I/II. http://www.firstpost.com/india/hanging-yakub-memon-will-be-a-travesty-of-justice-pak-isi-may-have-last-laugh-2362670.html
Hanging Yakub Memon will be a travesty of justice: Pakistan's ISI may have last laugh by R Jagannathan Jul 25, 2015 18:14 IST It would be a national tragedy of epic proportions and a significant miscarriage of justice if Yakub Memon hangs for his role in the 1993 Mumbai blasts. Only one final decision by the Maharashtra Governor, on Memon's mercy petition, and a third appeal in the Supreme Court now stand between him and the hangman. Facts now emerging (or re-emerging) in the public domain show how badly the legal system has failed in Memon's case. A letter written by B Raman, a former intelligence involved in Memon’s return and now published posthumously by Rediff.com, and a 2007 report by journalist Maseeh Rahman about how the Memons led by Yakub returned to India after the bombings, make it amply clear that most of the Memon family may have participated only passively in enabling the bombings. Yakub Memon. IBN Live.Yakub Memon. IBN Live. There is good reason to believe that after the initial anger over the Mumbai communal riots of 1992 evaporated, most of them did not want to stay prisoners of Pakistan's ISI, which helped mastermind the blasts. The Memons who deserve to be hanged are Tiger and Ayub (still in Pakistan as ISI protectees). They were at the core of the conspiracy to bomb several public places in 1993, which left 257 people dead. It is their hands that dripped with blood; Yakub was possibly the gullible brother who got splashed in red when the thundering caravan of public anger passed by him. This is not to say he was blameless, but he certainly was not the man who deserved the maximum punishment for the sufferings of those who died in the 1993 blasts. Both Raman and Maseeh Rahman are clear (read their full stories here and here) that the Memons who returned in three batches to India in 1994 came back largely voluntarily (barring Yakub, who may have been caught through luck or a negotiated surrender). The families’ return was aided by the Indian CBI. Prima facie this establishes the fact that even if anger and fear may have prompted the Memons to aid (or passively support) the bombings which later led them all to flee to Pakistan, they had hoped that Indian law would treat them with fairness. Raman and Rahman's writings suggest that Yakub provided crucial evidence to link his brothers' evil deeds with Pakistan, but, surprisingly, neither he nor his family got the benefit of becoming approvers in the case which could have led to lighter sentences for their roles in the blasts. This is yet another classic case where a weak state has chosen to show strength against the weak by indirectly winking at injustice. Strong states do not let public emotions and political posturing get in the way of delivering real justice. In the Indian case, the political need to satiate public anger against the Memons made the "weak" Narasimha Rao government ignore the real reasons why the Memons came back and decided to treat Yakub and some other Memons as key villains deserving no leniency. (Even if they came back only to save their property, the fact is they came back to face Indian law.) This is known is psychology as displaced aggression. If you can’t hit back at the person who wronged you, you hit out at those who are easily available. Hear what Raman had to say about Yakub: “The cooperation of Yakub with the investigating agencies after he was picked up informally in Kathmandu and his role in persuading some other members of the family to come out of Pakistan and surrender constitute, in my view, a strong mitigating circumstance to be taken into consideration while considering whether the death penalty should be implemented.” Maseeh Rahman wrote that Tiger Memon’s father actually “thrashed” him when he heard his son has used the services of Pakistan to plant the bombs in Mumbai. The law has let the Memons who returned down. Weak-kneed politicians and the legal system have used a voluntary surrender to pretend they had caught dreaded terrorists to show they mean business. There are three tragedies inherent in the Yakub story. First, there is the inability of the political and legal system to deliver real justice and focusing instead on what is easy to do. Yakub was an easy target and he is being shown no mercy just to prove that the state means business when it comes to dealing with terrorism. Actually, it proves the opposite. It testifies to the impotence of the state which cannot bring the real culprits, Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon, to justice and is instead happy to send someone else to the gallows. The only message being sent is that the next time one should not trust the Indian legal system to help those who surrender