Bharat Rakshak

My intention is not to take the discussion OT, but putting all the blame on Dhoti/Lungi is not objective. Many PANTS were either below the knees or wet/yellow.

With the kind of logic being peddled here I am only reminded of Al Pacino's line from 'Scent of a woman' i.e. "This is such a croc of $hit".

Is Kasab the first one in India to be awarded death penalty ? So why this itch to take a moral high ground (which hellooo does not exist) on this issue ? Out there in the real world 'you kill an innocent, you do not deserve to live' it is as simple as that . Only people who live in gated bungalows and brought up on fairy tale stories about equality (zero entropy) , peace, harmony and such humbug talk about such nonsense.

Amitabh sir is obviously right; we should not hang terrorists in fact we shouldn't take no more fckn prisoners.

What panic?? And I said and will say it 10,000 times. UPA and MMS was panicking in their ironed stitched, triple bathing nehru kurtas and western pants if you will during 26/11. If it was not tragic, the response of the congress led maharashtra govt or the centre itself during mumbai attack. A 10,000 mumbai polic force cant even do a proper perimeter sweep, manage media after 3 days of attack?? It could not get 500 Rapid Action Force to simply do a over powering by numbers and instead a 20 member NSG was used across a big hotel to sweep. They couldnt even isolate the floors for God's sake, just pinning them down to a manageable number of floors. Instead NSG had to flown in from Delhi with the inevitable delay and you think that wasnt panic and they had to go to each and every floor to check top to bottom.

But I will never blame both parties for their headless acts during mumbai attack nor will say anything about parliament attack or even the hijack. (I actually appreciate the courage of the BJP during hijack. Imagine risking a foreign minister's life to get ordinary people out of a bind. Ofcourse they could have done better. When a brave dead hero soldier's wife was manhandled by the relatives, I guess there are only limited avenues left.)

It is the actions AFTER the event which give us the true story.

My post had to do with your 'spin' on it. I've quoted the specific argument of his that I agree with. As for the rest, you're welcome to your fray.




As if there was a difference between the two when it came to foreign policy.

You can drive a bus in difference, refer to my post around 7-8 posts above

viewtopic.php?p=1369326#p1369326

and I didnt even get started on the nuke policies.

Your post is similar to others (who share your opinion) that get posted in reply. Its obviously a tedious business quoting, cutting, replying to each one. You end up having five simultaneous debates on a single thread, a tiring effort (case in point: Amitabh's views on the last page, whom apparently everyone wants to 'set straight'). Heaven knows, what 'slyness' you're talking about.




I'm not really all that interested in delving into dynasty, POTA et al (I'll be stuck on this thread forever). Fact is during Kargil, despite a clear provocation to war, forget about bombing PoK, the LoC wasn't breached even for tactical reasons with the price paid in blood. The IC814 was allowed to depart from Amritsar and three terrorists were eventually handed over to the hijackers. If one goes by the rhetoric in these parts, Musharraf should never have been invited to have his picture taken in front of the Taj Mahal given his role in Kargil and the continuing role of the ISI in fomenting trouble in India. In the end, we were still losing hundreds of lives in J&K and the bombing campaign across India was far from over when the composite dialogue was resumed in Feb 2004.

In my opinion they were all correct or at least justifiable decisions, one's that I'd have expected from the UPA leadership in the same shoes as well. On the other hand, if the many apparent hard-liners on the forum can accept and reconcile themselves with those calls, more power to them.

and those with the upper hand moving around upper hand circles

"they came to die, but a fiery martyrs death with a direct line to the perfumed garden in a blaze of drug induced ecstasy
not swinging from a rope, solemnly, with the machinery of state and a grinding legal process that gives you hope, breaks your brainwashing and then denys you everything"

Excellent observation. And also be jailed for years by the hated kaffir, with as you say their hopes up, only to be executed.

Oh come now, so when you say something it is facts and when others mention it, it is spin.

Wonderful, what obvious, blatant hypocrisy and double standards. Not to mention being hopelessly inaccurate.

If you want to take a stand on a topic, take a stand on it, dont try and hide behind others and fire from others shoulders.

Yes much easier to pass judgements which are hopeless divorced from reality after pulling out some random statements from the Musharaff.

I have listed out the argument of Amitabh's that I agree with (viz. judicial execution being independent of anti-terrorism strategy) and my reasons for doing so. As for the rest you can can carry on with your spin. When I want Amitabh to explain himself I'll hear him out rather than believe somebody willing to state that the T-90 is an Indian tank not a Russian one.

