Afzal and the media
This is not my take on Afzal. Too many people have said too many things about the entire issue. This is more of a take on the media’s take on Afzal, and on media in general.
Like most of us, I was glad on reading the SC judgement on the Parliament attacking. Came rather quickly, and was suitably tough (I am one of those who support the death penalty). But then the entire Kashmir rose up to support Afzal. The politicians played their usual roles; BJP supporting the hanging, the Kashmir Congress opposing it, and the Centre and Madam maintaining silence.
There was an eye-opening debate on the issue last Sunday on NDTV. Barkha Dutt conducted it, and the participants included Gheelani, Soli Sorabjee, Farookh Abdullah, a social activist, a member of separatist groups, and a former DGP Police Delhi. Just about everyone needed.
Unfortunately, as is now the rule with most of these discussions, the issue was never examined in depth. So there was Farookh Abdullah who kept on speaking with a somber face of how the hanging would burst the valley into flames but never spoke on why exactly the Kashmiris were so upset (and more unfortunately was never probed much on the same).
There was the separatist guy, who gave this weird argument of the Kashmiris. He said that the guys primarily involved (Masood Azhar and the Jaish chief) were in Pakistan and could not be hanged, so how can Afzal be given a death penalty when he was a tertiary, involved only with all the logistics and arms supply. By that logic, even those who had actually attacked Parliament should be left unhanged. Didn’t make much sense to me.
The DGP spoke exactly how most of us feel. How India must no longer remain a soft state, how providing logistics in a big way is as bad as performing the crime itself, blah blah blah, and that he has to be hanged.
The social activist spoke on how hanging itself is inhuman, and all the usual arguments, with Soli endorsing her in between.
It was Gheelani who stirred me to think. He told about how he was lucky to have got Jethmalani to defend himself, and how Afzal never got a good defence. He had actually objected to the lawyers he had been provided. The court proceedings being more of who is the better lawyer than which is the right side, Afzal has been seriously short-changed and deserves a relook. That was a fair point, but then, that’s something that should have been raised before or during the proceedings, and not now. Anyway, half point to him.
He continued, telling how the HC had actually reprimanded the police for forging evidence and forcing confessions during the case. Now that was news to me. And crucial news. Now, Afzals entire case is based only on circumstantial evidence. It is a little dangerous to rely on this for hanging a guy, especially if the police has been known to forge atleast a part of it. I thought that now the discussion would pick up and veer towards the important point – the case itself, and Afzal.
But no. Barkha cuts him short, and now Soli is asked to speak. Soli speaks well (of pardoning putting a dangerous precedent – what if the Gujarat accused also would demand the same). But the big point – He had not read the proceedings per se, and spoke only on the grounds that the judgement was water-tight. Now this is not fair. You bloody come to a national debate. You are the only lawyer on the panel; and you do not read up the case!!
Gheelani gets one last chance o speak. He informs us about how the US didn’t give death penalty to one of the 9/11 accused as he had a history of being beaten up by his mother and basically a troubled past. He tells about Afzals troubled past, how he was once some informer for BSF, then some incident happened and he was tortures like hell, and… he is cut up again. Barkha wants to get back to Soli.
Soli again said that he knew hadn’t read up the case, and again that provided the SC was right, he should be hanged. By now even I was shouting, how can you use that ‘provided’ so easily. A guy’s life depends on this.
So, that’s how the debate ended, with them discussing the Kashmir issue, terrorism in India, India being a soft state, Indians being emotive, and lots of oft-recycled arguments on hanging, with about 5 minutes of Gheelani speaking of Afzal and the case per se, with no follow-up by Barkha.
And I was left with a frustrated feeling of dejavu. You see, this is not the first time that an hour-long debate ended up with the issue being discussed for less than 5 minutes. And I am not singling out Barkha or NDTV. The sad truth is, most debates just go round and round the topic and sensationalise the issue, rather than probing into it in deep. That journalism is no longer investigative (save for probably Express) (nor is it impartial nowadays), but only reportive or tabloid. That it takes an entire state to raise its voice before journalists start actually examining the issue (both Sanghvi and Thapar wrote on Afzal today).
So please Barkha, next time you put up such a debate, get Gheelani and 2 lawyers who know all about the case (one for and one against), and discuss the issue itself. If Afzal needs to be pardoned, its not because of hanging itself being wrong or because of the ‘wider ramificatons’ of the issue (a very oft-used term), but because of the merits of the case itself.
Anyway, my take on Afzal in short. His sentence should be commuted to lifelong imprisonment. With the investigations not looking entirely unbiased, the evidence being only circumstantial, and the possibility him becoming a martyr in Kashmir, its both more just and safer that way. The sad part is, with all the hullabulla by the Kashmris and the BJP, I don’t think it ll actually be safer either way. The sadder part is, with all the hue and cry by the Kashmiris, there is going to be enormous pressure on Kalam, and thwe final decision is not probably going to be based on the merits of the case as such, but on its wider implications. And the saddest part is, if the Kashmiris wouldn’t have done all this, I would never have reached this conclusion at all.