voluntarily and seek to nail the real criminals. Second, if Memon is hanged despite the facts that are now re-emerging, it will prove yet again that political support is the key to getting convicts an easier sentence. We know that political support in Punjab and Tamil Nadu helped both Balwant Singh Rajaona (convicted for the assassination of Punjab CM Beant Singh) and the three convicts facing death sentences for the Rajiv Gandhi assassination. If Yakub Memon is hanged for lesser offences that what Rajaona and Rajiv's assassins have been convicted for, it would make this assessment obvious. Third, the final tragedy would be to establish religion as the central issue in tackling terrorism. Politicians are happy to mouth the truism that terror has no religion, but that is not how they behave. It would be a real tragedy if the only politician batting for Yakub Memon is a Muslim politician like Asaduddin Owaisi of MIM. All the so-called "secular" parties are staying mum for reasons of political cowardice. The BJP and Narendra Modi's government, which have no reason to guard their Right flanks against charges of appeasement of Muslims, should use this as an opportunity to show they are not blind to issues of justice involving the minority community. Without in any way reducing the culpability of various members of the Memon family for aiding or abetting the Mumbai blasts, the hanging of Yakub Memon, if it finally comes to that, would be a triple disaster for the country. Giving the victims of the blasts a sense of closure does not mean denying a fair deal to the Memons who came back to face Indian law. Hanging Yakub would also mean Tiger Memon was right in advising him not to return. Maseeh Rahman’s report quotes Tiger Memon of warning Yakub: “Tum Gandhiwadi ban ke ja rahe ho, lekin wahan atankwadi qarar kiye jaoge” (You are going as a Gandhian, but over there you will be labelled a terrorist). If Yakub hangs, it would prove Tiger Memon right. Pakistan's ISI will have the last laugh. It could not prevent Yakub's surrender. Now India is doing its job of killing off someone who didn't kowtow to the ISI. Is that what secular India wants? II. http://www.rediff.com/news/column/exclusive-b-ramans-unpublished-2007-article-why-yakub-memon-must-not-be-hanged/20150723.htm Exclusive! B Raman's unpublished 2007 article: Why Yakub Memon must not be hanged Last updated on: July 24, 2015 13:26 IST 'The cooperation of Yakub with the investigating agencies after he was picked up informally in Kathmandu and his role in persuading some other members of the family to come out of Pakistan and surrender Constitute, in my view, a strong mitigating circumstance to be taken into consideration while considering whether the death penalty should be implemented,' B Raman had written in August 2007. With possibly days left for Yakub Memon's hanging, Rediff.com secured permission from Mr Raman's brother to publish the article. Image: A 2007 photograph of 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon being taken to the TADA court in Mumbai. Photograph: PTI Photograph. In August 2007, writes Sheela Bhatt, I had written a two-part report: The strange case of Yakub Memon, and Why Yakub Memon's death sentence is surprising. Before writing it I had interviewed B Raman, former Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, on the telephone as at that time he was based in Chennai and I in Mumbai. He was very critical about the story because when Yakub Memon was lured back to India, Mr Raman headed the Pakistan Desk at the Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency. He was the key person who, along with officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Intelligence Bureau, had put in best efforts to crack Yakub Memon and bring him to justice in India. No less than Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao had monitored the operation and was very pleased when the team met with success. By all means it was an intelligence coup. Mr Raman retired on August 31, 1994, just a few days after Yakub Memon was back in India. Yakub Memon claimed that he came to India on July 19, 1994, on his own while the Central Bureau of Investigation says he was arrested in New Delhi on August 5, 1994. Mr Raman knew it all. Mr Raman, who sadly passed away on June 16, 2013, had been a regular columnist for Rediff.com since 2002, and I requested him to share the inside story of Yakub Memon in the form of a column in 2007. To my surprise, he agreed. But when the details arrived in my mailbox along with it came his note. In it he insisted that I should use the data in my reports without attribution. For my two-part story, lots of details had been given to me by Mr Raman and a former chief of the Intelligence Bureau who Mr Raman had suggested to me. Mr Raman, image, left, was meticulous. He was an intelligence officer, but in some strange way he had a tremendous urge to 'educate' the people. He always treated media-persons including me as 'pupils.' Intelligence officers normally do not write e-mails to share secret details. But, after his retirement from R&AW, Mr Raman revealed his thoughts frequently through e-mail conversations. (In the final years of his life he was madly in love with Twitter, he was in fact addicted to it). When Yakub Memon was sentenced to death Mr Raman was in pain. He called me to share why it was very wrong on the part of the Indian establishment to allow Yakub Memon to die by decree of law. He was quite disturbed to see the deception by officers of the investigating agencies, in the Mumbai courts and in higher courts, that he was once part of. On August 2, 2007, at 9.39 am, I got Raman's column in my inbox, written in bullet points and bold font, a style he was famous for. He sent it to me to publish in Rediff.com. I was delighted. But, with the attachment, he also added, 'I wrote this, but I am having second thoughts. Don't use it. Others might escape as a result of this article if the higher court holds that the entire case has been vitiated as a result of the prosecution concealing a material fact from the sentencing court. R.' Then, he changed his mind again and told me on the phone that I could use the details in my report. Obviously, I found the details useful. Unfortunately, Mr Raman is no more. He died on June 16, 2013. But anybody who knew him enough can vouch that if he was alive today he would have written an article a day and would have gone on Twitter to stop Yakub Memon from going to the gallows. Mr Raman's argument was that while for Indians the country is bigger than anything else, a country can command respect only by honouring its commitments. The promise given by serving officers who represent a sovereign State is not negotiable. The system should uphold what is promised by representatives of the sovereign State. Even if the promise is given to doubtful characters like Yakub Memon who do not deserve our sympathy for running away from the motherland. Mr Raman argued, 'By bringing back Yakub Memon the Indian State strengthened its standing.' Mr Raman, who was a nationalist and supported patriotic issues, argued that the system of R&AW, IB and CBI worked wonders to bring back an Indian from an adversarial country like Pakistan. It was a historical intelligence achievement. Terrorists like Dawood Ibrahim and 'Tiger' Memon should not have been harboured by Pakistan in the first place. They must not be given protection for another day by any country. Pakistan remains guilty of disregarding Indian sentiments by keeping Dawood Ibrahim under wraps. Indian diplomacy's peace overtures have failed in bringing the terrorists to justice. But, in the process of cracking the anti-India forces of Pakistan, Indian sleuths surprisingly got back Yakub Memon. Yakub Memon, who has helped India prove a point, must be defended. In October 2006 Mr Raman had written an article (external link) on Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, who was hanged in February 2013, advocating a deeper investigation of his case. In reply to a query from reader Vijay Shankar, he had replied: 'I have no views other than what I have already expressed. I have been of the view 'kill them in action and not in custody, even after a fair trial, make the State-sponsor of terrorism bleed and differentiate the individuals who let themselves be used by it.' Regards. Raman'. He had sent his reply to me too. Mr Raman would argue that Yakub Memon should be differentiated because he allowed India 'to use' him and show Pakistan how from under its nose Indian intelligence officers have got back an Indian to appear before Indian courts. Whatever be Yakub Memon's logic or compulsion to return to India, he did help India cock a snook at Pakistan, which was refusing to change its vicious ways of harbouring two of India's most wanted. Here is Mr Raman's article that was not published in 2007. Rediff.com publishes it now with the permission of his elder brother, Mr B S Raghavan, a retired distinguished IAS officer and a Rediff.com columnist himself. Memon brothers and the Mumbai blasts I have been going through a moral dilemma in my mind ever since I read in the media about the sentencing of Yakub Memon to death by the court, which tried the accused in the Mumbai blasts of March 1993, and his tantrums in the court after the death sentence was pronounced. Right though the trial, he has been claiming that he was not arrested in Old Delhi as stated by the prosecution, but in Kathmandu, Nepal. This was disputed by the prosecution, which asked for the severest penalty against him and others, who were sentenced to death. All those sentenced to death have the