sub judice, how can he be given the right to protest in a political matter? "From the same venue, Mahatma Gandhi had given Quit India slogan in 1942 against the British. Similarly, we will be asking terrorists to leave India.”

Who is the ‘we’? If he is doing so as a voice of the party, then will the BJP please tell us what position he holds and that he has yet to prove his innocence? If the ‘we’ is the people, then who are the people? We need to know.

It is also so convenient bringing in Mahatma Gandhi. And it is very sweet of him to ‘ask’ terrorists to leave India. But what happens to the ghar ki murgis? Are home-grown local ‘boys’ not to be considered? They are Indian citizens, just like him. He should start with the Gujarat CM, since he is apna aadmi, then we can move to the fellows who indulged in yesterday’s shootout in Mumbai and killed two men, including one police informant. Then we go South, then East, then further North East, then North…

And then he might also like to deal with the fixers within his own party that shamelessly make deals with those they call terrorists.
* * *
The other politically-motivated guy is Dr. Farooq Abdullah. (He and Ghulam Nabi Azad must be banned from entering J&K.) Is this the way to fight for Afzal’s case in the manner in which he has been going about it? He said, “You want to hang him? Go ahead and hang him. But the consequences of hanging him must also be remembered. One of the consequences will be... we have paid the price of Maqbool Butt’s hanging by the judge who was shot in Kashmir. Those judges will need to be protected like anything.”

Fool. He should do what he is best at – go to London and play golf and return to the Valley only when he has to take film stars (the oh-so-conscious-of-my-social-responsibilities Ms. Shabana Azmi, if you please) pillion riding on his motorbike.

This just about suits him. He has not done a thing to solve the problems of the Kashmiris and happily slept with the NDA combine to "bring peace". Har-har…

By making such silly statements, he is impressing no one and impressing upon no one.

Judges have been shot at in courtrooms by goondas and the underworld too. And people in the public eye in controversial cases are always at risk. That is the reason our country has Z or is it “Zzzzz” security.

He also said the nation would go up in flames. This is the language Bal Thackeray uses all the time, and of course everyone just indulges him; some even feel he is right. Farooq Abdullah should find better inspiration for his dramabaazi.
* * *
Talking of drama, on Monday (Oct. 16) the local BJP unit in Rajkot organised a play, enacting the hanging of Mohammad Afzal Guru to highlight the party's protest against his clemency demand.

A former BJP MP said, “One, who killed nine persons in the Parliament attack, should be hanged without delay.”

How do they become MPs? Afzal killed no one. What he did is in the court papers, but on that day he fiddled around while Parliament was attacked, just like Modibhai did during the riots.

Mohammed Afzal ki ajeeb dastaan

In a rather unusual development, Colin Gonsalves, who represented Mohammed Afzal in the high court has written an open letter to clarify about certain people “spreading a rumour that I did not defend Afzal in the High Court and instead asked for him to be put to death by lethal injection”.

Ram Jethmalani has defended Mr. Gonsalves and one discovers that the certain persons include Nandita Haksar, who has been defending Afzal!

This is my open letter, and the other two are reproduced below…

Dear Colin Gonsalves:

Those of us who are aware of the work you have done on several human rights issues would not for a moment doubt that you would not stand up for what you believe in.

It is commendable that you took up the case at the last minute and truly distressed to learn that Nandita Haksar could have said that you were suggesting a lethal injection for Afzal.

This is also surprising considering Ms. Haksar has braved flak and more for appearing for Prof. Geelani, the other accused. It is due to this reason that I believe an open letter is not such a good idea for this is the time that committed activists did not expose their differences.

If she has publicly accused you, you do have Ram Jethmalani's testimony and the court papers that you could have put before her. The onus would then be on her to clarify and, if need be, even apologise.

At this moment, it will only give grist to people to crib about ‘pseudo-secularists’ and ‘pseudo liberals’, of which incidentally you ought to proudly lay claim, given that the ‘pseudo’ has been added by certain political groups to legitimise their fake beliefs.

