On 17/Oct/2006, at 3:01 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
Not knowing enough to have an independent opinion on the matter,
and not having the copious free time to read your forward, I ask,
was he guilty of the bombings?
If he was not, or if there is a popular body of opinion that
believes he was not, then I can understand the need for all this
clamor.
Afzal was not on the scene of the crime -- all the terrorists there
were killed. He was caught because his phone number was on one of the
phones retrieved from their bodies. The Supreme Court has noted that
there is no direct evidence of his involvement. The evidence was
mainly circumstantial. Despite this, they note that "The incident,
which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and
the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if
capital punishment is awarded to the offender." As per the POTA,
under which he was booked, abetting a crime does not attract the
death penalty. That he was awarded the sentence on such flimsy
evidence is particularly rankling.
The SC has also issued a public statement that they have the right to
review a Presidential pardon, should one be forthcoming.
Afzal was a surrendered terrorist from the JKLF. It is alleged that
he was made an STF pawn and the real reason for rushing his execution
is to cover up Indian military atrocities in Kashmir. This isn't a
case of the intelligentsia preening their feathers. There have been
riots on the streets of Kashmir protesting the sentence. (The Hindu
carried pictures on their front page, but I can't find that story
right now.)
I first heard the phrase "India Occupied Kashmir" from a resident of
Jammu. It's a sentiment I've heard repeatedly from people who hail
from the region, or who've spent time there.
Surely one can't be so naive as to believe Pakistan is the only
antagonist in Kashmir?
--
Kiran Jonnalagadda
http://jace.seacrow.com/