right of appeal to the higher court and to petition the President of India for clemency if their appeals are rejected. I have been repeatedly asking myself: Should I write this article? Would I be a moral coward if I did not do so? Would the entire case get unravelled if I wrote it? Would the undoubtedly guilty escape punishment as a result of my writing it? Would my article be adversely viewed by the court? Would I be committing contempt of court? It is impossible to have definitive answers to these questions. Ultimately, I decided to write this in the belief that it is important to prevent a person, who in my view does not deserve to be hanged, from going to the gallows. As the head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), I had dealt with the external aspects of the investigation between March 1993 and my retirement on August 31, 1994. I like to believe that my work, with the help of some outstanding field officers of R&AW, was highly appreciated by P V Narasimha Rao, the then prime minister, who described our contribution to the investigation of the external aspects as worth its weight in gold. I was disturbed to notice that some mitigating circumstances in the case of Yakub Memon and some other members of the family were probably not brought to the notice of the court by the prosecution and that the prosecution did not suggest to the court that these circumstances should be taken into consideration while deciding on the punishment to be awarded to them. In their eagerness to obtain the death penalty, the fact that there were mitigating circumstances do not appear to have been highlighted. It was an outstanding piece of investigation by the Mumbai police and the Central Bureau of Investigation, with the excellent help of the IB. The nation ought to be proud of the officers who handled the investigation and prosecution, for their outstanding success in painstakingly collecting all the relevant evidence and placing before the court a watertight case. The aura surrounding them would have shone even brighter had they taken the initiative in underlining before the court that there were some mitigating circumstances and that keeping those circumstances in view, they would refrain from asking for the death penalty even though perpetrators of such barbaric acts of terrorism deserve the death penalty. The prosecution was right in saying that Yakub was arrested in Old Delhi. Yakub was right in claiming that he was not arrested in Old Delhi. In July 1994, some weeks before my retirement, he was informally picked up in Kathmandu, with the help of the Nepal police, driven across Nepal to a town in Indian territory, flown to Delhi by an aircraft of the Aviation Research Centre and formally arrested in Old Delhi by the investigating authorities and taken into custody for interrogation. The entire operation was coordinated by me. He had come to Kathmandu secretly from Karachi to consult a relative and a lawyer on the advisability of some members of the Memon family, including himself, who felt uncomfortable with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, returning to India and surrendering to the Mumbai police. The relative and the lawyer advised him against surrender due to a fear that justice might not be done to them. They advised Yakub to go back to Karachi. Before he could board the flight to Karachi, he was picked up by the Nepal police on suspicion, identified and rapidly moved to India. He cooperated with the investigating agencies and assisted them by persuading some other members of the Memon family to flee from the protection of the ISI in Karachi to Dubai and surrender to the Indian authorities. The Dubai part of the operation was coordinated by a senior officer of the IB, who was then on deputation to the ministry of external affairs. Neither the R&AW nor I had any role in the Dubai part of the operation. The cooperation of Yakub with the investigating agencies after he was picked up informally in Kathmandu and his role in persuading some other members of the family to come out of Pakistan and surrender constitute, in my view, a strong mitigating circumstance to be taken into consideration while considering whether the death penalty should be implemented. There is not an iota of doubt about the involvement of Yakub and other members of the family in the conspiracy and their cooperation with the ISI till July 1994. In normal circumstances, Yakub would have deserved the death penalty if one only took into consideration his conduct and role before July 1994. But if one also takes into consideration his conduct and role after he was informally picked up in Kathmandu, there is a strong case for having second thoughts about the suitability of the death penalty in the subsequent stages of the case. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