It is true that the “current champions coming on television were nowhere to be seen when they were needed most”. But I wish to draw your attention to the fact that these are media-created champions, drawn from glamorous activism. This is the unfortunate fallout of byte-sized news and large egos. However, among these people there are some who are deeply involved in various movements and must be given their due.

Publicity is a double-edged sword. Citizen’s activism is possible only if there is awareness.

In fact, the emotional appeals for Afzal denude the factual ground on which he can rightfully claim not only clemency but exoneration, too.

-- FV

Colin Gonsalves’ open letter On Afzal Case

Dear Friends,

I was taken aback to hear that certain persons are spreading a rumour that I did not defend Afzal in the High Court and instead asked for him to be put to death by lethal injection.

I was asked by advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan who appeared for Shaukat in the High Court to defend Mohd Afzal. Apparently many persons were approached before me but were not available. I was brought in at the last moment, perhaps a couple of weeks before the arguments were to begin in the High Court. I was told that payment would not be possible and that I would have to do the case free.

I gladly accepted even though it meant sacrificing my other work because I am totally opposed to the death sentence for any person. This has been my consistent stand over years.

When I appeared for Afzal in the High Court, I found that there was nobody to help me in those days except for advocate Nitya who was more familiar with the case than I was since she had appeared in the Trial Court. Apart from her I found nobody interested in helping Afzal. I believe campaigns were conducted to help the other accused and also to raise money for them, but not one person met me during the six months of the day to day proceedings in the High Court. The expenses of the case came to about Rs. 40,000/- because volumes of materials had to be Xeroxed. About half that amount was reimbursed by Afzal's cousin. I am putting this on record to emphasize that all the current champions of Afzal coming on television were nowhere to be seen when they were needed most.

I argued before the High Court for three weeks continuously. I have never argued that Afzal accepts his guilt and that he prays for death by lethal injection. I have my written arguments which were filed before the High Court and anyone wishing to read them may contact me. In the 250 page written submissions there is not one word on death by lethal injection. In the High Court judgment there is not one word on that.

You must remember that in those days the High Court arguments were being covered by a battery of journalists on a day-to-day basis. Had I mentioned to the Court that I want Afzal to die by lethal injection that would have made sensational headlines.

I met Afzal in jail thrice. On the second occasion he told me that someone had informed him that I was asking for him to be put to death by lethal injection. I told him that I would never argue such a position. He was satisfied on that explanation and the issue was not raised with me thereafter.

I spoke to Mr. Jethmalani who was also in Court during that period and he has given me a letter which I am attaching with this document.

Sd-
Colin Gonsalves

Letter from Ram Jethmalani
Date : 10-10-2006

Dear Mr. Gonsalves,

You appeared for accused Md. Afzal before the High Court of Delhi at the hearing of the Death Reference in which Md. Afzal and two others had been sentenced to death.

I watched with admiration the manner in which you defended your client. It is all the more creditable that you agreed to appear for him in the first instance and in the second place you did an honorary job. It was a very unpopular cause and many stalwarts had refused to represent him.

You acted at the request of a Human Rights Organization and your junior Nitya in the case. I believe she had appeared in the Trial Court too. You have acted in the best tradition of the Indian Bar and everyone should be proud of your performance.

I have with me the final summary of your submissions which you made to the High Court running into nearly 250 pages. I have preserved it for my education and the education of the young lawyers who keep coming to my Chamber for training in the art and practice of advocacy.

I can only imagine the amount of industry that must have gone into the preparation of this massive volume and the enormous energy that you used in your speeches as to the High Court over a long period of almost three months.

I write this because I have been distressed to learn that Ms. Nandita Haksar, an advocate has appeared before the media and made statements against you which have no content of truth at all. She is reported to have said that you did nothing for your client except to tell the Court that he deserves a lethal injection. The impression that she has created is that you made no effort to provide any legal assistance to your client.

While I cannot believe that Nandita has made these false statements with malice against you, I cannot but think that they are totally and recklessly false.

I remember your argument that the provision of our criminal law which sanctions death by hanging is a cruel and unusual punishment and is constitutionally impermissible. If this argument had succeeded there was no provision left for executing the death sentence. You were only suggesting to the Court that there are more humane methods of carrying out the death sentence and a lethal injection is one of them. You never suggested to the Court that your client is guilty but he should be given such an injection. I am quite sure Nandita did not understand what was being argued. It may be that she was wrongly informed by somebody else. Please forgive her.

I was quite impressed about by your eloquent argument supported by extracts from the record that your client did not get a fair trial. I regret that this argument did not succeed with the High Court. I am not sure whether it was pursued in the Supreme Court. It should have been and might well have produced a welcome result.

I do want that you should help Md. Afzal in his family's Petition invoking the presidential powers under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. That would raise your stature and will certainly add to the reputation of our legal system.

With warm regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(RAM JETHMALANI)

Get real about Mohammad Afzal

India would not have got Independence had hanging served as a deterrent to terrorist activity. Our freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, Rajguru -- all dubbed terrorists by the British who ran this country -- were responsible for the killing of innocents as part of their strategy; their target was never innocents.

Therefore, please let us not make the Mohammad Afzal very real dilemma into a frikkin soap opera. I have given my point of view in the blog of 29.9.06, but these ‘human’ stories should be left out for the moment. Afzal’s son, apparently, tried to tie a rope round his neck…his mother said something about him trying to feel the pain of his father. Sorry, the kid is seven and I am aware that children exposed to such extreme trauma do grow up fast, but this is no time or occasion for pop psychology.

We do have the other side where the widow of a CRPF jawaan, killed in the Parliament attack, who was posthumously awarded the Ashoka Chakra has threatened to return the medal if Afzal is not given the death sentence. No time for blackmail too.

Time to stick to the bare essentials.

1. The Congress (that has suddenly got chicken) now says they are against clemency; the BJP has always said so; the Shiv Sena…who the heck cares for it…Wait a minute. Political parties cannot decide on this issue. It is solely Presidential discretion.

2. Afzal is an Indian. It is clear we believe Indians are not capable of heinous acts on their own. As his lawyer Nandita Haksar pointed out, despite the apex court having acquitted Afzal of charges of belonging to any terrorist organisation, he is still referred to as a JeM (Jaish-e-Mohammed) operative.

3. Why the hell has the Hurriyat Conference’s Mirwaiz Umar Farooq taken up the issue of Afzal death sentence with the Bush administration in New York and sought their intervention towards seeking clemency for him? Does he not understand that the US is one of the biggest ‘civilised’ terror factories? Can we not handle the issue ourselves? This will send out the wrong signal to the Indian government.

4. A group of concerned citizens had written to the prime minister in December 2004. They had put forth a few pertinent points:

-The prosecution produced 80 witnesses. None of them even mentioned that the four persons accused of conspiring to attack the Parliament have any link to any illegal or banned organisation. All of them were acquitted of charges of belonging to a terrorist organisation.

-If Afzal was a surrendered militant how would the Pak-based JeM use him?

-His confessions were made under conditions of torture and the police made him implicate himself before the media.

-One of the other accused, Prof. S.A.R. Geelani, was framed on the basis of forged documents and fabricated evidence. After his acquittal, he has been speaking out and giving details about the conditions under which prisoners in the high risk cells are kept. The National Human Rights Commission instead of investigating the allegations closed the case filed by Mr Geelani on the ground that the jail authorities have denied the charges.

What do you expect jail authorities to do?

No one expects an emotional response. These are practical issues that need to be addressed. And for those who have accused me of bringing in other cases, like the Bombay riots, the authorities are doing it all the time. Giving examples of what happens in Pakistan. Get real. Pakistan is a different country now.

I am interested in India. Aren’t you?