The Great Indian Debate Show

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 27^th 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 30^th.

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.