Legal doubt...is the Minister serious
By vanny
@vandana7 (98944)
India
February 25, 2016 4:55am CST
Ok...here is something I wanted to know...
There is a separatist, who has been hanged because he was declared as somebody who is responsible for terrorist attack. (Name of the guy is Afzal Guru).
3 years later there is agitation on his name. And 3 years later, one of the the then ministers says he was not sure of the role of the man!
The guy was hanged, and he felt he is not responsible for that hanging!
It was not a small and inconsequential case. He read through the papers, and the minister who followed him read through them too. He had held that portfolio before, and could have easily determined the guilt or lack of it.
Just because it was not his problem, could he as an intelligent, conscientious minister absolve his conscience when a comparatively innocent person was killed, leading to the present turmoil?
What's he getting at?
I think death penalties are wrong precisely for this reason. We never know who is actually innocent and sent to gallows simply because everybody's mind has got conditioned into thinking that the person is wrong.
There is no return passage back...
I think if the minister had any suspicions about innocence of the man, he should have defied the party and saved the man's life, to hell with his post in the cabinet.
It is rather callous on his part to have kept quiet and let a comparatively innocent man die!
Minister pronounced guilty.
What say you Indians?
4 people like this
4 responses
@thesids (22180)
• Bhubaneswar, India
25 Feb 16
I have stopped updating myself on this issue.
But reading your discussion, I would say that the minister did nothing wrong then, and even now, he did nothing wrong. He merely enacted on the guidelines dictated to him by his representing party. The party which he represents is the culprit if anyone has to be accused of.
2 people like this
@mk6195 (65)
• Bilaspur, India
25 Feb 16
I must say the congress leadership has gone mad.............
Its a only a political statement for defending his parties (more specifically Rahul Gandhi's Stand over the JNU Case), he did't realized he is making a statement which will question the authenticity of His own Governments Actions.
Its a fact Afzal Guru was a terrorist its been decided by the all the courts and the our Judiciary is not stupid nor incompetent that they could be played when a man's life hangs in the balance.
Our Politicians has come to this level that they can do anything say anything which could bring them a few votes. But they forgot we live in an age of Communication Revolution where average Indian has developed the Capacity to Judge the true Intention of these politician. I think he dose't give a dam about Afzal Guru or the Students of JNU
2 people like this
@vandana7 (98944)
• India
25 Feb 16
I wish I could say Afzal Guru was a terrorist with as much confidence. Judgments go wrong, and sometimes, we put our trust so much in media, which itself may be doing something as per the directions of government that our beliefs can go wrong. Long ago I read a Desmond Bagley novel in which news was created by the media baron before it happened. Another problem is the kind of media have now. It is so fast and powerful and makes such a lasting impression that it is difficult to remain unbiased with such frequent exposure and announcements, which was not the case as long as it was black and white tv, and announcements were only on radio.
I kind of suspected this, hence the previous post. :) But if I were a judge, I would have condemned Chidambaram as an accomplice in the conspiracy to murder.
1 person likes this
@mk6195 (65)
• Bilaspur, India
25 Feb 16
@vandana7 I agree that some Media Houses are politically inclined, I know that for a fact as I use to work for one of our countries biggest print media and is management was inclined towards the a specific political party. I have also read a few novels which were centered toward media and media politics. But i still have faith in the judiciary I have seen so many decision which were made against the interest of the politician.
and If i were a judge I would have condemned him for the contempt of court.
2 people like this
@hora_fugit (5862)
• India
5 Mar 16
If he was not so sure, it should have been a known fact that time not now. Only thing that changed is that his party is out of power. So he can raise doubts at "government" - a notion which stands irrespective of parties at the helm in a given time.
That said, all he could do was make a hue and cry and try to defend. Pronouncing sentences and verdicts is not a prerogative of ministers. Courts hold that. They pronounced. However flimsy it looks.
1 person likes this
@hora_fugit (5862)
• India
5 Mar 16
@vandana7 Murderer only if it was under his capacity to make a difference... I too have my reservations about the way sentence was pronounced, the justifications given, but I could not make a dent. Actually, I would not.
1 person likes this