Really? have you, can I bother you to state that logical gem in your own words perhaps so that we can examine it on its merits? As of right now, it appears to be neither here nor there. Lets see if you take a stand.



Dont believe, know. The problem is sticking to beliefs rather than knowing. In any case the above is a irrelevant personal attack and has no bearing on the logic of topic.

I don't say that "I wont believe you since you are clearly someone loves congress over India" do I --> I pointed out the hypocrisy of your trying to stand up for Amitabh, and when you could not; backpedaling with "Let Amitabh speak". As I said speak for yourself and put out one argument and then we shall see.

I agree for abolishing death penalty for Indian citizens. But what about foreigners?

Kasab was not convicted of manslaughter (killing someone in a car accident for example) or even a crime of passion like culpable homicide (killing someone who robbed your money). There are justification for not handing out the death penalty for manslaughter or culpable homicide. There might even be justification for not handing out death penalty for pre-mediated murder not committed out of passion (like murder for example). But what about people like Kasab who was convicted of waging war against the state? I believe that this is the reason why he had trouble getting clemency or overturning his sentence on appeal.

Now you could argue that there should be no death penalty under all circumstances -- including waging war against the state. If so, how do you then justify wars? Shouldnt our army first go and arrest combatants, try them for waging war against the state and then lock them up for life? The reason they shoot them at sight is because of the legal justification of catching someone red-handed while waging war against India.

Yes you can argue against death penalty under the following heads:
1. Immorality. Wars are immoral too. So let us disband our army. More people have been killed by IA than death penalty handed out.
2. Irreversibility. Jailing and time spent in jail is irreversible.
3. Deterrence effect is not proven. Neither is the deterrence effect of war. We have had war with Pakis in 48, 65, 71, Kargil and low intensity conflict. War with Chinese in 62. Do either the Pakis or Chinese given up on trying to attack us? Should we not renounce war and arrest people who attack India instead?

You can question if Kasab was inherently bad or just a brainwashed pawn who could have been redeemed after a few years of jailing. But that is like trying to argue that everyone one of us are made of protons and electrons and there is no inherently bad proton . If we accept that he committed the crime of waging war against the state, which has been proven beyond doubt, while treating him in a reasonable way, giving him proper legal representation, giving him right of appeal and right to clemency, then we should as a civilization, execute people who wage war against our state.

You can now argue, why do we want to execute people who wage war against our state? That is akin to asking "Why do we want to survive as a country?" I mean surely you cannot argue that Delhi has some kind of divine right to rule over all parts of India and follow some made up rulebook called the constitution? I mean, India is not the greatest country in the world so why do we have the right to protect our survival and kill those who attack us?

^ just a thought.

It would be more purposeful to have the death penalty for all or not. Making favors for Indians is akin to treating outsiders different from family members for the same mistake.

That is not dharmic and would lead further bad behavior from family members.

I was arguing for death penalty for certain crimes like waging war against the state. This does not fall into categories like

1. The accused did not mean to commit a crime -- like when he hit and killed someone with a car for example.
2. The accused committed a crime of passion -- like he killed his wife's lover.
3. The accused did it for personal gain, but is likely to repent -- like he killed someone for their money. But spent time in jail and realized the impact of his actions on the victim's family etc.

Waging war against the state means that the accused killed people with an intent to grievously injure and overthrow the state and the protections that the state offers to her citizens like life and liberty. This is what Kasab did. This in my view deserves the death penalty. If we limit death penalty to such egregious offense and after proving such an offense beyond any doubt, I am sure we can be humane and lawful. Even here, drawing a distinction between citizens and non-citizens is not all that of a stretch. You can argue that a citizen was incited and brainwashed. But why would a non-citizen take the trouble of travel to some other country and attack it?

India has executed ~50 people since independence. We lose about 1.5 lakh people per year due to road accidents. If we truly want to be a nation who cares for lives, we would teach more people first aid, and reduce police hassle for people who help out accident victims.

Anujanji,

Let the courts decide the suitable punishment. Eventhough the causes are same, how violently or paisachik manner a crime is committed can determine the punishment.

For example Maoists burned a bus, and caused the death of more than a dozen people in AP, which got death penalty. At the same time Maoists who blew up busses (even civilian) got acquitted as part of state pardon.

