The Case for Capital Punishment

Ever since Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the sole surviving terrorist captured during the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai has been sentenced to death, the intellectuals and human rights groups have once again found reason to talk about how humanity would benefit from abolishing the death penalty.  Some have argued that if death penalty is abolished and the culprits given an opportunity to reform themselves into civilized citizens, it would be a victory for our democratic and humanitarian values.

Before I present my arguments supporting capital punishment, let me present some facts about the death penalty (source: Wikipedia).

• Currently only 58 nations actively practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it (the remainder having not used it for 10 years or allowing it only in exceptional circumstances such as wartime)
• Over 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where executions take place and this includes the People’s Republic of China, India, United States and Indonesia
• In a poll completed by Gallup in October 2008, 64% of Americans supported the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 30% were against and 5% did not have an opinion
• Roughly six in 10 tell Gallup they do not believe capital punishment deters murder and majorities believe at least one innocent person has been executed in the past five years.

In India, the judiciary has said that death penalty be awarded only in the rarest of the rare case. The human rights groups are evidently not happy even with this and want total abolition. I support the rarest of the rare clause as it is a directive to the courts that they need to be cautious about awarding a death sentence. However, everyone would agree that ‘rarest of the rare’ is a very loosely defined term and what constitutes rare is known to no one. I support the death penalty for crimes like terrorist acts, murder and rape.

Terrorist acts are the simplest of all because they are an act against the entire nation. For murders, revenge killings can be considered cases where the court may want to understand the motive and circumstances behind the crime. But in case of murders committed for robbery, honour killings – the decision should always be in favor of capital punishment. This is because the victim had done nothing to ‘deserve’ such an end and it was the greed or narrow mindedness of the accused which led him/her to commit the crime. Case in point being a murder committed in Borivali, Mumbai a few years back where robbers hanged a small child so that nobody could report anything to the police. What is the use of trying to reform such criminals? Or the honour killings – where one person orders the killing of a couple who fell in love?

I believe our laws against rape don’t take into account the emotional trauma the victim suffers for life. As opposed to a murder, where the victim dies once, a rape victim has to live through the trauma every day and at the same time handle the social stigma that comes with it. Rape irrespective of whether the motive was revenge or pure lust is a crime where death penalty is the best punishment. Nothing justifies it and I would not want to run the risk of getting more women raped by giving the perverts a chance at reform.

Some would argue that what if an innocent gets punished and loses his life? Looking at our judicial system where it takes years to close a case, one is reasonable to assume that the judge would have sufficient evidence before he takes the call. Moreover, rather than opposing the death penalty for fear of punishing innocents, judicial reforms are required to ensure crimes are reported, victims and witnesses are protected and police does its duty. Another check against injustice is the provision of mercy petition before the President of India.

There is an economic angle also. What Kasab did was available for all to see using the CCTV footage. Why did we have such a long trial? When the evidence was there, why did we waste so much money trying to prove something which was proved from day one? Does it make sense if we don’t trust the footage of the CCTV cameras that we ourselves put up? India needs money to take care of its population and the creaking infrastructure. I am now afraid to board a local train, go to malls and cinemas or to crowded markets. Yet it is my tax money which is being used to feed the same persons who instilled this fear in me. What about my human rights?

Finally, there is the lame argument that capital punishment will not deter criminals and terrorists. I agree. It will not. We will continue to have terrorist attacks, murders and all other crimes. But what makes our intellectuals believe that reforming criminals will curb violence in future. If we set Kasab free, will it move LeT to tears and make them disband their jihad against India? No. A big no.

Hence, I argue that India should stick to capital punishment and define the ‘rare’ clause more comprehensively to include rape, murder, honour killings and terrorist attacks in its ambit. It may not make us any safer but it will at least give some relief to the victims when they know that those who wronged them are not roaming freely outside some reform centre waiting for their next unsuspecting victim.

A slightly different version of this article was first published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on May 17, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/05/17/the-case-for-capital-punishment-2/

J&K: Does India need a New Approach?

