Kudos to Arundhati Roy for giving us an illuminating, well-researched piece (‘And his life should become extinct’, Oct 30). Afzal is probably paying the price for being an ordinary Kashmiri Muslim with no friends or powerful politicians to back him. However, if Arundhati does feel as strongly against the hanging as she writes, why didn’t she and others in the S.A.R. Geelani defence committee ensure Afzal got at least reasonable representation in the courts of law?
Rajesh Datta, Mhow
I’m an Indian citizen working as a senior lawyer in the London offices of a major American law firm. Ms Roy’s article does an eloquent job of highlighting how difficult it is for the rule of law to triumph when issues of personal freedom are grossly politicised. Inherent to the concept of rule of law are procedural fairness and the crucial element of reciprocity between ruler and ruled. Afzal Guru’s legal treatment seems to have lacked these very basic elements that constitute the edifice of any just legal system.
Abesh Choudhury, London
Ms Roy’s contention that India is an occupying power in Kashmir beggars belief. The Hindu Kashmiris, who have almost all fled, might be a trifle piqued to be told this about their homeland. This otherwise courageous article is diminished by the obvious bias that renders suspect and toothless the seriousness of its various charges.
K. Kitchlu, Mysore
Thank you, Arundhati, for your amazing work. I have nothing significant to say or add, just heartfelt gratitude.
Shashi Thandra, Detroit, US
Arundhati’s careful piecing together of the Afzal case is an indictment of the shoddiness of our investigating agencies and the unscrupulousness of our media. It seems no one really wants to know what actually happened. They are all content to find a scapegoat and make a show of justice having been done and a lesson taught to ‘Kashmiri terrorists’. And as in most such cases, they have caught hold of a socially, politically vulnerable man. The attack was not the act of one individual. So, how can this ritual exorcising be the response of a modern democratic society?
Nikhila H., Pondicherry
Great piece. If there’s even an iota of truth in what Arundhati says, a parliamentary inquiry should be instituted forthwith. Justice is the hallmark of our nation; let it be seen to be done.
Ali Naqi Desnavi, Bhopal
Arundhati’s is a very disturbing account of what most probably happened. More disturbing is that the "free" media refuses to ask these questions. The politicians don’t care—they never did—but if the media slips up in highlighting the lacunae in our "free and fair" judiciary, then the common man has no hope.
P. Malhotra, New York
It’s a pity the author of God of Small Things has metamorphosed into Our Lady of Eternal Petulance. It has become quite tiring to read Arundhati’s constant diatribes against the Indian State in support of her pretentious, faux-liberal ideology. After reading yet another self-indulgent exercise in purple prose by Ms Roy, I want to ask her: what’s the point of her article? That Afzal wasn’t involved at all? That it was actually the Indian government and security agencies who tricked him into "a context that is devastating"? Or that there are no "practising militants" in India; only Indian security apparatchiks controlling a large number of aggrieved freedom fighters to open up a "chasm of terrifying possibilities"?
D. K. Sardana, on e-mail
Of Ms Roy’s many assertions, none is more deplorable than this: "Killing people and falsely identifying them as foreign terrorists is not uncommon among security forces". To put your life on the line every day for a few thousand rupees for ungrateful fellow citizens is something a soldier in Kashmir doesn’t need to do except due to the nature of his training and his commitment to his duty and his country.
Col G. Krishnaswamy, Noida
Arundhati Roy’s report is really a strange story of how our law enforcement and judicial process work. As a lawyer based in NY, I continue to be appalled at the lack of due process in judicial decision-making. It’s amazing that in Afzal’s case the judicial system, for the "rarest of the rare" punishments, of death, apparently overlooked evidentiary holes and denied the accused timely and adequate legal counsel. Where is the hurry to hang?
Jaipat S. Jain, New York
While I believe the investigation in the Parliament attack case was far from satisfactory, and that 90 per cent of all ‘encounters’ by the special cell are fake, I do find it tough to disregard the verdict of the Supreme Court with the ease which seems to come so naturally to Ms Roy. Considering that out of the four accused, only Afzal was given the death penalty, I’d say give the apex court the benefit of the doubt.
Raghav Chopra, on e-mail
Kudos to Arundhati for coming to Afzal’s defence when the courts have failed him. If L.K. Advani, the mastermind in the sordid Babri Masjid demolition, went unpunished, why should Afzal, who played only a peripheral role in the Parliament attack, face the gallows? If the US army is the cause of death and destruction in Iraq, Indian security agencies are the cause of mayhem in j&k.
