Sarabjit is the ugly face of reality. Our deepest regards for his family, his young daughters and sister..who are crying inconsolably.
Imagine a Pakistani spy in Indian jail, charged with espionage and sentenced to death. What would people of Pakistan want for him? Mercy from India. What would we want for a Paki sky? Death.
Let us realise this is the truth. We can not let go people who want to harm our country. Same with Pakistan. But new pages are written when 'Kashmir Singh's are released.
Time has come to stop preaching hatred. Time has come to stop seeing neighbours as enemies. Time has come to make friends. Time has come to forgive and let forgive. Time has come to live and let live.
This holds true for India, as much as for Pakistan. If we want to prosper we can not afford to try and pull down our neighbour. The neighbour will return your favour.
Same for India, ditto for Pakistan. Same for China. What they face in Tibet, Waziristan...we face in Kashmir.
Every human cries when hurt and pain is equally felt irrespective of which side of border you are in.
RE:One man's freedom fighter is terrorist for another.
by Ayan Nandy on Mar 17, 2008 09:57 AM Permalink
Well said Arjun.
Let us look at the most prosperous part of the world, i.e., the Western Europe. In the past centuries countries like France, Germany, UK fought bitterly. Now, you can cross the border so easily, you need just one visa for the whole of European Union. This freedom of movement makes each other prosper. When they meet each other, they know that life and humanity are the same everywhere.
We need to look at the problem rationally. Why do people want death sentence? Is it for deterrence?
In Lisbon, where heretics were publicly burned, it sometimes happened that one of them, by particularly edifying recantation, would be granted a boon of being strangled before being put to into the flames. This would make the spectators so furious, that he authorities had a great difficulty preventing them from lynching the penitent and burning him on their own account. The spectacle of writhing torments of the victims was, in fact, one of the principal pleasures to which the populace looked forward to enliven a somewhat drab existence.
The vociferous opposition to the abolition of death penalty stems from the myth that it will lead to an increase in the number of murders. The facts are otherwise. In the State of Travancore, there were 962 murders between 1945 and 1950 when the death penalty was not in force; but in the five years from 1950 when it was re-imposed, there were 967 murders.
RE:RE:RE:One man's freedom fighter is terrorist for another.
by Ayan Nandy on Mar 17, 2008 10:03 AM Permalink
The death penalty was abolished in 1965 in the U.K. Member-states of the European Union cannot have the death penalty. In Canada, after the abolition of the death penalty in 1976, the homicide rate declined. In 2000, there were 542 homicides in Canada %u2014 16 fewer than in 1998 and 159 fewer than in 1975 (one year prior to the abolition of capital punishment). In 1997, the Attorney-General of Massachusetts said: "there is not a shred of credible evidence that the death penalty lowers the murder rate. In fact, without the death penalty the murder rate in Massachusetts is about half the national average."
A survey released in September 2000 by The New York Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in States with the death penalty had been 48 to 101 per cent higher than in those that did not allow capital punishment. A survey conducted by the United Nations in 1988 concluded that research had failed to provide any evidence that executions had a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment.
The rationale for the abolition of death penalty is qualitatively different and it was wisely expressed by President Eduardo Frei of Chile while commuting the death sentence in 1996 "I cannot believe that to defend life and punish the person that kills, the state should in its turn kill. The death penalty is as inhuman as the crime which motivates it."
RE:RE:One man's freedom fighter is terrorist for another.
by Ayan Nandy on Mar 17, 2008 10:05 AM Permalink
The death penalty was abolished in 1965 in the U.K. Member-states of the European Union cannot have the death penalty. In Canada, after the abolition of the death penalty in 1976, the homicide rate declined. In 2000, there were 542 homicides in Canada %u2014 16 fewer than in 1998 and 159 fewer than in 1975 (one year prior to the abolition of capital punishment). In 1997, the Attorney-General of Massachusetts said: "there is not a shred of credible evidence that the death penalty lowers the murder rate. In fact, without the death penalty the murder rate in Massachusetts is about half the national average."
A survey released in September 2000 by The New York Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in States with the death penalty had been 48 to 101 per cent higher than in those that did not allow capital punishment. A survey conducted by the United Nations in 1988 concluded that research had failed to provide any evidence that executions had a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment.
The rationale for the abolition of death penalty is qualitatively different and it was wisely expressed by President Eduardo Frei of Chile while commuting the death sentence in 1996 "I cannot believe that to defend life and punish the person that kills, the state should in its turn kill. The death penalty is as inhuman as the crime which motivates it."
RE:One man's freedom fighter is terrorist for another.
by Arjun bharatiya on Mar 17, 2008 10:15 AM Permalink
Just to add....Sometimes it may be a necessary evil to have spies like Sarabjit. So far so good. But our Government/ Administration must own responsibility for the people working for it. It may not be practical to admit espionage or similar phenomenon to avoid diplomatic disasters, but atleast what the establishment can do is to take care of people who worked for the country, defend them and not disown them. Atleast take care of their families, people who depend on them.
Our establishment has failed all the people who risk their lives for the country. We pay pittances to our armed forces, we disown our men caught...we forget their families.
We need to be amore responsible nation. Atleast give them enough resources and logistic support that they are not caught.
If men are caught on duty, the government may use diplomacy to save some of them..."give back my men... in return I give you your men i have caught" ...may not be feasible always...but sometimes....
RE:One man's freedom fighter is terrorist for another.
by Pushp Shah on Mar 17, 2008 09:53 AM Permalink
In that case the Paki who went on a firing spree at Parliament house needs to be hanged immediately........no mercy to be shown to him either.
RE:RE:One man's freedom fighter is terrorist for another.
by Ayan Nandy on Mar 17, 2008 10:00 AM Permalink
First of all nobody knows if they (NOT he) were Pakis. Secondly, all of them who went into the killing spree had been killed on the spot. And how many? The police say that there were only five people.
The entire attack was recorded live on CCTV. Two Congress party MPs, Kapil Sibal and Najma Heptullah, demanded in parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. They said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, "I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The closed circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men." If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?
Why was parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?
A few days after December 13, the government declared that it had "incontrovertible evidence" of Pakistan's involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal's "confession", extracted under torture (and later set aside by the supreme court), what was the "incontrovertible evidence"?
RE:One man's freedom fighter is terrorist for another.
by on Mar 17, 2008 10:39 AM Permalink
In a criminal investigation, it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. The police have not managed to show how they connected Geelani to the attack. And how did the police reach Afzal? The Special Cell says Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the December 13 attack?
On December 19 2001, six days after the parliament attack, police commissioner SM Shangari identified one of the attackers who was killed as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000 and immediately handed over to the Jammu and Kashmir police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If police commissioner Shangari was right, how did Yasin, a man in the custody of the Jammu and Kashmir police, end up participating in the parliament attack? If he was wrong, where is Yasin now?
India did well by Killing an innocent Pakistani cricket fan Khalid Mehmoodjust after the release of Kashmir Singh. Even if he was a spy , what was it necessary to commit an extrajudicial murder? A huge ammount of good will had been generated by Kashmir Singhs release. The people who have hijacked the agencies will have to do a lot of answering in the case of khalid mehmood. India should show magnamity by unilaterally relesing wome pak prisoners so that Sarabjit is saved.
We can save Sarabjit. We can give a positive signal by commuting the death sentence of Afzal.
"I cannot believe that to defend life and punish the person that kills, the state should in its turn kill. The death penalty is as inhuman as the crime which motivates it."
- President Eduardo Frei of Chile while commuting the death sentence in 1996
RE:We can save Sarabjit
by allan abraham on Mar 17, 2008 09:29 AM Permalink
I totally agree with you, Afzal"s sentence should be commuted and commuted at all costs , for humanity atleast.
RE:RE:We can save Sarabjit
by Pushp Shah on Mar 17, 2008 09:57 AM Permalink
In that case the Paki who went on a firing spree at Parliament house needs to be hanged immediately........no mercy to be shown to him either.
RE:RE:We can save Sarabjit
by allan abraham on Mar 17, 2008 09:32 AM Permalink
Tagthagata people like u are beasts and they only know the language of killing. People like u promote Dara singh( murderer of staines and his children) and co.
RE:We can save Sarabjit
by Ayan Nandy on Mar 17, 2008 09:32 AM Permalink
What is the crime committed by Afzal? Even the Supreme Court of India can't provide any direct evidence against him. He is a scapegoat. Look at the "media confession" in which Afzal implicated himself completely in the attack. The speed with which this happened made many of us believe that he was indeed guilty as charged. It was only much later that the circumstances under which this "confession" was made were revealed, and even the supreme court was to set it aside, saying that the police had violated legal safeguards.
From the time he was arrested up to the time he was charged (a few months), his younger brother Hilal was held in illegal confinement in a police camp in Kashmir. As ransom.
The courts relied both on Afzal's own testimony - which showed that he, a surrendered militant, brought one of the five attackers (Mohammed alias Burger) from Kashmir to Delhi and helped him purchase a second-hand car - and on circumstantial evidence, which crucially hinges on the recovery of explosives from his house and records of cellphone calls with the five militants.
Both are open to doubt. The police say that they found explosives in Afzal's house when he was in custody, but cannot satisfactorily explain why they broke into it when the landlord had the key. This puts a question-mark over the evidence. The cellphone records were all traced to a Delhi number (98114-89429), used on an instrument allegedly found on Afzal when he was arrested in Srinagar.
RE:RE:We can save Sarabjit
by Ayan Nandy on Mar 17, 2008 09:34 AM Permalink
The cellphone records were all traced to a Delhi number (98114-89429), used on an instrument allegedly found on Afzal when he was arrested in Srinagar. The instrument did not contain a SIM (Subscriber Idendity Module) card; it was identified through the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number (which is unique to each instrument).
But how did the police discover the IMEI number? This can only be done in two ways: you either open the instrument and read the number; or you dial a code and it is displayed. But the policeman who made the recovery said on oath that he neither opened the instrument nor operated it. (Remarkably, Jammu and Kashmir did not have a cellular network in 2001.)
It is open to doubt whether Afzal actually had the cellphone that was so crucial to establishing that he was in contact with all five terrorists. In the absence of conclusive evidence that 98114-89429 belonged to and was used by Afzal, a deep, substantive conspiracy cannot be established.
There is another grey area. The police produced a dealer who deposed that Afzal had bought the cellphone on December 14, with a new SIM card. But the police's own records show that the number was in use since November 6.
All this casts doubt on the circumstantial evidence, and warrants circumspection and caution in concluding that Afzal was involved in a deep conspiracy.
RE:RE:We can save Sarabjit
by allan abraham on Mar 17, 2008 09:36 AM Permalink
Ayan i totally agree with u. Afzal never got a fair trial, the UPRIGHT LAWYERS decided not to plead for him, And THE court DECIDED TO HANG HIM in the NATIONAL INTEREST rather than for his crime which he never committed. There was no direct evidence against him . Arundhati RAo wrote a series of convincing articles on him, which in my eyes establishes his innonence.
how much effort congress did not to hang Afjal Guru, same time not even 10% of effort made by congress gov to save Sabarjeet. Why, b'z sabarjeet's case will not fetch the large amount of vote to congress like Afjal Guru...
RE:sHAMELESS CONGRESS
by Mathew Mathews on Mar 17, 2008 09:59 AM Permalink
Poor Sabarjeet was in jail when the NDA was in power for 6 years. Since there was no one to plead for his life in India unlike the Khandahar surrender. Even congress cannot escape the blame, they have to take it up with the Pak Govt, and make sure a human life is saved.
