So I broke off (platonic equivalent of break-up… is there a better phrase that is as compact and more established? Okay, parted ways) with old friend, Pankaj, today. This once, it was him who did the honours (block on Gtalk, delete from Facebook) and not me (and I wouldn’t succumb to those actions in this matter, which I consider trivial), and I would like to have that on record.
Anyway, it started with an argument. He read this article very fleetingly, and made an elaborate and (I feel) ill-informed opinion on it. I objected in strong words. We argued. It ended badly.
He says Kasab should’ve been shot as soon as the investigators derived from him that he had no information to offer.
[He also feels that Kasab may as well have been accommodated at the Taj, since his cost of daily up-keep would’ve probably come to the same amount of Rs. 85-lakh per day. {The figure in the news article reads Rs. 8.5 lakhs per day. As I said, he read the article in one fleeting glance. Thank you for pointing it out, Tauja!}] But I’m not saying that Rs. 8.5 lakhs is an acceptable amount either.
But that he maintains that Kasab should’ve been shot as soon as they figured out he had no more valuable information to offer, ergo without trial is worth discussing.
When celebrities or politicians are accused of any crime, and receive special treatment in their trials etc. etc. the common man is up in arms saying that they should be treated like anyone else.
So is it fair for us to deny Kasab a trial? Would that not be equivalent to denying him the rights accorded to the common man? Or should nobody be accorded a free and fair trial?
Is it healthy for us to nurture such glaring hypocrisies in our attitude? Or should we just go ahead and rewrite the constitution to accord different rights to different types of people? Or just go about making exceptions everywhere and then fighting over which exception is fair and which is not?
Are most/all of the democratic countries of the world (Please correct me if I’m wrong on this, peeps…) stupid in allowing the accused, any accused, of any crime a trial before convicting him of charges? (And the right to appeal the sentence in higher courts.) Would we be okay if tomorrow YOU weren’t allowed to appeal in a higher court? Sure, Manu Sharma would have been acquitted.
Or maybe we could just make an exception here and an exception there, and then argue over it forever?
I welcome your comments on the questions phrased above. What I do NOT welcome are comments about how the judicial system needs to be improved. Yes, the judicial system needs to be improved. The trial should’ve been completed in a matter of months and not 18. We all know that, and I’m sure we’d all agree on it too. So let’s discuss the issue that I wrote this entire post to discuss. We can discuss Judicial reforms on a later date, capisce?
Oh, and one more thing. Rs. 1,500 crore for a cricket team in a month-long intra-national cricket event. Rs. 31 crore over protecting the escape of the most dreaded criminal this country has ever set hands on, over a period of one and a half years. Am I the ONLY one who thinks the 31-crores is REALLY inconsequential here?
As they say…