Politics

Afzal, Kashmir, and India

By Dweep Chanana ⋅ October 10, 2006 ⋅  Email this post ⋅ Post a comment

To hang, or not to hang, that seems to be the question. The debate and protests over what to do with Muhammad Afzal are at fever pitch - even reaching the New York Times. A clemency appeal has been filed with the President and perhaps the only silver lining is that he is a highly respected Muslim. At least nobody can criticize him of being religiously biased, if he does not grant the appeal, or of being soft if he does. Still, I would not want to be in his shoes.

There are some problems with the judgment, and to understand its weakness, lets put it in perspective. The mastermind of the attack was Maulana Masood Azhar. A simple test of the judgment is whether the same judgment would be metted out if Azhar stood there next to Afzal. Or, given the more egregious nature of Azhar’s work, would Afzal be seen in a relatively less evil light? I suspect the latter would apply, and the ‘rarest of rare cases’ would then apply to Azhar, not Afzal.

Azhar, however, is not there, and not likely to be caught given India’s inability to catch terrorists beyond its borders. Afzal must therefore die to satisfy, as the SC says, “the collective conscience of the society.”

There are problems also with those that protest against the judgment. One criticism says Mr. Afzal did not receive a fair trial - with no access to a lawyer of his choice, and his confession being extracted without a lawyer.

The question of due process is very important indeed. But it is one, I trust, would have been addressed in arguments during the several appeals that have been turned down. While I have little faith in the criminal investigative or political processes, the courts in general, do not take due process lightly.

Finally, there is the criticism that this judgment will fuel militancy in Kashmir. Too see why this criticism is false, lets put it in perspective too. Capital punishment was given out because this person broke the law in a manner considered inexcusable. To say that the judgment should be changed because it will fuel militancy is as wrong as saying that it must not be changed in order to present a strong example.

Unfortunately, Kashmiri politics may affect the outcome. This is evident from the violent protests in Srinagar and Sopore. It is another case of politicians using any issue for political mileage. Eventually, as these politicians argue, “Kashmir’s unique predicament, warrants nonlegal considerations.”

Believing that Kashmir is, or should be, any different is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It panders to the Kashmiri belief that they are special with extra privileges. This is not only disrespectful to the other states of this country, it is practically akin to shooting oneself in the foot. The unwillingness to integrate Kashmir into the rest of the country prevents a solution to a problem that has its roots in isolation.

The question then, is really two issues. To hang Afzal or not, is a question of justice and one that must be decided on the merits of the case. One hopes the Supreme Court saw it as such. The other issue is of Kashmir, and one must avoid Afzal’s hanging to be taken as a special case. For Kashmir is not a special case. It is one - of many - states in India.