“Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye will make the world blind”. This is so very true. To reciprocate an evil with another is not civilised”
First, all you guys, if you’re oh-so-concerned about violence, if your hearts bleeds so much for human rights violations, pack your bags – carry the Marx-Mullah Brotherhood manual with you – go for a trip to all the terrorist training camps in PoK and blare all that ALOUD to the terrorists and then come back to India – if they let you say alive that is – and continue your campaign. Be assured of all support.
If a man is about to kill me with a sword held high over my neck… sorry, I too want to live. I’ll fight back… and yes, with violence. Call me selfish if you like but I too have human rights. I too have a right to live. And more importantly, I’m innocent. I did nothing to justify his desire to murder me. I also have a right to selfdefence.
That argument is based on the premise that ALL violence is evil. Killing mosquitoes is violence. Is it evil? Killing bacteria using antibiotics is violence. Is that also evil? How about mosquito rights? How about bacteria rights?
Suffice it to say you guys lack common sense. Your pervert the very concept of nonviolence. Even the Mahatma wasnt this nonviolent. Even the Mahatma favoured the use of brute force by the British to beat the Nazis during WWII. Selfdefence is NOT evil. Or suffice it to say – a necessary evil.
If my wife is raped and her throat is slit, I wont run around screaming for the human rights of the rapist. Maybe one of the security personnel who were killed by this reptile should’ve been YOUR FATHER. Then you’ll still probably campaign for the coldblooded creature’s human rights.
“Capital punishment hardly act as a deterrent”
How much of a deterrent is LI, ma Lord? And what other deterrents do you suggest if you think capital punishment isnt enough of a deterrent? You have anything in mind? Share it with us. And if a state lacks the right to take away a life, then the state should lack the right to take away his years and force the person to live all those years in prison as well. In that case, every imprisonment becomes a case of human rights violation. We should, apart from abolishing capital punishment because of human rights, abolish imprisonment as well – according to your reasoning. Sorry, I dont subscribe to it.
I have more practical reasons for Afzal to be hanged as soon as possible. One is the possibility that hijackers may use it to do another IC-814. That might result in a plane being blown up and hundreds of people losing their human rights just because some idiots and so called rational thinkers and human rights activists thought that the the human rights of a proven, unrepenting, coldblooded terrorist who doesnt subscribe to the concept of human rights anyway are more important than the human rights of the security personnel and innocent lawabiding citizens who are bombed and torn into pieces day in and day out
Second is that it might end up further radicalising those sections of society in India which already live in the perception that the Indian state is soft and are sick and tired of the Marx-Mullah Brotherhood’s daily dose of bullshit.
If you are so concerned about human rights, then how come you didnt speak a SINGLE WORD on the human rights violations of those 9 security personnel? Obviously, your sympathies are one sided. Obviously, your sympathies are MISPLACED.
You all are hypocrites walking around naked with your irrational bullshit written all over your chests for everyone to see and yet acting as if you are the very saviours and heroes of human rights and the very salt of rationality!
Do not make assumptions and vent out your anger based on invalid assumptions.
What makes you think I didn’t speak a single word when the 9 security personnel who were killed?
Why do you think my heart doesn’t bleed for the people killed in all the terrorist attacks?
You curse me saying that one of those who died should have been my father. Look at you. Your anger has blinded you so much that you have no control over what you are saying.
Your anger against the terrorists is well justified but the solutions you are suggesting are not. You talk about IC-814. Wasn’t that an act of a weak state surrendering to terrorsit demand? Hassn’t that very act of the govt. kept the repitition of IC-814 still an option for the terrorists?
Talk about hypocrisy, Whay are against capital punishment for these seven Iranian women? For them that is even the law of the land.
You think hanging someone is more humane than stoning. I think hanging itself is not humane. That is the difference.
Lastly I would urge you not to get into personally attacking someody. I believe people who resort to personal attacks cannot justify their position by valid arguments.
Agreed atlantean, in that situation we would act that way. About acting in a gentlemanly manner i was referring to just the afore mentioned example which is about a guy on the street and not about the judiciary.
And although we don’t behead but after finding a criminal guilty we kill him right. I am not saying we are as bad as Taliban but I am not comparing ourselves to them. I am comparing ourselves to someone even better. I am not saying we should let them go but at least you can accept that in some cases there is a more peaceful way of punishing. It’s all about what part of the spectrum we are. We are not Taliban but we are not Gandhi either. I am just speaking of going a bit up the ladder. not practically but ideally.
Afzal must be tortured before hanging. Enough is enough..we have seen so many bomb blasts now in India. Leftist bloggers like you don’t want to hang those crazy terrorists. What a shame.
We need strict laws and punishment to fight against those fanatic pakistani supported terrorists.
[…] Most bloggers are hopelessly confused by their opposition to the death penalty vis-a-vis the clemecy petition. See, if there was no death penalty – we would have no clemecy petition, would we ?. Please state your arguments for a total ban on the death penalty independent of Mohammed Afzals case. Polite Indian on death penalty, […]
“Leftist bloggers like you don’t want to hang those crazy terrorists. What a shame.”
Why are you so hell bent on categorizing everyone as leftist or rightist…a secular or an extremist. Only problem with you people is that you don’t argue logically and plus your arguments don’t have substance…they are just prejudiced rantings
Fine guys, let us not hang him. Why give LI also? Isnt LI also a violation of basic human rights like the right to reproduce, the right to work, the right to move around the country, the right to eat the food that you want, the right to private enterprise, the right to a dignified life etc.? No state or society has the right to take away these basic human rights by putting someone in prison for his entire life! So let’s release Afzal. All imprisonment is violation of human rights, is uncivilised and is an anachronism in the 21st century.
We’ll all collect money and even buy Afzal a bouquet with a note “Victory to human rights!” while he makes his way back to the terrorist training camps in PoK.
And, of course, we’ll tell him – “Dont worry , we’ll take care of your human rights mate! Even after you kill my fellow citizens in the most cowardly and gruesome fashion, I WILL fight for your human rights! Woohoo! Jai Human Rights! Balls to good sense!
“Balls to all these morons who think they have the right to take someone else’s life. How inhuman! How dare they! Oh no no no, I’m not talking about you! Call off the beheading! I’m talking about some of my fellow citizens. All they are capable of is personal attack. Just look at them, how much their anger has blinded them. Chi chi! Shame on them!
And at the end of the conversation, a small note (if deemed necessary by the champions of human rights):
“And hey, stop doing those cheeky bombings will ya? They kill you know! Others might lose their human rights in those bombings… but… hmmm… well, you go on… dont worry… we’re there to protect your human rights anyway!”
And so ended another great chapter in the history of human rights.
I wish you were a bit more open to opposing views.
Let us forget Afzal for a moment. Let us say he gets hanged on the 20th. You will be happy.
What I have been trying to argue is to abolish death penalty. If you are willing to listen, I can try to tell you how some form of punishments that were acceptable in the past are not considered humane anymore.
e.g. Stoning to death was an acceptable practice and is even now in some places but even to you that is not humane.
e.g. In the past emporers resorted to public executions but now that is not accepted in a civilised world.
Is it so hard for you to envision that some of us find death penalty as abhorrent as the above two cases?
I can bet that in Iran you will find people supporting stoning these seven women to death as vehemently as you support hanging a terrorist.
Once again, let this be clear that I am not asking for Afzal to be let off the hook. I am not claiming he is innocent. He is a convicted terrorist.
As realitycheck said that probably Dhanajoy’s case would have been a more appropriate case to discuss abolishing death penalty alltogether. And emotions run real high as in case of Afzal to promote any objective thinking.
I don’t need any certificate from you.
Bottomline is I want and every nationalist want Afzal to be hanged. That will be celebration of peace over fanatic terrrorists. I will distribute sweets. VANDE MATARAM
“I wish you were a bit more open to opposing views.”
It is only because I am open to opposing views that I joined this debate here. Disagreeing is not the same as being closed to opposing views.
I AM willing to listen that hanging is inhuman. Agreed that death by hanging is more or less similar to beheading or stoning to death. My argument is: Do we have a choice? Do we have workable alternatives?
You seem to be in the postmodern world of 2226 AD when humans have evolved enough to rise above their animal instincts to understand that harming innocent people is a great crime. Come back to 2006. Here, the world is in a deep abyss – I dare say the deepest moral abyss in which humanity is in 10000 years of its existence. This is a world in which unspeakable crimes are being committed everyday. In these horrible times, it is necessary to have strong deterrents to deter people from taking to crime – I emphasize – to prevent/preempt, not to cure.
