Why Are Few Terrorists Executed in India?
India has faced terrorism for more than the last five decades, practically since the country was created. The northeast states, central and east India, Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir have been particularly affected, but almost no state has been free from terror incidents in that time. At least 90,000 people have lost their lives in India in terrorism-related incidents.
Still, the number of convictions for terrorism is low, and executions of people found guilty of terrorism even rarer. Before Wednesday’s hanging of Ajmal Kasab, the last executions for terrorism were the hangings of Sukhdev Singh Sukha and Harjinder Singh Jinda in 1992 and Maqbool Bhatt in 1984. Some security experts also include the 1989 hangings of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh, who were convicted for their roles in the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
India Ink spoke to several security experts and former law enforcement officials about the situation, and why even people given death sentences are not often executed. Here’s what they had to say:
Maninderjit Singh Bitta, president of the All India Anti-Terrorist Front: (He was attacked several times by terrorists in Punjab and Delhi. In one case, an attacker was given the death penalty, but he is yet to be executed.)
The hanging of terrorists in India is a very political business. Even if a hanging is confirmed by the Supreme Court, politicians sit on those judgments. Politicians act as if they are above the Supreme Court.
The killer of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi has yet to be executed, because it may affect the Tamil Nadu vote bank. The killers of the former chief minister of Punjab, Beant Singh, have yet to be executed, because it may affect the Sikh vote bank. In my case as well, a terrorist has yet to be executed, because it may affect the Sikh vote bank. The attacker of Parliament has yet to be executed, because it may affect the Muslim vote bank.
So politicians are doing their vote bank politics, while dealing with hard-core terrorism. Our politicians need to learn that terrorism is terrorism and we need to fight it.
In all the above cases, the hanging was confirmed by the Supreme Court. What can the law enforcement agencies do? They did a good job in arresting the terrorists and convicting them. It is politicians who are delaying their executions.
Prakash Singh, former director general of the Border Security Force:
Hanging apart, even the normal conviction rate in terrorism cases is very low. Only the cases charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (T.A.D.A.), the Prevention of Terrorist Activities (P.O.T.A.) or the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (U.A.P.A.) have led to convictions.
Even in the case of Ajmal Kasab, why should it take four years? The case should have been completed in one year.
Firstly, we do not have a codified antiterrorism policy. Every government wants to keep all the options open as to how to deal with terrorism? Secondly, antiterrorism mechanisms are either not in place or very slow in response. Thirdly, the criminal justice system takes a lot of time. There is a time limit on police to file the charge sheet, but no time limit on courts to finish the trial.
Most of the efforts to speed up the criminal justice system are stalled by human rights lobbies and other lobbies of vested interests. Why should the office of the president of India take years in disposing of the mercy petitions? These petitions should be disposed of in days.
All the delays result in very few convictions and hangings.
Ajit Doval, former chief of India’s Intelligence Bureau:
India’s criminal justice system is based on the doctrine of the full benefit of doubt. This is fine for ordinary crime, but not for terrorism. In terrorism cases it is very difficult to establish the motive, to find the eyewitnesses, to complete the cross-examination, etc. In one particular case, the wife of a senior army officer who was killed after his retirement said, “I lost my husband, and I do not want to lose my children.” The lady was the only eyewitness.
Also, in terrorism cases, the motive is against the state of India and not against the individuals killed. So it is difficult to prove the motive in the court.
Then law enforcement agencies are always under pressure to deliver in terrorism cases, and at times they use other methods to deliver. They use excess force in some cases, like shooting the chest instead of the leg during an encounter. They are justified because they are fired upon.
We need to change our criminal justice system. The system which is fine to deal with ordinary crime in a democratic system is not fully equipped to deal with modern-day terrorism. If law enforcement agencies have prima facie evidence against a terrorist, then the onus of proof that he is not terrorist and did not do the act should be on the terrorist.
Vikram Sood, former chief of the Research & Analysis wing, India’s external intelligence agency:
Terrorism cases are not easy to prosecute. They largely depend upon circumstantial evidence, so the rate of convictions is very low. Then the court gives death sentences in rarest of the rare cases. All of that results in very few cases of hanging.
There is a political component as well. The government of the day also is concerned about the timing in hanging cases. It is necessary to consider the law and order situation.
Ajai Sahni, executive director of the South Asia Terrorism Portal
Forget about hanging — even a normal rate of conviction in terrorism and related cases is very low.
Even in special laws cases, which include T.A.D.A., P.O.T.A., U.A.L.A., the conviction rates are very low. This is largely because law enforcement is not fully trained in evidence gathering, not fully equipped technologically, does not have adequate manpower to do the task, and is always under pressure to deliver. When the law enforcement agencies realize that they can’t deliver through normal laws, they demand special laws, which help the agencies keep the offenders in jail for a long period.
This situation also leads to law enforcement relying on extrajudicial means to deal with the situations, like fake encounters. In many cases the police authorities know who is who, but can’t act due to lack of evidence. The situation is very absurd and very unfortunate, and gives the message that encounters are the only option.
N. K. Singh, former director general in the Bureau of Police Research and Development:
Most terrorists work in an act-and-hide manner. They attack and run away. It is difficult to arrest them. On many occasions they go outside India after committing the act of terrorism.
There are not many cases of successful trials of terrorists. Also, it is very difficult to gather clinching evidence in terrorism cases. In many cases they are killed in police encounters. The mastermind of terror acts, in most cases, operates from abroad. In those cases it gets difficult to bring them back and put them on trial.