For the last several weeks, we have heard and read about the recent unrest in the Kashmir Valley. People like me have had bitter exchanges with kashmiris who want an independent state and view India as an evil force. When I reflect on the things I have heard from separatists and Kashmiri Pandits who have been victims of an ethnic cleansing operation hardly anybody talks about, I feel India’s approach to J&K has been wrong all the time.

Let us first fix the blame. The mess we are in can be blamed on Congress and especially the Nehru regime. And to some extent on our constitution which through Article 370 gave Kashmir a special status. The special status awarded to Kashmiris have worked against India in 2 ways Firstly, it had led Kashmir to believe that they are NOT India. Secondly, it has helped them ignore the plight of Kashmiri Pandits. When Pandits who were Hindus were driven out by Islamic militancy in the late 80s, the separatist leaders sat through the brutality. Now, if you talk about rehabilitating the displaced Pandits back, the same separatists say that this is a conspiracy by India to change the demographic of the region.

I wish the issue here was devoid of any religion angle but unfortunately it isn’t. If it were, the kashmiri youth, Muslim of course, would have supported the return of Kashmiri pandits. During my heated exchanges on twitter with Kashmiris who were very keen on painting a negative picture of the Indian Army and the state, whenever I brought up the issue of Kashmiri Pandits rehabilitation, the conversation would use to go quiet and would resume only if the topic was human rights and independence. My frustration and anger at Kashmir stems from the fact that it expects all the favours from India but still doesn’t want any association to India. Kashmiris come to Delhi and speak against India in the country’s capital. We let them do it in the name of freedom of speech and because the constitution has made them special. And then they go back and bad-mouth us on the internet. They need to look left and right – at China and Pakistan and decide which country treats dissidents with such respect.

As much as I would want the Article 370 to be repealed, it won’t happen with the current state of national politics where different parties cannot unite even on issues of national interests. However, even with this constraint, there is scope for a change in strategy which can help India strengthen its support in those parts of J&K which are not anti-India.

Let’s leave out the area of J&K which is currently under the illegal occupation of Pakistan and China. There are 3 major regions in the state of Jammu and Kashmir – the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh. It is unfortunate that we in India often forget about Jammu and Ladakh in the midst of the constant trouble in Kashmir. These are the often overlooked areas of the state and these regions are definitely not anti-India. But that should not lead us to believe that we can take them for granted.

So, here is my strategy. Change the constitution if you have to but carve 3 states out of J&K – The Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. Work at war footing to build democratic structures in Jammu and Ladakh, invest heavily in Education and Infrastructure and prioritize the improvement of living standards in these two regions. Let the misguided separatists in Kashmir Valley look at their neighbours with awe. Let us not forget that it’s Kashmir which is the disputed part, not Jammu and Ladakh. Kashmir issue should not be allowed to prevent the other parts from developing. If we are able to do this, we can be reasonably assured that even if there is a plebiscite in these two regions, India is going to win.

The other thing that I fail to understand is why India is blocking Pakistani TV channels in Kashmir. Let’s not fear that these channels will brainwash kashmiri population against India as even without these channels, the kashmiri public behaves like a stooge of Pakistan. So, allow TV channels from Pakistan including the ones which show the wonderful quality of life in that part of the world. That will tell our Kashmiri friends what awaits them on the other side of the border. And finally to tackle the useless chant of independence which Kashmir won’t be able to sustain even if it gets it with Pakistan and China lurking in the shadows, India should make it clear to Hurriyat, other separatist factions and the people of Kashmir that they should not expect any military, development or economic aid from India. Why should they expect any assistance from us when their agenda has been India bashing all this time and when India is the devil incarnate for them?

I am sure this strategy cannot make us any worse than what we currently are. The heaven on Earth is in Jammu and Ladakh; not in a terrorist infested Kashmir valley. Let’s reward those who will stay loyal to us rather than running after the ones who will stab us in the back.

