Thursday, July 30, 2015

Curious case of Yakub Memon

There are some people who are 'curious' to know why was Yakub Memon hanged. There is a false propaganda carried out by some pseudo-liberals who never bothered about victims of terrorist attacks but are only worried about the terrorists.Usually the argument on such cases will be that the 'accused' is innocent,he was misguided by people around him,he was so young that he didn't have the maturity to understand what he was actually doing,due to surroundings and unfortunate circumstances he committed this crime etc etc etc.But this case is little bit different.

As usual,the wannabe liberals, started abusing our judiciary system.The case was going on for the past 22 years, since 1994.These people have outright rejected the arguments of public prosecutor and the judgement given.They are quoting an article of late RAW(Research and Analysis Wing) officer, Mr.B Raman,which went unpublished way back in 2007.Recently,after getting permission from his brother B S Raghavan,the article was published.Based on this article,these fellows are running a campaign as if Yakub Memon was an innocent guy and he helped the investigating agencies in all possible ways,he was assured of not getting death penalty,he voluntarily came forward and surrendered etc,only thing is he helped his brother Tiger Memon,who is the mastermind behind the blasts,without knowing about the bomb blasts and since he was a chartered accountant,it was possible that he was unaware of the activities of Tiger.The saffron govt has hanged Yakub Memon. And 'sudden-patriots' like Shashi Tharoor calls this a cold blooded murder.Nonsense.

If someone tells such a story to you,just reply them in word - 'stupid'.Raman's article only says, Yakub was uncomfortable with ISI and wanted to surrender to the Mumbai police,but his relatives advised him not to surrender and return back to Karachi.While he was all set to return,the Nepal police arrested him based on suspicion and then he was brought back to India. Raman, not a single place in his article, claims Yakub was innocent.He clearly says Yakub Memon and his family members were involved in the conspiracy and they cooperated with ISI till July 1994.Further,the article reads, Yakub deserved death sentence for his conduct and role before July 1994.Then, he has written that since Yakub cooperated well with the investigating agencies and his conduct was good, "there is a strong case for having second thoughts about the suitability of the death penalty in the subsequent stages of the case.".

So the article which the liberals are using to prove Yakub's 'innocence' itself clearly says he was involved in the conspiracy carried out by ISI.Then where does the question of innocence arise? Yakub was given a fair trial. He had 22 years of time to prove his innocence.Death penalty will be awarded only after thorough investigation.He was given death sentence in 2003, which means after a 10 year investigation,he was awarded death penalty and he had 12 more years to prove his innocence. The following image from the The New Indian Express explains it all.

Just because someone has surrendered,it doesn't mean they should be let off.If the crime deserves a death penalty,the criminal will be given death sentence.Before sympathizing for people like Yakub Memon,spare some time for the families of 257 people who died in the serial blasts.Moreover though Raman says,as Yakub's conduct was good post July 1994 and there should be second thought on death penalty to him,it is not necessary to reconsider the punishment awarded.What Raman wrote in his article was just his opinion.Merit of the evidence and the impact of the crime will only decide the punishment, not the personal opinions of investigating officers.

Let us assume that Yakub was let off based on Mr.Raman's 'certificate' that his conduct was good post July 1994.What if he commits an even bigger crime after being let off?What is the guarantee that he wont do that again?Think..

The review petition on death sentence was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2013 itself,which means when Dr.Manmohan Singh was PM,which means there was a secular govt.On what basis these people accuse Modi sarkar and color the verdict 'saffron'?Its contempt of court.As usual the Muslim card is also being used.If they can ask such a question that was Yakub hanged because he was a Muslim? ,then they owe an answer for these questions as well, 'are these people supporting terrorists and terrorist activities?are these people supporting a terrorist because he is a Muslim?". One more info - statistics says,out of 1414 convicts only 72 were Muslims and 1342 were Hindus.

"..a new report by Death Penalty Research Project of the National Law University (NLU), Delhi shows that of the 1,414 prisoners in the available list of convicts hanged in post-Independence India, only 72 are Muslims—not even 5 per cent of the total executions..." - source-click-here

All these Muslim card-victim card and all will not work out dear liberals.

My appeal to sensible people,let the law take its own course,don't believe the false propaganda of pseudo-liberals and pseudo-seculars.Yakub's criminal culpability was proved beyond doubt. If you have any questions about this issue,you can post it in the comments section.

Mr.B Raman's article is given below. Courtesy

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.