[Reader-list] The Ghost of the Middle Ground 2

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

(contd. from previous posting)

The middle and lower depths of the middle ground

If Barkha Dutt occupies the high, sophisticated end of the 'middle 
ground', others, such as Sudheendra Kulkarni, Suhel Seth, Tavleen Singh, 
Sandhya Jain occupy the middle and lower depths of what is wont to 
describe itself as 'reasonable behaviour'. These ladies and gentlemen 
have spent a lot of their time and energy venting their sorrow and their 
anger in different publications and fora (Indian Express, Asian Age, 
Pioneer, CNN-IBN) in response to the publication of '13 December: A Reader'.

The Pioneer (13,12,2006) for instance, in a report on the book release 
of '13 December : A Reader' likened the views of those associated with 
this book to the recent holocaust deniers in Iran (notwithstanding my 
stated position, for instance, as being totally opposed to what I think 
is the crypto-fascist, and anti-semitic character of the current 
Islamist regime in Iran, whose defence by sections of the Indian left I 
find completely cynical and hypocritical).

Tavleen Singh ('Arundhati's Gimmick, Asian Age, 23 December 2006) 
grudgingly admits that there may be a point in ensuring that Mohammad 
Afzal need not hang, though she doesn't tell us why she is 'convinced 
that he is not the mastermind or even one of the main plotters of 
December 13'. In the same breath, she wants Arundhati Roy and her 
colleagues who have contributed to 'December 13: A Reader' deported for 
saying the same thing. The only difference between her position and that 
of Arundhati or of the other contributors to the book is that we are 
also asking a set of questions that Tavleen Singh finds 'outrageous', 
'sick' and 'vicious'. If, like Tavleen Singh, we admit that Mohammad 
Afzal is not likely to be the mastermind of December 13, we have to ask 
why there is such an effort being made to show that he is - to forge, 
hide and manufacture evidence, and to stonewall the demand for an 
enquiry. Our suspicions about the nature of the involvement of agencies 
of the state, and the consequent 13 questions, do not emerge from 
anything other than the suspicious way these agenices have been working 
overtime to manufacture an account of December 13 that is so ridden with 
holes and inconsistencies.

In other words, if we have doubts about Mohammad Afzal's role, it is 
only natural for us to have doubts about the motivations of those who 
have been busy trying to write the script of that role over the last 
five years. Why then should our asking questions about the nature of 
that role lead to a demand for our deportation? Is it only because the 
asking of the questions once again focuses attention on the kind of area 
that Tavleen Singh, and others like her want us to look away from. Let 
me return Tavleen Singh the favour of a suspicion about motives. Does 
she have an agenda to distract attention away from the nature of our 
questions? If so, we would like to know why?

The people who have spoken against Afzal Guru's death penalty have been 
called conspiracy theorists (notwithstanding the fact that the judgement 
of the courts in the case actually build upon and rely to a large extent 
on an elaborate conspiracy theory, and base their indictment of Afzal, 
circumstantially, and indirectly, through the charge of conspiracy, to 
the effect that he is as culpable as those who actually attacked 
Parliament on December 13, 2001). So our asking of a set of reasonable 
questions is 'conspiracy theory', whereas the court's heavy handed 
reliance on a theory of conspiracy is infallible objective justice.

Kehar Singh Revisited

Commentators such as Sudheendra Kulkarni have taken us (whom he too 
calls 'extremists') to task for daring to suggest a parallel between the 
fates of Mohammad Afzal and Kehar Singh.

