27 October 2006
An appeal to save a life of Mohammad Afzal Guru, on the death row in India
By
Tapan Kumar Bose
South Asia Forum for Human Rights
3/23 Shree Darbar Tole, Patan Dhoka, (Near Lalitpur Zila Hulak Office)
Lalitpur, Nepal
Tel: +977-1-5541026, Fax: +977-1-5527852
I am forwarding a letter from Anuradha Bhasin
Jamwal, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, one of
the oldest daily news papers of Jammu and
Kashmir. Anuradha has shared her concern about
how the Intelligence Bureau and other agencies
are trying to plant 'stories' in the media which
support the hanging of Mohammad Afzal Guru, an
accused in the December 2001 armed attack on
Indian Parliament.
As you may be aware that Afzal Guru and the three
other accused were sentenced to death by the
trial court. While exonerating two of the
accused, S.A.R.Geelani and Ms. Afsan Guru, the
Supreme court commented the death sentence on the
third accused Saukat Guru. However, the Supreme
Court had confirmed the death sentence on Afzal
on the 'ground of abatement of murder'.
While the right-wing political parties and the
Hindu nationalists have been asking for execution
of the death sentence, many in India have opposed
it. Several leading newspapers have published
editorials opposing 'death sentence' some have
also expresses serious reservation about manner
the police had put together the case, leaving
several questions about serious lapses in the
security of the Parliament unanswered.
I request you to read Anuradha's letter and take
steps to counter the campaign of the Intelligence
agencies by writing to the President of India.
The postal address and e-mail of President of
India is given below.
In solidarity
Tapan Kumar Bose
South Asia Forum for Human Rights
Please write to:
The President of India
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi 110001
India
E-mail: presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
LETTER FROM ANURADHA JAMWAL BHASIN
Dear friends,
The Indian belligerence and the Hindutava's hate
soaked propaganda on Afzal Guru issue is already
well known and needs a consistent and united
campaign to tackle. The more the campaign builds
up, the state, as nation-states are expected to
do, will think of innovative ways to counter
these campaigns. I don't know how many of you are
aware of the Intelligence Bureau or Home Ministry
again making attempts to use media as a tool. I
am concerned by the stories doing rounds (I have
received them for publication and obviously
rejected these) that Intelligence Bureau is
particularly concerned by Afzal Guru case and has
recommended that his mercy petition be dispensed
with immediately. These stories state that the IB
fears that "terrorists may hold some VVIP or his
her kin hostage to bargain for Afzal Guru." One
of the stories doing rounds also includes Sonia
Gandhi and on this basis an official chopper for
her has also been justified. The stories also
seek to justify the pre-poned execution of
Maqbool Bhat who was hanged in a hurry when an
attempt to kidnap Indian diplomat was foiled.
It may not be long before these stories become
part of the media propaganda. And this, I fear,
would be a double edged sword. For the
government, perhaps, a heads I win, tails you
lose situation. If these stories become part of
popular modern folk lore, the government may use
it to build a campaign in favour of death
penalty. But since there is no other rational
argument to support capital punishment in this
case, this ploy may or may not finally work. But
I am wondering - could this be used as a weapon
by those who want to cover up for the mystery of
parliament attack – stage a drama of getting him
released in lieu of some hostage? We don't know
who was behind the attack on parliament? Jaish?
Lashkar? STF? So, if at all, any kind of a
kidnapping is being planned to barter for Afzal
Guru, would we ever know who is behind that?
Would we ever know Afzal Guru's whereabouts if at
all he is released in that barter? Would he
remain alive in either case? And, more
importantly, would any of us know how or why the
attack on parliament took place?
Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal
Executive editor
Kashmir Times
A NOTE ON WHY THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA MUST
INTERVENE IN AFZAL GUROO'S CASE IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE
by Tapan Kumar Bose
While pronouncing its judgment the Supreme Court
said that persons like Afzal Guroo deserve to
die. The question that arises is whether killing
Afzal will take us nearer to the objective of
ending violence and 'terrorism'. The evidence
from all over the world shows that executing
'violent criminals' has failed to cleanse the
society of violence. The state of Texas executes
the highest number of persons in the USA and has
the worst record of violent crimes. As the
aftermath of hanging Maqbool Bhat shows, hanging
Afzal will certainly not create the desired
impact of ending militancy.
Aa we know, all the four accused of the
Parliament attack case, Afzal, Geelani, Saukat
and Afsan were tried under POTA, a law that
prescribes harsh punishment. POTA does not
prescribe death sentence for those who were not
the actual perpetrators of the act of terror.
Afzal, like the three other accused was nowhere
near the Parliament when the attack was mounted.
However, the Supreme Court, which exonerated
Geelani and Afsan Guroo, and commuted Saukat's
death sentence to life imprisonment decided to
sentence Afzal to death by falling back on Indian
Penal Code, charging him with abetting murder to
justify his death sentence. In fairness the same
principle of POTA, which was applied to the other
three accused should have been applied to Afzal.
Even under Section 121A of IPC the punishment for
conspiracy to wage war against the state, which
is the only charge attributed to Afzal through
out the trial, the maximum punishment is life
imprisonment.
If 'Execution' is based on the principle that
some persons are irredeemable, does Afzal fall in
that category? Does his behaviour during the
trial show a 'black soul'? The trial records
indicate that Afzal voluntarily confessed to
assisting Mohammad who led the armed attack on
the Parliament. It is only through his statement
that we learn that he had brought Mohammad to
Delhi and set him up. Afzal told the court about
his trip to Muzaffarabad for training in
militancy. He talked of his disillusionment with
militancy and his surrender to the Border
Security Force. He talked about his efforts to
'return' to 'normal' life – opening a medicine
shop, getting married and becoming a father. He
also told the court how at different stages, the
Special Task Force (STF) had compelled him to spy
on his neighbours and friends, name other
militants and when he failed, arrested him and
tortured him, threatened to implicate him into
cases of killings, extracted money from his
family for his 'release' and final forced him to
join the so called Special Operations Group (SOG).
Afzal's life story is a sad commentary on the
counter insurgency policy of the Indian state.
Instead of helping him to be resettled in life,
the STF forced him to become a 'spy' and a 'foot
soldier' of counter insurgency. Instead of
hanging Afzal, should we not ask as to why the
STF harassed him so much that he was forced to
close down the medicine shop he had opened and
abandon his hope to settle down after his
marriage and lead a middle class life with his
wife and his child.
Afzal told the court that it was at the STF camp
that he had met one Tariq, who forced him to
bring to Delhi Mohammad, one of the perpetrators
of the attack on the Parliament House. Tariq
remains an absconding offender. Who was this
Tariq? How did Tariq get access to STF camp? What
was his connection with Mohammad? Was there any
investigation to find Tariq and to learn the
truth about of Afzal's statements before the
court?
During the trial, when his lawyer attempted to
change the statement of a witness about Afzal
accompanying Mohammad to his shop to buy the
Ambassador car that was used in the attack on the
Parliament, Afzal intervened to say that the
witness was speaking the truth. The court
believed him then. But it did not believe him
when he said that he was not aware of the real
purpose for the purchase of the vehicle.
According to records when Afzal was arrested in
Srinagar on December 15, at about 10 a.m. the
mobile phone number 9811489429 was sized from
him. It has been claimed that Afzal used this
phone to contact the mobile phones recovered from
the dead militants. The police claimed that they
got the unique identifying IMEI number of the
instrument that linked Afzal with the instrument
at the time of seizure in Srinagar. However,
while deposing on oath during the trail, the
arresting officer of J & K police admitted that
he had not opened the telephone instrument to
check the IMEI number. This number is inscribed
inside every mobile telephone. No one can see it
without opening the back of he instrument.
Obviously the IMEI number of the instrument,
which has been attributed to Afzal, was added to
the record later. Strangely, the SIM card of this
instrument was also never produced. Yet the
record of calls fro this phone was produced to
link Afzal with the militants.
According to the investigation team, amongst the
telephone numbers recovered from the three mobile
phone instruments recovered fro the dead
militants, they came across a telephone number
belonging to Dubai. It has also been stated that
one of the militants had called this number just
about two minutes before they mounted the assault
on the Parliament. Strange as it may sound, the
investigating team did not bother to find out
anything about the Dubai telephone number. Yet
they found it important to interrogate Hindi film
actor Ms. Priety Zinta whose e-mail address was
found inside the pocket of one of the dead
militants.
Recently, Indian newspapers published pictures of
the widows of the two dead policemen killed in
the attack on parliament house. The women had
petitioned the President asking him not to
commute the death sentence on Afzal. One widow
was quoted asking why Afzal's wife Tabassum's
plea for saving her husband's life be granted,
when her husban was killed in the attack on the
Parliament. We share the grief of the women who
lost their husbands to violence, however, the
principle of an eye for an eye and a life for a
life cannot be the basis for dispensing justice
in India.
The tradition in India has been never to award
the death penalty to a person who though a
conspirator, did not directly participate in the
actual commission of the act. In case of Kehar
Singh, an accused in Indira Gandhi's murder case
this tradition was breached.
In Kehar Singh's case while awarding him the
death sentence, the Supreme Court held that under
Article 72 of the Constitution for commutation
the President had the power to re-apprise the
entire evidence and come to a different
conclusion, even on guilt. The doubts raised on
the facts above should attract the President's
scrutiny to see whether Afzal should be hung.
This review of the judgment by the President is
not a derogation of the verdict of the Supreme
Court.