Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

The death penalty

The sit-in demonstration by prominent intellectuals in New Delhi, demanding that the death sentence awarded to Mohammed Afzal Guru in the Parliament attack case be commuted (Oct. 5), reflects poorly on their sense of responsibility. If they are opposed to the death penalty in principle they should launch a crusade for its abolition, not plead the case of a convicted terrorist. By saying that even if a thousand culprits escape, an innocent should not be victimised does Medha Patkar imply that Afzal is innocent? As for her contention that the so-called secular government should consider the clemency appeal, one wonders what secularism has to do with clemency. A crime is a crime, no matter to which religion the perpetrator belongs. Is it her case that the death sentence has been awarded on communal considerations?

M.S. Ramakrishna,
Secunderabad

When Medha Patkar and Arundhati Roy have no problem in accepting the verdict with respect to S.A.R. Geelani, what prevents them from accepting the same in Afzal's case? Is not the Supreme Court competent enough to see through "fabricated stories and evidence?"

M.K. Bajaj,
Gurgaon, Haryana

The intellectuals seem to be fond of supporting anything that is contrary to mainstream opinion. Afzal alive can be far too dangerous. The security of a larger number of people is more important than the demands of some.

B.N. Gururaj,
Bangalore

If Afzal's sentence is commuted, there is no guarantee that terrorists will not hijack a plane some time in future and demand that the President or Prime Minister personally hand him over to them in return for the safety of the passengers on board.

R. Pratap,
Kochi, Kerala

Many countries have abolished the death penalty. In India too, a debate is on over its abolition. But as long as it exists, the judiciary has the right to award it in the "rarest of rare" cases. Yasin Malik's argument that Afzal's execution will derail the India-Pakistan peace process is unacceptable. Can Pakistan be trusted on matters relating to Kashmir, execution or no execution? India has to send a clear message that it is not a soft state.

Y.V. Sai Madhav,
Rayagada, Orissa

A terrorist who harbours the intention of destabilising the country cannot be shown mercy. The argument to abolish the death sentence cannot be advanced just to save Afzal. The death penalty should be discussed at the national level for future changes; it cannot be done in the context of an individual already sentenced to death.

Y.P. Joshi,
Varanasi, U.P.

Those protesting in Kashmir should ask themselves whether they would have done so had the attack taken place in a Srinagar marketplace and their kin been killed. Should the nation expect pleas for mercy for the perpetrators of the Mumbai train blasts too, once they are brought to justice?

Ramit Arora,
Patiala

To show sympathy to a terrorist mastermind would be suicidal. It will be a crime against the common people who are exposed to terrorism day in and day out.

Narayan Patra,
Bhubaneswar

The Afzal issue has become a victim of narrow political considerations and minority appeasement. Commuting his capital punishment will bolster the morale of the subversive anti-India forces and discourage the security forces, who are risking their lives for safeguarding the country.

Sibani Sankar Samantaray,
Bhubaneswar

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Health emergency
Turbulent skies
Can a slum become a world class township?
Musharraf's turn to face the flak
India at Frankfurt — and how
Chavez in final push for Security Council seat
Four decades going nowhere
Corrections and Clarifications
The death penalty
On finger-pointing
Wise move
Not Gandhigiri

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu