Defending Kasab

great thoughtful piece somik! (thought I'd get this in before the predictable ridicule is heaped upon you, by the predictable folks)

Kasab can be defended in our country. One has to just have money to support him in our country or any western country.

The reality of 21st century justice is that one need not be terrorist or a muslim minority to be denied justice. You need to be poor to be denied justice. No wonder so many people in India who are languishing in jails either because they cared for their hard earned money or because they did not have resources to bribe the system. Only thing that Kasab lacks is money and once he has money, even Ram Jethmalini will defend him.

What is one man's justice is another man's injustice.

Good post. The presumption of innocence and the right to a trial is the foundation of civil society.

"The presumption of innocence and the right to a trial is the foundation of civil society."

Of course, he was only seen on security cameras carrying weapons, and himself admitted his crime then how can he not be presumed innocent?

One sees examples of how low India has sunk every now and then.....defending terrorists. Wow.

The confusion and moral dilemmas expressed by Somik are self-inflicted, deliberate, and mischievous.

Somik fails to acknowledge a distinction between civilian acts of crime and enemy acts of war, between civilians and enemies, between criminals and terrorists. The legal system with its constitutional rights and presumption of innocence are devised for civilians and their acts of crime. Unfortunately, we don't have one to deal with terrorists and acts of war.

When a nation is engage in a war against an enemy, it does not wait for the proof or evidence nor it runs to courts to get verdict for suitable punishment to be meted out to the enemy combatants - it is always shoot at sight, and person is presumed guilty without giving him any benefit of doubt or presumption of innocence. Enemy is summarily executed. Period. War is not waged thru civilian judicial system. Yet, terrorism is supposed to be handled thru civilian court system.

Nation needs two parallel systems to deal with both sets of threats - civilians and terrorists. One without the other can not survive. Unless distinctions are made and incorporated within laws, the civilian system of laws and democracy can not survive the subversion by terrorists.

Denying people such a parallel system should be treated as judicial terrorism - one that seeks to blow up the civilian legal system. Not all Jehadis crawl with AK-47. Because damage they seek to inflict upon vital institutions are far too consequential than few blown up arrangements of bricks and mortars. Its about time they too are treated as terrorists and if our government does not want to do anything about them, all the more power to likes of shiv Sena to take care of friends of Kasab.

IT:

"Of course, he was only seen on security cameras carrying weapons, and himself admitted his crime then how can he not be presumed innocent?"

excellent legal scholar and practitioner you will make! let's see: if someone is caught on security cameras killing people, and a hundred others are see him/her doing it, there's no need for a trial? is this the claim?

CS

"there's no need for a trial? is this the claim?"

Those other 9 terrorists that were gunned down by NSGs, were they executed after speedy trial in courts?

Do our Armymen go and get court orders before dropping a killer bomb or shooting at any of their human target? Do they wait for trial before killing anybody? Do anybody ask them for evidence, proof, trial before they pull a trigger?

Kerty:

""Those other 9 terrorists that were gunned down by NSGs, were they executed after speedy trial in courts?"

good thing too they were gunned down; would have been better had they been gunned down earlier to contain their terrorist killing. but this guy was not gunned down and is now in custody.

MJ Akbar writes....

"There is a clear distinction between gunmen and terrorists. Criminals use guns, and can be called gunmen; they do it for a purpose, to steal or kidnap or loot. Terrorists use guns and bombs in the random killing of innocents in pursuit of a political or personal agenda. The killers at Chhatrapati Shivaji Railway Terminus, Taj, Oberoi and a home where Jewish people lived, did not come to steal art, or money, or railway property. I put this point as forcefully as I could to Mr Porter: "It is a shame that the BBC cannot see the difference between a criminal and a terrorist, and chooses in fact to protect the terrorist by giving him the camouflage of a criminal. This is not a matter of semantics. Terrorists are always happy to fudge the definition."

Full article
http://www.dailypioneer.com/144904/Biased-Broadcasting-Corp-also-known-as-BBC.html

CS

"good thing too they were gunned down; would have been better had they been gunned down earlier to contain their terrorist killing. but this guy was not gunned down and is now in custody."

If terrorists deserved trial to prove their guilt and be punished for their crimes, does it not establish that their summary execution by NSGs without trial makes our NSG guilty of violating constitutional protections and human rights? On what ground would you approve the execution of 9 terrorists by NSGs and absolve NSGs of such crime? And if there is a valid ground to execute those 9 terrorists without trial by NSGs, than why not the same ground applicable to the 10th terrorist captured alive?

Specially empowered military tribunal can handle such cases. The point is not to treat Terrorists as common criminals tried thru normal civilian system.

difference between execution and shot during a gunfight.

i suggest you go and shoot the guy in custody.

CS

"difference between execution and shot during a gunfight."

The human-right/liberal activists do not make such distinction. They view encounter killing as execution by state without trial and due process. They decry the use of force by state during encounter. They view it as violation of human rights. State is supposed to use non-violent means to capture and book the assailants. They do not want state to have any right to execute people under any circumstances, some would concede a very limited right only if person is found guilty of certain crimes after a trial and due process. So I am not sure they would view encounter killing any differently than execution without trial.

Kerty:

"So I am not sure they would view encounter killing any differently than execution without trial."

I suggest you talk directly to "they".

and yes, there is a difference between "encounters" and "fake encounters". the latter should send chills down any human's spine.

@Kerty 5
"Nation needs two parallel systems to deal with both sets of threats - civilians and terrorists."

The criminal law system in India was designed by the English so that they could deny Indians the right to justice. Nothing in our judicial system has changed ever since then. Even Gandhi could be jailed then under the same criminal penal codes.

If you want another system for Kasab, then you are saying you want to deny justice. Is Terrorist a criminal, if not, who decides he is a terrorist. For me, Sonia Gandhi is a terrorist because she is the ruler of India and she has done nothing to prevent terrorism. That makes her a colluder of terorism and she is a non state actor.

One thing we forget is that every law will be misused. Thats the sole reason Congress is playing politics over Antulay's resignation. The real trigger was he said "The anti-terrorist law will be misused"(Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)) not that "Hemant Karkare".

What we fail to recognise is that enemy is within us. For us there is a difference between (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and POTA. POTA can be misused and not UAPA?

In this country everyone is sold and bought. Even laws will be sold and bought. 10 crore rupees were brought to India's top law making body. This is India and we would be hypocritic to say we need two laws one for Indian, another for terrorist Indian and yet another for non Indian terrorist.

CS

"and yes, there is a difference between "encounters" and "fake encounters"."

So you would recommend setting up inquiry commission to determine if NSG engaged in 'fake' encounters? It is theoretically possible that NSG could have de-capacitated, immobilized and captured the gunmen without executing them during encounter - only impartial inquiry would determine if NSG engaged in an encounter killing or fake encounter killing. Every encounter can be politicized as 'fake' encounter and NSG can be persecuted as criminals. Haven't we seen such politics that paralizes the LE agencies against pursuing anti-terrorist initiatives?

All laws can be abused and misused. Police will be corrupt. 'Fake' encounters are entirely possible. But that calls for more oversight and vigilance rather than stigmatizing and scrapping encounters. Given so much vigilance from so many NGOs, watchdog groups, media, this issue of 'fake' encounter is a boogie invented to appease terrorism.

Slime

"If you want another system for Kasab, then you are saying you want to deny justice."

No system of justice exists for those who engage in acts of war. War is not prosecuted thru courts. Since terrorism is considered as act of war, there is no denial of justice if terrorists are denied civilian niceties.

"Is Terrorist a criminal, if not, who decides he is a terrorist."

That should be easy to do. The laws can easily spell out acts that can be viewed as terrorism. Laws can create jurisdictions within LE system to handle such acts and actors.

The fact that laws and LE can be abused is not an excuse not to have laws or law enforcement. It calls for more oversight and punishment of abuses.

@Kerty
Exactly, please bring a law to prevent oversights and punish abuses. I see no law to that effect and no abuser being punished. Thats not an excuse.

Also please dont waster tax payers money by giving Kasab a judicial system. Just Hang him upside down in middle of Dadar market. That would make you Strong in eyes of Terrorist.

What hope do have in our country when Lawyers behave like Juveniles. What can we say about the Shiv Sena. If they think they are so brave, why not go to Kashmir to fight militants?

Chandra

As long as local parties are able to deal with local issues in their own local areas, that should be good enough. We don't expect local parties to solve global or national problems. As long as they are supportive of national resolve to fight militants in Kashmir, it is good enough.

That pathetic fucker is just not worth the attention. Give him his lawyer and then hang the man. He deserves it whatever be his sob story.

I used to be against death sentences but after that Maulana Masood Asab fiasco I changed my mind.

Deepti

Giving him a lawyer and trying him as a common criminal sends a wrong message

- It demotes terrorism to be a mere crime
- it demotes terrorist to be a mere criminal
- Civilian trial makes it impossible to gain convictions in most terrorist cases
- Because most of the evidences, testimonies and confessions can be easily made inadmissible. All that lawyer has to do is to allege coersion or police irregularities

This is one reason terrorism has thrived because terrorists know they can never get caught, and if they get caught, they can never get convicted, and if they get convicted, they can never be hanged.

Which is why we need separate courts and laws to deal with terrorism. The trails should be prompt and so should the executions.

Thapar is not my favourite commentrator but I think this raises valid points:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=1d15f0d1-ce82-4fb0-9f1c-5ac21d020f8e&MatchID1=4856&TeamID1=6&TeamID2=2&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1223&PrimaryID=4856&Headline=A+pertinent+point

While Indians are entitled to a fair trial in all cases,no matter how serious the crime is,Kasab is a Paki that killed Indians.Hardly matters if he gets a trial or not.As for the talk about being a civlized society,not offerning trial to terrorists wont change anything,especailly when we know that the amount of violence that the nonmal,not well connected people are subjected to in our country.

"India could invite people like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan"

Nawaz and Imran are the politicians that thrived on anti-India sentiments.Imran regularly attends the jehadi fund raising meeting of the Kashmiris and Nawaz ran a vicious campaign again Benazir,accusing her of being pro-Indian.

It's only becoz uncle sam is turning the heat on the jehadi establishment of Pakistan that these people have less time to talk about the 'Hindu' India.But bleeding heart liberals ..who will make them understand?

Anamika,

Karan Thapar is not exactly my favourite commentator either, but thanks for posting this thoughtful piece.

Chandra:

""What can we say about the Shiv Sena. If they think they are so brave, why not go to Kashmir to fight militants?""

Good point Chandra!

However, Kashmir is far away and way to cold for these bullies who thrive on intimidating those who are already down on their luck. Your valid question could be slightly re-formulated as: where were they on that night in Mumbai?

rr:

""One sees examples of how low India has sunk every now and then.....defending terrorists. Wow."'

when you recover from your delusions, you might notice that nobody is "defending terrorists". perhaps you don't understand this discussion, and that is puttint it mildly. and i'm not the one who is going to explain the discussion. perhpas kerty will.

""Maharashtra's former Additional Advocate General P. Janardhan on Sunday said he's willing to legally represent Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab

Janardhan said he decided to come forward to represent Kasab after he realised that no lawyer was ready to represent him. "Kasab has a right to defend himself or be represented by a lawyer in court," he said.

He is not worried that his action will upset the legal fraternity, especially after the Metropolitan Magistrate Bar Association passed a resolution not to appear on Kasab's behalf. "I am not afraid of anyone. I am not a member of this Bar Association," he said.""

the chief justice of the supreme court, judge balakrishnan weighed in today and agrees that the terrorist must have a defence lawyer.

"Sea lawyer" is an informal term used mostly among the US Navy ranks. It's slang to describe someone with no law experience giving legal advice. So as a sea lawyer by definition, here's my take.

If the terrorist attack occurs on sovereign soil and the perpetrators are not unfortunately killed in the process, then they should be afforded the same rights due anyone in the legal system. However, terrorists captured on the battlefield, presumably outside of sovereign territory are POWs and should be tried by military tribunal.

The "honest and credible" press will report the story in light of their own prejudices and interests, as they do everything; the double edge sword of freedom.

Give him his day in court and then hang the SOB.

Ciao, Guido

As much as it is distasteful, I am of the opinion that Kasab should have his day in the court with a lawyer representing him and ensuring that he gets a fair trial, unless he wants to make his own case and refuses a lawyer.

We should be glad that he was caught alive, otherwise the press would have had a field day pinning this incident on "Hindu terrorists." As it is, they tried that theory initially by focusing on the threads tied around the wrists (as reported, I don't know how much of that was factual).

Anamika

'Thapar is not my favourite commentrator but I think this raises valid points'

Do you seriously believe that Pakistan will ever extradite its citizens to face Indian courts? Demanding anything from Pakistan is merely a PR posturing for the domestic and international gallery. Best that India can hope to achieve out of such posturing is to get international community to put pressure on Pakistan so that it cracks down on known terrorists on its soil. But we can count on Thapars to make the case of terrorists and use every excuse or pretext on the book.

Very interesting comments. Here is my response to some of the suggestions.

Separate Courts and an Indian Guantanamo
If this were around 2002, I would be forgiven to suggest a separate court and a Guantanamo-like base for holding such detainees. But in 2008, I do not have the luxury of staying blindfolded to what has since unfolded. The US has egg on their face for making a mockery of the judicial system and holding people who had Muslim names, and after several months or years, discovering that they had nothing to do with terrorism. That Guantanamo has not helped the US at all and has hurt the country's reputation a lot is beyond question. The White House has itself lost in court on the question of the legality of the separate trials. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked for a proposal to close Guantanamo, as of this week.

Criminal versus Terrorist
As far as a Martian is concerned, some people are killing other people. So what's the difference? We are falling into a big trap here. Terrorists claim they are not murderers, but freedom fighters for some exalted cause. By giving them that position and creating a separate court for them, we are in a sense buying their justification. More importantly, we are setting up a system to justify execution/harsh punishment when evidence is lacking, and turning these people into martyrs.

Guilt is already proven, why do we need a trial
Even if Kasab admits his guilt in court, the question of sentencing remains unresolved, and that's another reason for a trial. Sentencing takes into account several factors, including circumstances and economic situation. More on that in the next paragraph. I agree with the piece by Karan Thapar - that's a must-read for those against a trial.

From the General to the Specific
I find that our thinking always gets clarified when we look at the specific context and the situation. First, why did Kasab do what he did? Reading the Indian Express' exclusive piece amazes me - the poor chap asked his dad for a new shirt on the day of Id, and his father could not buy it for him. Frustrated, he left, to join the Lashkar, so he wouldn't live in such a destitute condition. Can you imagine this? A talk I attended some years back by a scholar on Egyptian terrorist recruitment point out the same thing - there is a big economic factor behind terrorism, which recruits the destitute and gives them alternate employment in such projects. It is so important for all of this to come out in court.

Second, when Kasab was asked about his current feelings, he felt great remorse and wanted to write a letter to his parents asking them to tell the young villagers not to fall in the trap of the Lashkar (and their buddy organizations). This is an important humane message that needs to be heard loud and clear in Pakistan.

Kasab, I will argue, is the closest we will ever come to communicating with the citizens of Pakistan. This man can become an ambassador of peace if we let him speak in court, with the dignity that was denied to the victims of the attacks.

When we discuss restitution, we should consider what the relatives of the victims of the attacks would prefer. Would they want, after reading of his circumstances, that he be executed quickly and be turned into a martyr to create more such attackers in Pakistan? Or would they rather we give him a dignified trial, and let his voice reach every corner of Pakistan so the citizens see how their own people are exploited, and learn to think and protect themselves.

The other day, someone was talking to me of Mother Kali, and I was apprehensive of criticism, so what I heard amazed me. This lady told me of Mother Kali's story, where everytime a demon's head was cut and his blood fell on the floor, multiple demons would rise up to attack. Kali understood this, and for every demon she killed, she made sure no drop of blood would spill. Metaphorically, when you kill a demon, you do not need to kill the body of the person, but their demonic thoughts. If their spirit of violence is destroyed, that amounts to death of their previous identity, and the birth of a new one. Humiliating and killing in spite, on the other hand, is like spilling their blood all over the place, which will only give rise to more people willing to be "martyred." This ancient wisdom is already with us. Why should we not use it?

Kaffir:

""As much as it is distasteful, I am of the opinion that Kasab should have his day in the court with a lawyer representing him and ensuring that he gets a fair trial, unless he wants to make his own case and refuses a lawyer.""

why would this be distasteful? Unless you mean those individuals who lack basic commonsense, legal sense and wish their country to bumble into a bigger and more complex problem

CS

"you mean those individuals who lack basic commonsense, legal sense and wish their country to bumble into a bigger and more complex problem"

Like rolling a red carpet for terrorists? Like creating a soft state for terrorists? Like aiding and abetting terrorism and pretend to fight it with kid gloves? Forcing people to live in perpetual fear and terror? I guess these problems are not big or complex enough, only dealing with them would create bigger and more complex problem. Is that a threat or blackmail demanding from us not to do anything about terrorists?

"why would this be distasteful?"
-
Because.

Somik

"Separate Courts and an Indian Guantanamo"
==========================================

"The US has egg on their face for making a mockery of the judicial system and holding people who had Muslim names, and after several months or years, discovering that they had nothing to do with terrorism."

The parallel system allowed USA to protect the integrity of its judicial system and yet gave us ability to take on trans-national terrorist network.

Because terrorists are trans-national, one could not fight them with nation-state jurisdictions and constitutional doctrines.

By its very nature, any sweep against terrorism would net some people with loose, remote or no connection with terrorism. But one can not abandon war on terrorism because some innocent lives could be harmed. Not fighting terrorism costs many more lives of innocents.

"That Guantanamo has not helped the US at all and has hurt the country's reputation a lot is beyond question."

Nobody buys that USA has eggs on its face or it hurt country's reputation or that it made mockery of its judicial system.

Guantanamo had a limited purpose and it served its purpose. It did what it was intended to achieve. These are never popular or permanent measures, but like war, one has to engage in them when situation demands it. Its impact is psychological, pre-emptive, deterrence, strategic. It brings the terrorism home to the terrorists and sympathisers. Such measures are always going to be criticised but they get the job done. They are always going to be placed in spot light so that they do not go too far.

USA don't need concentration camps anymore. But USA had them during WWII when it needed to deter its own population from aiding the enemy. Those camps got the job done when USA had felt the need for them. After the mission of those camps was accomplished, they were dismentled with fanfare. USA apologized for them, paid some compensation to the victims and moved on projecting deep sense of shame and remorse. You will see the same thing happen with Guantanamo. However, USA would do them all over again should the need arise again. USA is never afraid to defend its self-interests.

USA did not get eggs on its face for fighting terrorism. The whole world was with its war on terror post 9/11. Where USA fell out was when Bush used lies and unilateralism to invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Kaffir:

"why would this be distasteful?"
-
Because.""

It would be distasteful if the world were a hundred percent Kertified. but so far, nobody has argued that there should be no trial.

It would be distasteful if the world were a hundred percent Kertified. but so far, nobody has argued that there should be no trial.

It would also be distasteful if let's say, after the court handed down a verdict after a fair trial, instead of respecting it, some folks - who are now calling for a fair trial - start agitating to save Kasab by way of Afzal Guru. But since such an agitation would come from my peeps, I have to remain quiet and close ranks, instead of being critical of their disrespect for rule-of-law, which was actually the very reason cited when calling for a fair trial. But, hey, such are the games that ideologies make us play. Correct?

Somik

"Separate Courts and an Indian Guantanamo"
==========================================

"The US has egg on their face for making a mockery of the judicial system and holding people who had Muslim names, and after several months or years, discovering that they had nothing to do with terrorism."

The parallel system allowed USA to protect the integrity of its judicial system and yet gave us ability to take on trans-national terrorist network.

Because terrorists are trans-national, one could not fight them with nation-state jurisdictions and constitutional doctrines.

By its very nature, any sweep against terrorism would net some people with loose, remote or no connection with terrorism. But one can not abandon war on terrorism because some innocent lives could be harmed. Not fighting terrorism costs many more lives of innocents.

"That Guantanamo has not helped the US at all and has hurt the country's reputation a lot is beyond question."

Nobody buys that USA has eggs on its face or it hurt country's reputation or that it made mockery of its judicial system.

Guantanamo had a limited purpose and it served its purpose. It did what it was intended to achieve. These are never popular or permanent measures, but like war, one has to engage in them when situation demands it. Its impact is psychological, pre-emptive, deterrence, strategic. It brings the terrorism home to the terrorists and sympathisers. Such measures are always going to be criticised but they get the job done. They are always going to be placed in spot light so that they do not go too far.

USA don't need concentration camps anymore. But USA had them during WWII when it needed to deter its own population from aiding the enemy. Those camps got the job done when USA had felt the need for them. After the mission of those camps was accomplished, they were dismentled with fanfare. USA apologized for them, paid some compensation to the victims and moved on projecting deep sense of shame and remorse. You will see the same thing happen with Guantanamo. However, USA would do them all over again should the need arise again. USA is never afraid to defend its self-interests.

USA did not get eggs on its face for fighting terrorism. The whole world was with its war on terror post 9/11. Where USA fell out was when Bush used lies and unilateralism to invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Having a separate court is not such a radical departure from what we already have. We already have separate laws with special jurisdictions for different kinds of crimes. We already have special LE agencies like ATS, NSG to deal with terrorism. The same court do handle crimes of different nature - a petty theft and serial murder are tried on their own tracks. We need to create a special fast track to deal with terrorism.

Kerty: "Do you seriously believe that Pakistan will ever extradite its citizens to face Indian courts? Demanding anything from Pakistan is merely a PR posturing for the domestic and international gallery."

Sigh...okay lets go back to basics of international politics. You know how Indian government raises diplomatic protest for EVERY single time ANY country shows PoK separate from Indian territory? It doesn't make Pakistan give up that territory either. But that isn't the point.

It is about remaining consistent with national and international legal, moral, idealistic and territorial principles. And if you read the preamble - we are DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, and not some tin pot little dictatorship.

So REGARDLESS of what Pakistan does, we should give Kasav a proper trial and not a kangaroo court with the evidence we have. And THEN hang him! ASAP! Rather than feeding him at the taxpayer's expense and risking another Kandahar fiasco.