PS: If any journalist is out there, please put some comprehensive and complete article on the case and Afzal out there.
Like most of us, I was glad on reading the SC judgement on the Parliament attacking. Came rather quickly, and was suitably tough (I am one of those who support the death penalty). But then the entire Kashmir rose up to support Afzal. The politicians played their usual roles; BJP supporting the hanging, the Kashmir Congress opposing it, and the Centre and Madam maintaining silence.
There was an eye-opening debate on the issue last Sunday on NDTV. Barkha Dutt conducted it, and the participants included Gheelani, Soli Sorabjee, Farookh Abdullah, a social activist, a member of separatist groups, and a former DGP Police Delhi. Just about everyone needed.
Unfortunately, as is now the rule with most of these discussions, the issue was never examined in depth. So there was Farookh Abdullah who kept on speaking with a somber face of how the hanging would burst the valley into flames but never spoke on why exactly the Kashmiris were so upset (and more unfortunately was never probed much on the same).
There was the separatist guy, who gave this weird argument of the Kashmiris. He said that the guys primarily involved (Masood Azhar and the Jaish chief) were in Pakistan and could not be hanged, so how can Afzal be given a death penalty when he was a tertiary, involved only with all the logistics and arms supply. By that logic, even those who had actually attacked Parliament should be left unhanged. Didn’t make much sense to me.
The DGP spoke exactly how most of us feel. How India must no longer remain a soft state, how providing logistics in a big way is as bad as performing the crime itself, blah blah blah, and that he has to be hanged.
The social activist spoke on how hanging itself is inhuman, and all the usual arguments, with Soli endorsing her in between.
It was Gheelani who stirred me to think. He told about how he was lucky to have got Jethmalani to defend himself, and how Afzal never got a good defence. He had actually objected to the lawyers he had been provided. The court proceedings being more of who is the better lawyer than which is the right side, Afzal has been seriously short-changed and deserves a relook. That was a fair point, but then, that’s something that should have been raised before or during the proceedings, and not now. Anyway, half point to him.
He continued, telling how the HC had actually reprimanded the police for forging evidence and forcing confessions during the case. Now that was news to me. And crucial news. Now, Afzals entire case is based only on circumstantial evidence. It is a little dangerous to rely on this for hanging a guy, especially if the police has been known to forge atleast a part of it. I thought that now the discussion would pick up and veer towards the important point – the case itself, and Afzal.
But no. Barkha cuts him short, and now Soli is asked to speak. Soli speaks well (of pardoning putting a dangerous precedent – what if the Gujarat accused also would demand the same). But the big point – He had not read the proceedings per se, and spoke only on the grounds that the judgement was water-tight. Now this is not fair. You bloody come to a national debate. You are the only lawyer on the panel; and you do not read up the case!!
Gheelani gets one last chance o speak. He informs us about how the US didn’t give death penalty to one of the 9/11 accused as he had a history of being beaten up by his mother and basically a troubled past. He tells about Afzals troubled past, how he was once some informer for BSF, then some incident happened and he was tortures like hell, and… he is cut up again. Barkha wants to get back to Soli.
Soli again said that he knew hadn’t read up the case, and again that provided the SC was right, he should be hanged. By now even I was shouting, how can you use that ‘provided’ so easily. A guy’s life depends on this.
So, that’s how the debate ended, with them discussing the Kashmir issue, terrorism in India, India being a soft state, Indians being emotive, and lots of oft-recycled arguments on hanging, with about 5 minutes of Gheelani speaking of Afzal and the case per se, with no follow-up by Barkha.
And I was left with a frustrated feeling of dejavu. You see, this is not the first time that an hour-long debate ended up with the issue being discussed for less than 5 minutes. And I am not singling out Barkha or NDTV. The sad truth is, most debates just go round and round the topic and sensationalise the issue, rather than probing into it in deep. That journalism is no longer investigative (save for probably Express) (nor is it impartial nowadays), but only reportive or tabloid. That it takes an entire state to raise its voice before journalists start actually examining the issue (both Sanghvi and Thapar wrote on Afzal today).
So please Barkha, next time you put up such a debate, get Gheelani and 2 lawyers who know all about the case (one for and one against), and discuss the issue itself. If Afzal needs to be pardoned, its not because of hanging itself being wrong or because of the ‘wider ramificatons’ of the issue (a very oft-used term), but because of the merits of the case itself.
Anyway, my take on Afzal in short. His sentence should be commuted to lifelong imprisonment. With the investigations not looking entirely unbiased, the evidence being only circumstantial, and the possibility him becoming a martyr in Kashmir, its both more just and safer that way. The sad part is, with all the hullabulla by the Kashmris and the BJP, I don’t think it ll actually be safer either way. The sadder part is, with all the hue and cry by the Kashmiris, there is going to be enormous pressure on Kalam, and thwe final decision is not probably going to be based on the merits of the case as such, but on its wider implications. And the saddest part is, if the Kashmiris wouldn’t have done all this, I would never have reached this conclusion at all.
PS: If any journalist is out there, please put some comprehensive and complete article on the case and Afzal out there.
posted by Akshay at 1:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home