Nowadays it has become a fashion for youngment to kill girls, by slitting their throat in public, when they disagree to love/marry the boy. Such crimes must be punishable by death.

BTW, What is the relationship between executions for henious crimes and road accidents sir?

For normal crimes (including murder), the death penalty is not wantonly handed out in India. It is reserved for rarest of rare cases. Most murderers still get only life in prison. There is no comparison between India and countries like the US (most states) on this point. For waging war against the country and indulging in mass murder while doing so, some of the countries being mentioned as paragons here don't even bother with a fair trial. They just assassinate people.

I was just responding to previous bleeding-heart posts in the dhaaga about how handing out death penalty was "immoral and irreversible".

Amitabh ji, you are confusing me so much. Your own chart excludes naxal attacks.

Anyone have complete data of ALL terrorist (including *left wing extremist) attacks and resulting deaths in past two decades?

Please check the rand corp website I have posted. It has various search filters on the same.

Anujan: agree with you about retaining death penalty for people who wage war against the state & also foreigners.

But disagree about abolishing death penalty for Indian citizens. There are several categories of crime that warrant a death penalty: the Nithari child murders is one such example.

The terms of the debate on death penalty needs to change: the fact that we

a) Follow the due process of law in prosecution
b) Give the accused a chance to defend himself/herself & the right to a lawyer
c) Use the death penalty as an exception, rather than the rule
d) Provide an option for the presidential pardon
e) Put the accused to death in a merciful way, a dignity that he/she most likely denied his/her victims

All this is civilized & humane enough. No need to go further. We have become too lenient already, especially on the pardon business. A stricter implementation is the need of the day.

Bleeding Hearts

In my kingdom i would not even give them food (veg/non-veg) because it is hurting other living beings.

Dharmaraj-ji,

If you look at the link I posted with data to 2012 it excludes LWE violence until 2004. In other words, that data inflates the tally under the UPA period compared with the NDA period, only strengthening the thesis that terrorist/insurgent violence has declined under the UPA.



Viv S, brave man, is correct. I do not recalling making any of these deep and philosophical claims.

However I did make some factual claims using Swacch aur Uchit Swadeshi data that remain unchallenged but whose effect seems not to have dimmed your enthusiasm for the NDA period. Enjoy your world of fact-free opining -- perhaps you should join a TV channel.

oh, ok! my bad

Sanku ji, thanks for the link
http://smapp.rand.org/rwtid/search.php

More than 200 people wanted Ajmal Kasab pardoned

More than 203 people had signed a petition addressed to President Pranab Mukherjee, who rejected the clemency petition filed by Pakistani terrorist Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, asking him to pardon the 25-year-old sentenced to death in the 26/11 terror attacks case.

Mumbai-based lawyer Yug Chaudhry had written to the President on October 28 and sought public support for his petition seeking the commutation of the death sentence handed out to Kasab, that was executed at Pune’s Yerwada Jail on Wednesday morning.

“In the first batch sent to the President, 203 people had signed the petition. About 15-20 more signatures were obtained in the second batch that was also sent to the President,” Chaudhry told the Indian Express.

Prominent names featuring in the list of signatories who opposed Kasab’s execution includes Kasab’s defence lawyers Amin Solkar and Abbas Kazmi, Gautam Babbar of the United Nations, senior lawyer Collin Gonsalves, writers Mahasveta Devi and Naresh Fernandes, actors Nandita Das and Aamir Bashir, retired Director of the National Police Academy Shankar Sen, film-maker Anusha Rizvi and senior journalists.

Professors from leading educational institutes like the London School and Economics, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, School of African and Asian Studies, Delhi University and Jadavpur University and members of groups like the Citizen’s Forum for Civil Liberties, Forum Against Opression of Women, Mumbai.

Will these individuals still sign such petitions even if their close kin & kith die in terrorist attacks?

Oh I think they won't sign if it has saffronists' involvement....

effin hypocrites...

Why do people bring western arguments like pro and anti death sentence into the Indian scenario. Just clumsy

Law has taken its course (despite delay). Man slaughter = Death penalty (No question about it).

I

Manslaughter? It was mass-murder and waging war against the state. Manslaughter in American legal terms is same as "Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder" in India. There is no term "manslaughter" in the IPC AFAIK.

Oh. Then let me correct myself 'Mass Murder' it is. Guess i should be more aware of such things. Nevertheless, thanks for pointing it out.