Somik

"Criminal versus Terrorist"
=============================

"Terrorists claim they are not murderers, but freedom fighters for some exalted cause. By giving them that position and creating a separate court for them, we are in a sense buying their justification."

So if we fight terrorism, we are somehow validating their justification and their status as freedom fighters? And if we do not fight terrorism, we are somehow not giving in to terrorism, or to its justifications? So if you do not fight terrorists, terrorism wins. And if you do fight terrorists, terrorism wins. No matter what we do, terrorism wins. So it is best not to fight terrorism! You are making the most disingenuous case for appeasing terrorism.

"More importantly, we are setting up a system to justify execution/harsh punishment when evidence is lacking, and turning these people into martyrs"

So we should not execute or punish terrorists because they would be made into Martyrs? We should not punish them because it would hurt peace process with Pakistan. We should not pressurize Pakistan because it would harm fragile democractic forces in Pakistan. Somehow, the onus to have terrorists not engage in terrorism, to preserve peace process with Pakistan, to strengthen democratic forces in Pakistan, to support those good Pakistans is only upon Indians and not Pakistanis.

In case of terrorist attacks, the evidences are often destroyed during the attack. Terrorists make it a point to erase all the evidences of their involvement. Terrorist networks operationalize their terror plans on need-to-know compartmentalization and create plausible deniability among their operatives. They erase their trail. Witnesses turn too hostile or too scared to testify and they often change their testimonies to sabotage the case under political pressures within their communities. Confessions from the suspects do not come out on their own. They have to be extracted. Such confessions help the investigation sort the puzzle but they are useless in courts as they remain inadmissible. When prosecutors go to court floors, they have nothing to nail convictions and clever defense lawyers can easily disqualify most of the evidences and confessions. Evidences and confessions that would be admissible in drug trials would not be admissible in terrorism trial. That is how much priority India gives to fighting terrorism. That is how bad it is to try terrorists in courts. Once the case goes to courts, you would have Jehadi sympathizers all over media disputing every piece of evidence and testimony, and coining their own conspiracy theories. By the time verdict is out, it would be too controvercial to implement - you would have public opinion divided on party and ideology lines. Just ask people in Pakistan who were the terrorist behind Mumbai attacks and you would get interesting theories. Jehadis have found ways to make the system impotent to deal with them.

"I agree with the piece by Karan Thapar - that's a must-read for those against a trial."

Do you think Pakistan will hand over terrorists to India even if India does everything that Thapar suggests? Thapar has essentially given Pakistan a rationale and justifications for not handing over the terrorists to India, not that Pakistan was ever going to hand them over to India. Because no amount of appeasements to woo Pakistan would ever be good enough to sway Pakistan.

Guys like Thapar specialize in appeasement of Jehad, appeasement of Pakistan, appeasement of Terrorism.

Anamika

"You know how Indian government raises diplomatic protest for EVERY single time ANY country shows PoK separate from Indian territory? It doesn't make Pakistan give up that territory either. But that isn't the point."

The main point of our diplomatic protest is to assert India's position about the map of Indian territories and getting other countries to acknowledge and respect our position on that matter. Nobody expects Pakistan to give up its claims, and that is hardly the justification used for such protests.

"It is about remaining consistent with national and international legal, moral, idealistic and territorial principles."

We are the least consistent and the most out of step with other nations in how they wage war on terrorism. If we are not the chief sponsor of terrorism, we certainly are the main appeaser and apologists of Jehadi terrorism. Our political establishment is built on it. Other nations have far too stringent anti-terrorism laws and security measures without losing their democratic republic or becoming dictatorship.

"So REGARDLESS of what Pakistan does, we should give Kasav a proper trial and not a kangaroo court with the evidence we have."

With the laws we already have on the books, no successful prosecution of terrorists is possible under such laws as most of the evidences and confessions can easily be made inadmissible in court. It is a Kangaroo court tilted in favor of terrorists.

I agree that we should do REGARDLESS of what Pakistan does or does not do. But Mr. Thapar makes a case by pointing out what Pakistan would or would not do. He wants India to do certain things based on what Pakistan would or would not do. Even when he knows it very well that it amounts to appeasement of Pakistan without placing any onus on Pakistan to do anything. On the contrary, he has handed Pakistan a whole new set of excuses and justifications not to do anything and placed the onus entirely on India. With appeasers like these, India does not need enemies.

Somik

"From the General to the Specific"
===================================

"there is a big economic factor behind terrorism, which recruits the destitute and gives them alternate employment in such projects. It is so important for all of this to come out in court."

Yes. He is a victim of poverty.

"This man can become an ambassador of peace if we let him speak in court"

Yes. He is a goodwill ambassador for peace.

"when Kasab was asked about his current feelings, he felt great remorse and wanted to write a letter to his parents...This is an important humane message that needs to be heard loud and clear in Pakistan"

He feels great remorse. He has been redeemed. He has become a message to humanity and all those wannabe martyrs and terrorists. He is more valuable alive than dead.

"Would they want, after reading of his circumstances, that he be executed quickly and be turned into a martyr to create more such attackers in Pakistan?"

Yes. His martyrdom will attract more attackers but if martyrdom is denied to him, people in Pakistan will think twice about becoming attackers - after all what is the point of becoming attackers if there is no martyrdom at the end of it.

"when you kill a demon, you do not need to kill the body of the person, but their demonic thoughts. If their spirit of violence is destroyed, that amounts to death of their previous identity, and the birth of a new one. Humiliating and killing in spite, on the other hand, is like spilling their blood all over the place, which will only give rise to more people willing to be "martyred.""

Yes. We should kill the spirit of violence rather than kill the person who carries out violence. Terrorism is bad, but terrorists are not bad. They too are humans. They are as much victims, misguided but certainly not demonic. We should heed Kali and slay our own demons.

Somik Raha 34

"If this were around 2002, I would be forgiven to suggest a separate court and a Guantanamo-like base for holding such detainees"

There is no harm in having separate courts to try terrorists. We have separate courts anyway for various types of trials. There is a debate anyway to finetune this in the larger context of judicial reform in the country. As far as prisons exclusively for terrorists are concerned, this needs to be debated. Not by people like me and you but people who understand the ins and outs of various prison systems. As far as overseas EXCLUSIVE prison system is concerned, the debate is invalid as we have no overseas territories like Guantanamo.

"Terrorists claim they are not murderers, but freedom fighters for some exalted cause. By giving them that position and creating a separate court for them, we are in a sense buying their justification. More importantly, we are setting up a system to justify execution/harsh punishment when evidence is lacking, and turning these people into martyrs"

Terrorists will become martyrs for some clowns irrespective of whether you provide same or separate courts. As far as we are concerned, we expect the Judicial system to follow basic rules on accepting evidence. A confession made in the four walls of a police station cannot be accepted as evidence. Our Police forces have zero credibility.


"Reading the Indian Express' exclusive piece amazes me - the poor chap asked his dad for a new shirt on the day of Id, and his father could not buy it for him. Frustrated, he left, to join the Lashkar, so he wouldn't live in such a destitute condition"

By your logic I should have been killing 1000s of people by now. The correct analysis is that terrorism is a function of Poverty combined by the social environment. In India, if you are distressed because of your financial situation, you cannot run to the nearest Jamad or LET to pick a gun and become a terrorist. While our Govt has made marginal progress on poverty, they sure donot allow jokers like LET thrive in India.

"Second, when Kasab was asked about his current feelings, he felt great remorse and wanted to write a letter to his parents asking them to tell the young villagers not to fall in the trap of the Lashkar (and their buddy organizations). This is an important humane message that needs to be heard loud and clear in Pakistan"


This guy had days (on the boat) to think through what he did. Since he believes in allah, he can keep all his remorse in hell (or heaven) or wherever he goes after he is dead. You have too much expectations from Pakistan

a. First they (The whole Pakistani society) refused to believe Kasab is Pakistani
b. After the Geo TV sting, they began to accept but believe that he was kidnapped from Nepal
c. Most pakistanis believe that this was a RAW MOSSAD operation.

Unlike you and having so many Pakistani friends, I am sorry I share no optimisim about People to People contact with Pakistan.

Somik Raha 34

"If this were around 2002, I would be forgiven to suggest a separate court and a Guantanamo-like base for holding such detainees"

There is no harm in having separate courts to try terrorists. We have separate courts anyway for various types of trials. There is a debate anyway to finetune this in the larger context of judicial reform in the country. As far as prisons exclusively for terrorists are concerned, this needs to be debated. Not by people like me and you but people who understand the ins and outs of various prison systems. As far as overseas EXCLUSIVE prison system is concerned, the debate is invalid as we have no overseas territories like Guantanamo.

"Terrorists claim they are not murderers, but freedom fighters for some exalted cause. By giving them that position and creating a separate court for them, we are in a sense buying their justification. More importantly, we are setting up a system to justify execution/harsh punishment when evidence is lacking, and turning these people into martyrs"

Terrorists will become martyrs for some clowns irrespective of whether you provide same or separate courts. As far as we are concerned, we expect the Judicial system to follow basic rules on accepting evidence. A confession made in the four walls of a police station cannot be accepted as evidence. Our Police forces have zero credibility.


"Reading the Indian Express' exclusive piece amazes me - the poor chap asked his dad for a new shirt on the day of Id, and his father could not buy it for him. Frustrated, he left, to join the Lashkar, so he wouldn't live in such a destitute condition"

By your logic I should have been killing 1000s of people by now. The correct analysis is that terrorism is a function of Poverty combined by the social environment. In India, if you are distressed because of your financial situation, you cannot run to the nearest Jamad or LET to pick a gun and become a terrorist. While our Govt has made marginal progress on poverty, they sure donot allow jokers like LET thrive in India.

"Second, when Kasab was asked about his current feelings, he felt great remorse and wanted to write a letter to his parents asking them to tell the young villagers not to fall in the trap of the Lashkar (and their buddy organizations). This is an important humane message that needs to be heard loud and clear in Pakistan"


This guy had days (on the boat) to think through what he did. Since he believes in allah, he can keep all his remorse in hell (or heaven) or wherever he goes after he is dead. You have too much expectations from Pakistan

a. First they (The whole Pakistani society) refused to believe Kasab is Pakistani
b. After the Geo TV sting, they began to accept but believe that he was kidnapped from Nepal
c. Most pakistanis believe that this was a RAW MOSSAD operation.

Unlike you and having so many Pakistani friends, I am sorry I share no optimisim about People to People contact with Pakistan.

kerty wrote:
So if we fight terrorism, we are somehow validating their justification and their status as freedom fighters? And if we do not fight terrorism, we are somehow not giving in to terrorism, or to its justifications? So if you do not fight terrorists, terrorism wins. And if you do fight terrorists, terrorism wins. No matter what we do, terrorism wins. So it is best not to fight terrorism! You are making the most disingenuous case for appeasing terrorism.

Sigh! Nope, you misunderstood. Of course we have to fight terrorism and defend ourselves. And yes, if we catch terrorists, we must try them. But if we deny them the same rights as criminals that are taken care of by our current system, we are setting up a system that perpetuates more abuse than solves. I am yet to be convinced of a need for a parallel system.

