news details |
|
|
| How morally correct it is to suggest clemency for those whose hands are drenched with blood of innocents | | | Bharat Bhushan
JAMMU, Sept 8: Prompted by the overt support of Tamil Nadu and Punjab for clemency to the three convicts who were found involved in terrorist attacks, J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah tweeted few days back: "If J&K assembly had passed a resolution similar to the Tamil Nadu one for Afzal Guru, would the reaction have been as muted? I think not."
And, the reaction was there for all to see. On this side of Jawahar Tunnel, people held anti-government and anti-Omar demonstrations, demanding that Afzal be sent to gallows.
His death sentence should not be commuted to life sentence. A militant was only a ruthless killer and did not have any religion, the protesters said.
A week, or so after Omar floated the suggestion to garner support for Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, a new development and of course the serious one took place Wednesday when a terror blast killed 12 people and wounded many others outside Delhi high court. In an email later sent to media houses, HUJI claimed that the terror explosion was carried out by its cadres in retaliation to the Afzal's death sentence.
The HUJI action was, however, unlikely to be of any support to Afzal. In fact, it has for the time being silenced the voice of J&K too in his support.
The big question now is how morally correct and proper it is to suggest clemency for those whose hands are drenched with the blood of innocent people. Going by the views of the general masses, or of those whose nears and dears got killed in terror attacks, Afzal-like people deserved no mercy. It hurts when politicians make attempts to link them to the region and the religion they belong to.
The fact is that apart from Tamil Nadu and Punjab, J&K too was now exposed to the charge of acting regionally with an eye on a select group of voters.
Afzal was involved in the terror attack on Parliament, the seat of Indian democracy. In the attack, several innocent lives were lost.
If his punishment was commuted, it would send a signal to militants within and outside the country that India was a soft target where they could get away with lighter punishments.
The protesters said no mercy be shown to militants who had waged a war to destablise India. A strong message be sent to all such elements within and outside India, they felt.
For tweeting in favour of Afzal, Omar came under severe criticism. But given their track record, he and his father Farooq Abdullah have the distinction of never playing with the secessionist sentiments of people in Kashmir, unlike many other Kashmiri politicians.
But during the Amarnath land agitation, Omar's passionate speech was too mainly aimed at the select "secular" Muslims of Kashmir, knowing that National Conference had paid a heavy price in 2002 assembly elections in Kashmir for not having resigned from the central cabinet on the Gujarat riots. The party was blamed for sharing power with the "communal BJP" at the Centre.
It did not want to repeat the mistake it made in 2002. The way Omar defended the anti-Amarnath land transfer agitation in the parliament was an indicator in this direction.
Omar may be thinking that by extending a support to Afzal, he would be able to keep the "secular" Muslims in Kashmir in his flock, but there is a difference between the 1998 Amarnath land row and the Afzal Guru case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
