Pawan Kalyan directly addressed the global community, stating, “To the pseudo-secularists, the self-proclaimed champions of human rights, and the world leaders who espouse justice as their guiding principle: Where is your voice? Where is your outrage? Why does justice wear a different face in different lands?
Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan took to X to deliver a scathing critique of the Bangladeshi justice system, presenting a striking comparison between India’s judicial integrity during the 26/11 Mumbai terror case and the denial of fundamental rights to Hindu monk Chinmoy Krishna Prabhu in Bangladesh.
In his post titled “A Tale of Two Cases: The Contrast of Justice and Injustice,” Kalyan began by praising India’s adherence to due process, even in handling a terrorist like Ajmal Kasab. He wrote, “India showed the world what true justice looks like—even for a terrorist.” Highlighting the case of Kasab, the sole surviving perpetrator of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, Kalyan detailed the fairness and transparency of India’s judicial system. Kasab, who was caught red-handed and confessed to his crimes, faced 86 criminal charges, including murder, waging war against Indian and terrorism.
Despite the gravity of his crimes, Kalyan pointed out that Kasab was: Provided legal counsel to ensure a robust defense. Offered interpreters to bridge language barriers. Given medical care, regardless of his actions. Ensured top-tier security to safeguard his life during trial.
Kalyan emphasized that the trial proceeded daily for nine months, leading to the Bombay High Court’s confirmation of Kasab’s death sentence in 2011. The Supreme Court then thoroughly reviewed the case and Kasab was even allowed to file a mercy petition to the President of India before his execution in 2012.
“India’s judiciary and executive system ensured every step adhered to the principles of fairness, due process, and human rights,” Kalyan wrote, hailing India’s handling of the case as a testament to its democratic values of human rights, social tolerance, and secularism.
Comments