First published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on October 26, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/10/26/jk-does-india-need-a-new-approach/

An Acid Test for the Law

October 5, 2006 Dehradun: A man named Avinash Sharma makes a plan and his accomplice Prem Singh executes it perfectly. The girl’s face gets burnt by the acid thrown on her. Uttarakhand police arrest the two men.

November 13, 2006: As Rangoli Ranaut receives treatment in a Mumbai hospital, the Dehradun court grants bail to Avinash and Prem. Avinash is said to be obsessed with Rangoli and the motive behind the ghastlt attack is supposedly Rangoli’s refusal to marry him.

January 30, 2007 Mumbai: Actress Kangana Ranaut lodges a complaint in the Versova police station after receiving threat calls and SMSes from Avinash. She is told to help him marry Rangoli or face the same consequences as met by her sister.

This incident shows the disadvantages of the reactive nature of our law and order system, especially the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While granting bail to the accused, the Dehradun court did not consider the possibility of Avinash trying to inflict the same pain on some other innocent woman. When the IPC was devised, probably an acid attack was not the preferred modus-operandi of rejected lovers. But in the 21st century, it is common to hear about it all over in India – in small towns as well as large cities. Yet our laws have not kept pace with the crime. The victim often suffers immense psychological trauma besides physical pain. A disfigured face may damage the victim’s self-confidence and self-respect. It may also lead to a case wherein the victim finds it extremely difficult not only to get married but also to work without evoking pity or disdain from those around her. All this while the culprits roam about freely, get little or no punishment as the case drags on for years and feel no remorse for spoiling the life of an individual. The Kangana incident actually shows Avinash using the ‘acid-attack’ as a tool to force people to fall in line. In my opinion, such people should be charged on the following counts: [1] Causing physical and emotional trauma [2] Trying to prevent the victim from leading a normal life and/or even driving her to suicide [3] Using ‘acid-attack’ as a terror tool to get things done.

By granting bail to these people and by delaying conviction (such cases can be decided in two days maximum), the system is actually sending three messages to the citizenry:

1. We cannot protect you.

2. We cannot guarantee this will not happen to your near and dear ones in the future.

3. The culprit’s right to freedom is more important than the victims’ right to lead a life of dignity and self-respect. (That’s why they are so fast in granting bails)

This is the problem in having a reactive law rather than a pro-active one. We cannot take action against a person having mala fide intentions. We must wait till the damage is done. It is true we cannot be pro-active all the time but should we not try to prevent a murder if someone publicly declares his intention to kill? What should be the right punishment for the likes of Avinash and Prem? Some argue it should be nothing less than death (See: Death sentence to acid throwers ) and it’s an option worth looking at. Who needs such psychopaths in a civil society? The pro-active system has its flaws (as in the shooting down of a Brazilian after the London bomb blasts) but the reactive one is perhaps a greater evil.

Thirteen on Thirteen

Today is the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack on parliament. And the hottest news is that the families of security persons killed during the attacks have returned their gallantry medals to the President. That one of the ministers has declared returning of medals as unconstitutional is the funny side of this story but the situation actually is serious. While all this is a shame for the Central Government, the other interesting piece of news is that Ms. Arundhati Roy, noted author, activist and winner of the Man Booker prize for her novel ‘God of Small Things’ has posed 13 questions to the government. These questions attempt to highlight why and how Afzal has been framed and been made a scapegoat. I found that some of the questions have no basis of at all and instead of campaigning for a clemency for Afzal Guru, she should have spared a thought for those who died defending our symbol of democracy. The interesting point to note here is that Afzal’s brother has accepted that Afzal had links with terrorist organizations and was, in fact, an operative of Hizbul Mujahideen.

Here are the answers for Ms. Roy:

Question 1: For months before the Attack on Parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that Parliament could be attacked. On December 12, 2001, at an informal meeting the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee warned of an imminent attack on Parliament. On December 13, Parliament was attacked. Given that there was an ‘improved security drill’, how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?

Answer: Ms. Roy would do well to remember that the terrorists used a car with a VIP pass. But she is right in questioning the slack of security.

Question 2: Within days of the Attack, the Special Cell of Delhi Police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba. They said the attack was led by a man called ‘Mohammad’ who was also involved in the hijacking of IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the CBI.) None of this was ever proved in the court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?

Answer: Does this prove that Afzal is not guilty? And if the Special Cell has some insiders who leak information to it, can’t Arundhati understand that such names cannot be disclosed in public or in fact, even in court.

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on Close Circuit TV (CCTV). Congress Party MP Kapil Sibal demanded in Parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. He was supported by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptullah, who said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The Chief Whip of the Congress Party, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, said: ‘I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The close-circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men.’ If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?

Answer: Releasing the recording to public may help terrorists to understand the layout of the parliament complex. Is it that Ms. Roy suspects some MP to be in cahoots with the terrorists? Whatever she may think, this question doesn’t weaken the case against Afzal Guru. If the courts want, the honourable judges can see the footage and decide.

Question 4: Why was Parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?

Answer: Good question. Ask the MPs. Parliament sessions are often adjourned, in fact, on a daily basis for one tamasha or the other. The public of India wants justice, not answers to such stupid questions.

Question 5: A few days after December 13 attacks, the government declared that it had ‘incontrovertible evidence’ of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half-a-million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal’s ‘confession’, extracted under torture (and later set aside by the Supreme Court), what was the ‘incontrovertible evidence’?

Answer: But how does this concern Afzal? Is she arguing for Afzal or the Pakistan Government?

Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 Attack?

Answer: Same answer as above. Military mobilisation can happen for a number of reasons. How does it prove Afzal’s innocence? In fact, Afzal himself has confessed that he aided the terrorist mastermind. Isn’t that ground enough? Are we going to go soft on those who provide logistic support to terrorists?

Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages, and landmines were being planted in their fields?

Answer: Has she tried to find out how have the families of those killed in the attacks have managed to make ends meet? What financial difficulties they encounter? Take a look the other bomb blasts like the 2005 Delhi blasts and the 2006 Mumbai serial blasts. Is she aware of the loss of life and property? How much has that cost the Indian Government?

Question 8: In a criminal investigation it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. How did the police reach Mohammad Afzal? The Special Cell says SAR Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar Police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the 13 December Attack?

Answer: Good question. But the police may have had a tip off. This angle can be investigated but doesn’t prove Afzal’s innocence. The police may have nabbed him on the basis of some other evidence. This question has merits but this the way police works all over the world. They don’t and cannot start from scratch. All evidence doesn’t come from the scene of the crime.

Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the Special Task Force (STF) of Jammu & Kashmir Police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?

Answer: He was in regular contact but he wasn’t behind bars. He may have had contacts with his friends in these terrorist camps. Surely, the STF was not keeping an eye on them all throughout the 24 hours. Or were they? If yes, then they should be charged alongside Afzal.

Question 10: Is it plausible that organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?

Answer: JeM or LeT would know the answer to this. Afzal may have working as a mole even after surrendering. And let’s not forget that he provided only logistic support. Since he wasn’t the mastermind, he may not have known all the intricate details. But he is a terrorist nevertheless, right? Keeping contacts with a terrorist is an unlawful activity. I hope Ms. Roy would agree.

Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to ‘Mohammed’ and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?

Answer: He may have escaped. Our police and military don’t have intelligence on each and every person involved in anti-India activities.

Question 12: On 19 December 2001, six days after the Parliament Attack, Police Commissioner, Thane (Maharashtra), S.M. Shangari identified one of the attackers killed in the Parliament Attack as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000, and immediately handed over to the J&K Police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If Police Commissioner Shangari was right, how did Mohammad Yasin, a man in the custody of the J&K Police, end up participating in the Parliament Attack? If he was wrong, where is Mohammad Yasin now?

Answer: The J&K police needs to answer this. And that too, if Mr. Shagari is 100% sure of his claims. As for the whereabouts of Md. Yasin, the earlier answer applies. Or better still, ask Afzal.

Question 13: Why is it that we still don’t know who the five dead ‘terrorists’ killed in the Parliament Attack are?

Answer: This is the funniest of all. Seems Arundhati had saved the best for the last. Do we have a database for all terrorists? So many terrorists are recruited for anti-India operations everyday. It’s possible that many of those who took part in the Parliament attack where there in such an operation for the first time(and last as well). How will we know their names and address when then are dead? Surely, their parent terrorist camps won’t give such details to our Intelligence agencies.

I guess Afzal supporters should first decide whose side they are on. Talking about justice and human rights is alright but one should remember that a cold-blooded terrorist is not human and therefore has no human rights. And as far as justice is concerned, how about giving it to those who lost their lives for their motherland.

Crime and Punishment

It upsets me to see the kind of support a terrorist is enjoying in our country. Imagine the Chief Minister of a state asking the President to go easy on a convict. And what convict? One who helped execute a terror attack on the Parliament, the symbol of our democracy. But this is precisely what J&K CM did.

However the worse was still to come. In a brazen effort to achieve greatness, the nephew of Shaheed Bhagat Singh wrote an open letter to the President asking him to grant clemency to Mohd. Afzal Guru, the man who helped the terrorists execute an attack on the Parliament on December 13, 2001 – a daring act in which seven people(5 policemen, 1 parliament security guard and a gardener) lost their lives.

Jagmohan Singh wrote that a civil society must not seek revenge by hanging the perpetrators of crimes against the citizenry. Moreover, the system must allow for the fact that Afzal may not be guilty at all since no investigation is guaranteed to be free of error. The other point he raised and this is something that is supported by a lot of people and bloggers is that a death penalty has not been proved to be a deterrent to vicious and heinous crimes.

Let us take these points one by one. No investigation or judgment is free from a possibility of error. Does this mean that we stop punishing criminals? Won’t it be better to shut down courts instead? After all, whether it is death or imprisonment, if it’s a wrong judgment, it is injustice. Period.

It is true that capital punishment is no deterrent and a civic society must not resort to revenge. But punishment is different from revenge. It is revenge only for those who actually support the culprit. While executing Afzal may not prevent future terror attacks, what will keeping him alive achieve? Actually, it will achieve two things:

• Contrary to the popular logic, it will not effect a change of heart. Since Afzal himself has refused to apply for clemency, it shows he is not one who can be reformed. He is a true to the core jehadi who has no regrets for what he did. Letting Afzal go will only set an example for terrorists who will then come at us harder than ever before.

• The other thing that clemency will achieve is that it will cause a lot of heartburn for kins and kiths of those who lost their family members during the parliament attack. They might get turned against the system. Hence a Presidential pardon will not curb terrorism but sow seeds of future homegrown terrorism.

If Afzal is granted a reprieve, how will justice be done to the families of those who lost their near and dear ones defending the parliament? While killing Afzal may not bring those heroes back, still should we treat their martyrdom so cheaply? Such an action will demotivate the Security forces. Moreover, from an economic point of view, why should the citizens pay for Afzal’s upkeep while he is serving his sentence in jail? I pay taxes so that I get benefits in return; not for the Government to feed someone who will act against me the day he is out from jail.

The support Afzal is getting in Kashmir is obviously because he is a kashmiri himself. But letting him go free will set a bad example for the rest of the country. Life imprisonment will only show Indians how the law and political set-up behaves differently when it comes to kashmiris. This will not allow kashmiris to join the mainstream. All this talk about execution of Afzal leading to his attaining the status of a martyr is crap. And even if it is true, it is a risk India will have to take. Because whether its death or life imprisonment for Afzal, the ground-reality is not going to change for either kashmiris or for the Islamic terrorists. If kashmiris want a new destiny for themselves, they have to decide whether they want to do so by staying with the rest of India or going against it. A criminal is a criminal – whether he is a North Indian or a South Indian or a kashmiri. There cannot be two yardsticks for justice. The argument that Afzal Guru did not pull the trigger is fallacious. Kehar Singh was executed for killing Indira Gandhi even though it was not he who pulled the trigger.

If one follows Jagmohan Singh’s philosophy, then we can forget about justice for Jessica Lall, Priyadarshini Mattoo and Nitish Katara. Because according to his logic, the killers may change once mercy is shown towards them. Is he so naïve to understand that once nabbed, every criminal pretends to show remorse? Consider one fallout of Singh’s logic: if Afzal Guru must get only a life term for taking so many lives, a rapist will surely get less than 14 years. So, after a few years, the rapist will continue with his life in a normal manner. But spare a thought for the victim who would suffer the scars of this heinous crime for her entire life? While a death penalty for the culprit will not change her life, how will she feel when she sees the offender living a normal life? Imagine the hell Nitish Katara’s mother will go through if she has to live with the realization that while her son died an unnatural death, his killer is alive and in fact, she is the one who is paying taxes for his upkeep.

India has a long history of forgiveness. Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Mohammed Gauri seventeen times and forgave him each time. But after the only battle Gauri won, he ordered Prithviraj’s blinding. Forgiveness is a good virtue but it may not be the best policy always.

These are the reasons why India should set an example for the terrorists. If you mess with the Indian state, you will not be spared. Moreover, the law should mandate capital punishment for other crimes wherein the criminals have displayed intense brutality and lack of remorse and also in cases, where the crime has left an indelible scar on the victim. It may not prevent crimes but do we have any need for such barbarians in our society?

Making Mockery of PM’s Security

A few days back, the security of PM’s residence was very much in the news. Reason: Two girls decided to pay the PM a visit. Reaction: It made for prime time news, a few denials and the two damsels losing their jobs. 

But the issue that was lost amidst all these was what security the citizens can hope for when the PM himself is so insecure. On Thursday 27th July, three youngsters breached the security cordon at the Prime Minister’s offcial residence, i.e., 7 Race Course Road. Yogita Khatwani from Jaipur, along with Veena Chaudhari and AC mechanic Md. Imran drove up to the main gate in a black Sonata with the security personnel outside the main gate letting them in without checking anything. They were turned away at the reception as they had no appointment. After this, Yogita reversed the car, blew kisses to the waiting media outside the gate and drove away.  When the car was returning, the reporters stopped them and asked them the reason for their coming to the PM’s residence, to which they said, “We came to meet the Prime Minister.” On being asked if they had an appointment they said, “No.” 

When asked to disclose their identity Yogita(below right) said, “We are commoners. Can’t we meet the PM?” 

 

The trio were later intercepted by the Police who booked all three under Section 447 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code for impersonation and trespass.

The media made a big story of this and reported that the three youngsters were drunk. This claimed was later proved to be false when breath-analyzer tests turned out to be negative. However, the poor girls, who later admitted that it was all a prank and realized that they might be heading for serious trouble, lost their jobs. Their employer, Air Sahara, said that it was terminating the services of the two stewardesses and that they had been grounded anyways on charges of indiscipline. While it is agreed that the girls need to be disciplined as in the worst possible scenario they could have lost their lives to the bullets of SPG, the media was wrong in portraying them as the biggest culprits of the story. What was surprising is that the PMO insisted that there was no security breach as visitors are allowed up to the reception area. So far, no action has been taken against the Security personnel and there are chances that they will be allowed to escape punishment. The media should have taken these security men to tasks. What do they mean by saying that there is no checking done till the reception area? Area they going to allow a gun-wielding terrorist till that point before confronting him? The breach in security check cannot be taken lightly, especially as a Cabinet meeting was underway when this incident happened in a highly guarded zone. These are questions that the media must have asked and followed up on instead of focusing entirely on the girls.

 

 The Prime Minister’s office should be obliged to the media and these now former air-hostesses for exposing the weakness in the security at the Prime Minister’s residence and alerting them before any mishap can take place. When our PM is so insecure, can we really trust the state machinery to save the lives of ordinary citizens from terrorist attacks that keep happening every now and then?

This is a question that the media, the SPG and the Government need to ask themselves.