Death to hijackers?

The government’s decision to make hijacking punishable with death is a tough measure that is overdue. Perhaps it should have been taken even in the 1980s after the first hijacking of an Indian plane to Lahore by Sikh extremists. The other major hijacking was that of the Indian Airlines plane that was taken to Kandahar in 1999 which resulted in the release of Azhar Masood, the arrested Harkatul Mujahideen terrorist, who then went on to create the deadlier Jaish-e-Mohammed.

India has not faced too many cases of hijacking, but this does not obviate the need to have a punishment regime in place. Hijacking is a clear act of terror since it is about holding the state to ransom
by endangering the lives of innocent civilians. It may or may not deter potential hijackers, but the proposed measure will at least send a simple message to would-be terrorists that the state is serious about defending itself and in handing out retribution.

Apart from the principled objections of anti-capital punishment advocates, there could be legitimate criticism on the usefulness of the death penalty when hijackings could be handled more effectively by preventive procedures. There are no doubt, several ways to improve the security regime at airports, but the terrorist has an edge in this game of poker. Systems may fail only once in a thousand times but that is enough of a window of opportunity for terror to be unleashed. It is, therefore, necessary to make clear the consequences to potential terrorists.

It is possible to argue that a terrorist, by definition, is one who has a wager on death and hence the death penalty is hardly something that will deter him. But this is more than a battle of wits between the terrorist and society. It is the state’s duty to protect the lives of civilians and punish those who threaten their safety.

Capital punishment is one way of doing that. Whatever the dreams of utopians about converting terrorists into angels, societies will always have to arm themselves with laws against acts of terrorism. What should be more worrying, though, is how we handle the death penalty. Afzal Guru, who was convicted in the Parliament attack case, is still around despite being sentenced to death. So what use will the death penalty be if the state does not have the guts to carry out its threats?