Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Home Minister Shivraj Patil has been at the centre of the UPA government8217;s silence on whether Afzal Guru should be granted clemency. In 2004, the Supreme Court had convicted Afzal Guru for the attack on Parliament in December 2001 and sentenced him to death. In these years, a passionate debate has taken place on the merits of his case for clemency specifically and, in a more general context, on the wisdom of retaining the death sentence in India. The case has gone through the due process so far, going right up to the Supreme Court, and thus requires responsible consideration. It would seem logical to assume that the home minister, as a key link in the chain of decision-making on Afzal Guru8217;s case, has been alive to the debate and was wisely keeping his counsel and an open mind.
Evidently not. On Wednesday Patil spoke his mind. Drawing a parallel between Sarabjit Singh8217;s plea for clemency in Pakistan, this is what he had to say: 8220;Afzal Guru8230; You are asking for the death sentence to be waived for people and you are demanding that people from Hindustan should be hanged. What are you doing?8221; Is the minister implying that there is an equivalence here? Singh is an Indian who has spent almost 20 years on death row in Pakistan; and on behalf of the government Patil belongs to, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee recently expressed hope that Pakistan would take a decision on the clemency plea on humanitarian grounds. Is it Patil8217;s argument that Afzal Guru8217;s fate would have a bearing on Sarabjit Singh8217;s? If so, how? Afzal Guru is an Indian citizen. Why should this influence what Pakistan decides to do? Or is it that Patil is expressing a distaste for the death penalty? If so, it would have been prudent to move changes in the law quietly and not say so publicly, because as home minister he stands committed to provisions on the statute book.
For a variety of political reasons, the UPA government has walked a very thin tightrope on the issue of Afzal Guru. Its home minister has, with an ill-constructed comment, taken away the advantage of carefully maintained ambiguity.