[See 'If December 13th Was'nt an Act of Terror, what was it?' by 
Sudheendra Kulkarni, Indian Express, December 17, 2006
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/18739.html ]

His argument is that some of us are not just content to criticize the 
dispensation that was around when his leaders (Messrs. Vajpayee, Advani 
& Co.) were in power, but actually have the temerity to suggest that 
even the trial of those accused of conspiring to assasinate Indira 
Gandhi, was in fact, to a large extent, a 'show-trial'. Kulkarni is 
right, a reference to Kehar Singh's hanging in tandem with the 
controversy around Afzal Guru, indicts the Congress regime in that case, 
just as the circumstances of December 13 indict the BJP led NDA

Sudheendra Kulkarni's actual intent is to spin the issue around an NDA 
versus UPA axis. But we are clear that this is not an NDA versus UPA 
game for us. Most of those who are involved in publicly taking positions 
on the matter of Afzal Guru's execution are willing to be made to play 
that game. Perhaps this causes some discomfort to those who, like 
Sudheendra Kulkarni, would like to see this issue played out on a purely 
'anti-NDA, anti BJP' pitch. Sorry gentlemen, we are not interested. The 
game you offer us is a very boring one. We are not so obsessed with the 
depleting fortunes of a political tendency that is as morally bankrupt 
and bereft of ideas as the BJP that we feel the need to try and cosy up 
to its opposite number in order to carry the day. We have neither the 
need nor the desire to become tools in the hands of the current ruling 
party or their parliamentary allies in order simply to discredit their 
predecessors.

We are interested simply in talking about the structural issues that 
have been revealed by the December 13 trial. These structural issues 
have to do with the nature of the judicial process and the manner in 
which the so called 'war against terrorism' is being played out, 
regardless of who happens to be at the helm of affairs. They are not 
about whether one likes or does not like the BJP or the Congress or the 
so called Parliamentary Left, or even about how the the matter of 
Afzal's sentence plays out in the context of the forthcoming UP elections.

I do think that the retention of capital punishment in any society 
allows for systemic distortions that express themselves in moments of 
crisis through crystallizations of the demand that someone or the other 
be 'sacrificed' in order to restore the public perception of the 
vitality of a morally bankrupt state. I do not think our courts, or any 
courts anywhere, are infallible, and I think that the so called 
'collective conscience of society' that the courts gesture towards while 
mandating someone's death are flimsy, provisional constructs that are 
vulnerable to pressures and anxieties of various kinds, not least of 
which include those emanating from large sections of the mainstream media.

For the benefit of Sudheendra Kulkarni, the positions taken in the book 
are not actually as extreme as he wishes them to be seen to be. At least 
with regard to the reference to Kehar Singh, we happen to be in moderate 
and respectable company. Even Justice M. L. Tarkunde, a respected jurist 
and former judge of the Bombay High Court (whom no one can in any right 
frame of mind accuse of 'extremism') is on record for having said that 
"The evidence against him (Kehar Singh) was so meagre that it would not 
support, as the saying goes, the hanging of even a dog." Those who might 
doubt my word on this matter are advised to refer to an Amnesty 
International report titled 'India: The Death Penalty' published by AI 
(London) in October 1989 (AI Index ASA 20/13/89) where this statement is 
cited in print. I am merely saying that I hope we as a society are 
spared the predicament of having to condone once again, (in the case of 
Afzal) the hanging of someone, against whom the evidence was so meagure 
that it would not be in a postion to support even the hanging of a dog.

'A Clique of Liberal Leftists'

We have been called, 'a clique of liberal leftists with no constituency 
beyond the seminar halls of Delhi and Mumbai', by the pioneer columnist 
Sandhya Jain on a TV channel (CNN-IBN) in a report that subtly endorses 
this point of view. Earlier, on October 5, CNN-IBN had reported that in 
the matter of the argument against the death sentence for Afzal Guru, 
the 'entire nation' was on one side, and a handful of NGO's, writers and 
activists were on another. How the 'entire nation' got together and 
informed CNN IBN of its decision on the matter is not something that the 
channel has told us as yet.

This is the same channel whose senior editorial staff had spent several 
hours entreating some of us, on the 12th of December, to appear 
exclusively on their channel, or to 'dignify television with our 
presence', in order to recompense for their complicity in airing a 
clearly spin-doctored, so-called fragment of 'hidden camera' footage (to 
which I will turn to later). I suppose had we all agreed to play the 
part that was being scripted for us in the great ratings war between 
CNN-IBN and NDTV, then we would have suddenly transformed ourselves from 
a 'clique that has no constituency beyond the seminar halls of Delhi' to 
a 'clique that has no constituency beyond the television studios of a 
pair of punch and judy news channels'.

In the midst of all this noise we must remember, however, that what is 
at stake here is someone's life, and also, importantly, an attempt to 
demand a rigourus and honest account of what exactly transpired  on 
December 13, 2001, and why South Asia was taken to the brink of war. 
These are serious questions, and must be looked at seriously, not with 
the nudge-nudge-wink-wink frivolity of a charmed circle of commentators, 
publicists and intelligence agents whose consensus on matters of what is 
called 'national security' is produced in the backrooms of Delhi's media 
circus.

I might add here, that notwithstanding whether or not I think Afzal was 
denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to an adequate legal 
defence (and I do think he was denied that) my objection to capital 
punishment is not solely to do with my dissatisfaction with the 
judgement or with the merits of the prosecution's arguments in the case 
of Mohammad Afzal Guru.

On Capital Punishment

For the benefit of anyone who might think otherwise, I am just as 
opposed to the sentence of capital punishment that has recently been 
awarded to ACP Tyagi (formerly with the Delhi Police) for his role in a 
death that took place in police custody.

Here, I think that the facts of the case clearly bear out the position 
that ACP Tyagi is indeed the primary culprit, and I do believe that 
anyone responsible for a death in police custody ought to be punished 
severely. Similarly, I have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussain 
was a tyrant and a cold blooded mass-murderer, but that does not mean 
that I agree with his recent execution, or the disgustingly voyeuristic 
manner in which it has been exhibited international as well as Indian media

My condemnation of custodian death, murder, or political genocide need 
not, and indeed does not  translate into a desire to see ACP Tyagi, 
Sanotsh Singh (accused in the Priayadarshini Mattoo case) or Saddam 
Hussain hang. This is because I do not think that any good, whether 
preventive, deterrent, moral, ethical or compensatory can come from 
deliberately taking a human life, even when the accused stands convicted 
for a crime as heinous as custodial death. I am willing to argue this 
out, but that is a separate argument which I am sure needs to be pursued 
on another occasion - purely on the question of whether or not we should 
as a society retain capital punishment. It would have been far better 
had Saddam Hussain remained alive, and possibly had to atone for his 
deeds in lifelong detention, preferably in the exclusive company of 
other distinguished mass murderers like George Bush and Tony Blair. That 
might have been a step towards justice in Iraq.

I mention this here only to say that my opposition to the death penalty 
for Mohammad Afzal is  based not only on my reasoned belief that he did 
not have an adequate legal defence at the trial court stage, but also 
because I would oppose it even if he were in fact given the benefit of 
the due process of a fair trial. Because I oppose capital punishment on 
principle.

The Courage of Sabrina Lall

This is important, because, contrary to Barkha Dutt's charge that some 
of us have abandoned the terrain of ambiguity, I would actually like to 
insist that the ground I happen to occupy requires me on occasion to 
defend the right to life of  even those, such as ACP Tyagi, or Saddam 
Hussein, or Dara Singh, whose actions I personally consider abohorrent. 
And that this defence is not constructed along 'pragmatic' or 'tactical' 
lines.

As far as the execution of Afzal is concerned, I am not interested in 
offering a consideration of whether or not Kashmir would go up in flames 
as reasons for the commutation of a death sentence (though others, such 
as A.G.Noorani have advanced this argument with commendable 
sophistication). I have to say that on this point, and on this point 
alone, I agree with Soli Sorabjee (who said in an NDTV panel discussion 
that he happens to be anti death penalty generally, but is pro death 
penalty, under the given circumstances, for Afzal - an exact mirror of 
Barkha Dutt who happens to be pro-death penalty generally, but has now 
discovered belatedly the virtue of an anti-death penalty position 
customized to Afzal). I agree with Sorabjee that saying "don't hang 
Afzal because Kashmir will go up in flames" is not unlike saying "don't 
punish those guilty for the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat because 
Gujarat will go up in flames".

