Planned execution stirs fierce debate in India

[struggle4progress]

By Gavin Rabinowitz
ASSOCIATED PRESS

12:11 p.m. October 11, 2006

NEW DELHI – The execution order for a man convicted of involvement in an attack on India's Parliament has sparked bitter protests in his native Kashmir and touched off raw debates along this country's fraught Muslim-Hindu divide ...

Last month, a court ordered Afzal to be hanged at dawn Oct. 20 at New Delhi's Tihar Jail. The execution has since been postponed indefinitely by Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to allow a committee to consider a clemency petition from Afzal's wife, Tabassum.

Her appeal is supported by several politicians from the ruling Congress party, and on Wednesday she told The Associated Press that, “we are optimistic that the verdict will be revoked.” ...

The latest protest Wednesday brought hundreds of Hindus into the streets of Jammu, the winter capital of Indian Kashmir, to press for Afzal's hanging. A day earlier, Indian police used tear gas and rubber bullets to break up a pro-Afzal march at Kashmir University ...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20061011-1211-india-executiondebate.html

[Kagemusha]

1. Eh? Not the sentence, but the verdict being revoked?

This person's not guilty of the crime?...

[struggle4progress]

2. We haven’t even heard Afzal’s story

Nandita Haksar
Posted online: Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 0000 hrs

... There are three principal reasons why hanging Mohammad Afzal would violate basic principles of natural justice and equity.

First, the charge sheet was against 12 persons: three Pakistanis (.. none of the three were arrested or brought to trial..); five Pakistanis who actually attacked Parliament and were responsible for the death of nine members of our security forces; and the four people who actually stood trial. Afzal was not responsible for anyone’s death or injury. He did not mastermind the attack. The Supreme Court has noted that there is no direct evidence of his involvement.

Second, all the three courts, including the Supreme Court, have acquitted him of the charges under POTA of belonging to either a terrorist organisation or a terrorist gang.

Third, he was denied a fair trial. The investigation was full of illegalities and the courts noted with concern that evidence was fabricated and he never had a lawyer who represented him. The Designated Judge passed an order giving Afzal the right to cross-examine witnesses but even a person with legal training without knowledge of criminal law would find it difficult to conduct such a trial ...

<edit: fix link> http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13656.html