Mr. Geelani: Who did we acquit?
Published by Mysorean on Saturday, August 06, 2005 at 8:30:00 pm.
The Hindu has an article on the acquittal of Geelani.
My discomfort arises from the last statement with which the TV coverage ended. "I realise I was convicted earlier only because I am a Kashmiri Muslim", said Mr. Geelani. He was not responding improptu to questions from reporters. He was reading out from a paper which probably had the statement on it. All the National newspapers have rightly kept the statement out of their stories. But I am unable to shrug it off.
If he was convicted earlier just because he was a Kashmiri Muslim, the judgement of the Apex Court also shouldn't have changed. Afterall, he didn't change his religion before this judgement. He was hurt by the judgement of the earlier court. Anybody would have been. You punish an innocent person, the innocent person will obviously be hurt.
Being a professor, who teaches in a famous University, making such statements don't suit his demeanour. Going into your lecture with the attitude that I am not treated on par with the others because of my religion, you will only end up poisoning more minds than teaching them to live in harmony with other people.
Have our tolerance limits really gone up to such an extent that we take such statements in our stride too? It's a pity that such a statement was made in the first place. And despite getting justice, if this is the stand that a person takes then its dangerous to the society. I consider that statement as unnecessary. It is an open attack on the Indian tolerance levels.
By acquitting Mr. Geelani, now it's unclear as to who we have acquitted. A Kashmiri Muslim who is such a danger to the country that he was once awarded a death penalty? Or an Indian who is living under a free democracy and an effective juidicary?
Tomorrow: The discourse at Ramakrishna Ashram
Giving Mr. Geelani the benefit of the doubt, a Bench consisting of Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi and Justice P.P. Naolekar said his conduct at the time of the attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001 was disturbing and created a serious suspicion about his role as he reportedly approved the terrorist act. Further, the Bench referred to Mr. Geelani's untruthful pleas about his contacts with Afzal and Shaukat and said the needle of suspicion pointed to him. However, "suspicion alone is not sufficient to convict a person."In a press conference shown on Headlines Today News Channel, Mr. Geelani was stating how happy he was to be proven innocent especially after being convicted (and given a death sentence) by a lower court. His happiness is understandable. And my hearty wishes to him for his acquittal.
My discomfort arises from the last statement with which the TV coverage ended. "I realise I was convicted earlier only because I am a Kashmiri Muslim", said Mr. Geelani. He was not responding improptu to questions from reporters. He was reading out from a paper which probably had the statement on it. All the National newspapers have rightly kept the statement out of their stories. But I am unable to shrug it off.
If he was convicted earlier just because he was a Kashmiri Muslim, the judgement of the Apex Court also shouldn't have changed. Afterall, he didn't change his religion before this judgement. He was hurt by the judgement of the earlier court. Anybody would have been. You punish an innocent person, the innocent person will obviously be hurt.
Being a professor, who teaches in a famous University, making such statements don't suit his demeanour. Going into your lecture with the attitude that I am not treated on par with the others because of my religion, you will only end up poisoning more minds than teaching them to live in harmony with other people.
Have our tolerance limits really gone up to such an extent that we take such statements in our stride too? It's a pity that such a statement was made in the first place. And despite getting justice, if this is the stand that a person takes then its dangerous to the society. I consider that statement as unnecessary. It is an open attack on the Indian tolerance levels.
By acquitting Mr. Geelani, now it's unclear as to who we have acquitted. A Kashmiri Muslim who is such a danger to the country that he was once awarded a death penalty? Or an Indian who is living under a free democracy and an effective juidicary?
Tomorrow: The discourse at Ramakrishna Ashram