P.R. Kandikkal, Mumbai
In a civilised society like Switzerland, even the thought of judicial killing of a criminal is considered barbaric. And even if it isn’t in India, is it Afzal who should be hanged or the likes of George Fernandes and Natwar Singh?
Saraswathi, Zurich
What purpose will hanging Afzal achieve? It certainly won’t strike fear in the heart of other terrorists since life has little value for them anyway.
Gauri, Hyderabad
Arundhati’s provided enough material for the commuting of Afzal’s sentence. There is, however, a factual error in her representation of facts. When the case commenced in the Patiala courts before Judge Dhingra at the designated pota court, the bar there was very hostile to any arrangements for defence of the accused. But then a few friends from Delhi asked if I’d appear. I agreed and went to Delhi to conduct this trial up to the end. I was engaged to appear for Shaukat Guru. Seema Gulati, Nandita Haksar and Vrinda Grover were already appearing for S.A.R. Geelani. Nitya Ramakrishnan had filed her appearance for Afsan Guru. So far as Afzal was concerned, a raw junior was appointed as a State Brief Counsel. Sadly, the judge too was hostile. The order of the learned judge, passed in the arguments before framing the charge, predicted the fate of the case. It’s incorrect to say I was part of the defence committee for Geelani. In fact, I opposed the formation of such a committee for Geelani alone because it could lead to the inference that the others were guilty. Instead, the defence committee should’ve been formed for all the accused because the evidence really wasn’t sufficient to pronounce any of them guilty; those who were have already been shot. Afzal has been the victim of an extremely unfair trial; for that reason alone this death sentence should not be carried out.
K.G. Kannabiran, National President, PUCL
I hold Ms Roy to her own standards of accuracy in reporting. She accuses the media—presumably those sections of it that don’t quite wash her feet as Outlook does— of "lying" in the case of S.A.R. Geelani. But what about her own "suppression" of vital facts? She writes: "On the first day of the trial, the lawyer appointed by the trial court judge agreed to accept Afzal’s identification of the bodies and the post-mortem reports as undisputed evidence without formal proof!" And who was this lawyer the trial court appointed? None other than Seema Gulati. That isn’t all. Six weeks later, Gulati quit to take up the defence of—hold your breath—S.A.R. Geelani. Why was a lawyer good enough for Geelani not good enough for Afzal? The strange story doesn’t end here. After Gulati quit, the court appointed one Neeraj Bansal to represent Afzal. Who was this Neeraj Bansal? He is the deputy of Seema Gulati. Her junior partner.
R. Chauhan, S.F. Bay Area, US
Ever since the sentence, I’ve been expecting this. Thank God, the storm’s come to pass and we survived.
K.N. Shrivastav, Nagpur
Is Arundhati hoping to do an Emile Zola in l’affaire Dreyfus? That’s what I call delusions of grandeur!
Akhil Rahul, Chicago, US
Outlook’s zeal in promoting Arundhati is astonishing. Is the magazine an appellate court higher than the apex court for her to file a 9,323-word petition through it? Was she in hibernation when the apex court was hearing Afzal’s case? It’s still not too late. The courts can hear her arguments in a review petition. But what if they still uphold their verdict?
M.C. Joshi, Lucknow
Just curious. Arundhati’s research must have needed considerable support. Would she care to reveal her source or quantum of funds?
Sudhir Jatar, Pune
I firmly believe capital punishment is important. But so is a fair trial. Our worry shouldn’t be the punishment given to Afzal, but if he’s guilty at all.
S.S.A. Jafri, Kheri, UP
The apex court reduced the sentence of the others, didn’t it? By not doing so in Afzal’s case, it has established he is guilty. So what’s the fuss about?
A. Vani, Bangalore
Not all of Roy’s wordly skill can save a criminal.
Prasad M., Deerfield, US
After ploughing through 16 pages, all I want to know is: is an attack on Parliament a crime for Ms Roy at all?
Suman, Harrisburg, US
Whatever happens to Afzal will happen to him not because of but in spite of Arundhati and her 16 pages of wasted breath.
Jitendra Desai, Surat
Don’t Hang Afzal. There’s much against it. Our criminal retribution system (euphemistically called the criminal justice system) is skewed. It’s very difficult to call Afzal’s trial a fair one. In fact, he was tried more by the media, a trend that has become the bane of modern democracies. Granting Afzal clemency doesn’t mean he’s innocent or that he’s redeemed of his crime (if any at all). The Constitution has vested powers of granting pardon on the basis of ministerial advice so that some extra-judicial considerations—socio-political or national and international exigencies—can be taken into account. In our Anglo-Saxon system of criminal justice, as opposed to the continental system—the judges have a passive role and cannot go beyond what is argued by both sides. And the police, prosecution and defence are interested in an outcome in favour of one or the other party.
Vinita A. Dighe, Kutch
Don’t Hang Afzal. Hang Vinod and Arundhati.
D.K. Sardana, on e-mail
Champion of the downtrodden. Heroine of the minorities. Arundhati seems to have made a habit of waking up from her slumber periodically and frothing at the mouth against anyone or anything that evokes maximum public reaction. She’s a half-famous rabble-rouser, nothing more. Vinod Mehta must really hate his subscribers to inflict such punishment on them.
Robin Sathaye, on e-mail
Ha, another shot at the Pulitzer by Ms Roy. That’s the way to win it if you’re of Indian origin: condemn India, its people.
Ajay, Mumbai
Roy’s piece ran like a John Grisham novel. Only she is peddling hard facts.
K.C. Kumar, Bangalore
Please take full advantage of David Godwin being in India (Profile, Oct 30), sell Arundhati’s monumental work to him, and see what happens. You’ll win the Nobel Peace, Roy for literature. Needless to say, my advice is free. I do not accept commissions either.
M.S. Tanuja, Vishakapatnam
As an ordinary citizen, I expect our judiciary to at least examine all evidence, confirming as well as conflicting, objectively and impartially, rather than pass such a harsh sentence on the basis of a hypothesis only half proved. The attack on Parliament is a heinous crime, but how do you prove anything about it when you’ve killed the actual perpetrators and are nailing scapegoats to prove your theory they were foreign terrorists and part of a conspiracy? Arundhati’s write-up also reinforces my doubts about the integrity of the media—print and television—since their main objective seems to be to sensationalise news with half-truths or plain lies to keep up in the race for readership.
G.L. Karkal, Pune
These award-winning society socialists who have fun baiting Bush, Blair and their countries are becoming a law unto themselves, aided by their friends in the media. They’ll do well to remember Socrates, who chose to drink poison even if it meant obeying an unjust law. Obviously, he lived what he preached. People like Arundhati just confuse people with the rhetory of what T.S. Eliot hailed as Grand Nothings. Her claim that if Afzal is hanged to death, the truth about the Parliament attack will never be known logically means Afzal knew something about the attack and was responsible too.
Sharinagesh M., Chennai
As a student of journalism hoping to enter the profession, I read Arundhati’s essay with distress. Why did we need her to write this? Because our media—print or electronic —failed to deliver. It was left to her to tell a story they failed to tell in four long years.
S.K. Bose, Hyderabad
Wonder why the media’s adept only at post-mortems? Where were they when Afzal’s alleged torture was taking place?
Ashok Bohara, on e-mail
Arundhati’s but a petty attention-grabber who needs an occasional cause to boost her as literati. Assuming there’s substance to her conspiracy theory, why is upa mum about it? Wouldn’t it jump at this dynamite 10 times more explosive than Bofors to blow up the nda with?
R.K. Ravi, Denver, US
Is Arundhati saying the entire Parliament attack was stage-managed? Why is it that every action of the nda is subjected to so much scorn? Do they have nothing to say in their defence? Or do we return to a unipolar political system?
Bindu Tandon, Mumbai
The bjp’s made a fine art of creating mischief, then blaming Muslims for it. A few months back, Bajrang Dal workers died in Maharashtra while making bombs but there’s been no investigation. Then, an explosion at Uma Bharati’s house was blamed on the Muslims, but it turned out that the bombs that had exploded had been kept in her house! Muslims are a handy punching bag for the rss. Such exposures as Ms Roy’s are our only hope.
Nasar S., Raleigh, US
Being anti-establishment is so cool. As long as democratic regimes like India or England don’t call for your head, it’s easy to stand up to them. Throw more mud. Defend any crook, worm or vermin the courts deem fit for punishment. Hang the circumstantial evidence—the kind that led to the hanging of Narayan Apte for plotting Gandhi’s assassination. Now that she’s started on that road, perhaps she’ll work towards a posthumous pardon for Apte?
Jayraj Krishnan, Dubai
What next? A few pages of retrospective campaign against the death sentence of Nathuram Godse? He has left behind enough material. She can start from where he left and add some eloquent twists of her own. Like how Nehru was confronted with several problems after Partition and how this was an interesting diversion.
K.V. Jayan, Chennai
It’s sad to see even the only intelligent person in India think the five men were there to attack Parliament. They actually thought they had Diwali guns, wanted to show them to the PM and so came to Parliament, in which place they accidentally went off killing all those stupid men who were around.
Jeyaraj S., Chennai
With friends like Arundhati, do we need Pakistan?
Rajeev Sinha, Gurgaon
Apropos So Many Slugs... (Oct 30), our defence establishment must shed its ‘deer-caught-in-the-headlights’ posture and take immediate steps towards putting in place a ‘middleman-proof’ system for defence purchases. We can ill afford more delays. Hopefully, a new defence minister means a fresh mind and a solution to an issue that has vexed policymakers for long.
Kumar Narang, on e-mail
‘Paki’ Shankar Jha (Manmohan W. Bush?, Oct 30) never makes sense. Everyone knows Manmohan Singh is smart and that a speech doesn’t make a war. He doesn’t have the guts to attack Pakistan. As far as Bush is concerned, I respect him for what he’s done under trying circumstances. It’s time Jha crossed the LoC. I’d pay for a one-way ticket.
A. Sathe, Kendall Park, US
We must raise the ‘price of terrorism’, only then will the bearded ones there get the message. Unfortunately, Manmohan doesn’t have the cojones to do anything.
G.N. Seetharam, Melbourne
Apropos Domino Effect, Oct 23, North Korea’s N-test came about only because of Pakistan. If the US was sincere, it would have taken action against our neighbour. And why blame North Korea? With a marauding superpower around, every country has the right to all the help it can get. Would the US have attacked Iraq if Saddam had nukes?
S.P. Sharma, Mumbai
As we progress, so do we regress (Gobind’s Shorn Flock, Oct 23). The problem is not just for Sikhs, even Brahmins now hardly follow the rituals of ‘Yagyo-pavit sanskar’. Press button to modernise, western culture told us. We’re now seeing the true picture.
Pradeep Sharma, Mumbai
Compliments on the story, Go Home Teddy, Oct 30. As a child in North India, I used to weep whenever I saw the way these majestic animals were made to suffer. Bears are adorable, intelligent animals who have been abused by qalandars for centuries. The great part is that by rehabilitating the latter, wsos is tackling the root of this evil—poverty.
Brinda Upadhyaya, Mumbai
It’s a pity. Both bear and tiger are Schedule I animals but most ngos are only concerned about the tiger. Guess that’s where the money is. PS: is the ABRF open to visitors?
Deepali Singh, on e-mail
It’s not formally open to public. You can call wsos at 9810114563 to arrange visits.
Mr Mehta’s edit in the anniversary issue (Wonderland’s Warts, Oct 16) reminded me of Dr Ambedkar’s closing speech in the Constituent Assembly (Nov 25, 1949). "What does social democracy mean?... How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril."
Deepak K. Thakur, Delhi
I’ve been reading all the stories about Gandhian fervour gripping India. Are we, as usual, hooking on to the symbols rather than his teachings? How disappointed do you think Gandhi would be if he learned what India is doing with salt? I’m referring to the ban on natural salt by the government, saying the addition of iodine to this everyday item is the most effective way combating deficiency. When only an estimated 2 per cent of India’s population suffers from iodine deficiency, why compel the remaining 98 per cent to consume iodised salt? To benefit a few manufacturers? Apart from taking away our right to choose, mandatory administration of excess iodine could lead to serious repercussions. Iodised salt is not as essential and safe as it’s being made out to be. As early as 1977, W. Martindale in The Extra Pharmacopoeia concluded that "continued administration of iodine is known to lead to mental depression, nervousness, insomnia, impotence, myxoedema and goitre". A recent survey in Ernakulam district in Kerala found that 22 per cent of adults still suffer from thyroid dysfunctions despite 97.5 per cent of the district’s population using iodised salt.
Sumathi Jayaraman, London
What we’re seeing is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg (Car, Caviar and a 4-BR, Oct 30). Now youth in their 20s are earning up to Rs 50,000 a day working as IT consultants!
Parthasarathy, Chennai
When we squeezed the bundle of cash into a plastic card, we should have been prepared. The Big Spender is the new ‘Big Squeeze’.
Rajneesh Batra, New Delhi
If not spend, expend we must. In the stock market, there’s too much money chasing too few shares. In cricket, too much money chasing too little ability. Show us what’s new.
T.V. Venkatraman, Bangalore
Apropos Bibliofile (Oct 30), when you rib a New Yorker editor for his/her "awful" comments, one should also mention what the review itself said: "briskly paced and sumptuously written, the novel ponders questions of nationhood, modernity and class, in ways both moving and revelatory".
Anil Chakradar, Hyderabad
