It's India's need to give
Kasab a fair trial
Should Ajmal Kasab
have pleaded guilty to the
86 charges framed against him?
Should his lawyer accept
everything the prosecution submits?
Should India give the only surviving
Pakistani terrorist
from the 26/11 attack on Mumbai,
a trial at all,
or
should he just be declared guilty and hung?
Two months into the trial of
Ajmal Kasab,
these questions need to be asked
if India has to have any credibility
in its resumed dialogue with Pakistan.
Forget popular sentiment,
going by the way the media
has reacted to routine procedures in this trial,
our stand on this issue remains
disturbingly ambiguous.
Our judicial system rests on the premise
that an accused is innocent till proven guilty.
Yet,
when Kasab pleaded
'not guilty',
the media asked if the trial was a farce.
When his lawyer Abbas Kazmi refused
to accept the documents submitted by the prosecution,
this routine practice by defence lawyers
was assailed as a delaying tactic.
Kazmi explained that
he didn't want to be criticised the way
the amicus curiae in the
Afzal Guru
(Parliament attack) case
had been criticised by the Supreme Court,
for having admitted certain incriminating documents;
yet, he was dubbed
'uncooperative'.
Now the case will take years,
lamented the special public prosecutor,
and
headlines dutifully quoted him;
only one newspaper thought it fit to publish
Kazmi's explanation.
When Kazmi sought a few hours'
adjournment to prepare for a cross-examination,
the judge refused.
The media crowed that yet another attempt
to delay the trial had been thwarted.
Media frenzy reached
a peak when Kazmi's fees were announced.
At Rs 2500 a day,
he would make Rs 50,000 a month
defending
the Pakistani
who had sprayed bullets on Indians,
calculated reporters.
'The government opens
its coffers for Kasab's lawyer',
screamed one Hindi newspaper.
It should be emphasised that
Abbas Kazmi,
a senior criminal lawyer,
was chosen to defend Kasab
by the special judge presiding over the trial.
Given that the trial is held on
a day-to-day basis in a high security jail,
any lawyer defending Kasab would have
to give up all other cases.
Kazmi has been given one assistant
from the Legal Aid Panel and
a 11,000-page chargesheet.
Kazmi's is an unenviable job.
If he has to do justice to the task assigned to him,
he must represent his client fully.
That includes asking for facilities
such as newspapers and 'perfume'
(both denied).
The media went ballistic over the 'perfume' request;
had they asked,
they would have found out that
unlike other prisoners
who can get away from their stinking cells,
Kasab isn't allowed to.
Kazmi must inform the court
whenever his client feels unwell,
knowing he's not likely to be believed.
If he must prove equal to the faith
reposed in him by the judge,
Kazmi must study the chargesheet
carefully so as to be able to cross-examine
witnesses and puncture the prosecution's claims.
It would be the easiest thing for Kazmi
to accept everything the prosecution says,
and go through the motions of cross-examination.
He would then deserve even less than
Rs 900 a day,
the fee provided to lawyers
on the Legal Aid Panel.
Would that make everyone happy?
It would mean India is giving the Pakistani a trial,
in keeping with its high judicial traditions;
yet the trial proceedings would leave
no one in doubt that everyone in the
courtroom believes the accused is guilty,
even his lawyer.
Compared to Kazmi,
the special PP's job is easy.
All he has to do is prove Kasab guilty.
The entire nation watched on TV the attack,
and saw Kasab strut around CST with his AK-47.
That's why the anger at his lawyer
following the routine procedures of a criminal trial.
Incidentally,
the fees for special PPs have
exceeded Rs 10,000 a day.
There have been others caught on
TV committing crimes.
TV cameras followed
Gujarat's mobs as they looted Muslim shops in 2002.
Raj Thackeray's supporters
assaulted North Indians in Mumbai
in the full glare of TV cameras.
The Amarnath Yatra agitators
were shown on TV uprooting railway tracks.
Ajmal Kasab's crime
may outdo all these put together,
but on principle,
since their crimes were captured on TV,
should any of these miscreants
be allowed to plead 'not guilty'?
For that,
they would have to first be arrested
— a tall order.
The argument against Kasab
is that he's a Pakistani, an enemy,
and we shouldn't be wasting our precious
resources on proving him innocent.
What if the situation had been reversed?
What if an Indian had been caught
on Pakistani TV hurling a bomb?
It's not improbable.
RAW has been conducting
clandestine operations in Pakistan for decades.
Now we have our own counterparts of the LeT.
Malegaon bomb blast accused
Lt Col Srikant Purohit
wanted to train guerrilla squads
to avenge the atrocities committed
against Hindus in Bangladesh.