The problem I see in many of the arguments presented on this forum are that they are a tired rehash of the rhetoric of my previous generation, which has led to no resolution other than keeping the status quo (or worsening it).

Here's the main problem - a lot of the commentators seem to already have a filter for Pakistan, which says, "these guys are out to screw us." So, any system that is proposed will be evaluated through such a filter, and we will go around in circles.

My filter, on the other hand, is that, "Pakistani citizens, like all citizens, are our brothers and sisters." Yes, it does happen that our sibs sometimes fall in bad company, hate us, and sometimes do things to really hurt us. But how do we respond? We don't disown them. We also don't justify their actions. But we do our best to reach out, give them help if it is possible and keep trying.

I have generally found that there are very few "bad people" in the world. 95% are good - they don't to go about butchering others. Why should I build systems that are aimed at the 5% that are bad? I would rather focus on reaching out to the 95% that are good.

Most of the events around us are so ridiculous - simple communication should resolve them. For example, the Pakistan High Commission has not received Kasab's letter. All the Indian govt has to do is give them the letter. How hard is that? It seems they consul officials want to meet Kasab and India has so far not allowed it. Why not? I think our mistrust of Pakistan has gone over the edge - even if they are out to hurt us, we should let the consulate officials meet Kasab and interview him, and satisfy themselves about his origin.

Somik

"The problem I see in many of the arguments presented on this forum are that they are a tired rehash of the rhetoric of my previous generation, which has led to no resolution other than keeping the status quo (or worsening it)."

You probably slept thru an entire century when appeasement of minoritism dominated the political discourse. Nothing you have argued so far is any different from its playbook of appeasement of Jehadi Islamism. You want to rehash the same old politics of appeasement as new deal to new generation. Good luck selling them a snake oil.

You probably slept thru an entire century when appeasement of minoritism dominated the political discourse. Nothing you have argued so far is any different from its playbook of appeasement of Jehadi Islamism. You want to rehash the same old politics of appeasement as new deal to new generation. Good luck selling them a snake oil.

Your argument is unsubstantiated. I have not supported Jehadi Islamism (can you quote where I did so?). In any case, I wonder, when you try to resolve a fight with your siblings in a reasonable manner, are you guilty of appeasement?

Most of the arguments are arguments of fear. What if Pakistan stabs us in the back once we trust. Sure they can - but the resulting outcome will not be good for them, as they have seen. What goes around, comes around. I have not see any evidence that contradicts this simple truth. The questions is, can we find reasonable alternatives that do not require us to consume our minds with hatred, at the same time, protect ourselves and our society? This frame is important, because when I start to hate, I am already in trouble (stress, BP, nasty behavior, unclear thinking, .. , sickness). Why should I willingly put myself in trouble? Given this frame of self-preservation, what ideas can you come up with?

slime_id wrote:
Kasab can be defended in our country. One has to just have money to support him in our country or any western country.

The reality of 21st century justice is that one need not be terrorist or a muslim minority to be denied justice. You need to be poor to be denied justice. No wonder so many people in India who are languishing in jails either because they cared for their hard earned money or because they did not have resources to bribe the system.

I agree. This is a great shame for our society.

Only thing that Kasab lacks is money and once he has money, even Ram Jethmalini will defend him.

I think Mr. Jethmalani takes cases that won't give him money - maybe you're being too harsh on him.

What is one man's justice is another man's injustice.

This is the part I don't follow. Perhaps you can explain.

Chandra wrote:

By your logic I should have been killing 1000s of people by now. The correct analysis is that terrorism is a function of Poverty combined by the social environment. In India, if you are distressed because of your financial situation, you cannot run to the nearest Jamad or LET to pick a gun and become a terrorist. While our Govt has made marginal progress on poverty, they sure donot allow jokers like LET thrive in India.

I agree with you. The social environment is of course important. However, consider that in a massive country where politicians are too busy fighting with each other and trying to survive, who is going to control the military or the intelligence services, who are hand-in-glove with these jehadi organizations? If you want to draw a parallel in India, look at the underworld, or the ULFA folks who recruit simple villagers, often at the point of the gun. If we can't stop them, how the heck do we expect Pakistan to do so?

commonsense, as usual, your underlying wit is a treat.

Defensive measures alone won't suffice
Brahma Chellaney

"Defensive measures, in any event, can be meaningful only if they are accompanied by a proactive component that entails going after the terrorists before they strike. That means, among other things, hounding, disrupting and smashing their cells, networks and safe havens; destroying their local network; cutting off their funding; and imposing deterrent costs (through overt or covert means) on those that promote, finance or tolerate terrorist activity. "

"in a country where, despite the rising incidence of terrorism, not a single terror-related case has been successfully prosecuted in many years other than the one involving the attack on Parliament, the setting up of a new agency can hardly bring much cheer."

"Improved maritime patrols, better police training and preparedness, a new federal agency for investigations, regional commando commands and intelligence revamp -- although necessary -- are all defensive measures. However well designed and put into practice, such steps by themselves cannot stop terrorist strikes."

"Worse, terrorism has been treated as a law-and-order issue requiring more policing, training and hardware. To regard terrorism as a law-and-order problem is to do what the terrorists want"


http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/20/stories/2008122052501000.htm

Kerty:

""You probably slept thru an entire century when appeasement of minoritism dominated the political discourse. Nothing you have argued so far is any different from its playbook of appeasement of Jehadi Islamism. You want to rehash the same old politics of appeasement as new deal to new generation. Good luck selling them a snake oil.""

""Like rolling a red carpet for terrorists? Like creating a soft state for terrorists? Like aiding and abetting terrorism and pretend to fight it with kid gloves? Forcing people to live in perpetual fear and terror? I guess these problems are not big or complex enough, only dealing with them would create bigger and more complex problem. Is that a threat or blackmail demanding from us not to do anything about terrorists?""

master of hyperbole. aka "hai par bolee" (bolee with wings attached to them, except they ain't going anywhere). worse than "snake oil", good only for inflaming an inflamed situtation.

With legal aid or not, Kasab's trial would be a re-enactment of what we have seen in CST.

Police trying to contain a terrorist armed with modern weapons, with their archaic .303 rifles. Kasab's trial with the existing criminal laws, meant for Indian citizens would be a mockery of justice. Let us first decide how he is going to be tried, than who is going to defend him.

Suresh

You are right. With current laws as they are, trial would be a farce and a media zoo - remember OJ Simpson trial in USA? Prosecutors would be taken to woods over seemingly obvious things. Not a single terror-related case has been successfully prosecuted in many years. And there is reason why. The system is rigged to blindfold and hand-cuff the prosecutors in terror cases. India has better laws to prosecute drug crimes. Evidence and confessions acquired by identical manners would be admissible in drug trials but not in terror cases. In case of statutes pertaining to crimes against women, the requirement for evidence and testimonies are so light-weight, our judicial system thinks men are more dangerous than terrorists. The statues that deal with terrorism have been so politicized that nobody has dared to put any teeth in them. As if terrorists are petty criminals, they can get off on lessor charges because that is all prosecutors can prove under current setup.

Punishing Kasab
================

While there is a clamor for hanging Kasab. We need more human approach to punish Kasab. No matter what we do to Kasab, it is not going to bring back those 170 lives. So without further ado

1) Lets kill him an islamic way

It is fitting that Kasab be treated in Islamic manner befitting his deeds. No. I do not mean giving him 72 virgins.

Why not stone him at VT station over live TV coverage. It allows audience participation - it can be theraputic for the nation. It allows nation to vent their anger in most non-lethal way.

Or let us chop off his eyes, ears and hands. It is more humane than killing him off. It allows him to regret and remorse for rest of his life, and provides living example to those would like to imitate his deeds

2) Lets do it the American way

No I am not talking about Gitmo. Lets throw him in American jail. American prisoners have their own code of honor and justice system. They do not view certain crimes very kindly. If American courts fail to hang for certain crimes, the prisoners certainly will. And if they fail to kill him, the AIDS most certainly will. It would be poetic justice for him to be sodomised for rest of his life - he can imagine the jail as Taj hotel, and jail cells as guest rooms, and prisoners as guests and him as their hostage. Let them chase him from cell to cell and sodomize him. If Sodomy does not kill him, AIDS will. Yes. Give him a role reversal in Jail.

3) Lets give him 72 virgins

On a second thought. Lets give him 72 feminists. That would be living hell on earth he probably never expected. He would beg for less than 72. He will beg to be left alone in heaven. Nobody will have to kill him. Yes. No bullets to finish him off, let it be 72 bitterness that does him in. He will commit suicide on his own in no time.

4) Throw him in Indian jail, not

Unfortunately, Indian jails would make him a Satyagrahi, and he might turn into a politician and run for a political office, and actually get elected by a landslide.

Until we throw our gays in jail, jail will remain too hospitable for Kasab. Instead of dying of AIDS, he might live to rule India as a politician.

I invite ideas and suggestions. We need to look after Kasab in a humane manner. He our guest and whole world is watching us.



4)

On a second thought. Lets give him 72 feminists. That would be living hell on earth he probably never expected. He would beg for less than 72. He will beg to be left alone in heaven.

Except that from what I've observed, feminists are really soft on criticizing Islam for its role in atrocities on women.

Hardly any feminist comes out to support people like Taslima Nasreen, Wafa Sultan or Ayan Hirsi Ali. (Has Arundhati Roy ever written an essay supporting Ms. Nasreen?) You can hear crickets chirp on so-called progressive blogs whenever it's a regressive issue related to Islam as everyone seems to walk on egg shells. I've read posts and comments on feminist blogs regarding the French annulment of marriage of a Muslim couple, which caused some uproar in June 2008, where these writers went out of their way to shield the 'religion of peace' from playing any role whatsoever in what transpired, and blamed it squarely on patriarchy.

Somik Raha is absolutely right in stating that Ajmal Kasab has every right to defence counsel. The tragedy of the Indian justice system is it has no time limits - not for indictment, start of trial or conclusion of proceedings. It allows for endless adjournments, until everybody is exhausted and justice falls to the wayside. Even open-and-shut cases such as this have gone on for years, if not decades, until nobody remembers what it was all about in the first place, and nobody cares.

All the offialdom takes great pride in producing reams of paper, typed on both sides of the paper to save money, often in poor and ungrammatical English. Copy quality of essential documents is often poor, barely readable. India is a poor country; how can we afford good quality copiers? Also, how can we allow the police to use jeeps, trains or aircraft to pursue leads, suspects and witnesses quickly to prepare a case? Travel approval will take several days to weeks in any case. To take witness statements in front of lawyers and a magistrate is too time-consuming. So, get the statements as quickly as possible. Voila - when the trial starts years later, the witness can always retract his statement because it was not given in the presence of a magistrate. In addition, there is no witness protection system, so the accused can always intimidate the witnesses or bribe them, as happened in the case of Jessica Lall's murder. So, the case can be thrown out. Isn't that neat?

Kerty #58 - "On a second thought. Lets give him 72 feminists. That would be living hell on earth he probably never expected."

Actually I disagree here. Feminists LOVE Islamic terrorists for some reason. They will sympathise with them like no one else could and explain that the terrorists are the real victims and the rest of the people are the real culprits and it was poverty and social oppression that made them blow up innocent people. We already have come across too many shining examples of these feminists who are also sympathisers of terrorists.

Maybe this is what the 72-virgins stand for, I think, both metaphorically and otherwise.

I agree with Mr. Kere. And I may point out that the issue here is not about whether a trial will lead to the outcome we want, but one of consistency, so we don't contradict ourselves.

No judicial system is "objectively" perfect, and one finds a wide spectrum in different countries, with most countries except authoritarian ones showing a similar trait - if you have a good lawyer, you can drag things out and sometimes get away with murder. Of course, in authoritarian regimes like China, there is no question of a trial and we have to grant that they are consistently draconian, whether it is Chinese or Tibetan citizens. Like the Tibetan NGO worker who recently got life imprisonment for telling people outside Tibet about the riots. Its almost like China is living in a much earlier century.

Leduiz, I am a feminist and I disagree with you. One always has a choice. I knew someone back in college who was dirt poor. Her dad used to make bread pakoras, she used to help him out every morning and then travel to college.

She considered herself to be a feminist and even called her father a feminist since he believed that one could escape poverty only through education and called her the 'son' of the family.

There are no victims or martyrs. Feminism is not about victimhood but empowerment of the suppressed.

I don't want to hijack the thread but Kasab is the exact opposite of the girl who studied in my college.

He bleats like a goat and blame everyone else but himself for his current predicament. He is a psychopath and should be hung for his crimes.

I don't see how he or any other terrorist an be compared to feminists.

Deepti, there are exceptions to every rule and you are one of them (and I knew that even before your comment). Another happens to be myself. I am a feminist (going by your definition), and don't support terrorists, as anyone who has read my articles or comments can vouch for.

Ledzuis, ah! now I get it! the 498a 'femi-nazis'. Now that would be worse than Gitmo;)

ledzius...it is just bullshit propaganda that you would even try to make up such ridiculous statements as "feminists love terrorists"

first of all, one misguided person does not speak for all feminists everywhere. second, you're just full of crap and coming up with twisted logic to suit your own warped needs. I guess it was an easy leap in your small mind, since you feel that any woman who had any control over herself is a terrorist of sorts, so I suppose I should forgive your ridiculousness.

but I won't.

SS:

""so I suppose I should forgive your ridiculousness.

but I won't.""


Editors: (possible personal attack alert!)

SS (and Deepti), not that this commonsensical observation will come as a surprise, but both of you are dealing with a pale imitation of the professional "shit disturber" Kerty. While Kerty thrives in spewing hate indiscriminately towards everyone, thrives on being disliked (an anti-narcissistic narcissist) believes that there is no view except his own on any topic AND hence incorrigible, Ledzius is, at least until this point of time, not entirely impervious to diluted reason. So, he is not a lost cause as yet, but could the understudy as Kerty's replacement. Unlike Kerty whose unthinking and unfeeling nastiness is entirely unpredictable and pro forma, Ledzius, at least until now, shows some signs of responding to others. And heck, he even knows the difference between a mule and a hinny! Thus spake Commonsense (a comment that might well be deleted, as it is entirely irrelevant to this thread!)

But then, we all digress from the topic of this thread. My apologies.

#51 Somik Raha.
Unlike most of the people here, many are fighting cases in the criminal courts of India. If they were poor, they would be sucked into this corrupt rot of Indian justice and declared a criminal.
Thats why I feel what Kerty writes is bullshit. It only takes few rounds of court to know what seeking justice is to a common poor man in India.
what it takes to be labelled a criminal and
spend time in the jails. Ultimate harrassment.

# I have no respect for Ram Jethmalini. What I know is the lawyers have created a kind of self serving lobby in India which works to deny justice to any justice seeker. Ram Jethmalini is the jewel of this system that preaches justice at a cost. Cost of time, money, rights.

#What is one man's justice is another man's injustice.
Everyone is entitled to justice. But Justice is Blind. If Kasab were to be Government informer, he can get away with life sentence. Justice is very subjective and law is not as per Law books but what lies in the head of the Judge(Corrupt or not). Which means that even if one is a terrorist, he has some chances to defend himself.
The other way to look at it is there are chances normal person may end up a criminal even he hires a good lawyer.

Slime ID:

""Thats why I feel what Kerty writes is bullshit.""

It is impossible to be confident about 'truth' when it comes to social life - so many perspectives on every issue -, but I am confient that nobody on this thread would disagree with your assessment of what Kerty writes. Ummm, except for those who will disagree with me! (the complexity of social life!)

Slime ID:

""Thats why I feel what Kerty writes is bullshit.""

Worry not Slime. What you feel is pretty much commonsense on DC.

I suggest you and others should get on with the task of discussing real issues. I have enough time, energy and lack of brain-cells to take on the thankless task of shoring up mr. Kerty's ego that thrives on being disliked by others. Yes, there are people like that! When others who have something interesting, complex, contradictory to say engage with him it is truly a colossal waste of time and brain-cells. As the unofficial DC court jester, i am merely doing my job. A job that is not that onerous, since Kerty's train of thought (so-called) is entirely predictable, imbued as it is with an easily identifiable ideology, and what he writes could have been written by an automaton, punch-drunk with the same ideology. The ideology you ask? No point naming it.

SS - "I guess it was an easy leap in your small mind, since you feel that any woman who had any control over herself is a terrorist of sorts, so I suppose I should forgive your ridiculousness."

Never implied that, and it is you who is making up this imagined leap.

"but I won't."

Never asked you for it, dear.

CS - "And heck, he even knows the difference between a mule and a hinny!"

Ah.. so you still remember that assinine discussion..What happened to your assignment of working out the logistics of donkey-horse mating? Your report on that is a bit overdue at this point, isn't it?

ledz, how am I making an imagined leap. you seem to hate women who have a mind of their own a speak it. but please do then tell us how you came to such a half-assed conclusion.

Ledzius:

""What happened to your assignment of working out the logistics of donkey-horse mating? Your report on that is a bit overdue at this point, isn't it?"

My final report was contingent on you and Kerty trying out a dry run of the logistics, in the privacy of your own room of course, and furnishing an interim report to me. I am still waiting...

Ledzius,

Of course, I am making a leap of imagination by hoping that there is a dramatic height difference between you and kerty; such that the dry run simulation (or stimulation if the chemistry is there) will generate enough data to support generalization for horses and donkeys.

Somik, apologies for plunging your thread on serious issues, to assinine depths. I will cease and desist.

Slime

"Thats why I feel what Kerty writes is bullshit. It only takes few rounds of court to know what seeking justice is to a common poor man in India. what it takes to be labelled a criminal and spend time in the jails. Ultimate harrassment."

Which specific points I wrote that you disagree with? You must have reasons why you disagree. That is if you want me to respond and clarify them.

BTW, I don't disagree that common poor man would have hard time getting justice in India. My family is embroiled in a land dispute case since last 50 years. My grandpa who initiated the case is dead for 30 years. My dad who inherited the case is now in 80s and may not live to see the justice. My family has spent 2 generations and a fortune in time and money. Don't we know truth and justice do not prevail in courts more often than not? If you are poor and helpless, the odds are staked against you. But what has that got to do with terrorists? There is certainly more political will, and media spotlight on terror trials, and prosecution would have better chance to prevail. Yet. No terrorist has been prosecuted successfully. The way Indians courts are, nothing can be proven in courts as everything can be twisted. If you know something that I do not, go ahead, explain to us.

Thats why I feel what Kerty writes is bullshit.

I'll disagree as I enjoy reading his comments and it gives me a different perspective to consider than the usual leftist/ Marxist/ "progressive" comments that are the norm. It's good to have more than one (and contrasting) points-of-view instead of just one so that readers can compare.

I don't always agree with his stance, but his arguments are well-reasoned.

Ledzius to me:

"What happened to your assignment of working out the logistics of donkey-horse mating? Your report on that is a bit overdue at this point, isn't it?"


Dear Ledzius, as we agreed a few months ago, through private email, my final report was contingent on you and Kerty trying out a "dry run" of the logistics, in the privacy of your own room of course, and furnishing an interim report to me. I wait impatiently for the results of your dry run with Kerty. Just wanted to remind you that altough my interest in the outcome is primarily on the physics of the issue, hence the simulated activity, do not worry to much if the physics gets transmuted into chemistry, the dry run becomes a wet run and simulation transforms into stimulation. Stuff happens, and there's nothing wrong with it, unlike you agree with kerty's "queer" views on human sexuality. Do let me know when you get the prelminary results so that I can, as an academic who teaches quantum phyics, to make the quantum leap and extrapolate it to donkeys and mares. Mares are a plenty here, but I have had difficulties procuring a donkey, hence it is impossible to carry out my promised social experiment. Hope you and kerty will oblige. It is of course entirely between you and Kerty as to who takes the role of a donkey and a mare. One objective, if not "objectivist" (in the Ann Randy sense) would be to let height be the deciding factor. It really is up to you two, as I hate to impose my view on others.

Either way, do let me know.

And if the commercialization of Christmas is "bumming" (please don't take "bum" literally) both of you out, please don't forget the real reason for this joyous season: the birth of Santa Claus.

Sincerely,

CS

Kaffir about Kerty:

""I don't always agree with his [Kerty's] stance, but his arguments are well-reasoned.""

Totally agree. For stellar examples of "well-reasoned" arguments, here is Kerty on Gays, God and AIDS - as most readers would not doubt agree, a stunning, brilliant, "well reasoned" take on science, religion, causality and indeed basic commonsense (unedited, not taken out of context, not paraphrased)

Kerty:

"A slippery slope indeed where life comes to imitate porn and becomes inseparable from it, where breaking of taboos and sexual deviancy is not merely tolerated, but celebrated as preference, choice, new bench mark of freedom and tolerance. But there is God and there is Aids to poop the party. Amen!"

CS

You seem to enjoy making personalities('kerty') the central point of your rebuttals in every thread, in instead of debating the relevant points raised in their respective threads. Can we expect to deal with points raised in their respective threads rather than mixing up comments from different threads to make statements about personalities? I am flattered that you give so much importance to me in your posts. But it is not about me. And it is not about you.

Kerty:

"CS

You seem to enjoy making personalities('kerty') the central point of your rebuttals in every thread, in instead of debating the relevant points raised in their respective threads. Can we expect to deal with points raised in their respective threads rather than mixing up comments from different threads to make statements about personalities? I am flattered that you give so much importance to me in your posts.""

Like most regular human beings, unlike prophets, I presume that all of us are the same people, regardless of the different threads we contribute to. We don't become different persons on different threads. And this is more true of "one tune" Kerty than others. Unless one is schizophrenic, has something to hide, or is embarrassed about one's past. But then again, some folks are beyond embarrassment, folks such as Kerty. Still, he protesteth too much, and not for the first time, about me cross-posting his oracular, prophetic pronouncements from one thread to another. Perhaps he is schiziod. But I have nothing against them, nor against the kertys of this world or the next world.

As for being "flattered", if the role of court jesters is not to flatter others, I'm not sure how else can such a role be defined.

