Nobody paid me for writing a scrap at rediff. BTW, Afzal didn't get a lawyer to defend him, the Indian bar did not perform its obligation. When a man is facing the death sentence, the request of the man should be complied with. He asked for four lawyers, the judge asked two, the remaining two he didn%u2019t even ask. Then a lawyer was more or less thrust upon him. Amicus is the friend of the court; amicus and being a defence advocate for an accused are inconsistent things.
It makes a travesty of justice, specially when an uneducated unrepresented Kashmiri guy is fighting a case against a government which left no stone unturned to prejudice the minds of the people.
The first thing the police made Afzal do was a "media confession" in which he 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.
To cause prejudice in the minds of the public against the man who is standing trail is the worst kind of contempt. What action has been taken against the police responsible for prejudicing the minds of the people? Who were they working for?
Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 attack?
