Monday, 27 July 2015

Why we are in a dilemma over Yakub Memon’s hanging

The Mumbai blasts showed the damage done to our unique syncretic identity, perhaps irreversibly, after the destruction of the Babri Masjid.

COL R HARIHARAN |POLITICS| 5-minute read| 27-07-2015

The Supreme Court bench that reviewed the death sentence of Yakub Memon had no doubt about his role as one of the conspirators who carried out the 1993 Mumbai blasts that cost 257 lives. Having waited for eight years after he was sentenced to death, the Maharashtra government perhaps wants to get the job done quickly and set July 30 as the day for his hanging.

An article written by the late B. Raman, one of India’s foremost terrorism experts, was published posthumously by Rediff.com after the Supreme Court confirmed Yakub's death sentence. It seems to have thrown a spanner in the works as the Maharashtra government got ready for his execution.

Raman, as the head of the RAW's international counter terrorism division, was involved in the process of getting Yakub back to India. And he retired soon afterwards. He had written the article immediately after the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) court sentenced Yakub to death in 2007, but withheld its publication. Raman's  article raises three points to support the argument that death sentence awarded to Yakub was not justified.

Yakub “definitely had an assurance from us which is why he voluntarily came to Kathmandu, handed over so much data and details to us. We have betrayed him.”  

Raman says he was “disturbed to notice some mitigating circumstances in the case of Yakub Memon and some other members of the family were probably not brought to the notice of the court by the prosecution” before sentence was passed.

Raman also says that Yakub cooperated with the investigating agencies and “assisted them by persuading some other members of the Memon family to flee from the protection of ISI in Karachi to Dubai and surrender to the Indian authorities.”

On the other hand, Raman had no doubt about Yakub’s guilt. He says there was not “an iota of doubt about the involvement of Yakub and other members of the family in the conspiracy and their cooperation with ISI till July 1994. In normal circumstances Yakub would have deserved the death penalty if one only took into consideration his conduct and role before July 1994.”

Though Raman’s heart probably persuaded him to have the article published immediately after the death sentence was handed out, his head seemed to have asked him to write to the editor Rediff.com to withhold its publication. This represents the typical conflict of the head and heart many intelligence operatives face when  they get entangled in conflict betweenprofessional compulsions and value systems. Most of the time, they take cynical view of the whole issue but they find they cannot do so all the time. Yakub's case was probably Raman's moment of truth. It is not surprising because such conflicts affect even the most hard boiled operators. In one such instance in my own career after the 1971 war a moral dilemma regarding the life of one of our East Pakistan agents turned into a physical ailment till I was counseled for a cure.  

Not unexpectedly, fringe elements in the garb of speaking for the minority community and anti-death sentence lobbies have churned up the Yakub issue and made it murky. And some of the retired judges have come out with strong statements against the death sentence. But there are two points about such statements. They have all done so only after Raman’s article was published posthumously. None of them have the responsibility of either the legal system that examined the case or the government elected by the people which have to ensure justice is done for 257 innocent people who were killed in the blasts.

But more important are the views of members of the intelligence community who were involved in the case. They also seem to be divided on the question of hanging Yakub. Those who support Raman’s argument have focused on the credibility of the assurance given by intelligence agencies to Yakub Memon. If such assurances are not maintained it not only affects the credibility of the operative and the agency, but alsomake intelligence field operations a little more difficult.

I am sure they all realise intelligence agencies the world over are notorious for not keeping up promises. The amoral and secretive nature of their work  makes it easy for them to do so; so it would not be surprising if an assurance given to Yakub was not kept by them.

The 1993 Mumbai serial blast case was unique not only for the huge loss of life, nexus between criminal world and jihadi terrorism or meticulous planning and execution.  It also established the involvement of the ISI, and as a corollary Pakistan establishment, in Jihadi terrorist attacks in the country. This makes it difficult for the courts to be lenient in this case. 

The Mumbai blasts also showed the damage done to our unique syncretic national identity perhaps irreversibly after the destruction of the Babri Masjid.To this day Jihadi terrorists use it to justify their gruesome acts to the faithful. 

In the Yakub Memon’s case the judiciary had to think with the head and draw their judgement based on facts supported by evidence. Presumably, the defence would have put up the mitigating circumstances after the court found Yakub guilty and before it passed the sentence. The justice system provides for clemency petitions to the executive authorities to consider issues of heart. This process is not yet complete; and our justice system, despite its delays, can be expected to take an informed decision in this case.

So clearly there is no room for religious jingoism of the Owaisi kind. Actually, it confuses the issue by bringing the polemics of majority versus minority politics and can harm Yakub Memon’s case. Let us hope better sense prevails because there is no doubt Yakub Memon is guilty; the issue is only whether to hang him or reduce it to a life sentence. Nothing more or nothing less. 



No comments: