Life Convicts should be Sent to the Gallows!

Was it a travesty of justice that Yakub Memon was hanged? Would it have been a just decision if he were handed a life imprisonment instead of the death sentence? There have been fierce debates in newspaper columns and on TV sets on this issue in the last one week.

Those who argued for the death sentence did so to use the verdict as a deterrent against any future terrorist activity; they also did so out of the consideration for the victims of 1993 serial blasts of which the Memon family was the key conspirator.

Those who argued against Memon’s hanging were generally dismissive of the view that capital punishment served as a deterrent to heinous crime. They thought of death penalty as barbaric and a relic of the feudal times. Some felt that there were mitigating circumstances that warranted the remission of death sentence to life imprisonment in Memon’s case.

There were forceful arguments on both sides. But, finally, naysayers lost their case. Yakub was sent to the gallows yesterday. The 22-year old saga came to a dramatic end, though the justice debate continues and will do so for days to come.

Personally, I am against death sentence as a philosophical argument,. But on a humanitarian consideration, I think all those who have been given life imprisonment should be put to death, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that a life sentence meant imprisonment for the whole life, not for 14 years or even 20 years.

If someone is condemned to a life in prison till the last breath of his life, what is there for him to look forward to? Isn’t death a better choice? Someone may argue that life convicts develop a community of their own inside the jail and they cherish every moment of it.

Somehow I cannot bring myself to agree to this. We know the deplorable conditions in jails of India. I have personal experience of a life in jail for 21 days. It was more than 30 years ago when hundreds of us from JNU were lodged in Tihar jail during a student agitation. We saw inhuman conditions in which the jail inmates lived. We, the JNU students, were handled with care by jail authorities as the top non-Congress leaders were visiting us in jail everyday to express their solidarity and many prominent lawyers of India were vying to fight our case gratis.

But the average prisoner did not have this luck. To see the food they ate, the bed on which they slept, the toilet they went to and the grind they had to go through day after day was a heart-wrenching experience. Only a pathological optimist could find a silver line for a life prisoner in these circumstances.

I am sharing this three-decade-old experience In Tihar which is supposed to be a model jail for the whole country. The condition of jails in different parts of the country can only be left to one’s imagination. And over the years, there has been severe overcrowding of jail, due to the criminal delay in the dispensation of justice, and the jails have been turned into living hells.

In such circumstances, only the enemy of a convict would ask for remission of death sentence to life imprisonment. It is more dignified to die than to spend the whole life in sub-human conditions. I think the Supreme Court of India did well to grant deliverance to Yakub Memon by awarding the death sentence.

On humanitarian consideration, the Supreme Court would indeed do great justice to the cause of the poor life convicts if it converts their life sentence to death sentence and ensures their expeditious execution.

Do you think it would be a travesty of justice?

Kalam as Conscience-Keeper?

A lot has been said about President Kalam by a lot of people in the last 36 hours: those who knew him intimately have spoken about his sterling qualities of integrity, humility and dedication to work; those who had no personal connection but have followed his life-history closely have written how he elevated every position he held in his long career by extraordinary accomplishments at each stage.

Let me first add to the chorus of praise and then make a slightly disagreeable point.

When I was working with the Hindustan Times at Patna, Anirban Guha Roy, a brilliant young reporter of our team, was assigned to cover an event (I have no recollection what the event was) where Abdul Kalam was to be present (I suppose he had not become President then; the event was possibly in 2001). Apparently, Kalam chose to walk through the field a couple of kilometres to reach a village. Anirban came back to tell us that it was difficult for him to keep pace with Kalam as the latter walked very fast. Mind you, Kalam was almost 70 then, and our colleague was in the early 20s. That indefatigable energy distinguished Kalam till the last moment of his life.

Another thing that struck me was a report in the media during Kalam’s Presidential years:a large number of his relatives from his native place were visiting him in the Rashtrapati Bhawan; he ensured that food was served to them but he insisted that he would pay for it. He considered them as his personal guests, not state guests; he did not want the tax-payers’ money to be spent on them. That level of integrity in public office is unparalleled.

Abdul Kalam radiated a positive energy. Nobody has heard him speak against anything or anybody; he always spoke for something, be it a person, an idea or a mission. He had great faith in the younger generation and he wanted them to be the vehicle for change. He did not believe in criticism; he believed in providing solutions\alternatives.

But let me strike a discordant note.

I think if President Kalam would have used his high moral standing to chastise the politicians, corporate class, the lay citizens and even the youth for many wrongs committed by them, he would have done a bigger service to the vision of India.

The chastisement would have made Abdul Kalam less popular, but he would have gone down in history as the conscience-keeper of the nation.

Do you agree?

Double Standard as Golden Standard?

Manoj C G of The Indian Express has, in today’s newspaper, juxtaposed the recent remarks of Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley on the rationale of Parliamentary debate with the remarks they had made when they were in the opposition. That makes interesting reading.

On September 7, 2012, reacting to the Congress criticism of the BJP’s obstructionist tactics that led to an entire Parliament session having been washed out, Swaraj said: “Not allowing Parliament to function is a form of democracy like any other form…Debate…would mean a ‘talkout’ by the government and walkout by Opposition.”

On August 22, 2012, rejecting the Congress offer of a debate on the floor of Parliament, Jaitley said: “we are not interested in a debate. What is there to debate?”

On August 26 that year, Jaitley again said: “There are occasions when obstruction in Parliament brings greater benefit to the country… Our strategy does not permit us to allow the government to use Parliament for debate without being held accountable…we do not want to give government an escape route through debate”.

Now, as we know, the tables have turned. Congress is holding the House to ransom. Sushma Swaraj is daring the Congress for a debate. Arun Jaitley is more vocal as Swaraj herself is implicated in Lalitgate. On July 21 this year, Jaitley said: “We are ready for discussion. Why are you (Opposition) running away from a discussion? … You are scared of a discussion.”

On July 22, he reiterated:”I dare you to start the discussion. You don’t have a single fact. Therefore, noise-making is all that you want to do… We want the entire nation to hear Sushma Swaraj’s views, but the Opposition does not want the House to run.”

What do you make of it?

Is double standard the golden standard for BJP?

And can’t we say the same about the Congress as well?

A Lion and A Chameleon

M J Akbar, veteran journalist, appears these days on several TV channels defending the BJP and the NDA government on the issue of corruption. He reminds me of Vinod Mehta, another veteran journalist, who was also a regular on the TV circuit during contentious debates before his death earlier this year. However, there is a difference: Mehta spoke his mind as he was an independent journalist; Akbar parrots the party line as he is a BJP spokesman.

Both Mehta and Akbar became editors at a very young age. Their brilliance shone through their writings. But, again, there was a difference: while Vinod Mehta cast himself as a lion treating the political establishment with disdain, Akbar chose to take the shape of a chameleon that changed colours to suit his needs. There lay the distinction between their journalistic accomplishments. Mehta spoke truth to power; Akbar wormed himself into the hearts of the politically powerful for self-aggrandisement.

When Rajiv Gandhi was riding the wave of Indian politics in mid-1980s, Akbar swore his allegiance to him. The Bofors scandal did not bother him and as a journalist he kept defending Rajiv Gandhi against the V P Singh rebellion. Because of his unswerving loyalty during those tumultuous days, Akbar was rewarded with a Lok Sabha ticket in 1989 which he won. But after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in 1991 and Akbar’s own loss in the election, he chose to abandon the Congress ship, as he knew that he would not make it big in the Narasimha Rao establishment.

He had reasons to fancy his chances with the BJP when Narendra Modi became its rising star and there was a general expectation that Modi would lead his party to power. He had written volumes against BJP and Sangh parivar for decades;he had spewed venom against Narendra Modi after the 2002 riots. But he was confident of his success as a chameleon; he knew that the BJP and Modi would be ready to embrace him disregarding the abuses he had hurled at them for years because he was a big name in journalism and, more importantly, because he was a Muslim.

The chameleon had his day. The BJP came to power and Akbar became a Member of Parliament again. From Rajiv Gandhi to Narendra Modi –he had quite a journey and quite a success. And more lies ahead.

Vinod Mehta did not become an MP, or for that matter, an ambassador or a governor. But he had another kind of success: he remained true to his vocation. He retained the professional integrity of a journalist.

What is the kind of ‘success’ the budding journalists should aim at — the success of M J Akbar or the success of Vinod Mehta?

What is your take?

Set a Thief to Catch a Thief

We all are familiar with the idiom: ‘The pot calling the kettle black’. That very well applies to the accusations and counter-accusations on the floor of Parliament today. When the UPA was in power, the NDA paralysed Parliament on several occasions to demand action against the corrupt and anti-national ministers. That time, the UPA was making the fervent plea that Parliament was a forum for debate and the NDA should not shy away from it. Many media professionals and public commentators too ladled out advice then that the public money should not be wasted by people’s representatives by disrupting Parliament. But the NDA did not pay heed, rightly so, to the gratuitous advice. Its persistence yielded results; several UPA ministers had to resign; some went to jail. The corrupt UPA was brought to its knees.

But then we are also familiar with the famous quote:”Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Now that the NDA is in power, the tables have turned. The corrupt and anti-national elements in the NDA set-up are now in the dock. It is, in the nation’s interest that they should be held accountable. It is now the UPA’s turn to do the honours. This is that peculiar situation where you need to set a thief to catch a thief. When the thieves slug it out, they would do it in their own interest. But the nation would be an unintended beneficiary as some leech-like rogues would be weeded out of the system in this no holds barred fight.

Anything you do, there will always be a flip side. Well, Parliament session will come to a halt; many important bills will get deferred. Public money will go down the drain. But if some corrupt heads roll in the process, it is all worth it.

Don’t you agree?

CEO Naidu Should Be In The Doghouse

Chandrababu Naidu likes to call himself the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), rather than the Chief Minister, of Andhra Pradesh. A chief minister merely sets out the guidelines for policies and lets the bureaucracy do the implementation. But a CEO is a hands-on administrator who leads in action and takes responsibility for both policies and execution. Naidu tends to believe that his style of functioning adds a corporate visage to his political standing. But successive developments have shown how pretentious his self-image is.

The recent Godavari Mahapushkaram tragedy is a clear pointer. Naidu, in a corporate build-up, had sold the religious festival as a mega tourist event in the national media. The government is supposed to have spent more than Rs 1500 crore for its success. We were told that it was worth it because while the Godavari Pushkaram was a celebration every 12 years, the Mahapushkaram comes in a cycle of once in 144 years.

The build-up was in the media. What was there on the ground? Though there are more than 250 ghats on the basin of river Godavari, the Pushkar Ghat at Rajahmundry, where the river enters the Bay of Bengal, was highlighted in all advertisements in television and newspapers. The auspicious time for the start of the festival was set at 6.26 am on 14th July. So thousands of pilgrims waited overnight on the banks of the river at Pushkar Ghat to be among the first to take the dip in the holy river after the festival was thrown open.

But the restive crowd had to wait for more than two hours after the auspicious time set in — because His Excellency Chandrababu Naidu, his wife and his son — did not just take the dip but carried out elaborate rituals for more than 100 minutes under heavy police protection. When Naidu’s convoy finally left after 8 am, the thousand-strong policemen who had thrown a ring round him, also disappeared.

As soon as the gates to the ghat were opened tens of thousands of devotees surged towards the river, there was no system of crowd management in place. Every one had to fend for oneself. In the stampede, 27 died the same morning, and more than a hundred were critically injured, many of them succumbed to their injuries later.

And what was the response of this CEO-Chief Minister? That his government did not expect such a big crowd; that is why the mishap occurred. There was not a word of regret that he and his family’s exclusive use of the ghat over such an extended period might have exacerbated the problem. There was no regret that simple regulatory mechanism such as forming queues for entry was not followed; that there was no provision of water there to resuscitate scores of women and children who fainted; that the police force dispersed after his departure.

This CEO, who is steeped in the VIP culture, deserves to be in the doghouse for both corruption and incompetence; corruption because his team clearly defalcated most of the Rs 1500 crore that was supposed to have been spent for the arrangements; and, of course,he has proved again that he is a shining example of incompetence.

Don’t you think ‘CEO Naidu’ sounds like an oxymoron?

DND Toll — An Extortion

Those who commute between Delhi and Noida on a daily basis by car through Delhi-Noida-Direct (DND) Flyway (a 9.2 km tolled road) shell out 56 rupees every day (two-wheeler riders pay a little less). Commuters have been doing it for 14 years. The toll tax does not go to the state treasury; it is picked up by Noida Toll Bridge Company (NTBC), a private body.

NTBC, set up by Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (ILFS), was authorised by Noida Administration in 1996 to take charge of the expressway on a Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) basis. The DND became operational in 2001 and since then has become the life-line for those living in Noida and working in Delhi or vice versa.

The original agreement says that NTBC will have full control over the toll collection for at least 30 years and beyond that if it did not recover the invested money and the interest thereon during the stipulated period.

What are the broad statistics? As per the audited report, the NTBC spent Rs 408 crore to build the DND carriageway. And what has been its earning? As per an authoritative survey, The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on DND during 2013-14 was 1,13,591 vehicles as against 1,14,721 vehicles in 2012-13.

The NTBC does not dispute this fact-sheet. It, in fact, corroborated this traffic-flow during its media briefing last week when it said that it lost over Rs 50 lakh in 2 days as 1.6 lakh vehicles passed without paying toll due to an agitation by the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) during the peak hours.

By this admission, by a conservative estimate, the NTBC collects a daily toll worth Rs 30 lakh. That works out to Rs 9 crore a month and more than Rs 100 crore a year.

Imagine, how much money the NTBC will make by 2031 when the lease expires! On an investment of Rs 400 crore!
For all you, in 2031, the Noida administration may come to the conclusion that the DND has not given adequate returns to the NTBC and may extend the lease for another 30 years!

It is common knowledge how corrupt the Noida Administration is. Its officers certainly made big money while giving the NTBC a favourable contract without floating a tender. The succeeding officials have been sharing the loot and paying up the political bosses to carry on this daylight extortion.

The Noida BJP leaders have been making noises from time to time. Mahesh Sharma raised the issue in a big way and became an MLA, then an MP and now a Minister. The new BJP MLA, Ms Vimla Batham, stormed the toll gate in the first week of April with her supporters and had threatened that she would agitate again if the DND did not become toll-free by April 30. More than two months have passed after the deadline she had set but she has mysteriously turned silent. The speculation is rife that the BJP leaders have been suitably appeased by the NTBC.

Can you see the nexus between a ‘pro-poor’ Samajwadi Party & a ‘pro-people’ BJP when it comes to crony-capitalism!