But the low number of hangings is no indication that we are not fighting with terrorism.
(These interviews have been lightly edited.)
Source http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/why-are-few-terrorists-executed-in-india/
Still, the number of convictions for terrorism is low, and executions of people found guilty of terrorism even rarer. Before Wednesday’s hanging of Ajmal Kasab, the last executions for terrorism were the hangings of Sukhdev Singh Sukha and Harjinder Singh Jinda in 1992 and Maqbool Bhatt in 1984. Some security experts also include the 1989 hangings of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh, who were convicted for their roles in the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
India Ink spoke to several security experts and former law enforcement officials about the situation, and why even people given death sentences are not often executed. Here’s what they had to say:
Maninderjit Singh Bitta, president of the All India Anti-Terrorist Front: (He was attacked several times by terrorists in Punjab and Delhi. In one case, an attacker was given the death penalty, but he is yet to be executed.)
The hanging of terrorists in India is a very political business. Even if a hanging is confirmed by the Supreme Court, politicians sit on those judgments. Politicians act as if they are above the Supreme Court.
The killer of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi has yet to be executed, because it may affect the Tamil Nadu vote bank. The killers of the former chief minister of Punjab, Beant Singh, have yet to be executed, because it may affect the Sikh vote bank. In my case as well, a terrorist has yet to be executed, because it may affect the Sikh vote bank. The attacker of Parliament has yet to be executed, because it may affect the Muslim vote bank.
So politicians are doing their vote bank politics, while dealing with hard-core terrorism. Our politicians need to learn that terrorism is terrorism and we need to fight it.
In all the above cases, the hanging was confirmed by the Supreme Court. What can the law enforcement agencies do? They did a good job in arresting the terrorists and convicting them. It is politicians who are delaying their executions.
Prakash Singh, former director general of the Border Security Force:
Hanging apart, even the normal conviction rate in terrorism cases is very low. Only the cases charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (T.A.D.A.), the Prevention of Terrorist Activities (P.O.T.A.) or the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (U.A.P.A.) have led to convictions.
Even in the case of Ajmal Kasab, why should it take four years? The case should have been completed in one year.
Firstly, we do not have a codified antiterrorism policy. Every government wants to keep all the options open as to how to deal with terrorism? Secondly, antiterrorism mechanisms are either not in place or very slow in response. Thirdly, the criminal justice system takes a lot of time. There is a time limit on police to file the charge sheet, but no time limit on courts to finish the trial.
Most of the efforts to speed up the criminal justice system are stalled by human rights lobbies and other lobbies of vested interests. Why should the office of the president of India take years in disposing of the mercy petitions? These petitions should be disposed of in days.
All the delays result in very few convictions and hangings.
Ajit Doval, former chief of India’s Intelligence Bureau:
India’s criminal justice system is based on the doctrine of the full benefit of doubt. This is fine for ordinary crime, but not for terrorism. In terrorism cases it is very difficult to establish the motive, to find the eyewitnesses, to complete the cross-examination, etc. In one particular case, the wife of a senior army officer who was killed after his retirement said, “I lost my husband, and I do not want to lose my children.” The lady was the only eyewitness.
Also, in terrorism cases, the motive is against the state of India and not against the individuals killed. So it is difficult to prove the motive in the court.
Then law enforcement agencies are always under pressure to deliver in terrorism cases, and at times they use other methods to deliver. They use excess force in some cases, like shooting the chest instead of the leg during an encounter. They are justified because they are fired upon.
We need to change our criminal justice system. The system which is fine to deal with ordinary crime in a democratic system is not fully equipped to deal with modern-day terrorism. If law enforcement agencies have prima facie evidence against a terrorist, then the onus of proof that he is not terrorist and did not do the act should be on the terrorist.
Vikram Sood, former chief of the Research & Analysis wing, India’s external intelligence agency:
Terrorism cases are not easy to prosecute. They largely depend upon circumstantial evidence, so the rate of convictions is very low. Then the court gives death sentences in rarest of the rare cases. All of that results in very few cases of hanging.
There is a political component as well. The government of the day also is concerned about the timing in hanging cases. It is necessary to consider the law and order situation.
Ajai Sahni, executive director of the South Asia Terrorism Portal
Forget about hanging — even a normal rate of conviction in terrorism and related cases is very low.
Even in special laws cases, which include T.A.D.A., P.O.T.A., U.A.L.A., the conviction rates are very low. This is largely because law enforcement is not fully trained in evidence gathering, not fully equipped technologically, does not have adequate manpower to do the task, and is always under pressure to deliver. When the law enforcement agencies realize that they can’t deliver through normal laws, they demand special laws, which help the agencies keep the offenders in jail for a long period.
This situation also leads to law enforcement relying on extrajudicial means to deal with the situations, like fake encounters. In many cases the police authorities know who is who, but can’t act due to lack of evidence. The situation is very absurd and very unfortunate, and gives the message that encounters are the only option.
N. K. Singh, former director general in the Bureau of Police Research and Development:
Most terrorists work in an act-and-hide manner. They attack and run away. It is difficult to arrest them. On many occasions they go outside India after committing the act of terrorism.
There are not many cases of successful trials of terrorists. Also, it is very difficult to gather clinching evidence in terrorism cases. In many cases they are killed in police encounters. The mastermind of terror acts, in most cases, operates from abroad. In those cases it gets difficult to bring them back and put them on trial.
But the low number of hangings is no indication that we are not fighting with terrorism.
(These interviews have been lightly edited.)
Source http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/why-are-few-terrorists-executed-in-india/
Comments