You say death by hanging will not act as a deterrent for crimes like terrorism, rape and murder. Then what do we have as a deterrent? You have some ideas – practical and workable ideas which can work better than capital punishment by hanging – please share. I’m most willing to consider.
What is LI going to do? First, you dont have a strong enough deterrent to prevent that person from taking to crime. Second, after the person commits the crime (because of the absence of a strong deterrent), make him serve LI. Third, if the person changes during LI, you force him to spend the rest of his life in prison itself. Basically, you leave no choice.
My argument is – have a strong deterrent and actually prevent the person from having to go through this process in the first place. So, to me it all comes down to what is a good deterrent and what is not. I dont believe in LI. I believe it is no different from capital punishment because they both “end” lives, in a way.
About the evidence-might-have-been-fabricated-death-penalty-doesnt-leave-room-for-review funda, that is a problem of the judicial process. It’s a problem of law enforcement. Let us put our energies in fighting for foolproof judicial process and law enforcement. I will join you but I dont think it has anything to do with capital punishment as a choice of punishment.
PS: Looking for more serious and deep discussion on this issue.
>> Since when did the judiciary start basing on “collective conscience of the society”, whatever that is, and not on the law? Isn’t it similar to catering to lynch mob mentality?>>
Polite Indian –
Please refrain from criticizing our judiciary directly. Our country and most countries including the USA do not allow us such liberty.
Read the judgement in full, do not get swayed by the so called opinion makers. The judgement contains answers to all the questions your raise. There is a link on my blog to the full SC judgement.
Afzals case is an act of war against the state, combined with inflamed passions and political posturing. A planned act of a “war against the state” is a much more serious crime than just a matter of x killing y. This is compounded by a defiant convict who appears to be remorseless. He and his family are only heaping invectives against the country and its judicial and police processes. Can we accept that he is right , “we suck – our courts suck” ? Can that be grounds for clemency – when he himself is keen on projecting a devil-may-care image ?
Dhananjoys case is a better backdrop for a discussion about the total ban on the death penalty.
Thanks for toning down. This will help us put our view points easily.
First of all let me correct my sentence “Capital punishment hardly act as a deterrent.”
I should have said
Capital punishment hardly act as a bigger deterrent than LI.
So, to me it all comes down to what is a good deterrent and what is not. I dont believe in LI.
If LI is not a deterrent for any body I don’t think capital punsihment will do the trick.
I came accross this article and it has an interesting observation about CP as a deterrent
4) CP is a deterrent to crime:
It simply does not. There have been no studies that clearly point to that fact and many that support the opposing view. The reason for this is that the vast majority of murders involve passions of the moment, violent conflict, and other such circumstances wherein the killer is not at all thinking of what might be at stake should they kill someone.
But then this doesn’t apply to terrorists. Does it? Another article examines how it applies to terrorists as well.
9/11 differs radically from the “ordinary murder” in its scale, so many died, and in its context, it is part of a war with cultural and historical components. From this you can see that the one argument often used for capital punishment falls rather flat, that being that it is OK to kill some one because doing so will make them unlikely to repeat the crime, while that might be true for individuals, we are not dealing with individuals, but rather an organization with a cause. Martyrdom only serves to whet the appetite for more actions, provides justification in the minds of the terrorists, and motivation for their new recruits.
….. And so I maintain, Capital Punishment for these persons will not work for it will not achieve the ends those who forward its arguments claim it will. This is certainly true for those responsible for 9/11 just as its true for those who “murder in the moment” .
Recently pro CP groups have stopped arguing that CP acts as a deterrent. Instead now they say CP is a punishment for the crime. If that is the line of argument then I would say it is an inhumane punishment.
It’s a problem of law enforcement. Let us put our energies in fighting for foolproof judicial process and law enforcement.
Do you seriously believe that we can make the judicial system foolproof. We can aim for it but is it really possible to achieve it? The judiacial process evolves and so do the criminals. It is a constant battle between the two.
If there is even a small percentage of falliability, don’t you think it is a bit extreme that the price for this falliability should be someone’s life?
I agree when you say, “Let us put our energies in fighting for foolproof judicial process and law enforcement”. while doing that I wouldn’t claim the judiciary at any point to be infalliable. It is the same blunder that people do while assigning infalliability to the religous texts.
I went through the judgement I must say it is a huge document and obviously couldn’t read the whole thing but I will definitely try to read it in full.
BTW Do You think our judiciary is beyond criticism? Do you claim that our judiciary is infalliable? Believe me, my effort here is not directed toward maligning the judiciary or the judicial process. I am trying to make a case against capital punishment and if Dhananjoy’s case is a better backdrop for you then so be it. Let me know what you think keping that case or any case in mind whether capital punishment shoud be the law of the land or not?
As for Afzal not asking for clemency, I am not even treading that path. Afzal is doing all the things that make him the devil that you describe him to be. I do not want to contest it. The question of clemency wouldn’t have been there had there been no capital punishment. So let me make it clear, I am not asking for Afzal to be granted clemency. Instead I want CP be abolished alltogether.
You can criticise the judiciary in broad terms, but take care not to criticise individual judges or specific judgements. Many have been burned by that, just a warning. I see you have not done that – so just something to watch out for.
If you are suggesting it might be illegal to criticise in the manner I did, I have no problem retracting it. I was thinking I was well within my rights to do that. Since I am unaware of the law, I have striken it out from the original post with your name against it.
Hey atlantean man…so I see now that you see. You are right too in a way that we are not quite as evolved into humans from animals as is possible so yeah this sort of violence is justified. Exactly what I was saying, It is an ideal option not a practical one.
But atleast you accept that it is a mmore humane and morally correct argument even if not practical.
Ok coming to Afzal’z case, although I don’t know what has happened to him during the trial and if he’s actually been proven guilty but if he is guilty I am completely against any kind of forgiveness or as they call it clemency. That makes a mockery of the judiciary and the country as a whole. Whatever argument we are having against CP is not at all related to Afzal’s case. He should definitely be given the severest form of punishment that is present whatever that is.
And talking of being good to criminals by giving LI instead of CP, I disagree. If I was in that place I would have preferred CP. Atleast the torture of lack of freedom will be over. But staying in a small cell for the whole of your life?? I think that’s much worse than CP.
About realitycheck’s question, in my opinion I think Our supreme court is excellent. I have never felt any of the court’s decisions or the explanations have ever been wrong. I have never seen it get influenced by any consideration other than law. The police, the investigators, the system may be biased but never the judiciary.
I am saying similar things. As long as CP exists as a law of the land, it will be awarded. And I am not question whether a particualr punishment that exists should be awarded or not. I am actually asking for abolishing CP. It will not happen in Afzal’s case but may be in the future. Read the post about Dhananjoy as well.
Do you know that before IC-814 there was a precedant of releasing terrorists. Mufti Mohammed’s daughter was kidnapped and then V.P Singh released 5 terrorists to secure her release. That was the first sign of weakness. That made the terrorists believe that the Indian govt can be made to bow by such acts.
NDA did a similar thing. They release 3 terrorists to secure passengers of IC-814. This was the second similar incident of weakness.
Before that BJP had been talking tough and Vajpayee made the statement “My Government will not bend before such a terror.” after Kargil. And after Kandahar he could just say that they had been successful in scaling down the hijacker’s demands. Do you see why the terrorists see India as a soft state?
The point is that if you talk tough, you need to act tough when the time comes. We did when Kargil happened but we didn’t when Kandahar happened. We should have a “No Negotiation with the terrorists ” policy. We should have planned a raid and rescue operation and taken our chances instead of meekly surrender to the terrorists. Here is what Chandrika Gosh said whose husband was one of the hostages…
The aircraft should have been stormed,” says Chandrika Ghosh whose husband was one of the hostages. Adds G.K. Bhatt, one of those who underwent the eight-day ordeal, “We would have preferred to die for the sake of the country.”
In addition to that India could have taken Taliban to task for supporting the highjackers. This would have been a clear message that India is willing to go the extra yard when it comes to national security. At that time even the world opinion was in our favour.
I say – Exactly. If an individual takse someones life or dignity, that person is not human and hence does not deserve to be treated as one
If one stoops to the level of someone inhuman, is he human anymore?
Remember, an eye for an eye will make the world blind.
I say – How can you say that crimes wont increase if fear of capital punishment is removed
There is evidence that the crime rate is lower in countries that have abolished capital punishment. Besides, I meant to say that Capital punishment hardly acts as a bigger deterrent than life imprisonment.
I say – Make it a law to punish the law enforcement and judiciary if someone innocent is punished
This is tricky. If we do this then the judges will be scared to give anyone any serious punishment. You are making this statement on the assumption that the judiciary can be made infalliable. I think no matter how hard you try there will still be cases where the judiciary can make mistake. Or even the fact that new evidence comes afterwards. We can’t say things like these won’t happen.
It is immoral to kill a man in the name of law. As long as law is there in the statute books, it should be enforced. One can campaign for the change in law; but unless it is changed, Afzal should be hanged.
SC has given a decent ruling that death sentence only for the rarest of rare cases. Once SC has confirmed the death sentence, taking into account the qualifying clause, it is final. There can be discussion but there should not be any change in the decision.
When the Marxist-Mulla combines to canvass in favour of Afzal, the alarm bells start bellowing. Muslims should first change the stoning clause for women, charged with adultery and then plead the case of Afzal.
EU countries, who abolished death sentence, egged on by dreamy eyed Socialist utopian fools, now regret with Islamic immigrant section, who will destroy Europe, as known to others by 2050. The argument that it is not deterrant is inapplicable to Islam; that is why they have stipulated stoning to death etc. For Afzal, it is their law which should apply.
I am making a case for changing the law itself. I agree it is immoral to kill in the name of law.
I don’t think that since the laws in some part of the world are uncivilized, we should not change our laws unless they change it? There is no correlation in the stoning laws in Iran (Or any other country) to death penalty in India
hang the mullas and the muslim brotherhood, line them up and shoot them down. For the scurvy dogs, and lieing murderers they are. They truly have no real concept of the meaning of life, so take thiers from them. All you gotta do is start hanging them, and they will cut and run. But they know you wont , and call us cowards for it. while sending another car load of kids and bombs. START HANGING THEM GOD DAMNIT. ITS ALL THEY UNDERSTAND. I know, I’ve lived with them. they are just simple children in thought and education. Start hanging all that preach hate and destruction and they will get the message and roll over like a good lap dog. And believe me, most dont have even a good lap dogs education.
I am making a case for changing the law itself. I agree it is immoral to kill in the name of law.
I am afraid that PI has not made out a convincing case for a change in law. The plea for change is dismissed. Hanging is in the law books and Afzal should be hanged immediately.
I don’t think that since the laws in some part of the world are uncivilized, we should not change our laws unless they change it? There is no correlation in the stoning laws in Iran (Or any other country) to death penalty in India
Afzal committed a crime as a jihad against infidels and due to religious reasons. As per Islamic theology, adultery is punishable by stoning to death and death punishment for Afzal also should be more violent than mere hanging. Muslims can not deny human rights in their countries and demand them in host countries; like theocracy when we are in majority and secularism when in minority. I am doing unto them what they do unto others.
I note that you have sidestepped my mention of the plight of EU countries, under Islamic seige.
I am a liberal person and think like you, but people of India and other countries are so distressed by the act of followers of ISLAM that they couldn’t think of to be lenient to a terrorist MUSLIM. They can make a case to be lenient for any other heinous crime but not for terrorism. In my opinion, a corrupted person (based on level of corruption) should also be hanged, even if it looks uncivilized to us. This view was also echoed by SC. SC has said that if law would permit, it can sentence a corrupt person to be hanged in lamp post in front of public so that it could create some fear in the crime minded people. The SC has scholars on human rights and civilization and it would have decided to life imprisonment rather than a death sentence in this case but it didn’t do so. SC sentences very carefully. Also, as Muslim scholars say Quran was revealed by GOD and it advocates for uncivilized punishments to criminals so that human can learn a lesson and don’t repeat the heinous act.
Whether the case is convincing or not is relative. To you it might not but to others it might be.
Afzal did not commit a crime against India (a.k.a infidels) in the name of religion. It was a crime committed in the name of Kashmir.
As for EU being under Islamic siege, I think that is an overstatement and highly unlikely extrapolation by all means.
Now you want to apply Islamic laws to Afzal? Then why not declare openly that let Muslims be governed by Islamic laws? Why even think of a uniform code?
Honestly I don’t think that this kind of attitude will take us anywhere. As I have said before, it is important to raise issues and concerns but the manner in which you raise them is important. Finger pointing and writing off a community is not going to change a thing, no matter how hard you point or how just you think your issues are.
BTW, Why do you think that the govts. of European countries or US or even India accept the demands made by Muslims that on the face of it might seem ridiculous to a non Muslim?
So you want to take a leaf out of Quran to justify uncivilized punishments? Do you think it is a good idea to hang someone from the lamp post so as to cast terror in the heart of future criminals?
First of all whether it casts a terror or not is itself debatable. Secondly, you agree that this sort of punishment is uncivilized then why advocate it? Agreed that the current law books have capital punishment but that doesn’t mean it cannot be changed. That doesn’t mean that everything in the law book is correct. As long as it is law we have to follow it but we also have the right to protest against it. That is exactly what I am doing by asking to do away with the death penalty.
Let me elaborate my points stated in above post#33.
“You propose a case for change in law to abolish the death sentence. It is uncivilized and we should not practice it. LI will serve the purpose and CP is redundant.” I don’t think CP is redundant and I agree that we should not abolish CP like law in current situation and should invoke in case of person behaving like inhumane (animals). I am advocating for CP because at this point of time I see that people are becoming uncivilized and there is need of uncivilized law to refrain them from becoming an animal. I think that our country India is still practicing the most civilized law and CP is given in the rarest of the rare cases, i.e., in heinous crimes, when a person becomes an animal.
We can argue that why army kills terrorist in an encounter. In civilized terms one may say, first let the terrorists finish there bullets and ammunitions then when they have no other option but to surrender, the army should catch them live and produce in the court. Let them kill as many as army personnel, but don’t retaliate; otherwise shooting a terrorist could be uncivilized. Also one can argue, terrorist may be right because they are fighting for a cause and protecting the right and freedom of their people. So, don’t kill them but catch live and produce them in court. They have right to live and no one has right to take their right of living. Therefore one may ask why army is killing them. Isn’t it uncivilized?
The same way we can argue, or we civilized enough? If yes then why there is war like situation everywhere. Even let us say India is a civilized country and it should practice the civilized laws. Then we can again land into rule: don’t kill any person in any circumstances because we are civilized. Thus in case our neighbor country attack us then tell our army not to torture or kill any army personnel of enemy country. Let them kill our army until they finish and impose a more civilized rule.
But what is the real situation in our above two examples, do we follow the civilized rule? No. Why? Because of other party is behaving inhumane and uncivilized and creating danger to our life and our existence. So, we say forget about the civilization and go uncivilized way to deter the enemy. Even you may want to kill as many enemies as possible or go to the extent of using the atom bomb.
I would like to pose another question here: what we should do in event of our enemy uses an atom bomb to destroy our country? Should we use civilized way to surrender them or should use tit for tat? In other words don’t we use atom bomb too? The advocate of civilization can tell, don’t use atom bomb in this situation too because it could kill millions of innocents. But couldn’t it be height of nonsense. Because of our country is too civilized we may not use tit for tat in this situation too and we would be tiled as cowards. But should we not retaliate to the enemy in his own uncivilized manner? If we don’t do, there would come a time when uncivilized will rule and there could be imposed more uncivilized rules and law than whatever our country is practicing today. So, if it could be correct in war like situation to kill enemies then why not for a person who behaves like criminal of WAR. There is nothing wrong if we could have CP in judiciary and kill a criminal of that kind by our judiciary system. This is the more civilized way since he is given a chance to prove his innocence rather than killing somewhere else.
You have quoted, “Gandhi once said an eye for an eye will make the world blind”. This is so very true.
Do you think that this is logically true? It is just a phrase but doesn’t apply in real life. This phrase is only to make people refrain from violence but if you apply eye for an eye, I don’t think it will make world blind. In the real context, eye for an eye is applied to uncivilized people to suppress the crime and not on civilized people. So even if you apply an eye for eye, there will be leftover of civilized people. If you have respect for Gandhi, you should also believe the Muslim scholars too. Many Muslim scholars have proposed that the Quran is most civilized, modern science, peaceful, human loving and best religion in the world. And uncivilized rule are necessary for uncivilized people. Dou you want to say that the Quran is uncivilized religion and its followers and Muslim scholars are uncivilized? I would like to say that Muslim scholars have done lot of research and analysis and after that they have reached to the conclusion and proposed to follow the rules of Quran for having a better civilized and peaceful life.
I stated in my post #33 that punishment is delivered to a criminal (in most of the cases) and no harm even if it’s uncivilized. It will deter to repeat the crime. I am not sure how much it could be effective but I am sure this would prove the logic of Gandhi wrong. In past where people were following the Islamic rules were having a punishment such as an eye for an eye, cut the arms of a thief, kill the murderer in front of public and so and so forth. But these laws didn’t make followers of Muslims to vanish but they become more civilized and prosperous later. You can read more here http://www.examinethetruth.com/ on “Quran and modern science” and other debates.
You said “You talk about IC-814. Wasn’t that an act of a weak state surrendering to terrorsit demand? Hassn’t that very act of the govt. kept the repitition of IC-814 still an option for the terrorists?”
In above statement you say that our state act was act of a weak state. But it was because we chosen the path of civilization. We didn’t want to loose our Indian citizen. We can realize only when if one of our loved ones was there. We certainly wanted to see them live. There may be some exception, which you have quoted. So, both the options (surrender or raid) were having some merits and demerits and the India chose the path of not to take the risk of civilians life (one may say a civilized approach). If we would have not saved the life of our fellow Indians, the India could have criticized more and what else would have had happened more, I can’t say. Government had 50-50 chances in both and chose the one. We can’t argue on which was right and which was wrong since we don’t have results of other. Also, I am not sure, if raiding could have deterred a terrorist to avoid the repetition. What I can say is that there was nothing wrong in swapping since we had our people and terrorists have theirs. They all are alive and seems nothing wrong in this since we are debating on abolishing the CP and thus not taking a life even if how inhumane a criminal is. But what I understand from your comments that you wanted tough approach even if it would be uncivilized and that’s what I want to tell: change ourselves as per the requirements of the environments and societies. This is not the right time to change the tough law like CP, but it’s time to add few more.
Since we allow killing the people in war like situation so why not should we have such laws to use against the person who wages war against our country? Thus what I am suggesting is, let there be some uncivilized law and leave it on Judiciary to chose based on the level of crime. We should use middle path of civilized punishment (I didn’t yet know what the civilized punishments are) and few uncivilized one until we make India and world away from inhumane kind of activities. As for as my limited knowledge is concerned, I know that these punishments are given to deter the criminal minded people to repeat the crime. If this is not so, then why there is punishment at all. Let any one do what does he want and don’t punish.
In my opinion, CP will deter criminal minded people because of – 1) fear of life, 2) it has psychological effect on family members, since they loose a loved one and 3) he will be no more their to preach evil and or support evil. In case of LI, it could be possibility of he could survive and can preach or support evil and also can instigate family members from the jail to engage in evil. Also, a family member will have loved one alive and lesser psychological affect than CP. Thus what do I think is that CP is more rigorous punishment than LI and we should keep it even if it looks uncivilized. I am not going to be as ideal as you after looking into the current scenario in India and I would like to advocate for CP even if it seems uncivilized until we remove terrorism and war like crimes.
Nowadays our Country is struggling with problem of corruption which has affected law and order, judiciary and development and is in the process of paralyzing them. Because of distress and our society becoming uncivilized, the SC has commented that every one is looting our country India and we need some stringent laws to make people more civilized. It even went a step further and proposed for uncivilized law (hanging in lamppost) to check the corruptions. I believe they are not wrong on assessing the situation of country on corruption. There is something alarming which compelled SC to comment like this. Whenever our country would be in trouble, we should become littlie uncivilized to curb the uncivilization, otherwise our future generations too would call us that our ancestors were coward. We should give credit to our law makers. In my opinion, authors were fully civilized and after lot of though they would have come to framing the laws of our land. May be something in law book incorrect, which I don’t know, but there are many correct things too. Our situation in India is still the same as it was at time of those law makers and it seems to me that CP should still hold good until next few years and until we realize totally civilized and find no place for CP.
We should not waste our energy to change laws in India to make it more civilized but our attention should be to make the other countries more civilized which are lacking civilization. I think there is no need to list the countries and you know them well. Once we can achieve a civilization like India in whole world then start debating on whether we should have CP punishment in India or not. When people of a country realize that because of a particular type crime, their country is getting paralyzed, then they realize that they need to punish such criminals in what may come to deter. In that case they don’t think whether a punishment for the crime is civilized or uncivilized. In current scenario, if we ask the general people what should be a punishment for a terrorist or a highly corrupted person, then they may suggest that change the law to make it more uncivilized so that the punishment hurts most. Even they can come up with hanging the terrorist with lamppost in eyes of public. A general public opinion will be to give highest uncivilized punishments for the heinous crime until we are getting back our normal life.
Since our society is feeling the heat of terrorism and it’s becoming a factor in affecting the day to day life of a citizen, we should have debate on “Is CP sufficient or we need additional uncivilized punishment for Terrorism/War like crimes”.