Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Posts tagged ‘terrorism’

MUMBAI TERRORISTS!


In the TV Channel HEADLINES TODAY, there was an eminent panel of Analysts which included 2 foreign INTELLIGENCE  ANALYSTS.  When  asked  whether  HOT PURSUIT  was  an option for  India,  they  said that on two grounds it was not advisable:-

1. That hot pursuit was successful when the host country was friendly, and

2. That it was a collective belief, of the Indian nation, that the terrorists came from a neighbouring nation and one had to have more concrete material to act upon such a premise.

In the INTERNATIONAL LAW, hot pursuit is allowed when the mischief-maker moves into alien territory subsequent to the mischief done by him. This provision is allowed, as the rights of the victim nation need not be deterred by niceties when they can apprehend the mischief maker, even when he had entered the alien territory.

INTERNATIONAL LAW IS MAN MADE like any other law, but that the precedents are not of great relevance. History may be of relevance, i repeat, but PRECEDENTS ARE NOT BINDING.

Therefore when  BUSH and BLAIR invent the WMDs based  on the  so called facts  submitted  by the CIA  chief,  and act upon it, a  third world country  which has  proof  is, international opinion-wise prevented from  launching  an attack to DECAPITATE the head of the terror outfit outside its territory!

We have to learn the un-highlighted part of HISTORY. We have to draw inspiration therefrom.

After the execution of Saddam Hussein,  the fact finding committee  finds out from the CIA chief that the intelligence inputs regarding the presence and manufacture of the WMDs was not factual. But by then it had become a fait-accompli.  Somebody owns up for the non-factual representation made, and he resigns and no further action against him is taken. To put it in simpler terms, the man who cooked the intelligence did give the so called proof (at that point in time) for the chief executive to act, in a way that he always wanted to. And to top it, after accomplishing the mission, he goes scot-free. The congress finds out that  he had furnished incorrect facts and thereby made the chief executive take a wrong decision!!

Cut back a few centuries, Warren Hastings and Dalhousie commit excesses in India, when the British Parliament finds that the public opinion was getting sticky, they call for the IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS against these Governors-General/Viceroy,  make a great forum for EDMUND BURKE and FOX to display their verbal skills and make vituperative speeches and then the  SOVEREIGN PARDON follows and the rogues are let free. No Indian gets to trouble those rogues in The Great Britain. They both lived happily everafter, with none to look down upon them.

IT IS EASIER TO GET PARDON THAN TO OBTAIN PERMISSION!

I HOPE, THAT WE LEARN THE LESSONS THAT HISTORY HAS TO OFFER, AND STRIKE THE ROOTS OF TERROR WHEREVER THEY BE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY FEEL SORRY- IF AT ALL WE HAVE TO. WHEN THE MEMORIES OF THE MUMBAI BLASTS ARE STILL FRESH, THE JUSTIFICATION WOULD BE HIGHER.

STATECRAFT IS HIGHER THAN INTERNATIONAL LAWS -WHICH ARE NOTHING BUT POST-FACTO FORMULATIONS TO DELAY AND DISSIPATE THE ANGER AND MERELY SETTLEMENT OF PAYMENTS. STATECRAFT IS ROOTED IN LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS, HONOUR AND SOVEREIGNTY.

YES WE CAN AND WE SHALL!!

Advertisements

TERRORISM & ROBESPIERRE- louis must die!!


“When a nation has been forced to resort to the right of insurrection it returns to a state of nature as regards its tyrant. How can the latter invoke the social compact? He has annihilated it. The nation can preserve it still, if it thinks fit, in whatever concerns the interrelations of its citizens: but the effect of tyranny and insurrection is to break it entirely as regards the tyrant; it is to throw them into mutual war; the tribunals, the judiciary procedures, are made for the members of the city. … The right to punish the tyrant and that to dethrone him are the same thing. The one does not admit of different forms from the other. The tyrant’s trial is insurrection; his judgment is the fall of his power; his penalty, whatever the liberty of the people demands.

Peoples do not judge like judiciary courts. They pass no sentences; they hurl the thunderbolt. They do not condemn kings: they thrust them back into oblivion; and this justice is not inferior to that of courts. If they arm themselves against their oppressors for their own safety, why should they be bound to adopt a mode of punishing them which would be a new danger to themselves?

As for me, I abhor the penalty of death so lavish in your laws, and I have neither love nor hatred for Louis. Crimes only I hate. I have asked the Assembly, which you still call Constituent, for the abolition of the death penalty, and it is not my fault if the first principles of reason seem to it moral and political heresies. But if you never bethought yourselves to invoke them in favor of so many unfortunates whose offenses are less their own than those of the government, by what fatality do you remember them only to plead the cause of the greatest of all criminals? You ask an exception to the death penalty for him alone against whom it can be legitimate! Yes, the penalty of death generally is a crime, and for that reason alone, according to the indestructible principles of nature, it can be justified only in cases when it is necessary for the safety of individuals or the social body. Public safety never demands it against ordinary offenses, because society can always guard against them by other means and make the offender powerless to harm it. But a dethroned king in the bosom of a revolution which is anything but cemented by laws, a king whose name suffices to draw the scourge of war on the agitated nation, neither prison nor exile can render his existence immaterial to the public welfare: and this cruel exception to ordinary laws which justice approves can be imputed only to the nature of his crimes.