What if that had really happened
and photographers had captured them in the act?
How would we have reacted
if they had been declared guilty
without a hearing,
if the lawyer appointed for them
had been paid peanuts and told to
wind up his cross examination in the
quickest possible time?
Giving Kasab a fair trial
with all its time
-consuming procedures —
including appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court
— is important not just to prove to the world
that we have an independent judiciary,
that doesn't get swayed by mobs baying for blood.
It's important not just to show
Pakistan
that their citizen,
captured by our police,
will receive the best legal defence
here even though he was photographed
with his gun and witnesses have seen him kill.
Kasab's trial is also important
for us to know how the system failed us.
Already,
the hearings have brought to light
that there were
109 policemen at CST that night,
and
they could not stop two terrorists
going from platform to platform on
a leisurely shooting spree.
The court
has been told that their rifles jammed,
their cartridges were old.
Does that mean the Mumbai police
does not conduct regular check-ups
of the weapons and ammunition in its armoury?
Shouldn't those in charge
— police officers, bureaucrats and ministers —
be held accountable for this lapse?
Only detailed cross-examination
will tell us
whether the police version
of the incident is true or not.
With the Maharashtra government
refusing to table the inquiry report
into the attack,
Kasab's trial proceedings become
one way of finding out why six policemen,
three of them highly decorated,
and 58 civilians had to die
in a span of three hours
from the time Kasab began shooting
till he was captured.
India isn't doing Pakistani terrorist
Ajmal Kasab
a favour by giving him a fair trial.
It's doing itself a favour.
Sriram Savarkar ©
Hinduism is more a way of life than a method of worship.
Dharmo Rakshati Rakshithaha
If you protect Dharma, Dharma will in turn protect you.
Hindus, If people slap you once, slap them twice!
Kasab a fair trial
Should Ajmal Kasab
have pleaded guilty to the
86 charges framed against him?
Should his lawyer accept
everything the prosecution submits?
Should India give the only surviving
Pakistani terrorist
from the 26/11 attack on Mumbai,
a trial at all,
or
should he just be declared guilty and hung?
Two months into the trial of
Ajmal Kasab,
these questions need to be asked
if India has to have any credibility
in its resumed dialogue with Pakistan.
Forget popular sentiment,
going by the way the media
has reacted to routine procedures in this trial,
our stand on this issue remains
disturbingly ambiguous.
Our judicial system rests on the premise
that an accused is innocent till proven guilty.
Yet,
when Kasab pleaded
'not guilty',
the media asked if the trial was a farce.
When his lawyer Abbas Kazmi refused
to accept the documents submitted by the prosecution,
this routine practice by defence lawyers
was assailed as a delaying tactic.
Kazmi explained that
he didn't want to be criticised the way
the amicus curiae in the
Afzal Guru
(Parliament attack) case
had been criticised by the Supreme Court,
for having admitted certain incriminating documents;
yet, he was dubbed
'uncooperative'.
Now the case will take years,
lamented the special public prosecutor,
and
headlines dutifully quoted him;
only one newspaper thought it fit to publish
Kazmi's explanation.
When Kazmi sought a few hours'
adjournment to prepare for a cross-examination,
the judge refused.
The media crowed that yet another attempt
to delay the trial had been thwarted.
Media frenzy reached
a peak when Kazmi's fees were announced.
At Rs 2500 a day,
he would make Rs 50,000 a month
defending
the Pakistani
who had sprayed bullets on Indians,
calculated reporters.
'The government opens
its coffers for Kasab's lawyer',
screamed one Hindi newspaper.
It should be emphasised that
Abbas Kazmi,
a senior criminal lawyer,
was chosen to defend Kasab
by the special judge presiding over the trial.
Given that the trial is held on
a day-to-day basis in a high security jail,
any lawyer defending Kasab would have
to give up all other cases.
Kazmi has been given one assistant
from the Legal Aid Panel and
a 11,000-page chargesheet.
Kazmi's is an unenviable job.
If he has to do justice to the task assigned to him,
he must represent his client fully.
That includes asking for facilities
such as newspapers and 'perfume'
(both denied).
The media went ballistic over the 'perfume' request;
had they asked,
they would have found out that
unlike other prisoners
who can get away from their stinking cells,
Kasab isn't allowed to.
Kazmi must inform the court
whenever his client feels unwell,
knowing he's not likely to be believed.
If he must prove equal to the faith
reposed in him by the judge,
Kazmi must study the chargesheet
carefully so as to be able to cross-examine
witnesses and puncture the prosecution's claims.
It would be the easiest thing for Kazmi
to accept everything the prosecution says,
and go through the motions of cross-examination.
He would then deserve even less than
Rs 900 a day,
the fee provided to lawyers
on the Legal Aid Panel.
