Supreme Court of India, the highest institution of
justice in the country has delivered its judgement in
the case of terrorist attack on the parliament. One of
the accused has been given death sentence and the
other one served ten years of rigorous imprisonment.
The verdict was delivered after all legal formalities
were completed. In this process the most important
part was of furnishing adequate and convincing
evidence. The honourable judges never allowed any
lapse in completing all technicalities. The accused
were provided all opportunity of defending themselves.
Legal assistance was also offered though not accepted
by the accused. Thus from all legal aspects the case
was thoroughly screened and examined.
There have been demonstrations in Srinagar and other
towns of Kashmir valley against the verdict by the
separatists. Interestingly, demonstrations against.
The decision of the apex court began from the
defenders of the law of the land meaning the Srinagar
bar association itself. Separatist groups and
organizations including those who want to be called
moderates took the clue from the bar association and
made demonstrations. The police and security forces
had to swing into action to protect the civilian
population from being vandalised.
APHC, the ideological front of separatism has given a
call for a general strike on August 8 in a bid to
galvanise Kashmirian society into solidarity against
the verdict of the apex court. The coalition partners
of the APHC have also in separate statements called
the verdict as a measure to suppress the “freedom
movement” in Kashmir. An atmosphere of expression of disapproval of the SC is steadily built to accentuate the alienation process.
This environment is created at a time when the peace
process is pursued with all seriousness and in the
course of things, some movement forward has already
been made. What bearing will it have on that hard
earned achievement remains to be seen?
Going by the repeated statements of the Hurriyat, its affiliates and other separatist groups, violence is to be eschewed in finding a lasting solution to Kashmir problem. Taking the spirit of this assertion into consideration, it is obvious that there are only two ways of preventing further violence. One is that of amnesty for all indulging in acts of violence so that they are provided an opportunity to rejoin the national mainstream. The other and rather unavoidable way is to allow the law of the land take is natural course.
New Delhi offered ceasefire to the militants in
Kashmir, which they spurned. It offered to talk to
them if they eschewed arms but they spurned the offer.
In regard to second option, the union as well as the
state government never circumvented the law of the
land in dealing with persons against whom there are
criminal cases. As stated at the outset, all legal
formalities were completed without the smallest lapse
or negligence while the case was heard and all
possible opportunities of defence were allowed to the
accused. The verdict came in complete compliance of
the law of the land.
It has to be noted that the Supreme Court hopefully
did not deliver the judgement keeping in mind that the country’s highest law making body had been attacked. What the honourable court concentrated upon was that security personnel on duty were gunned down without any provocation with the intention of entering the parliament and gunning down a large number of MPs. Thus there was a clear case of murder against the assailants. Therefore the law took its ordinary course and now the verdict has come.
Where does all this leave any scope for protests and demonstrations? Where does this show that the “freedom movement” is suppressed? Where does it show that an irregularity is done?
Obviously those who are now demonstrating against the
verdict or are instigating others to assemble in
numbers and stage dharna and strike are challenging
the authority and sovereignty of the Supreme Court of
India.
Terrorism has spread to many parts of the country.
Many terrorists have been captured tried punished and
hanged or sent to long imprisonments. This is because
the state promises to protect the life and property of
its citizens. But challenging the law of the land
means politicising the criminal procedure and
intimidating the highest fountain of justice. No
civilized society will allow it. And if it allows, it
is not a civilized society nor is it having a just administration. Political leadership and political movements do not mean they have the freedom of committing crimes and politicising their law breaking activities. In the present case justice had to be done to those whose right to life was denied. In doing so, the human rights of the culprits were fully taken into consideration.
A true freedom fighter may be lionised. A true freedom
fighter having suffered oppression and suppression may
become Nelson Mandela of his times. But a murderer is
a murderer when he makes an elaborate plan to attack
his targets meaning human beings.
The separatists in Kashmir shall have to see that the
law and politics are not mixed-up. A legally
constituted government is bound to enforce the verdict
of its highest court of law whose judges have been
appointed by the President of India through an
established procedure. The law of the land still
leaves the option of appeal for mercy open to the
aggrieved. This is yet the last attempt to ensure that
a fair deal has been given and the law of the land has
not been abused.
The verdict should have evoked a constructive response
of appealing the militants to refrain from acts of
violence that deprive innocent human beings the right
to enjoy existence.
The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, University of Kashmir.
Printer-Friendly Version