Law’s agonising delays

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Nearly 23 years after the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, the fate of seven persons convicted in connection with the crime still remains uncertain, although, mercifully, they have been spared the gallows.

The prolonged delay in the conclusion of the legal process in this case contrasts sharply with the speedy end of those relating to the assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi and prime minister Indira Gandhi.

The Mahatma was shot dead in New Delhi on January 30, 1948, less than six months after the country gained freedom. Investigators concluded that, apart from Nathuram Vinayak Godse, who had pulled the trigger, 11 others, including Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, freedom fighter and Hindutva ideologue, were involved in the conspiracy that led to the murder. One accused turned approver and was pardoned.

In the judgment pronounced on February 10, 1949, the trial court gave Godse and another accused, Narayan Apte, the death sentence and jail terms to some others. Savarkar was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

The East Punjab High Court, which heard the appeals, too acted with due dispatch. It acquitted one accused and confirmed the sentences on the others. Godse and Apte were executed on November 15, 1949.

Prime minister Indira Gandhi was shot dead by Beant Singh and Satwant Singh, members of her security staff, on October 31, 1984. Other members of the security staff fired at them, killing Beant Singh on the spot and injuring Satwant Singh. The prosecution alleged that a third person, Kehar Singh, was also involved in the conspiracy to kill Mrs Gandhi.

The trial court held both Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh guilty and sentenced them to death. The Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the sentences, and both were hanged on January 6, 1989.

Rajiv Gandhi was killed in an explosion at Sriperumpudur, near Chennai, on May 21, 1991 while on an election tour. The explosion was set off by Dhanu, a woman suicide bomber sent by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which was involved in a civil war to carve out an independent Tamil state from the island nation of Sri Lanka. Dhanu too was killed in the explosion. LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabakaran and his top aides, who figured among the 41 accused mentioned in the charge-sheet prepared by the special investigation team (SIT), were never caught. They took their own lives or were killed in the civil war.

A total of 26 persons faced trial. All of them, except perhaps Nalini, who was said to be a member of the squad the LTTE had sent to India, and her husband, Murugan alias Sriharan, played only a peripheral role in the crime. Since the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act was invoked, investigators could keep the accused in custody continuously for a long period, as against 15 days permitted under the normal law, and their confessions to the police could be admitted as evidence.

The trial court found all the 26 accused guilty and awarded the death penalty. Being a TADA case, only the Supreme Court was competent to entertain appeals. On May 11, 1999, a bench, presided over by Justice KT Thomas, confirmed the death sentence on four of the accused and reduced the sentence on the others to various terms of imprisonment.

Nalini had given birth to a girl while in custody. The government, accepting the Gandhi family’s plea, commuted her sentence to life term.

The fate of the other condemned prisoners remained uncertain for more than a decade as three successive presidents, KR Narayanan, APJ Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Patil, took no action on their mercy petitions. President Pranab Mukherji rejected their petitions but the Supreme Court quickly stepped in and commuted the death sentence.

The apex court, which had ruled a few days earlier that inordinate, unexplained and agonising delays in deciding on mercy petitions would be ground for commutation, pointed out that in this case the petitions had remained unattended for more than 11 years.

Following the Supreme Court judgment, the Tamil Nadu government decided to release Nalini and the three others, who have been in prison for more than two decades, in keeping with the long standing practice of releasing lifers after 14 years. The decision led to a storm of protests from Congress leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, son of the slain leader.

At the instance of the Centre, the Supreme Court intervened again, and directed Tamil Nadu not to release the convicts until it examined the matter.

The history of this case underscores the need for both the judicial and executive branches to streamline their procedures so as to ensure speedy conclusion of the process of law. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, February 25, 2014

CHOGM dilemma

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

To go or not to go, that is the question before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo approaches. 

India has been an active participant in the Commonwealth of Nations, a grouping of Britain and its former colonies, since its formation in 1949. In fact, it was India’s readiness to be associated with the former colonial power which made the grouping possible.

Since 1971, CHOGM has become institutionalised as a summit held once in two years in the different member countries by turns. Beginning 1977 the host country has set a theme for each meeting.  The theme selected by Sri Lanka for this year’s meeting is “Growth with Equity; Inclusive Development,” a subject of great relevance to India.

Manmohan Singh’s dilemma arises from the vociferous opposition of the government and major political parties of Tamil Nadu to his visiting Sri Lanka when the island’s Sinhalese-dominated government pursues a discriminative policy towards the Tamil minority.

