"We are of the opinion that a crime of this sort which has been committed with premeditation and in brutal manner, the convict deserves no other sentence but death � he shall be hanged till death." This is not how the Supreme Court justified the hang order on Afzal who conspired and nearly exploded the Indian Parliament to kill or hold captive all MPs and ministers, secular ones included.
But this is what the Delhi High Court said last Monday to order Santosh Kumar Singh � who raped and butchered a beautiful young girl, Priyadharshini Mattoo, out of lust � to die for his horrible sin.
Here are two cases of high crime � one terror against the nation and the other, rape and murder of woman. And in both the judiciary had established the crime and handed death penalty to the terrorist in the first and the murderer in the next. Now compare Afzal’s terror with Singh’s crime in the secular and liberal Indian debate.
Take Afzal’s first. Terrorist Afzal’s target was the entire nation, its leadership and its symbols, not just any individual. He allied with Pakistan and its terror machine to wage war and destroy India. His aim was to maim the most visible symbol of democracy, secularism and rule of law, the Parliament and its members of all parties. His action was foiled by alert soldiers but for whom the very secularists, some of who are pleading for Afzal before TV cameras, would have had their engagement with the God of their choice or choicelessly.
The soldiers died to save the nation and its symbol not only from militant attack but also from eternal shame. Even the names of the gallant soldiers were promptly forgotten once they did their duty and perished. More, Afzal’s act put a break on Indo-Pak peace moves and nearly brought about a war between India and Pakistan, with the last Indian soldier being moved to the borders. Afzal was found guilty by the same Delhi High Court and it awarded him death sentence as it has now done in the case of Santosh Singh for maiming. And later the Supreme Court confirmed Afzal’s hang order.
Now take the Priyadharshini assassin’s case. Santosh Singh was a police official’s son. Driven by animal lust, he targeted a young, lovely girl. She defied him. He chased her and finally raped her and maimed and butchered her in her own house. His action was premeditated and heinous, like Afzal’s. Yet the trial court exonerated him and that rightly stunned the nation.
People of all opinions, including genuine and name-seeking liberals, launched a campaign against the acquittal. The media too joined the campaign in a big way. And even before the High Court judgment handing death penalty to him such a powerful wave of public opinion had been created against Santosh Singh that the verdict could not be otherwise. The Delhi High Court found him guilty and awarded the due death penalty to him. The liberals and the media eulogised the court for upholding justice and penalising the criminal.
And now back to Afzal’s case. The moment the State decided to obey the orders of the Supreme Court and execute Afzal, secular and liberal megaphones launched a high voltage campaign, not to praise the prosecution for proving the case against a terrorist or to compliment the courts for its verdict, but to abuse both � all just to save Afzal!
The Afzal apologists articulated lies like ‘judgment is faulty’ and expounded noble philosophies like ‘murder for murder is inhuman’ to justify mercy to Afzal. For the TV news channels which have to manufacture news to keep the channels on for 24 hours day after day and month after month, this show on the streets became cost free programmes.
Interviews of Afzal’s family members and the protest programmes against Afzal hanging began to flood the public discourse of India. This pressured the tall President to receive the Afzal family members who petitioned to him for mercy to Afzal and dwarfed him a little in the process. In Santosh Singh’s case the liberals and the media went after him and did not rest until he was finally given a hang order. In contrast in Afzal’s case the liberals and the media even went after the court and insisted that the hang order on Afzal be withdrawn. Can civilised societies tolerate death penalty, they asked. Now the same question has arisen. Can the same civilised society tolerate death penalty to Santosh Singh?
What will the media and liberals do now? Will they now campaign for Presidential mercy to Santosh Singh, like they campaigned for Afzal? Will they now say it is uncivilised to murder Santosh Singh like they pleaded for Afzal? Will the President of India now meet the father and mother of Santosh Singh if they come to file a mercy petition, like he met Afzal’s wife and mother? Will the media publish the photographs of Santosh Singh’s wife and children with tears in their eyes? Not, obviously. The reason is simple.
In Santosh Singh’s case the victim is a young, innocent and beautiful girl, with whom naturally every father and mother, brother and sister will easily identify with and empathise. In the case of Afzal, the victims are the nation and the unknown soldiers who perished to protect the nation. Who will empathise with them? Only those who identify with the nation, and there are not many of them around in the discoursing population. This is the QED of this liberal, secular Indian discourse!