If we demand punishment, we must be prepared to do so regardless of 
local context, otherwise there would be no such thing as 'equality 
before the law'. However, my reasons for arguing against the death 
penalty have nothing to do with tactical or pragmatic considerations. I 
am not saying that Afzal should not be hanged because otherwise Kashmir 
would go up in flames, just as I am not saying ACP Tyagi should not be 
hanged because this would sorely demoralize the Delhi Police which often 
uses third degree methods in police stations, or that Saddam Hussein 
should have been excused from his appointment with his hangmen so as to 
re-assure future tyrants and mass murderers.

I take comfort, in these bloodthirsty times, when SMS messages calling 
for public executions are broadcast live on television, from the 
sagacity and maturity that has been demonstrated by Sabrina Lall, the 
bereaved sister of the murdered Jessica Lall who has made a public 
statement to the effect that she did not desire the death penalty for 
Manu Sharma, her sister's murderer, because she does not believe that 
his death would do anything to ameliorate her grief, and because she is 
satisfied knowing that Manu Sharma has to suffer long years of 
confinement, which in her view is a much greater punishment than death. 
She goes on to say that the sentence of death punished only the family 
and friends of the accused, not the accused himself, for his suffering 
actually ends with death.

[See, "Life in Jail for Manu Sharma" by Tanu Sharma and Krishnadas 
Rajagopal, Indian Express, December 21, 2006, 
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/19058.html and 'I want Manu Sharma to 
Suffer' by Shubha Shetty Saha, DNA, December 10 at 
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1070152]

Regardless of the view that anyone of us takes on Mohammad Afzal's exact 
role in the events of December 13, 2001, I wish that we could all have 
the wisdom and the courage to display even a degree of the maturity and 
compassion that I think is contained in Sabrina Lall's response to the 
verdict handed down to her sister's murderer.

I hope that those who have spent a lot of their time, intelligence, 
emotions and energy on television and print on the unrelated destinies 
of  Mohammad Afzal and Jessica Lall in recent days might learn something 
from Sabrina Lall's compassion and intelligence. There still might be 
some hope for  the integrity and credibility of large sections of the 
mainstream media if that were to be the case. I hope they take some time 
now to listen, think and reflect on where we all have come today. And I 
hope, for their sakes, that Mohammad Afzal lives.

Who Else Wants Afzal Dead?

Actually, the consequentialist argument (the one based on 'what will or 
will not happen if Afzal dies'  theory)  leads to some very strange 
bedfellows. if you examine the news carefully, you will find that it 
isn't just the BJP and M.S. Bitta of the All India Anti Terrorist Front 
who want Afzal dead as quickly as possible. There are reports of  a 
number of jehadi groups in Kashmir, who have in fact demanded that Afzal 
not be spared, precisely because this would mean that Kashmir would go 
up in flames.

I quote here from a report available on the NDTV website - 'Afzal Must 
be Hanged, Say Kashmiri Groups' by Sudhi Ranjan Sen and Fayaz Bukhari 
which says

"...In a statement issued in Kashmir on October 2, Khalid Javed, 
commander of Al-Umar Mujahideen said Afzal's hanging would actually 
provide a fillip to the Kashmiri cause.Apart from the Hizbul Mujahideen, 
Al-Umar is the only entirely Kashmiri group and is led by Mustaq Ahmed 
Zargar, exchanged for IC-814 hostages.The same day, the 
Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen said that by not pleading for mercy himself, Afzal 
has become a hero to Kashmiri youth. Those pleading for mercy on his 
behalf should leave Kashmir.On October 13, a lesser-known group, the 
Yalgar-e-Ali, said in a statement that Afzal should be left to his fate. 
His martyrdom would serve the cause of Kashmir."

[See 'Afzal Must be Hanged. Say Kashmiri Groups' by Sudhi Ranjan Sen and 
Fayaz Bukhari, NDTV, October 26m 2006 - http://www.ndtv.com]

It these reports are accurate, then we have to take note of the fact 
that it appears that as far as the desirability of Afzal's execution is 
concerned , there is a remarkable concordance in the views of the 
Supreme Court judgement on December 13, the BJP, the All India Anti 
Terrorist Front, the special cell of the Delhi Police and Kashmiri 
militant outfits such as Al Umar, Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen and the 
Yalgar-e-Ali. Perhaps they should all get together and form what would 
be a genuinely bipartisan 'All India and J&K Committee for the 
Expeditious Execution of Mohammad Afzal Guru'.

This implies that I am acutely aware (as I am sure those of my 
colleagues who have deliberated on the issue of Afzal's destiny with 
seriousness also are) of the fact that none of us finds ourselves in a 
zone where the categories of guilt, innocence, justice and consequence 
are clear cut and self evident. One can say that a person one does not 
believe to be innocent has had no oppportunity to avail of the 
constitutionally guaranteed right of an adequate legal defence and that 
this is in itself a serious miscarriage of justice. One can also say 
that a person who has had a fair trial still should not be hanged, 
because that too would, in a fundamental  ethical sense, be a 
miscarriage of justice. Because there can be no greater  premeditated 
violence than the premeditated violence of a judicially mandated death 
sentence, which tells the accused the time and date of his execution, 
and then leaves him captive to await the hour of his death. If 
premeditated, cold blooded murder is the reason why a death penalty is 
awarded, then how can we recompense for the premeditated, cold blooded 
murder that is the death penalty?

Uncertainty and Ambiguity

The conceptual space where one can say these things is a zone of acute 
blurs, uncertainties and ambiguities, where one has to hone one's 
ethical intelligence and moral sensibilities against situations that do 
not in fact deliver themselves in terms that promise neat, resolved 
answers and the kind of sound-bytes that can be processed on 'breaking 
news' , with 'whatever it takes' on '24X7' news television.

And yet, we have seen large sections of the mainstream media, and 
responsible media figures leave no stone unturned in their attempt to 
give their readers and viewers the impression that our efforts were 
actually aimed at an erasure and an elision of all that was ambiguous, 
complex and uncertain.

Had channels such as NDTV, which were present in large numbers at the 
the public release of '13 December : A Reader' reported what was said on 
that occasion with a degree of integrity and good faith, their viewers, 
(and the readers of Barkha Dutt's column - 'The Third Eye' -  in the 
Hindustan Times and on the NDTV website) would have known that some of 
us did actually speak about ambiguities and uncertainties, and 
contrasted them with what we called the 'terrible clarity and precision' 
of the death penalty. It is instructive to think a little about what was 
actually said that day. NIrmalangshu Mukherjee, a professor of 
philosophy at Delhi university, and one of the contributors to '13 
December: A Reade' opened the proceedings by talking about '13 December' 
as a problem of knowledge. He talked about the fact that "we know that 
we do not know" what happened on December 13.

The substance of my own brief statement on that occasion was actually an 
appeal to the mainstream media to the effect that they only display a 
degree of reticence and restraint commensurate to the complexities, 
ambiguities and uncertainties involved in reporting issues like December 
13. One of the things I asked for was due consideration of the modest 
plea that the word 'alleged' always be used as a prefix to the word 
'terrorist' in any report that highlights, in the wake of December 13, 
yet another successful 'anti-terrorist' operation of the Delhi Police. 
if anyone wants to check on what was actually said on that occasion, 
rather than rely on what 'The Third Eye' thinks was said on that 
occasion,  all they need to do is to watch the videos of the statements 
that were made which are now available for public viewing on Youtube. 
The quality of the soundtrack, unlike phone interceptions made by the 
special cell of the Delhi police is quite clear, and you can actually 
hear what is being said.

[ See http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=00iram for links to video 
recordings of all the statements made and the discussions that occured 
on the occasion of the public release of '13 December: A Reader']

I am listing this Youtube.com url to clear the air about exactly what 
was said or not said on the book release of '13 December:A Reader'. As 
for what has been written in that book, all you need to do, is to buy 
it, or borrow it and read it to figure out for yourself whether or not 
the authors are a bunch of intolerant, extremist individuals who are 
'closed to debate' or whether they are a group of individuals asking a 
set of important questions with a desire to open, rather than close the 
debate around December 13.

(contd. in next posting)