Last month the Tamil Nadu state assembly passed a resolution, moved by Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, demanding that India boycott CHOGM and seek Sri Lanka’s suspension from the group until it grants equal status to the Tamils.  All parties, including the Congress, which heads the government at the Centre, voted for the resolution.

With parliamentary elections due early next year, the state’s parties are engaged in a competition to emerge as the greatest champions of Tamil interests. Jayalalithaa has been pursuing the issue with the Centre since March when she wrote to Manmohan Singh asking that he work for shifting the CHOGM venue.

State legislatures have no role in matters of foreign policy. Yet the Tamil Nadu Assembly has passed resolutions on the Sri Lankan Tamil issue on three occasions. Although the problem has not generated much interest outside the state successive central governments have taken note of Tamil sentiments and intervened on behalf of the island’s ethnic minority.

Video recordings which surfaced recently have yielded conclusive evidence of gross human rights violations by the Sri Lankan army during its successful campaign against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which had posed a violent challenge for three decades. Apart from LTTE chief Velupillai Prabhakaran, his teenage son and several mediapersons, at least one of them, a woman, were murdered in cold blood after being caught alive.

In a report to the UN Human Rights Council five weeks ago, High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay noted that the Sri Lankan government was evading an international inquiry into the rights violations and stressed the need for an independent investigation of the alleged war crimes.

Several human rights groups and Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in foreign lands have called upon Commonwealth members to boycott the Colombo CHOGM. So far only Canada has responded favourably. Its prime minister, Stephen Harper, has decided to stay away and send a representative instead.

Jayalalithaa has said it is unfortunate that India with 80 million Tamils has not acted with the same determination as Canada which has only a small Tamil population. She deliberately glosses over the fact that, unlike Canada, India has much at stake in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka received tactical support from India and weapons from China in the last stages of the war against LTTE. Coinciding with the cooling in the relations with India, which had been pressuring it since the end of the war to take political measures to meet Tamil aspirations, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has expanded ties with China. 

So far China has committed about $4 billion for infrastructure development in Sri Lanka. Its contributions include a $500 million container terminal which was commissioned in August and a $292 million airport highway which was opened last week. Work on a $272 million railway project has just begun. 

After India voted against Sri Lanka on a US-sponsored resolution in the Human Rights Council, the Rajapaksa administration announced it would renegotiate the 2003 agreement with India with regard to the use of oil storage tanks.

Yielding to Indian pressure, Sri Lanka held elections in the Tamil regions, and a provincial government headed by CV Vigneswaran, a former judge, has taken office. He finds himself in the unenviable position of being disliked by both the Sinhalese majority and the Tamil minority. Manmohan Singh still has more than a week to make up his mind as the actual meeting of heads of government will begin only on November 15. Such influence as New Delhi has over Colombo will be in jeopardy if he stays away from CHOGM. -- Gulf Today, November 5, 2013.

 

End of civil war in Sri Lanka

“We willingly stand up with courage and silence our guns. We have no other option other than to continue our plea to the international community to save our people”. With these words, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam conceded on Sunday the Sri Lankan government’s claim that the long drawn out civil war is over.

The end of the conflict was announced by Selvarasa Pathmanathan, head of LTTE’s International Diplomatic Relations, in an urgent statement, according to the TamilNet website.

Pathmanathan said, “This battle has reached its bitter end. Against all odds, we have held back the advancing Sinhalese forces without help or support, except for the unending support of our people. It is our people who are dying now from bombs, shells, illness and hunger. We cannot permit any more harm to befall them.”

He said the LTTE had fought the Sri Lankan military for almost three decades and defended its right to carry arms as a means of protecting the Tamil people living in the island.

The website made no mention of the whereabouts of the LTTE chief, Velupillai Prabakaran.

The Sri Lankan army’s current campaign against the LTTE began two years ago. With its successful completion, the civil war is over. But the island’s Tamil community’s legitimate demand for an honourable place remains to be addressed. This is a political task that brooks no delay.

The recent furore in India over the Sri Lankan developments betrays a total lack of understanding of the issue in our media as well as in political circles.

The animosity between the Sinhala and Tamil communities goes back a long way. When the country gained independence in 1948 the Tamils had a favoured position in the government, having been close to the British during the colonial period. The country witnessed a series of agitations under the leadership of Buddhist monks seeking justice for the majority Sinhala people, who are Buddhists. These led to the adoption of Buddhism as the state religion and Sinhala as the official language. It was now the turn of the Tamils to agitate against injustice.

An honourable solution to the island’s ethnic problems lies in the evolution of a constitutional scheme which recognises the rights of the Tamils as a religious and linguistic minority.

Details of S. Pathmanathan’s statement at TamilNet website.