As for "rebuttal", I have nothing against butts either. The Kertys of the world might hate butts, wrongly associating ith with gay sexual culture, but obviously they are completely misninformed about the diversity of gay and non-gay sexual culture. Anything, even butts get worn out after a while and when that happens, there's nothing wrong in admitting the need for a "rebuttal". Hip replacement, heart transplants, fake teeth, silicon breasts, nose jobs, etc. etc. so why not a "rebuttal"? Why is the "butt" so devalued and the butt of silly jokes.

Ledz #61

"Feminists LOVE Islamic terrorists for some reason. They will sympathise with them like no one else could and explain that the terrorists are the real victims"

I think you are on to vital observation. If you dig deeper, you will see astounding similarities in their modus operandi and compulsions of their ideological alliance.

What separates missionaries from xians, jehadis from moslems, feminists from women, queer nationists from transgendered, maosist/naxalites from poors and what is so common that unites them at political level? It is that each one of them is a radical and militant ideology that is coined around a base constituency ie religion, gender, sexual orientation, economic status etc. It seeks to represent that constituency and speak for it, seek to empower it, claims to exist to address the victimization of that constituency. It ruthlessly attacks any attempt to distinguish its ideology from the constituency in which it seeks to be embedded. So any attack on Jehadis and Jehadism becomes attack on Moslems, any attack on feminists and feminism becomes attack on women, any attack on missionaries become attack on xians etc. They all have one common obstacle in India - Hinduism and Hindu society. So fight against it is what unites all of them for a common purpose. Various political outfits are formed to cobble up their alliances - assorted leftist outfits vie to do their bidding to woo their allegiances and form a viable political force that can take on the challenges posed by Hindu society.

To combat such jehadist political alliances, Hindus too have to frame their own defensive ideology - Hindutva. It is mainly reactive and defensive. But it acts as a lightening rod for the Jehadis of all ideologies and unites them even though there is nothing common among them. So we have a battle royale - as to who can subdue whom using more militant means. As soon as Hindus react to militancy of any Jehadi faction, rest of coalition partners gang up upon the Hindu reaction. Any time any Jehadi faction needs to be shored up, rest of coalition partners flock the media to give it a spirited defense and apologia. One is unfolding as we speak in the aftermath of 26/11.

Prophet Kerty Maharaj:

"What separates missionaries from xians, jehadis from moslems, feminists from women, queer nationists from transgendered, maosist/naxalites from poors and what is so common that unites them at political level?"

Back to the boilerplate!

What is a boilerplate? - "In information technology, a boilerplate is a unit of writing that can be reused over and over without change."

And the ideology that I dare not name? Well Kerty has named it himself! Here it is:

"To combat such jehadist political alliances, Hindus too have to frame their own defensive ideology - Hindutva."

in other words, the same as all racist, sectarian shit, be they jihadis, born-again-Christians, missionaries, nazis, neo-nazis, and of course, Hindutvadis.

As someone said, once you figure out someone's politics, everything else is entirely predictable. One can always find a fragment of their thought (so-called) to be interesting, but at the end of the day, it's all framed by the same vicious lack of logic.

So, its nice to see that kerty finally has the courage to come out in the open and is not shy of owning up to his vicious sectarianism disguised as so-called love for India. Amen indeed!!

sharif does a U turn:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/sharif-does-a-uturn-asks-india-for-proof-on-kasab/81249-2.html

so much for the reliability of the Pakis.But then the Indian liberals will clutch at Paki 'straws' ,hoping against hope that there is a section in Pakiland that believes in peace with India.

So, its nice to see that kerty finally has the courage to come out in the open and is not shy of owning up to his vicious sectarianism disguised as so-called love for India.

CS, what is sectarianism? Is Congress meddling in the Shah Bano case sectarianism? How about India being the first to ban The Satanic Verses? Such actions and many more are no less sectarian/communal in nature than what Hindutva does. So is your ire against sectarianism, or against sectarianism only by a particular group, while not by others?

CS, I didn't write "all of kerty's arguments are well-reasoned" which you assumed, when I meant it in a generic way; and I also mentioned "I don't agree with his stance always."

Also, you came up with only one example of not well-reasoned statement by kerty? He's quite a prolific commenter here, so there shouldn't be any problem finding more such examples of ill-reasoned arguments and coming up with a percentage figure of well-reasoned to not-well-reasoned arguments. :)

Kaffir #86

Be watchful, for it can come back to dog you from one unrelated thread to another for rest of your posting tenure at DC. You don't want to be bracketed with me and as my thekedar every time you post something.

Kaffir # 86 fair enough; how about this unedited direct quotes fiesta:

#1: Kerty on the Origins/Cause of Aids:

"AIDS has originated out of certain life-styles."

#2: On Class-Action Lawsuits against those who make gay themed movies, write novels etc:

""Make it possible for AIDS victims to file class-action compensatory law-suits on people who promote these lifestyles in their commercial ventures ie arts, books, movies etc.""

#"3: ""Like marijuana has become a gateway drug for ushering high octane drug culture, homosexuality has been made into a gateway lifestyle to lead in highly sexual culture and lifestyles.""

#4: On the presumed evils of masturbation (no not blindness and hair on ones palms):

"Some teens who start out early with masturbation often get hooked on it thru out adult life, even after marriage, and some of them enjoy it so much more than other sexual activities."

#5: "Sexual culture in all its variations, combinations and permutations that reject boundaries, norms, common good. Just because something takes place among consenting persons does not clinch the argument. It has to be judged by how much good or harm it brings to the society and what that society values."


etc. etc. etc.

Admittedly the quotes above betray is distinctive take on sexuality or lack thereof, and yes, I guess you are right, you did qualify your statement about him ie. you do not agree with everything he says. (Unlike Kerty, I have no problems retracting, admitting mild mea culpas etc.). But what the heck, it's no big deal if you agree with everything he says...diversity of opinion (and sexuality, and food, and language etc. etc.) makes for a richer world.

Barkha Dutt's sane comments

An unconventional solution between war and peace? Do you mean making our point, standing up for what we believe is right without destroying those who hurt us? Hmm... wonder who has taught us how to do this.

i suggest we prove kasab as an innocent bystander who was attrociously wrongly apprehended by the ever so ineffective indian police (who are known to have a penchant to hang the tiger's blame round the hare's neck.)

but once proved innocent and guiltless kasab must be duly proudly returned to his country with all fanfare and ceremonies (a hero wronged)

it is important that kasab is sent back. 'cause, if left alone unclaimed in our democratic heaven (haven) i am afraid he might be duly claimed by some political party, made an icon of remorse and thus duly spoilt (which of course, he is not at the moment) to the point of bombing us from within .

#kerty 76, here you admit, even your three generations don't know how to get justice in India and you fully agree poor in India will never get justice.

I am glad you are hopeful you will get justice. I wish the judge calls you a terrorist one day and makes you see the jail bars just because you have been fighting for justice for 50 years, thereby mocking the grand system. If you know India, you can be sure how powerful judges could be. Better play safe and give up your demand for land. The matter ends there.

Now you would quote that such a judge is a crook and hypothetical. Regarding misuse of law, Mayawati misused NSA when a MLA was charged under it. If you look at the name NSA, it is a law meant for the security of country! Here crooks ( read Mayawati) misuse it.

Here we are debating "Defending Kasab" when each one of us is unable to defend ourselves when we each will face the judicial music.

First Defend yourself Kerty, get your justice and then lets start talking specific points of defending "Kasab". Lets have proper law for Indians then lets speak for laws for foreign outlaws.

Slime

I agree that India's laws and law enforcement are very arcane in many areas. It does not want to be efficient dealing with the interests of property, especially land. Laws are tilted against them and so is judicial system of justice. Its like communist courts pretending to look after Captalist institutions - we expect them to throw at them every bottleneck and tricks of corruption on the book. Similarly, laws do not like to be efficient when dealing with the interests of politicians, political establishment, terrorists, criminals with political connections, rich and powerful. Laws dealing with them simply have no teeth, and system treats with them with kid gloves, as their Jamai.

Yet, we can't throw away the baby with bath water, just because some parts of the system are flawed or inefficient. And we can't put Kasab on hold until we get our house in order. That is not an option. Events like these present us rare opportunities to put spotlight on the flaws of our current system, and create political will to fix them. But the spotlight has to be surgical, to the point and not too generic. Lets have spotlight on laws and system dealing with terrorism. If we can't focus even on them on the wake of biggest terror event, we can't possibly hope to fix all other issues facing our legal system. It would amount to squandering the opportunity. System can only be fixed if opportunities to reform its ailing parts are seized and not squandered. People who do not like the system to be reformed will do just that, talk about all other extreneous bells and whistles but issues at hand. Much like blaming all politicians even when we know where specifically the blame rests. The exercise is meant to confuse the public, shift the focus, divert attention away from the main culprits. Its like when we should be focused on how to punish Kasab, we have debates here on how to defend Kasab.

Kaffir:

""CS, what is sectarianism? Is Congress meddling in the Shah Bano case sectarianism? How about India being the first to ban The Satanic Verses? Such actions and many more are no less sectarian/communal in nature than what Hindutva does. So is your ire against sectarianism, or against sectarianism only by a particular group, while not by others?""

Kaffir, apologies. Somewhere thru the haze of the holiday spirit (as in alcohol!), I inadvertently missed your comment above. Worry not, all the examples you list above are, in my book, classic examples of sectarian communalism. When I condemn sectarianism, I do it on an equal opportunity basis, regardless of the sect/religion/community in question. Khush??!!

Once one starts making excuses for any form of communalism as simply being "defensive" etc. one is not just on a slippery slope but is already rolling down that slope without hope.

I have been as clear and as unambiguous as possible, thanks to your question.

The proper response to the shameful episodes re: Shah Bano, Rushdie etc. is to pressure the politicians and the legal system, not to come up with sectarianism of other kinds to allegedly counteract other sectarianisms. It's a vicious cycle that just reinforces the boundaries of the communal divides. Commonsense, but not necessarily untrue!

CS

Can you explain sectarianism to us and why it is bad? Social life is always enjoyed within small circles. Cultural expressions seldom extend beyond small groups. Religions and ideologies seldom sway people beyond small band of faithfuls. Political sphere is always littered with factions vying for competing visions. Assortment of nation-states and political parties bred by them turned them into political sects and national sects. Yes. Holier than thou Humanism and secularism too are not different than any of other competing sects. Sects are everywhere, in every sphere. That is why term 'sectarianism' as a universal condemnation of all sects look so illogical. What makes something that so abounds in every sphere to be such a bad thing?

Kerty:

""Can you explain sectarianism to us and why it is bad?""

if you can ask that question, you are are not ready for any reasonable response.

so the brief response below is not for kerty who, as somebody once observed, knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

that humans cannot live outside of groups is commonsensical. that such group boundaries should be seen by self-appointed thekedaars as immutable, set in stone and be used to abuse, taunt, kill, maim, colonize others who do not allegedly belong to that sectarian group, is not commonsensical. this applies not only to the jihadis or hindutvadis, the neo-nazis, the christian coalition etc. etc. etc. and a few more etc., but to any sectarian groups and their thekedaars who cannot survive without stoking, creating and consolidating such divisions.

CS

"group boundaries should be seen by self-appointed thekedaars as immutable, set in stone and be used to abuse, taunt, kill, maim, colonize others who do not allegedly belong to that sectarian group, is not commonsensical"

Can you name one group who has not done it and would not do it in order to protect, preserve, propagate whatever it stands for? Than where is this holier than thou coming from?

If you acknowledge that there are groups who would, as you put it, abuse, taunt, kill, maim, colonize others who do not allegedly belong to that sectarian group, than what should be proper response from victims without them too being brandished as sectarian? Doesn't such definition of sectarianism create moral equivalency between ones who victimize and ones who are victimized by placing them in the same bracket? Does it not turn its votaries into apologists of very things that they publicly seek to decry? Does it not make it convenient for victimizers to go on victimizing and than wear phony masks as anti-sectarian referees? Has it not made the nexus between victimizing sectarians and anti-sectarians a forgone and inevitable reality as can be seen it India? Enemy's enemy is a friend kind of deal.

If we acknowledge that diversity and plurality in the realm of social, cultural, religious, economic, political spheres are inevitable at group as well as national levels, than it is imperative that sectarianism be defined as devices that seek to destroy their harmony and co-existence, one that seeks to turn accommodation of diversity into negation of plurality and diversity.

Chandra:

I have half a mind (half of my pea-brained mind that is!) to further prove to you that I am pea-brained. If you remember, proof postive of my pea-brain is when I begin to argue seriously with the bearer of TRUTH Prophet Kerty. Khush??!

Kerty:

"I visited the La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona last september. I was stunned, but I was also busting for a shit. I was further stunned to find a McDonalds round the corner. I thought, 'What a contrast.' So I left my shit with McDonalds and went back to appreciate art."

The proper response to the shameful episodes re: Shah Bano, Rushdie etc. is to pressure the politicians and the legal system, not to come up with sectarianism of other kinds to allegedly counteract other sectarianisms.

commonsense, would this argument also apply to Islamic terrorists - those who are recruited into jihad because of their poverty and/or real/perceived injustices?

Yes, what you mention is the correct approach, but when such communal acts are done by those who claim to be thekedaars of progressivism/liberalism/secularism/freedom-of-speech in India who also claim a higher moral ground than the Hindutvadis, and do not have to face the consequences of their actions; when those who are critical of Hindutvadi sectarian activities turn a blind eye to the same by others (e.g. criticism in the press of those who terrorised Taslima Nasreen, or those who caused Nandigram, or those who vandalised the Aurangzeb art exhibit in Chennai was either non-existent or was nowhere near the decibel level of criticism of violence in Karnataka or Orissa, or intimidation of MF Husain because of his art) or the criticism is much softer; and there's no viable third front - it's either you or kerty that Chandra and others have to choose from - then it's no surprise that there's a huge gap between theory and practice. If Congress has been rewarded in spite of practicing sectarianism, and continues to indulge in 'Shah Bano and Satanic Verses banning'-type acts even today, then it's hardly surprising if other parties follow in its footsteps.

I also don't see the left in India practice the "let's clean up our own house first before pointing fingers at Hindutvadis" theory which is now being preached in response to any calls for strong action against Pakistan.

Bottom-line: if I have my own standards of secularism, freedom-of-speech/expression etc. which are independent of political parties, then both the left and right come up short, with both of them being selective in their criticisms, though the charge of pseudo-secularism correctly fits the left. If I have to take a side, I'll side with those who care about the country and haven't rejected nationalism in favor of some trans-national utopia guided by either the Little Red Book or Koran.

commonsense,

Reading your comment # 93, it seems to me that you want to hold Hindutvadis at a different and higher standard than the rest of the political parties, or non-Hindutvadi groups. Wouldn't that go against the idea of equality for all, same standards for all? :)

Kaffir:

""commonsense, would this argument also apply to Islamic terrorists - those who are recruited into jihad because of their poverty and/or real/perceived injustices?""

obviously! based on what I wrote and what I stand for (ok, what i grovel for!!)

Kaffir:

""I also don't see the left in India practice the "let's clean up our own house first before pointing fingers at Hindutvadis" theory which is now being preached in response to any calls for strong action against Pakistan.""

I never wanted to be a thekedaar for the left or right, so I'm not sure why this comes up. I am a thekedaar for commonsense, beyond left and right. therefore not quite a thekedaar, since eveyone has or should have commonsense.

Kaffir:

""Reading your comment # 93, it seems to me that you want to hold Hindutvadis at a different and higher standard than the rest of the political parties, or non-Hindutvadi groups.""

Not so. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not yet come across anyone on DC yet, explicitly arguing for Jihad/Islamic fundamentalism, except for transients who write crap and disappear in less than a week. As for those explicitly arguing for so-called "Hindu interests" or even Hindutva (Kerty), the same is no true. If I were on a site that explicitly called for Jihad etc. I would hold them to the same standards. However since Jihadis/Hindutvadis are all birds of the same feather, no amount of reasonging would get thru to them. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether you are a supporter of Hindutva or Jihad or an evangelista...all the same fundamentalist shit, just different label.

However since Jihadis/Hindutvadis are all birds of the same feather, no amount of reasonging would get thru to them. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether you are a supporter of Hindutva or Jihad or an evangelista...all the same fundamentalist shit, just different label.

I'd also add Naxals to the list, or any other ideology - like Communism - that believes in itself as the only global/universal solution.

Kaffir:

""I'd also add Naxals to the list, or any other ideology - like Communism - that believes in itself as the only global/universal solution.""

Kaffir my friend, we are on the same page (except for my pea-brain). I'd add any group prefers to tilt at ideologically infused windmills rather than recognizing the fragility of life, the short span of life we have anyways even if live to a ripe old age. All pies-in-the-sky-before-you-die thekedaars (communism, hindutva, naziism etc.) and after-you-die (jihadism, evangelism, all religious-shittism). For better or for worse, we were born and some of us (i don't exclude myself from this self-righteous stricture) insist on fucking up our own and everybody's else's happiness. Normal life itself is a challenge and sometimes a bundle of horrors, but some of us, strive to make it far worse than it is - whether by dreaming of 72 virgins in the alleged next life or a delusional perfect hindu / communist nation in this life. All products of the same delusional crap, despite the variations in details. Thekedaars of each delusion (take your pick) will always justify their crap by citing their so-called victimhood.

nice discussions going here. topic has been forgotten but...

From the Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Court_should_provide_a_lawyer_to_Kasab_CJI/articleshow/3909996.cms

The bloody mayhem of 26/11 may have been a reason to touch the raw nerves of Mumbai lawyers who refused to represent the lone surviving terrorist AjmalAmir Kasab, but by doing so they actually might be harming the interest of the nation in securing his conviction for the carnage, feels Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The CJI, speaking to TOI from Tel Aviv in Israel where he on an official visit, was clearly of the view that if Kasab did not get a lawyer to defend himself, then he has a fair chance of getting acquitted in the higher courts on the ground that the trial was vitiated as he could not present his case properly.

"Somebody should represent him in the courts. He cannot go unrepresented during the trial. If he does, then under our justice delivery system it would be regarded as a vitiated trial," he warned.

The refusal of advocate Dinesh Mohta, who was chosen from among the lawyers empanelled in the State Legal Aid Committee, to represent Kasab after Shiv Sena activists violently expressed their protest against legal aid to the Pakistani may not be the end of the road for the accused.

For, Justice Balakrishnan is a firm believer in Article 22 of the Constitution, which provides that no arrested person "shall be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice".

To fulfil this constitutional mandate, the CJI says, the trial court would do well to appoint a lawyer to defend Kasab. It is now the onerous task of the trial court to scout for a proper lawyer, either from the legal community or from those empanelled in the State Legal Aid Committee.

The CJI's views are similar to those of celebrated criminal law expert Ram Jethmalani, who had earlier quoted Bar Council of India rules to highlight an express bar on advocates to refuse to represent an accused, even if he was a foreigner.

In an authoritative ruling in Suk Das Vs UT of Arunachal Pradesh [1986 SCC (2) 401], a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that "the right to free legal service is a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal service on account of reasons, such as poverty, indigence or incummunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of the justice so require, provided, of course, the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer."

"It would make a mockery of legal aid if it were to be left to a poor ignorant and illiterate accused to ask for free legal services. Legal aid would become merely a paper promise and it would fail of its purpose," it had said.

So Kasab's letter to the Pakistan High Commission in Delhi seeking legal aid and the latter's refusal on the ground that he has not yet proved himself to be a Pakistani, will not come in the way of the trial court to find a lawyer for the 26/11 accused.

Somik

"...by doing so they actually might be harming the interest of the nation in securing his conviction for the carnage, feels Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan."

This idiot is a liberal judicial activist. Activists like him have made a complete stink out of India's legal system. That is why aam adami have lost faith in constitution, laws and courts. The bafoon thinks terrorism can be and should be handled thru garbage heap of current laws and judicial system. He is so blinkered he can't see harm to the interests of nation by setting a subversive legal precedents of trying war criminals/suspects thru civilian laws and courts.

Kerty on Chief Justice Balakrishnan:

"This idiot is a liberal judicial activist. Activists like him have made a complete stink out of India's legal system. That is why aam adami have lost faith in constitution, laws and courts. The bafoon thinks terrorism can be and should be handled thru garbage heap of current laws and judicial system. He is so blinkered he can't see harm to the interests of nation by setting a subversive legal precedents of trying war criminals/suspects thru civilian laws and courts."

[Tongue firmly in my cheeks, not Kerty's since he loves gays too much] I nominate Kerty as the next Chief Justice. His amazing knowledge of how to run bars, pubs, motels, submarine joints, is all we need to set the ailing [tongue in cheek again, but this time in Kerty's cheeks...UGH! Splutter, choke!!!#$$%%%*] Indian judiciary right.

Hey Somik,

I visited your blog, and was really impressed by your statement (particularly since I like my drink, but not just because of that!)

""There are those on the left and then there are those on the right. There are also those who are neither on the left nor on the right. I am in a separate category. I will drink from the left and I will also drink from the right. As will I drink from those who aren't in either. I am a drunkard. I drink from the cup of life.""

Keep up the good work!! (not that you need encouragement!)

Here's a person who should definitely be allowed to meet Kasab:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/give-access-to-kasab-for-credibility-to-confessions/404986/

cs, that was written at a time when I decided to reject polarized positions like most others were doing in front of me. I thought it very harmful to put on ideological blinders.

Have had some interesting experiences after that, when I was asked to describe social entrepreneurship to a local Andhra channel. It struck me then, that social entrepreneurship took the best of socialism (caring for community) and capitalism (freedom of the individual) and left the worst out (coercion and greed respectively).

I'm with Kerty's comment #5

It is okay for those who have not lost a dear one to a terror strike to sit back and theorise; and wax eloquent about human rights.

R.Sajan:

"It is okay for those who have not lost a dear one to a terror strike to sit back and theorise; and wax eloquent about human rights."

thanks for the permission. and when you have a moment, do enlighten us on what exactly it is that you are doing about it. we can all see that you not waxing eloquent about human rights, but have you joined some animal rights organization that does not care if you syntactically butcher sentences? as long as you don't butcher animals? do let us know!

