India should have a policy of no negotiations with criminals whether they are terrorists, abductors, kidnappers, hijackers, pirates or Maoists. The policy should be followed by central and state governments. The policy should be irrespective of who the hostage is. The hostage may be a ministerâ€™s daughter, engineer, doctor, collector, truck driver or someone else. It does not matter whether there is one hostage or there are many hostages. When the policy of no negotiations is declared and followed there will be no pressure on any government.
Since December 1989 when Rubiya Sayeed was abducted and five terrorists were released there have been many cases when India has surrendered to criminals and released prisoners or paid ransom. In recent years Maoists have abducted many people and state governments have released prisoners. The abductions continue.
In December 1999 a hijacked plane was allowed to take off from Amritsar and go to Kandahar. Three terrorists were released who caused many deaths later on.
On 21/2/2011 Bombay High Court confirmed death sentence of Ajmal Kasab for his crimes during 26/11. Many people expressed happiness. Someone said he is a foot soldier and pawn and we have to concentrate or mastermind.
A murderer is neither a foot soldier nor a pawn. He is a criminal. A pawn does not have life. A man has life and he makes choices and should face the consequences.
On 25/1/2011, Yashwant Sonawane, Additional District Collector of Malegaon, was burnt to death by oil mafia criminals in Panewadi, near Manmad in Nashik District. The death could have been avoided if India had death penalty for every murder and had hanged all who were sentenced to death. Every death penalty prevents three to eighteen murders as proved in an article in Newsweek some years back.
There are evil people who call themselves human rights activists and oppose death penalty. For them murderers are human beings, victims are not.
Some people want law against marital rape which is an oxymoron. Husband and wife belong to each other and they have rights and duties towards each other. A woman who does not want to have sex with her husband should separate from him and file for divorce. If a woman files for divorce the judge…
Sometimes one hears about trial by media, media going too far and media being judge, jury and executioner. One has not heard about acquittal by media. Sometimes people in media pronounce someone not guilty when the court has announced him or her guilty. Some years back a British girl in USA was found guilty by…
In India corruption has reached stratospheric levels. Thousands of crores of rupees are siphoned off. Criminals get away. An ordinary citizen can not do much in his fight against corruption. RTI activists are killed. There is one thing an ordinary citizen can do and that is to curse the corrupt and criminals. Cursed be every…
Two persons made seditious speeches in Delhi on 21/10/2010 and the central government does not want to prosecute them. The excuse is they donâ€™t want to give them publicity.
P. Chidambaram is good with excuses. Many years back when Shankaracharya of Puri made a statement that should have landed him in jail his excuse was that the Shankaracharya came perilously close to breaking the law.
The countries where rule of law prevails do what is necessary and do not hide behind excuses. Whether someone who has made seditious speech gets publicity or not is immaterial. Law has to take its course. There is equality before law. Whether the person who makes the speech is a politician, legislator or lonely figure is immaterial. People who announce reward for murdering someone donâ€™t get arrested and that makes the target insecure. Such inaction on the part of government made M. F. Hussain give up Indian citizenship.
One speaker is from Kashmir and wants independence for Kashmir. Many young people in Kashmir want independence. If the central government is open to the idea of independence for Kashmir and is ready to let go Kashmir it should say so openly. If it is open to the idea of plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir it must say so.
Maharashtra is a fit case for imposing Presidentâ€™s Rule under article 356 of the constitution.
It is not for students to tell what should be the syllabus. A student tells the university to withdraw a book from the curriculum and vice chancellor obliges within 24 hours using emergency powers which were not used before. The chief minister justifies the withdrawal saying the book contains abusive language. His partyâ€™s spokesperson says â€œIt may be his personal opinion but it was not the Chief Minister who ordered the withdrawal of the book. It was not the governmentâ€™s decision. Mumbai University is autonomous. If anybody is aggrieved by the decision of Mumbai University, they can always take it up with the Senate or the Syndicate or the appropriate forum.â€
Elections in Bihar are going on and Election Commission (EC) wants ban on opinion polls. It has written a letter to Law Ministry to bring out and ordinance banning opinion polls. EC thinks it can dictate terms to Law Ministry. It is for Law Ministry to decide whether it is subservient to EC.
Judgments in cases of Priyadarshini Mattoo and Pratibha have raised questions about what is a rarest of rare case. Supreme Court in 1980 restricted death penalty to rarest of rare cases. It usurped the function of legislature.
The government must act and bring a law that makes death penalty mandatory in all cases of murder, attempted murder, abduction, hijacking, kidnapping and other such high crimes.
In Priyadarshiniâ€™s cases the criminal had committed house breaking, rape and murder. High Court had awarded death penalty. Supreme Court reduced it life imprisonment. As Adiya Nath Kaul said on CNN-IBN on 8/10/2010 life sentence in India is a joke. He gave the example of Manu Sharma.