Capitalising on Capital Punishment

By Tintu K J
JNU is a symbol of the ideals of political and cultural pluralism which are the foundational
principles of Indian democracy. Exponents in the field of social sciences, Marxists and non
Marxists, radicals and non-radicals have taught discussed and researched at the university and
have shaped the political consciousness of the students since its establishment. To disagree is
ones right, to protest is just and to dissent, democratic.
A group of 10 students, who were formerly with the Democratic Students Union (DSU), a
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group, considered to be one of the Far-Left parties on the campus,
organised a cultural event which involved the screening of the documentary The Country
without a Post Office, on February 9, 2016.The DSU has been critical of state excesses in
Adivasi or tribal lands and has been campaigning against state organised programmes like
Operation Green Hunt and laws such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The DSU professes the Leninist doctrine of right to
self-determination. However, it has no direct links with either the banned Communist Party
of India (Maoist) or other militant groups in Kashmir and north-eastern India. It has no
history of inciting or unleashing any form of violence on the campus or outside. Scholars and
writers having similar ideologies have often participated in the DSUs programmes. Since
JNUs academic and political environment has always encouraged critical thought, of which
teachers, students, the administrative staff and the karamcharis (the manual workers) have
been an integral part, political activism of different hues, from extreme Right to extreme Left,
is welcomed.
The JNU administration acted as the representative of the state and they took an anti-student
attitude on the issue. Many rights of the students of the university were violated by the
administration. The guidelines on entailments to students issues by the University Grants
Commission (UGC), the statutory body that oversees the administration of Central
Universities, on April 23, 2013, (vide D.O. number F.14-31/2011 (CPP-II)), states: As
democratic citizens, the students are entitles to freedom of thought and expression within
their institution. The university must allow space for free exchange of ideas and public debate
so as to foster the culture of critical reasoning and questioning. College/University authorities
must not impose unreasonable, partisan or arbitrary restrictions on organising seminars,
lectures and debates that do not otherwise violate any law.

The permission granted by Jawaharlal Nehru University Vice-Chancellor V. Jagadeesh

Kumar to allow the police inside the campus and his undemocratic handling of the inquiry
into the February 9 incident are regarded by the academic community as a gross violation of
the guidelines. The university inquiry committee found that eight students had raised
unconstitutional slogans and has recommended academic suspension as a punitive measure.
Ayesha Kidwai, professor, JNU, says, the inquiry committee itself is unconstitutional. Under
the JNU constitution, it is mandatory to have at least one representative of each school in the
inquiry committee. The Vice-Chancellor appointed representatives of only science schools in
the committee. The JNU Teachers Association (JNUTA) had demanded the scrapping of the
committees findings and has asked the Vice-Chancellor to conduct a fresh internal probe
acceptable for all.
Dissenting Voices against Death Penalty
The discussion about the death penalty given to Afsal Guru and the violation of fair judicial
process, and the desecration of human rights related with the issue is not new. Some students
of JNU conducted the programme against capital punishment to discuss about the same issue
too. Many people including former Supreme Court Chief Judges in the likes of V.R. Krishna
Iyer, P.N.Bhagavati, A.K.Ganguly, and A.P. Shah came forward for the banning of death
penalty. Unfortunately, the popular discussion about the banning of death penalty has taken
place in India only during the controversial death penalties with much emotional spirits
attached to them .The media, especially the electronic media unfortunately prefers to be one
sided in the concerned debate, often playing to the galleries. The discussions on most
television channels related to the execution of Ajmal Kasab, Afsal Guru and Yakub Memon
were connected only with terrorism, anti-national activities and mass murder. Several
questions including whether the due process of law was followed or whether the trial was
indeed fair and about the disagreement of one of the judges on the judicial panel were
discussed and debated.The events revolving around Feb 9 th incident and JNU protest
movement is a good opportunity to analyse capital punishment on the basis of humanity,
moral values and a judicial system based on the idealised approach of the opposing dualities
of life and death, crime and punishment and so on. Human rights activists oppose death
penalty not on the basis of caste, class, religion, race, nationality, political alliance and so on;
not on the basis of who ought to be be punished; not on the basis of what should be the reason
of the punishment; but because of the humanitarian stand for the right to life, recognised as
a fundamental and inviolable right.They oppose all types of killings like murder, holocaust,

and war including death penalty. Death penalty is also a form of murder; it is a pre-planned
judicial killing conducted by the state with the help of its machineries. The simple logic of
vengeance of murder by murder is hidden behind this form of punishment.
Around 70% of the countries of the world (almost 140 countries) have banned death penalty
and capital punishment is practically not in effect in some countries which have not lawfully
banned death penalty. Except Belarus, the entire European Union has banned capital
punishment. 38 African countries and sixteen states of USA had put an end to the primitive
means of punishment. In Asia, Nepal and Bhutan have banned death penalty and it is not in
effect in Sri Lanka and Mali. But some countries like India, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, China, Korea and Saudi Arabia have been continuing with the practice.
Eminent judicial luminaries including practising and former judges have suggested that in
recent years, many big mistakes have occurred related to the verdict of death penalty in some
significant cases. Fourteen Judges of the Supreme Court approached Pranab Mukherjee, the
President of India, to reduce the verdict of death penalty to life imprisonment. These judges
include P.B. Savand, A.P. Shah, Bilal Naski, P.K. Mishra, Hosbeth Suresh, Panachand Jain,
Prabha Sreedevan, K.P. Subrahmanyan, P.C. Jain, S.N. Bhargava, B.G. Kolse Pattel, Raveer
Sahai Varma, B.A. Khan, and B.H. Marlapalle. This is the best example that there is a chance
of error in the verdicts of capital punishment.
The double standards in the verdict of death penalty should also be analysed. Including
pregnant women and children, 97 Muslims were massacred in Narodapatya in 2002 But, the
culprits of this case, Maya Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi were not sentenced with capital
punishment. Maya Kodnani was an MLA and a gynaecologist who had a clear role in the
Narodapatya incident. At the same time Afsal Guru and others were executed without much
delay in court procedure without even considering their relevance as strategic tools in the
fight against terrorism. On one hand the BJP led government calls JNU as anti-national, on
the other, BJP is making an alliance in Kashmir with PDP, a political party which takes a
strong stand against the judicial execution of Afsal Guru.
Historically, crime and its punishment have been decided on the basis of the interest of the
state. The state has been using death penalty to silence either political rivals or dissenting
voices over the long march of history. Under the colonial rule many Indian freedom fighters
lost their lives to it. The intention behind the killing of Sulfikar Ali Bhuto, Saddam Husain,
and Gaddafi were all also to fulfil the political needs of the time. One of the main excuses

used by the state in sentencing its own citizens to death is anti-national activity. The
holocaust run by Hitler and the Nazi party was under the veil of patriotism and nationalism. It
is easy to kill easily available preys and praise nationalism to reinforce certain constructs of
nationalism.
One of the arguments in favour of capital punishment is that it would reduce crime rate,
which seems to be a fallacy. If it is right, the most peaceful countries would be those
countries which successfully implement death penalty. We should also understand that the
killing of Afsal Guru, Ajmal Kasab and the culprits of Delhi rape case did not reduce terrorist
activities and heinous crimes like rape. In short, death penalty can also be understood under
certain theorizations as a crime done by the state and one of the important reasons for this
punishment is for the government in power to achieve short term political gain.
Why does the university matter in relation to themes such as anti-nationalism, patriotism,
death penalty? It matters because in the present state of affairs, the university represents the
idea of pluralism, an inclusive approach to the oppressed communities, tolerance of diversity
of views and the possibility of arguments without resort to coercion and violence. The very
existence of a university, be it JNU or HCU or any other central or state university, is to
discuss, debate and argue democratically on various subjects and to listen to the dissenting
voices tolerantly. As university scholars, we will discuss about anti-nationalism, death
penalty, state sponsored terrorism, oppression by the state towards its own citizens,
communalisation of politics, and so on. It is indeed these ideas which the university
represents that are under the threat of state repression. This is quite evident from the
ideological war unleashed against JNU , the use of brute force (and denial of basic amenities)
against HCU and the attempt at hegemonizing academic spaces in FTII and Pondicherry
university.We have to and we will fight against the interference of the state in the internal
affairs of the university and labelling of eminent universities as anti-national for petty
political gain; because to protect these democratic spaces are the only means to safeguard the
smooth functioning of our nation as a democracy today and in the future.
Bio: Tintu K Joseph is an Assistant Professor at Kuriakose Elias College in Kerala. He is also
a PhD candidate at the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU. He is interested in the themes of
religion and society, identities, state formation and queer studies. He can be contacted at
tintu_kj@yahoo.in