2 more in UPA quiver

For the past several years, the Bharatiya Janata Party had been taunting the United Progressive Alliance government for taking a “soft approach” towards terror. Soft approach was the code word for not taking a more belligerent attitude towards Pakistan as the National Democratic Alliance did during 2001-02 when Indian troops moved to the border in a fighting position immediately after the attack on Parliament in Delhi.

The soldiers eventually returned to their barracks without firing a single shot, but apparently the hardliners were satisfied that the NDA had taught Pakistan a lesson.
The symbol of that soft approach was Afzal Guru, found guilty of being a conspirator in the audacious attack on Parliament in December 2001. Though human rights groups had protested and various courts expressed their doubts about some of the evidence that had been presented in the case against Guru, he was sentenced to death, a sentence upheld by the high court and the Supreme Court. He was on death row for 10 years and the BJP, and its ally, the Shiv Sena, had been demanding that he be hanged. Not hanging him, they alleged, was a political ploy by the UPA to “appease the minorities”, i.e. not upsetting Muslims.
Inevitably, therefore, his hanging has acquired a political dimension. The UPA is now being accused of trying to nullify the emergence of Narendra Modi as the undisputed leader of the BJP. Guru’s execution will satisfy the Hindus, who would have otherwise gravitated towards the BJP. It also shows that the UPA is not soft on terror — it had, after all, also hanged Ajmal Kasab barely three months ago. Besides, Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde’s decisiveness would take the sting out of the BJP’s campaign against him for his remarks on Hindu terror. These are the cynical political calculations of the UPA behind the decision to carry out the hanging, say conspiracy theorists.
In a sense, the UPA is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” bind. For instance, the question, “Why was it done now”, is a moot one. That point would arise whenever the hanging was to be done. Indeed, it could be argued that for maximum political advantage, the UPA should have waited till just three or four months before the general election. In the same vein, assuming that the UPA did not want to “upset” the minorities, it could have put the decision on the back burner and let the next government take a call.
But if political calculations have to be factored in, it is undoubtedly a step that has thrown the BJP off balance. As the news of Guru’s hanging became public and mikes were thrust into the faces of politicians for reactions, the BJP scrambled to come up with a spin. “In the national interest”, “no time for politicking”, “better late than never” were the best they could come up with. A major political plank had been snatched from under their feet. Their
dilemma is further heightened by the fact that one of their most important allies, the Akali Dal, has filed a clemency petition on behalf of Balwant Singh Rajaona, sentenced to death for killing former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh. What is their stand on that, the BJP’s leaders were asked. They had no cogent answer except to say, “We are against all forms of terrorism.” Their conviction will be tested to the utmost as investigations into the terror attacks by Hindu groups proceed to its logical conclusion.
But it is not just the BJP’s discomfiture that should give comfort to the UPA. It is important to note that not a single political party, including the Left, has expressed reservations about the Afzal Guru case or the execution itself. The attack on Parliament was seen as a war on India, and its most important institution, and the political class has rallied around like one on the subject. That would have surely played on the UPA’s mind while taking the crucial final decision — once the President rejected the mercy petition, the order had to be carried out, as swiftly as possible.
The government, which has shown an increasing tendency to react to “public opinion” as reflected in television debates and the social media, to say nothing of street protests, will also feel somewhat satisfied that the hanging has been supported heartily by the populace. If an opinion poll is held — a real one, not the yes/no insta-polls on the nightly news — it will undoubtedly show that the general public fully supports the government on this one.
There is sufficient empirical evidence to suggest that the public mood has become more and more bloodthirsty in recent years, calling for tough and extreme measures against terrorists. Which government will not like that? Speaking purely in political terms, the UPA’s calculations about the fallout of the hanging may be bang on.
Many familiar debates have opened up once again. For human rights activists and lawyers, Guru’s case reflected the faults in the system, since they had all along maintained that the evidence against him was not foolproof; if anything, crucial bits were manufactured. The courts said as much, but at the same time upheld the death sentence. The bigger question, which India has so far refused to confront in any meaningful way, is about the death sentence itself. All around the world, crucial debates are under way about capital punishment. India has voted against the non-binding resolutions calling for a moratorium against executions. There is nothing to suggest that public opinion in India is against capital punishment and therefore no pressure on the government to consider it. Given the reactions to the hanging of Kasab and Guru — and the vociferous demands to castrate rapists and hang them, even if they happen to be juvenile — public opinion is not likely to change soon. Politically and otherwise, the government may be led to think it is on the right track.