Trial by Media, Trial by Court

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

-Benjamin Franklin(1706-1790)

Its not like me to post matters that aren't frivolous on this blog. Yet, I can't help myself from saying what I see as hilarious in this whole episode of what is called a 'debate' over whether to represent the surviving terrorist involved in the Mumbai terror strikes. Hilarious, but more than a little frightening.

Firstly, let me start off by talking about the naive media we have in our country. Just when I was beginning to think that we have a fair and balanced press in our country, I see these stories aired, calling the whole affair a 'raging debate' and under captions of 'Duty Vs Concience'. The Fourth Estate is often the reflection of public sentiment. From this case, I see that sometimes it ought to correct the popular (if that) opinion too, for, the right answer is not always a matter of popular choice. The media should have rubbished these views outright as they were quick to do on many other occasions rather than playing to the gallery and fanning these irrational sentiments that they helped more than a little to fan in the first place.

Secondly, I see that even organisations which would have been expected to behave more responsibly in such a situation are losing their wits. For eg, the Esplanade Court Bar Association has passed a resolution saying that none of their members will defend the terrorist. These are people who are entrusted with the moral responsibility of ensuring that when all odds are against him/her, the law will stand four square behind the righteous. These are the people who I am supposed to go to for help when the Government frames me as a terrorist just because I choose to criticize their policies.

Thirdly, most people in India don't even realise why this is such a big deal. Test the public opinion and you'll find an overwhelming response in favour of sending the bastard to the gallows without further ado. Small wonder then, that Shiv Sena, Navnirman Sena and all the other *Sena (who were conspicuously missing from the scene when the real Sena, the Indian Army was going about its job during the terror strike) were back on the streets in full strength pelting stones at a lawyer who offered to discharge a constitutional responsibility that all his co-evals couldn't deign doing.

And its all these things, that frighten me.

So why is this such a big deal to me?

1. What prevents this from setting a precedent where the powers that be, on another day, hang a political opponent without trial? It was in the not so distant past that politicians sought to settle scores by misusing the POTA. This case, if Kasav is not defended will give them a frightening carte blanche.
2. I thought I lived in a democracy. I see it turning into a mob-ocracy where you don't need to go to the courts anymore. You only seem to need to visit the Shiv Sena/Navnirman Sena head office with a generous donation to have your way.
   
3. If we send a man to the gallows without a trial, then what would be the difference between us and the Islamofascists who brought this upon us?

If you think that I am riding the moral high horse here, completely out of touch with the brutal reality, think again. Could it be that it is your feigned morality that makes you think that legal defense of an accused, no matter how heinous the crime, can be disposed of with in this case.

I agree with us hanging the bastard. Let's just see if he has something to say for himself before we do. Thats what makes us, human, far greater than this monster who did not give that opportunity to those he shot dead without any qualms.

More than anything, try him, for its not in his best interests that we give him a trial. Its in ours.