It is with regret that I utter this fatal truth. But Louis must die, because the country must live.” –ROBESPIERRE

I have nothing to add to the brilliant logic and persuasive reasoning given by Robespierre, when the question came up for the execution of LOUIS XVI, the deposed King of France.

Robespierre stood against capital punishment, but when it was his turn to give his opinion on the sentence of death for the tyrant, he stood up and distinguished his general opinion on CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

We are in TERRIBLE TIMES. Mumbai is being taken over by terrorists, who deserve NO SYMPATHY. The TERRORISTS stand in the shoes of the TYRANT mentioned in Robespierre’s speech. The time has come for our justice system to be altered vis-a-vis the terrorists on similar lines of REASONING, so audaciously spoken by Robespierre.

LET US RISE AS A NATION AND HAVE NO COMPUNCTION IN COMMITTING THE TERRORISTS TO SUMMARY TRIALS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, WITH NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER TO PRESENT THEIR SIDE, AND DECIDE THE TRIALS EXPEDITIOUSLY BASED ON EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE PROSECUTION, SO THAT FAITH IS RESTORED IN OUR SYSTEM, BESIDES HAVING THE MINIMUM DETERRENCE.

TERRORISM


In the news channel CNN-IBN Sunday last, there was a debate on TERRORISM. The positions of the participants which impelled me to write this blog are the reasoning given by Javed Akhthar (Hindi cinema script writer and poet in Hindi) and the objection raised by Ravi Shankar Prasad( former minister in the BJP govt.)

The position taken by Javed was that not only persons who indulge in wanton bomb blasting shud be charged under the relevant laws of Terrorism , but even when persons indulge in communal killings they shud be tried under the same laws. Ravi was of the opinion that merely because javed wanted both to be treated equally it cannot be done as there is no rationale warranting such similarity of treatment.

There is some element of truth in both the opinions. But how?

The persons who are targeted by the terrorist is not known to him. The terrorist does not hold any personal grudge against the individual, who turns out to be the ultimate victim. Yet he hurts and harms recklessly a group of people who are found in that place where he had planted or got the bomb planted. I’m sure, so far, no terrorist has planted a bomb in a place where he worships, or a place so dangerously close to his own habitation etc. In effect, even though he shows recklessness, he is sure that the persons whom he cares for are not found in the place/plane/train/ship/building where he plants the bomb. In conclusion, he plants a bomb to explode in a place where he avoids the presence of persons he cares for but does not care for the innocence of the ultimate victims.

Whereas, a person who indulges in communal violence is clear about the property that he wants to destroy and the victims he wants to offend.

This is not where the differences end. The beginning of the difficulty arises with the way the law treats the perpetrator of the aforesaid crimes and the way the majority of the country views the perpetrator and the community to which he belongs.

Not so long ago, Dean Jones the cricket commentator called the bearded cricketer a TERRORIST. Co-incidentally, the person thus called was a Muslim by faith. Of course, we all know that Dean had to apologize for that Freudian slip. If educated, empowered and enabled persons could harbour such sentiments, it is no news that the deprived & uneducated persons could be also influenced to hold opinions against communities based on flimsy perceptions and not on the principles of HUMANISM.

Thereby, here we have a swear word TERRORIST, which is an insult and when used against a particular community it gains much ring of truth.

It is this stigma that Javed was objecting to, but he missed the point.

As per section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of the offence mentioned therein, at a place of worship would be 5 years. The offences committed by the communalists are brought under the ingredients of this section. Moreover the victim is clearly defined and not nebulous like in a terrorist attack.

Whereas in a terrorist Act, there is a sudden loss of faith by the common man on the capacity of the Government of the day to maintain Law and order, which in turn leads the prosecution to invoke provisions which are tantamount to WAGING WAR WITH THE NATION ( Sec.121 IPC), which prescribes a max punishment of DEATH.

So the law treats the persons who created the same effect differently. Herein lies the CRUNCH.

The law is to view not merely the act, but circumstances, the culpable mental state of the perpetrator and is prohibited from indexing the EFFECTS created by the act per se. Therefore the communalist who has a rationale- however warped- and a defined target cannot be slapped the nomenclature of a TERRORIST. He has to be dealt with only under the section 153A of the IPC.

What Javed wanted was, to treat both the perpetrators at par. Unless the law is amended and the punishment enhanced, there appears to be very less scope of treating them at par-of course except thru a preventive detention Act.

Our Ravi Shankar Prasad just doesn’t want this to happen – a law equating both acts whether the intended victim is innocent or not; whether there is a rationale or not etc. He appears to be against it, as it may lead to the dilution of the stigma attached to the term TERRORIST, which presently is attached to a particular community which suits his hue.

May OUR country treat dangerous objectives that offend the basic structure (esp.secularism), with stringent laws, so that we remain united and meet our objective of GROWTH thru ACTION.

Tag Cloud