RE:VAJPAYEE AND VP SINGH WHERE IS YOUR TOUNGE...
by Abdul Khaliq on Mar 17, 2008 09:14 AM Permalink
I am not favoring BJP but VAJPAYEE was not in position that he can do anything about it at that time due to coalition Government with 29 parties. I think Gandhi is responsible for the current situation
RE:VAJPAYEE AND VP SINGH WHERE IS YOUR TOUNGE...
by Tathagata Mukherjee on Mar 17, 2008 09:18 AM Permalink
A hostile Minority always bashing BJP, is actually digging its own grave.
We all Indians are making time pass by blaming each other CPM did Congress build nation spirit to save all individuals in Pakistan this message is not only for Indian Nationals but all the NRI's who are ashamed to call themselves Indians who all are ready to send their mother wife etc to their bosses beds for the sake of boss apprials "JAGO BHARAT VASIYO JAGO MERE BHAI" save Indians save Bharat Mata remember for what Bhagat Singh was hanged "JAI BHARAT MATA KI JAI"
RE:Mera Bharat Mahan
by Albert Adibadla on Mar 17, 2008 08:30 AM Permalink
PAKIS WAS SUPPORING SIKH TERRORISM UNTIL LATE 1900S. NOW THAT THEY DO NOT NEED SIKHS THEY WILL KILL SIKHS... SIMPLE LOGIC...
RE:Mera Bharat Mahan
by dinesh on Mar 17, 2008 09:47 AM Permalink
mera bharat phir bhee mahan hai.... kyon kee tere jese desh drohee ko paal raha hai....
If we really want to eradicate terrorism, we should condemn it everywhere, we can request Pak govt to treat Sarbjeet similar to prisoner of war and not to hang him, also pledge not to send someone for terrorism activities and also request them to do the same.
RE:Peace
by Ayan Nandy on Mar 17, 2008 09:24 AM Permalink
eye for an eye turns the world blind.
We need to save Sarabjit, and the best way is to commute the sentence of Afzal as well as make a presidential inquiry to find out who masterminded the Dec 23 attack. Only the international arms dealers benefited after the attack by raising tension in both the countries and selling billions of dollars worth military hardware. If we had saved those money and utilized in the right manner, 1.5 lakh farmers would not have for suicide in this decade.
Violence would only help the arms dealers and the governments which sponsor them. In USA, every other day you find kids going to school to kill their friends and teachers, and in spite of that the gun lobby makes sure you can buy a gun in the super market. They talk about freedom and democracy, but in their equations normal people don't count. They are driven by interests, NOT emotions.
It's important to know who masterminded the Dec 23 attack, not hanging a scapegoat named Afzal to satisfy the "collective conscience" of the nation.
17 years years of imprisonment is equivalent to life imprisonment now he should be freed there is no need to hang him. Indian goverment should argue on this basis. God be with his family members at this hour of pain and peril.
RE:sarabjit should be freed
by Mind Clear on Mar 17, 2008 08:07 AM Permalink
Non-violence, peace, wisdom is a dynamic state of mind, it remains as long as majority of people constantly strive to push themselves in body and mind, work ethics and human values, are open to change, reason, dialogue, creativity and communications. But unfortunately Humanism works only with these kinds of people and mind-sets. When you have another set of people, who only believe in My Way or Highway, cannot see unity in basic human values of living life, where each of us are seeking equality to push ourselves in body and mind, then Humanism does not work. The survival of oneself and the survival of a society comes to stake. Hence, one always needs to be alert, on the guard and be aware of such crossfire and attacks. To be prepared one needs to understand the use of force and controlled violence. Sometimes, change comes with a combination of talk and force. But then it depends who is leading and what are his principles based upon and whether people on the grounds understand reality and have threat perception as they do it in Israel on a daily basis. You need constant planning and preparation for this and workout plans.