Good news - the national newspapers have started picking this up.

The Hindustan Times has a well-researched article:
Justice for all, even Kasab

This is from NYT - some details of what's in the dossier that was given to Pakistan by Indian authorities: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/asia/07india.html?_r=1&ref=world

Somik

Can you give us the synopsis of research you found in the article?

kaffir, your article is more relevant here:
India, Pakistan and the Future

kerty, sorry, you will have to take the trouble to read the article yourself.

Somik

I HAVE read the article and didn't think much of it. That is why I wanted your take on the article. What is that you found well-researched and noteworthy in it?

I can't agree more with the Dawn Editorial. All that matters in India is political stakes. The fucking Manmohan singh has balls to give dossier to Pakistan and claim Victory. But will terror be removed. How can you blame Pakistan of terror when we ourselves are wanting to make political money of the issue.

I again repeat the enemy is within us not in Pakistan. The power greed in our leaders has more terror content.
The simplest way to attack Pakistan is to launch airstikes into Pakistan area whenever terror occurs
or
To call Pakistan a terrorist state?

actually none will help. The only way is recognise it is a new war and intercept terrorist before they attack us.

http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/07/ed.htm

Upping the ante


INDIA'S intentions are now clear. Our neighbour to the east is interested more in maligning Pakistan internationally than finding a solution to the current stand-off. It could even be argued that bringing to book those who orchestrated the Mumbai assault does not really top New Delhi's list of priorities, for there are wheels within wheels. India seems to be interested in one thing alone: isolating Pakistan in the global arena. Why would India want to pursue such a course? More than one explanation comes to mind. Not satisfied with the fact that it is already the region's hegemon, India desires official -- read western -- endorsement of this reality. The upcoming elections in India must also be taken into account because Pakistan-bashing is the most convenient way for the Congress party to steal the BJP's thunder and gloss over the Indian state's massive security lapses in Mumbai. Although Prime Minister Manmohan Singh admitted on Tuesday that there is a problem on the security front, he was quick to divert the blame to regional actors. India may also be drumming up international support to have Pakistan declared a terrorist state. If that were to happen, there would be calls for stripping Pakistan of its nuclear capability, much to India's satisfaction and to the detriment of the balance of terror.

For a while it seemed that tensions were easing but India has been upping the ante in recent days. Originally it was said that the Mumbai attackers had 'links' with Pakistan. Then New Delhi shifted the focus from non-state to state actors, and on Tuesday Manmohan Singh opted for an all-out assault, alleging that Pakistan "uses terrorism as an instrument of state policy." He further claimed, without putting on the table the evidence India claims to have gathered, that "given the sophistication and military precision of the attack it must have had the support of some official agencies in Pakistan." This statement has changed the equation completely. Islamabad's attitude thus far has been conciliatory and this must not change. However, Tuesday's tirade deserves a measured yet strong riposte.

New Delhi has handed over a dossier of 'information' or 'evidence' and it is in the fitness of things that Islamabad peruses the same to verify the Indian 'findings'. If the dossier contains any actionable intelligence, appropriate measures should be taken because that is in our own interest more than anybody else's. For its part, India must realise the inherent absurdity of its demands. On the one hand it claims that Pakistan "uses terrorism as an instrument of state policy." At the same time India wants the state of Pakistan to take action against those who masterminded the Mumbai attacks. This makes no sense and cannot serve as the basis for a working relationship.

Dawn: "India may also be drumming up international support to have Pakistan declared a terrorist state. If that were to happen, there would be calls for stripping Pakistan of its nuclear capability, much to India's satisfaction and to the detriment of the balance of terror."

What is this 'balance of terror'? I am sure it should have read as 'balance of power'. But Pakistan seems to equate it as balance of terror. That explains why Pakistan uses policy of terror to create balance of power. It views terror as an equalizer. Now what would you call a state that uses terrorism to create balance of power? We call it a terrorist state.

Why can't Pakistan just be Pakistan and go on minding its own house? Why must it seek parity of anything with India? And at what cost? Even at the risk of turning into a Jehadi terrorist state? A Jehadi can't rest until it wipes out its enemy. It shows its psychopath fixation with India. It begs to be put out of its misery.

Kerty:

"Dawn"

Yawn. (One day no doubt, commonsense will dawn on him...until then...yawn)

Kerty,

Your comments don't seem to have any connection to this post - which is about making sure every accused person in India gets legal assistance.

What Pakistan does to India has nothing to do with our decision to uphold a certain standard of values in our society.

When I said the article was well-researched, I meant the journalist taking the trouble to find legal precedents where the courts have very clearly asked for legal rights to be given to those under trial.

Unless you have arguments against a legal system that gives legal rights to undertrials, I suggest you post your comments to India, Pakistan and the Future which is where I think most of your comments belong.

Somik to Kerty:

"Kerty,

Your comments don't seem to have any connection to this post "

that's a dramatic improvement! usually his comments, like himself, are totally unhinged from the world, not just the particular thread he happens to disengage with.

But then, since when were prophets expected to take notice of mundane issues such as the rule of law etc?

Somik

My comment #120 was in response to Dawn article posted in #119. And it is very related to how India must deal with terrorists.

And that is precisely what is missing in your commentary on this whole thread, including the well-researched article you touted - how must India deal with terrorists.

You and HT Article has been citing constitutional provisions dealing with civilian rights as if we are dealing with a civilian and acts of crime. Nobody is questioning the right of the accused to have fair trial and due process. That is hardly rocket science or research. So why is that part of the debate? What is being disputed is that if these civilian rights should be extended to enemy combatants and acts of war. By granting full civilian rights and constitutional civilian protections to enemy combatants and acts of war, Jehadi activists are seeking to demote acts of war as petty crimes and enemy combatants as civilians. Once terrorists are put thru our legal system, Jehadi activists know all the tricks how to subvert evidence, witnesses and verdicts, and even if somebody were to get convicted, they know how to build conspiracy theories and thwart the court verdict. What Pakistan is seen playing for media will get enacted as courtroom drama. We know the endgame.

Now Pakistan will need to defend Kasab surely. Surely they need to give consular access to Kasab. Or will India need more prodging towards this as well.

http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/10/ed.htm#2
Kasab and Durrani
MAKING a mountain out of every molehill appears to be the federal government's speciality. The confirmation that Ajmal Kasab is Pakistani should not have created a controversy; Kasab's nationality was an open secret and as early as Dec 12 this paper published a detailed account of a meeting with an elderly man in Faridkot who claimed to be Kasab's father. But the bungled announcement, subsequent denials and then confirmations, and the sacking of National Security Adviser Mehmud Durrani shone a spotlight on the disarray at the apex of decision-making. What can be gleaned from the news thus far is this: the intelligence agencies confirmed to the government that Kasab is a Pakistani; the decision about when and how to announce Kasab's nationality was left to the government; and the government was preparing to make an announcement when Dawn News broke the story of official confirmation of Kasab's nationality. What happened next is a classic tale of bumbling officialdom, culminating in Prime Minister Gilani summarily firing Gen (retd) Durrani.

The incident has raised fresh questions about the government's ability to keep its top officials on the same page at the same time. Once Kasab's nationality had been determined, why did the government not chalk out a clear plan for making an announcement and share it with every official likely to face questions from the media? And once Mehmud Durrani pre-empted the government and shared the information on Kasab with the media, what was to be gained by dismissing him on the spot? In principle, the prime minister has every right to dismiss anyone in his government who has lost his confidence. But it is odd to fire the national security adviser for causing 'embarrassment' to the PM by stating the truth. In doing so, Mr Gilani has sent an unfortunate signal that the messenger is more important than the message. Surely the focus should have been on demonstrating Pakistan's seriousness to the outside world in investigating local links to the Mumbai attacks. Instead, the big story became petty score-settling at the expense of the national interest. The sensible thing to have done was to quickly arrange a press conference on the Kasab information and punish the national security adviser for his indiscretion at a later date. Unfortunately, the failure of good sense has led to the inevitable: frenzied speculation about rifts between the president and the PM and between the security establishment and the government.

January 13, 2009
Editorial from the NY Times
How other countries fare legally. Or re humanity for that matter. What wld Pak/Israel/ US/UK have done with a Kasab equivalent?

Perhaps he shld live with the Karkares and see what pain and sorrow terrorism brings.

Re kasab wearing a holy thread/Hindu symbol, the Kandahar hijacker called himself Shankar, while preaching Islam to terrified hijacked passengers.

Isalmic warfare routinely has traditionally used the other sides symbols/uniforms as a weapon to create confusion. eg

Soldiers who violate human rights in Kashmir when caught have diff from the Hindu ones stitched on their Indian army uniforms. Kashmiri villages have been threatened that unless they say the Indian army did this wicked thing, they will be targeted.


Excerpts from NY Times

A young woman from Pakistan describes humiliating conditions at a detention center in Elizabeth, N.J., where she was sent with her mother and ailing father.


Families like theirs have endured a relentless campaign of intimidation and expulsion, organized at the top levels of the federal government and haphazardly delegated to state and local governments.

The campaign has been disproportionate and cruel. The evidence is everywhere.

On Monday, The Times reported that federal immigration prosecutions had soared in the last five years, with misdemeanor cases of illegal border crossers, who are tried and sentenced in groups of 40 to 60 for efficiency. At the same time, prosecutions for weapons, organized crime, public corruption and drugs have plummeted. The Arizona attorney general called the situation "a national abdication by the Justice Department."

Last week, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, declared that immigrants do not have the constitutional right to a lawyer in a deportation hearing and no right to appeal on the grounds of bad legal representation. He overturned a decades-old practice designed to ensure constitutional protection for immigrants -- one needed now more than ever in the days of Bush's assembly-line prosecutions.

It could be a difficult case to make.

But the United States cannot put immigration on a back burner and continue with the existing enforcement regime.

The costs are too high for the economy.

Workers are terrorized into submission, families destroyed by deportation and violent raids, and more likely to tolerate low pay and miserable job conditions.

Restoring proportion and good sense to the criminal justice system would free resources for fighting serious crimes. Repairing a system warped by political priorities into hunting down and punishing the wrong people -- would remind us of who we are.

IF the pimp Ramalinga Raju can be defended in India and still hide from SEBI investigation being in CID custody, why is Kasab an exception.

If Kasab killed people physically, Ramalingaraju killed people morally, what is the difference.

Ramalingaraju does not face a death sentence.
Kasab does.

Ramalingaraju has a Hindu lawyer Bharat
Kasab did not even meet anyone despite he was held longtime

Ramalingaraju did the crime for decades. Kasab committed the crime for few weeks and prepared for years.

Ramalingaraju did the crime for greed. Kasab did the crime for ?, whatever

Ramalingaraju is not a traitor but but his actions label all Indian corporates are potential traitors. Kasab is a fallout of India Pakistan historical problems.

Ramalingaraju is still protected in jails because of his money and political connections and he still wants to live.
Kasab is being protected in jails because he is a political tool to be used.

Ramalingarju is a Indian, che!
Kasab is a firangi in desiland.

Slime Id

What a rant!! Why didn't the Pakistani embassy provide Kasab legal support?

Chandra,

Why did Andhra Government not provide SEBI access to Raju? What stops it?