The last
week of July 2015 was marked by two prominent deaths which got almost the whole
nation united and divided. Like the proverbial blind men trying to feel and describe
the elephant, many got into debating about various aspects of the two incidents,
raising many questions that I doubt would ever get sensibly debated
and resolved.
On July
27th former President and Bharat Ratna, APJ Abdul Kalam died doing
what he loved doing best – teaching young students of IIM, Shillong, stirring
the collective emotion of the nation. The people’s President, who had made
every Indian proud with his monk-like lifestyle and for giving the nation the
technological edge as a deterrent against two of our potentially hostile
neighbours; and the other Yakub Memon, acting as the stooge of the state-sponsored disruptive elements from our western neighbourhood, was instrumental
in the killing and maiming close to thousand people in the 1993 Mumbai Serial
Bomb Blast a few days later on July 30th.
What
made both these two deaths prominent are the similarities and the extreme dissimilarities
of their deed and deaths. While both of them hailed from the minority community,
the former while referred to as a pride, and the latter was a national shame. While
the former died a sudden death while on the job the latter was executed by the
state after a protracted investigative and legal process running into more than
two decades. While the former’s death surprised everybody because of its
suddenness the latter’s death hung by a thread even till the last few hours
before his scheduled death early morning giving many a sitting on the edge of
the seat experiences.
These
two consecutive incidents got the whole nation reacting to it in a way, what
the argumentative Indians do best turning it into ‘A Great Indian Debate Show’.
The social media was fully engaged and the usual night vigil and protest
marches added the necessary drama. Debates and comments expectedly turned into
personal fights on communal lines many times questioning the debaters’
credentials and motives.
Before the
passion subsides and the cacophony dies and the debating net warriors sharpen
their logic and motives for the next debate; it’s necessary to document the
various issues that came up for debate with regard to each incident.
APJ Abdul Kalam:
While mourning his death, his simple monk-like lifestyle, and his leadership quality were remembered; epithets like ‘ Bharat Ratna’, ‘Peoples’
President’, ‘Missile Man’, and ‘Rocketman’ were liberally used and the phrase RIP
was turned into ‘Return if you Please’ by those who could not accept his sudden
departure.
Many enjoyed the holiday declared when the news of his death
spread, and few wanted to add an additional working day as he always desired others
to do to commemorate his death.
Many saw him as the Nationalist face of Indian Muslims as the
majority would like to see the members of the minority community as but few
liberals saw him as the poster boy of NDA government who nominated him to this
highest position to add credibility to their secular credentials.
Many saw him as a National pride for his contribution to
nuclearizing India and the subsequent development of delivery vehicles. In contrast, few left-liberals saw him as a bloodthirsty mass murderer of humanity.
He was remembered for his opposition to the death penalty but
few chose to bring out his hypocrisy when he hadn’t opposed Dhananjaya
Chatterjee’s death penalty.
So heated was the debate that his tenure got compared
with his successor's achievement in terms of ‘Issuing Presidential Pardons’.
There was a flurry of suggestions and announcements to rename
institutions and flagship govt schemes, but few stirred the hornets’ nest by
suggesting renaming Aurangzeb Marg in New Delhi after him.
Yakub Memon:
The sole trophy of the Indian Investigative agency’s fight
against state-sponsored terror was awaiting justice for two decades and the
Supreme Court's last-minute refusal to accept his mercy petition and his
subsequent hanging kickstarted a tornado in the airwaves and social media.
People like Asaduddin Owaisi with their firm eye on wrenching
out the Muslim votes prior to the SC judgment had made a public statement
about the unfairness of executing Memon, even if his complicity in the crime was
never denied. True to his statements many from the community pointed their
finger at the Punjab and Tamil convicts who are enjoying the state support in
delaying the penalty. But surprisingly Azam Khan of the Samajwadi party warned Muslims not to stand behind Yakub and not to communalise the incident.
Many legal and prominent personalities voiced their
dissatisfaction over the highest court's judgment. Anticipating threat to the
judges involved in the midnight hearing, security was increased for them
reminiscent of a court compound scene in Pakistan.
Many saw the reasonability of the death penalty as it is within
the constitutional framework, few humanists saw the futility of such a severe
penalty in reducing crime and didn’t stop at describing the supporting group as a bloodthirsty crowd who preferred macabre and blood.
Some saw the long judicial procedure as akin to torture and
inhuman as compared to quick summary trials or encounters (sic) and some saw it
as the robustness of the Indian Judiciary in terms of its provisions to give fair
trials to one and all.
Some saw Yakub as the effect of the tyranny of the majoritarian over the minorities in terms of fairness, many saw this as the progressive radicalisation
which has reached Arabic proportions.
There
is no denial of the fact that never in the history of Indian investigative and
judiciary systems, such open challenges were thrown at them to prove the
tenability of their adopted procedures and their impartiality. There were robust
statistics to prove their point. This is a threat to the age-old holy cows which
remained untouched by the stakeholders. So entrenched was their unassailability
that mere criticism from people from across communities seemed like a mutiny.
But the
state and the multi-cultural multi-lingual populace stand to gain if this
development is seen as an opportunity by the government. There is a vast scope of
opportunity to correct the deficiencies within the system to remove the biases
if any and introduce modern scientific crime investigation procedures which
would make the implication straight and not circumstantial.
The
voice of perceived unfairness brewing within the minority community shouldn’t be
ignored; care should be taken to bring them to the mainstream to renew their faith
in the established systems. Alienation of that community will only support the
recruitment drive of the likes of ISIS.