PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2012 ID-52643
.
Third, the decision to execute him in complete secrecy was an act of political expediency by the discredited UPA -II govarnment The execution reeks of competitive jingoism in view of the rising Modi wave. Fourth is the fact that Afzal Guru was denied a chance to file a review petition! This is clearly unlawful and further confirms the fact that the UPA was merely trying to appear 'strong' by hanging GLIP.I even at the cost of lawful procedure. Fifth, his family was not even informed that his review petition had been rejected. The 21 " Jan judgment clearly .
mentions that a person who is to be executed should be allowed to meet his family. .
Political double standards too abound. Today, many parties -including the Akali Dal (close ally of BJP) and AAP -call rightly for commutation of the death sentence of Devinder Singh Bhullar, convicted in a blast case, quoting the Supreme Court guidelines. The same parties, however, hail the execution of Afzal Guru! The people demanding r~vocation of Bhullar's (or Rajoana's) death sentence are NOT subjected to hate speech. curfews, and violence, unlike Kashmiris who mourn the death of Afzal. We must keep reminding ourselves that in this country. death penalty has not been awarded to the perpetrators of the 1984 Sikh riots, to the murderers and rapists of the 2002 Gujarat genocide, to the accused in the Bathani Tola massacre, to the killers in Khairlanji or to the killers of Graham Staines. In many of these cases, the perpetrators roam free, protected from any punishment. · .
Some of the unanswered questions: .
The judicial proceedings recorded two occasions on which Mohammad Afzal spoke before the law: his 'confessional' statement before the police and his statement under 'Section 313 of the CrPC'. The Supreme .
·court verdict itself admits Afzal's much publicized 'confession ' which was extracted in police custody was 'UNRELIABLE'. But after the Supreme Court rejected the prosecution's theory based on Afzal's 'confession', the latter's CrPC 313 statement was the only basis left on which his role in events that led to the attack could be probed . The Court has found his only role in it was to help a man suspected to be involved in the f'>arliamant attack, to find"' house in nelhi and lo buy a car. Afzal never denied or falsified this role, rather admitted it. In his statement he, in fact, n!lrned an STF office Qi' ·.·:l"'de · Singh who ordered him to perfMm those acts. Yet, DavindEJ[ .Singh was mentioned neither in the FIR nor chargesheet. nor was he made a witness in the case. He did not figure anywhere in the tnals, ~~spite the presence of his phone numbers in Afzal's phone records. H.~w come the Supreme Court chose to believe one part of Afzal's statement under Section 313, while conveniently ign.!>red the rest? Why W<!sn't the link with the STF probed? .
Afte,· the Parliament attack, a former Police Commissioner of Thane .
S.M. Shangari, claimed in a press conference that one of the killed terronst (Abu Hamza) had been arrested in Maharashtra in December 2000 along with three others (one year before the Parliament house attack) and had subsequently been handed over to the J&K Police. Therefore at the time of the Parliament house attack. Abu Hamza was supposedly in the custody of the J&K police. .
However, K Rajendra, then inspector general of the J&K Police, dismissed Shangari't; enquiries calling it a case of mistaken identity and arguing that Hamza is a common Muslim name. Perhaps so. But then what happened to those four militants including Abu Hamza in J&K STF custody? The Thane court issued repeated summons to the J&K Police to produce them in Thane. They were never sent nor any explanation provided! WHY? (See Mihir Srivastava, The Question of Reasonable Doubt, The Open Magazine 1412/13) .
The so-called 'masterminds' behind the attack (Masood Azhar, Ghazi Baba and Tariq Ahmad) were never arrested and produced in any court, to verify the prosecution's story: Of these, Ghazi Baba was claimed to be shot dead by security forces in 2004. Then, where is Tariq? Why can't the STF produce him? After Kasab's arrest, we saw a flurry of diplomatic exchange, with India providing proof of Pakistan's involvement, demanding extraditions and so on. WHY didn't we see a similar diplomatic exchange demanding that these three be produced in Indian courts? .
finally file the FIR where, we have been told that the culprit has been book under Sections 376(2i}, 342, 324,363,366,509 of /PC . JNUSU along with numerous people from the city held aIC8ndle light March from W Police Station to the neighbouring area. Today JNUSU joined in solidarity with the students from .
tne North-East, who organised a silent Sit-In at Patiala House to demand that the process of justice in the case is not subverted through crafty cover-up by any nexus of the investigation agencies and local power groups. .
Just last week, Delhi saw the brutal broad daylight murder of .
19-year-old Nido Tania, from Arunachal Pradesh, in Lajpat .
Nagar market. A massive and sustained protest broke out in .
the city. But shockingly, even as the city-wide protest against .
this racist lynch-mob murder of Nido was at its peak, two .
Manipuri women were beaten up near Kotla. And now, we are .
witnessing this horrific barbarism against a minor North-East .
girl in JNU's neighbourhood. JNUSU calls for vigilance and .
solidarity against this growing trend of racial and sexual .
violence against the people of North East in the national .
capital. .
.
As the popular protest snowballed against in Nido's murder,.,.,:--various ruling parties did make the mandatory 'condemnation' noises. But it is indeed revealing that while they continue to .
I .
;.,dulge in competitive blame game to reap political harvests, none ofthem have chosen to recognise the deep-seated racial and anti-women prejudices that dominate not just the social psyche but more dangerously the security agencies, police, State policy and politics, which they directly command and define. They refused to be accountable for the highly condemnable police inaction, 'inefficiency' and orchestrated 'cover-up' that local police routinely display in dealing with such .
cases of racist and sexual violence. So we have to be extra .
vigilant that the vested power ':jroups do NOT manage to .
·: ubv<'rt justic~;. 1Ne ha'\Te to take to the streets with renewed .
vigour against this growing trend of racist and sexual violence .
.
in the city. We must resolve,to stop this shame NOW! .
i:..nd finally, the big question that the Indian State must answer: .
Afzal being a surrendered militant was under constant State surveillance. .
Could a man constantly watched by our security forces, and who, .
.
even according to the Court, did not belong to any terrorist organisation .
at the time of Parliament attack, manage to execute a terrorist attack of .
such magnitude? If a person under the watchful eye of the STF .
.
could be part of a conspiracy to wage war against the state, how can anything less than a public inquiry do? For th is is not about the guilt or innocence of one man, but about how a system works and what it means, to democracy, sovereignty and the security of the state. Whose pawn was he really? .
It is true that the attack on Parliament was most highly condemnable .
and an assault on what is known as the highest seat of our democracy. .
Precisely because of this , it was imperative that the police and .
investigation agencies should have carried out an honest investigation .
to book the perpetrators. Instead, what did we get?The Supreme .
Court, while admitting that there is no direct evidence of Afzal's .
guilt, has held that he must die to satisfy the ' collective .
conscience' of the Indian nation. It was almost as if there was a .
need to at least ensure one death sentence so that the faith of the .
public in the efficacy of the prosecution and the judiciary and the .
Legislature would not be shaken. A range of Indian citizens-teachers, .
writers, lawyers, Gandhian and Left activists. ordinary people -have .
raised their voice to declare that they are NOT par1 of this contrived .
'collective conscience'. Truly, the conscience of democratic and .
peace-loving citizens can be satisfied only if there is a .
guarantee that there is no witch-hunting or scape-goating, .
and those really guilty for terror and genocide are identified .
and punished. .
.
Akbar, .
Anubhuti Sandeep Saurav Sarfaraz, .
President, JNUSU Vice-President,JNUSU Gen. Secy.,JNUSU Jt.Secy.,JNUSU .
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2012 ID-52643
.
Third, the decision to execute him in complete secrecy was an act of political expediency by the discredited UPA -II govarnment The execution reeks of competitive jingoism in view of the rising Modi wave. Fourth is the fact that Afzal Guru was denied a chance to file a review petition! This is clearly unlawful and further confirms the fact that the UPA was merely trying to appear 'strong' by hanging GLIP.I even at the cost of lawful procedure. Fifth, his family was not even informed that his review petition had been rejected. The 21 " Jan judgment clearly .
mentions that a person who is to be executed should be allowed to meet his family. .
Political double standards too abound. Today, many parties -including the Akali Dal (close ally of BJP) and AAP -call rightly for commutation of the death sentence of Devinder Singh Bhullar, convicted in a blast case, quoting the Supreme Court guidelines. The same parties, however, hail the execution of Afzal Guru! The people demanding r~vocation of Bhullar's (or Rajoana's) death sentence are NOT subjected to hate speech. curfews, and violence, unlike Kashmiris who mourn the death of Afzal. We must keep reminding ourselves that in this country. death penalty has not been awarded to the perpetrators of the 1984 Sikh riots, to the murderers and rapists of the 2002 Gujarat genocide, to the accused in the Bathani Tola massacre, to the killers in Khairlanji or to the killers of Graham Staines. In many of these cases, the perpetrators roam free, protected from any punishment. · .
Some of the unanswered questions: .
The judicial proceedings recorded two occasions on which Mohammad Afzal spoke before the law: his 'confessional' statement before the police and his statement under 'Section 313 of the CrPC'. The Supreme .
·court verdict itself admits Afzal's much publicized 'confession ' which was extracted in police custody was 'UNRELIABLE'. But after the Supreme Court rejected the prosecution's theory based on Afzal's 'confession', the latter's CrPC 313 statement was the only basis left on which his role in events that led to the attack could be probed . The Court has found his only role in it was to help a man suspected to be involved in the f'>arliamant attack, to find"' house in nelhi and lo buy a car. Afzal never denied or falsified this role, rather admitted it. In his statement he, in fact, n!lrned an STF office Qi' ·.·:l"'de · Singh who ordered him to perfMm those acts. Yet, DavindEJ[ .Singh was mentioned neither in the FIR nor chargesheet. nor was he made a witness in the case. He did not figure anywhere in the tnals, ~~spite the presence of his phone numbers in Afzal's phone records. H.~w come the Supreme Court chose to believe one part of Afzal's statement under Section 313, while conveniently ign.!>red the rest? Why W<!sn't the link with the STF probed? .
Afte,· the Parliament attack, a former Police Commissioner of Thane .
S.M. Shangari, claimed in a press conference that one of the killed terronst (Abu Hamza) had been arrested in Maharashtra in December 2000 along with three others (one year before the Parliament house attack) and had subsequently been handed over to the J&K Police. Therefore at the time of the Parliament house attack. Abu Hamza was supposedly in the custody of the J&K police. .
However, K Rajendra, then inspector general of the J&K Police, dismissed Shangari't; enquiries calling it a case of mistaken identity and arguing that Hamza is a common Muslim name. Perhaps so. But then what happened to those four militants including Abu Hamza in J&K STF custody? The Thane court issued repeated summons to the J&K Police to produce them in Thane. They were never sent nor any explanation provided! WHY? (See Mihir Srivastava, The Question of Reasonable Doubt, The Open Magazine 1412/13) .
The so-called 'masterminds' behind the attack (Masood Azhar, Ghazi Baba and Tariq Ahmad) were never arrested and produced in any court, to verify the prosecution's story: Of these, Ghazi Baba was claimed to be shot dead by security forces in 2004. Then, where is Tariq? Why can't the STF produce him? After Kasab's arrest, we saw a flurry of diplomatic exchange, with India providing proof of Pakistan's involvement, demanding extraditions and so on. WHY didn't we see a similar diplomatic exchange demanding that these three be produced in Indian courts? .
finally file the FIR where, we have been told that the culprit has been book under Sections 376(2i}, 342, 324,363,366,509 of /PC . JNUSU along with numerous people from the city held aIC8ndle light March from W Police Station to the neighbouring area. Today JNUSU joined in solidarity with the students from .
tne North-East, who organised a silent Sit-In at Patiala House to demand that the process of justice in the case is not subverted through crafty cover-up by any nexus of the investigation agencies and local power groups. .
Just last week, Delhi saw the brutal broad daylight murder of .
19-year-old Nido Tania, from Arunachal Pradesh, in Lajpat .
Nagar market. A massive and sustained protest broke out in .
the city. But shockingly, even as the city-wide protest against .
this racist lynch-mob murder of Nido was at its peak, two .
Manipuri women were beaten up near Kotla. And now, we are .
witnessing this horrific barbarism against a minor North-East .
girl in JNU's neighbourhood. JNUSU calls for vigilance and .
solidarity against this growing trend of racial and sexual .
violence against the people of North East in the national .
capital. .
.
As the popular protest snowballed against in Nido's murder,.,.,:--various ruling parties did make the mandatory 'condemnation' noises. But it is indeed revealing that while they continue to .
I .
;.,dulge in competitive blame game to reap political harvests, none ofthem have chosen to recognise the deep-seated racial and anti-women prejudices that dominate not just the social psyche but more dangerously the security agencies, police, State policy and politics, which they directly command and define. They refused to be accountable for the highly condemnable police inaction, 'inefficiency' and orchestrated 'cover-up' that local police routinely display in dealing with such .
cases of racist and sexual violence. So we have to be extra .
vigilant that the vested power ':jroups do NOT manage to .
·: ubv<'rt justic~;. 1Ne ha'\Te to take to the streets with renewed .
vigour against this growing trend of racist and sexual violence .
.
in the city. We must resolve,to stop this shame NOW! .
i:..nd finally, the big question that the Indian State must answer: .
Afzal being a surrendered militant was under constant State surveillance. .
Could a man constantly watched by our security forces, and who, .
.
even according to the Court, did not belong to any terrorist organisation .
at the time of Parliament attack, manage to execute a terrorist attack of .
such magnitude? If a person under the watchful eye of the STF .
.
could be part of a conspiracy to wage war against the state, how can anything less than a public inquiry do? For th is is not about the guilt or innocence of one man, but about how a system works and what it means, to democracy, sovereignty and the security of the state. Whose pawn was he really? .
It is true that the attack on Parliament was most highly condemnable .
and an assault on what is known as the highest seat of our democracy. .
Precisely because of this , it was imperative that the police and .
investigation agencies should have carried out an honest investigation .
to book the perpetrators. Instead, what did we get?The Supreme .
Court, while admitting that there is no direct evidence of Afzal's .
guilt, has held that he must die to satisfy the ' collective .
conscience' of the Indian nation. It was almost as if there was a .
need to at least ensure one death sentence so that the faith of the .
public in the efficacy of the prosecution and the judiciary and the .
Legislature would not be shaken. A range of Indian citizens-teachers, .
writers, lawyers, Gandhian and Left activists. ordinary people -have .
raised their voice to declare that they are NOT par1 of this contrived .
'collective conscience'. Truly, the conscience of democratic and .
peace-loving citizens can be satisfied only if there is a .
guarantee that there is no witch-hunting or scape-goating, .
and those really guilty for terror and genocide are identified .
and punished. .
.
Akbar, .
Anubhuti Sandeep Saurav Sarfaraz, .
President, JNUSU Vice-President,JNUSU Gen. Secy.,JNUSU Jt.Secy.,JNUSU .
.