Would that make everyone happy?
It would mean India is giving the Pakistani a trial,
in keeping with its high judicial traditions;
yet the trial proceedings would leave
no one in doubt that everyone in the
courtroom believes the accused is guilty,
even his lawyer.
Compared to Kazmi,
the special PP's job is easy.
All he has to do is prove Kasab guilty.
The entire nation watched on TV the attack,
and saw Kasab strut around CST with his AK-47.
That's why the anger at his lawyer
following the routine procedures of a criminal trial.
Incidentally,
the fees for special PPs have
exceeded Rs 10,000 a day.
There have been others caught on
TV committing crimes.
TV cameras followed
Gujarat's mobs as they looted Muslim shops in 2002.
Raj Thackeray's supporters
assaulted North Indians in Mumbai
in the full glare of TV cameras.
The Amarnath Yatra agitators
were shown on TV uprooting railway tracks.
Ajmal Kasab's crime
may outdo all these put together,
but on principle,
since their crimes were captured on TV,
should any of these miscreants
be allowed to plead 'not guilty'?
For that,
they would have to first be arrested
— a tall order.
The argument against Kasab
is that he's a Pakistani, an enemy,
and we shouldn't be wasting our precious
resources on proving him innocent.
What if the situation had been reversed?
What if an Indian had been caught
on Pakistani TV hurling a bomb?
It's not improbable.
RAW has been conducting
clandestine operations in Pakistan for decades.
Now we have our own counterparts of the LeT.
Malegaon bomb blast accused
Lt Col Srikant Purohit
wanted to train guerrilla squads
to avenge the atrocities committed
against Hindus in Bangladesh.
What if that had really happened
and photographers had captured them in the act?
How would we have reacted
if they had been declared guilty
without a hearing,
if the lawyer appointed for them
had been paid peanuts and told to
wind up his cross examination in the
quickest possible time?
Giving Kasab a fair trial
with all its time
-consuming procedures —
including appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court
— is important not just to prove to the world
that we have an independent judiciary,
that doesn't get swayed by mobs baying for blood.
It's important not just to show
Pakistan
that their citizen,
captured by our police,
will receive the best legal defence
here even though he was photographed
with his gun and witnesses have seen him kill.
Kasab's trial is also important
for us to know how the system failed us.
Already,
the hearings have brought to light
that there were
109 policemen at CST that night,
and
they could not stop two terrorists
going from platform to platform on
a leisurely shooting spree.
The court
has been told that their rifles jammed,
their cartridges were old.
Does that mean the Mumbai police
does not conduct regular check-ups
of the weapons and ammunition in its armoury?
Shouldn't those in charge
— police officers, bureaucrats and ministers —
be held accountable for this lapse?
Only detailed cross-examination
will tell us
whether the police version
of the incident is true or not.
With the Maharashtra government
refusing to table the inquiry report
into the attack,
Kasab's trial proceedings become
one way of finding out why six policemen,
three of them highly decorated,
and 58 civilians had to die
in a span of three hours
from the time Kasab began shooting
till he was captured.
India isn't doing Pakistani terrorist
Ajmal Kasab
a favour by giving him a fair trial.
It's doing itself a favour.
Sriram Savarkar ©
Hinduism is more a way of life than a method of worship.
Dharmo Rakshati Rakshithaha
If you protect Dharma, Dharma will in turn protect you.
Hindus, If people slap you once, slap them twice!
Looking for local information? Find it on Yahoo! Local
__._,_.___
Visit Our WebSite : www.MumbaiHangout.Org
Forum : www.MumbaiHangout.net
------------------
DISCLAIMER :
------------------
This message serves informational purposes only and should not be viewed as an irrevocable indenture between anyone. If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify the sender at MumbaiHangOut-Owner@yahoogroups.com. The recipient acknowledges that any views expressed in this message are those of the Individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of The M.H.O. Group. M.H.O. reserves the right to repeal, change, amend, modify, add, or withdraw the contents herein without notice or obligation.
---------------------------------------------------
Note:- MHO is Not Responsible For Any Claims.
---------------------------------------------------
Forum : www.MumbaiHangout.net
------------------
DISCLAIMER :
------------------
This message serves informational purposes only and should not be viewed as an irrevocable indenture between anyone. If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify the sender at MumbaiHangOut-Owner@yahoogroups.com. The recipient acknowledges that any views expressed in this message are those of the Individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of The M.H.O. Group. M.H.O. reserves the right to repeal, change, amend, modify, add, or withdraw the contents herein without notice or obligation.
---------------------------------------------------
Note:- MHO is Not Responsible For Any Claims.
---------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment