Yakub Memon
Yakub Memon and the Death Penalty: A Hindu Perspective

This was jointly authored by Vishvāsa, son of Vāsuki​, is a practicing Hindu, and a…

This was jointly authored by Vishvāsa, son of Vāsuki​, is a practicing Hindu, and a lover of both hard rationality and aesthetic sensitivity.

India’s leftist media portrays the executed Yakub Menon, one of the masterminds of the 1993 Islamic terror attack on Mumbai which left 257 innocents dead and over 750 seriously injured, as innocent.

He is portrayed as forgiving his executioners and judges. He was earlier falsely portrayed as schizophrenic in a desperate attempt to have his death sentence commuted. Such a portrayal has deflected attention from the guilt of Yakub Memon and his family and has instead focused it on a denunciation of the death penalty. The penalty is denounced as barbaric and India is urged to emulate certain western nations in abolishing the death penalty.

Thousands of Muslims expressed solidarity with the Islamic terrorist by attending his funeral with hardly a murmur of dissent emanating from the community. Christians officially sympathized with the terrorist and denounced Indian society for executing the Islamic terrorist.

Is the death penalty really barbaric?

Let us answer this question by first examining the alternative: life-imprisonment. Leftists argue that death-penalty turns the terrorist into a martyr whereas life-imprisonment allows the guilty to feel remorse and possibly self-reform.

The martyrdom argument is disingenuous. A terrorist is transformed into a martyr only because the leftists and Islamists unscrupulously portray him as one. If such unscrupulous propaganda didn’t happen, an executed terrorist would never be seen as a martyr. He would instead be seen as an Islamic fanatic and butcher of the innocent.

It is highly improbable that an Islamic terrorist would ever express remorse for his heinous crime. Islam is a memetic virus which warps the worldview of the believer. Islamic indoctrination prevents a terrorist from empathizing with his would be victims. Their suffering and deaths do not deter him because, in his perverse view, he is fulfilling a religious duty by killing them. Islamic teachings promise rewards in the hereafter world for committing heinous acts of terror. Since a terrorist is convinced that Islamic teachings are divine he wouldn’t ever feel remorse.

Islamic Protestors

Islamic Protestors (Image Courtesy: Google Image Search)

A terrorist serves life-imprisonment while eagerly anticipating the heavenly rewards that await a jihadi, complete with the 72 houris. It is a pleasurable vicarious indulgence. The terrorist also seeks other avenues of pleasure such as educating himself as Memon did. One can confidently assert that he also derives pleasure by fantasizing and exchanging pleasantries while occasionally meeting with his kith and kin. He is fed chicken and celebrates birthday by cutting cake. In other words, life-imprisonment rewards him with indulgences in various pleasurable activities.


Yakub Memon’s victims were unjustly denied every one of those pleasures. A teenage victim of the Mumbai terror attack suffered an agonizingly painful death. Her limbs were torn and skin was corroded. Her dreams of becoming a fighter pilot or falling in love were brutally extinguished. She would never hear the hauntingly melodious voice of Lata Mangeshkar again. A mother, whose infant died in the blasts and whose face was charred beyond recognition, would undergo torment every day of the rest of her life wondering whether it was her child that she cremated.

It is unconscionable to argue that a terrorist should enjoy various forms of pleasure while serving life-imprisonment which he cruelly denied his innocent victims. So, life-imprisonment must be rejected as an immoral advocacy. Since letting a terrorist walk away free is not an option, we are only left with death sentence as a just and reasonable option.

Does Hinduism endorse the death penalty?

Yes, it does.

We will illustrate this by invoking the example of the 12th century logician and legal authority, Vardhamāna Upādhyāya, an illustrious disciple of Vācaspati Miśra, founder of the great Bhamati school of Advaita Vedanta. Hindu lawgivers continually evaluated older dharmaśāstra and amended them as necessary. Upādhyāya’s effort is an example of this enlightened tradition. He wrote two major texts: Danḍavivēka (a text on penal code) and Danḍādvaita (a text on civil law).

The Danḍavivēka (one may refer to the 1930 critical edition by Mahāmahopādhyāya Kamalakṛsṇa Smṛtitīrtha) recommends various types of corporeal punishments, including inflicting four types of pain, 14 types of physical mutilation, and two types of death penalty. One type of death penalty prolonged the suffering of the convicted criminal and was reserved for those who commit such heinous crimes as feticide or murdering a woman. It included such punishments as riding on a stake, being burnt alive, drowning, or impalement after cutting off the limbs.

Leftists and their handlers glorify terrorists and rapists

This prescription is consistent with the punishments prescribed in ancient dharmaśāstra texts for similar crimes—for example, Manusmṛti 9:276, Yājñavalkyasmṛti 2:273. Other heinous crimes such as incestuous or pedophile rape were punished with the mutilation of the penis of the guilty. It was well understood that a person is connected with the family. So, in the event of a heinous crime being committed, interrogation of family and friends was allowed.

Why did Hindu traditions mete out harsh punishments such as the death penalty or bodily mutilation for heinous crimes?

Kauṭilya says that unless the ruler suppressed criminals and actively prevented crimes, society would become unjust where only the “law of the fishes” (Maatsyanyaya, where the bigger fish eat the smaller ones) would be operative (Arthaśāstra 4:9). This is a reference to a dysfunctional society where the rights of the defenseless are trampled upon.


Kautilya (Image Courtesy: Google Image Search)

Other ancient sages like Tiruvaḻḻuvar also echo this view (Tirukkuṛaḻ 560) in addition to endorsing the death penalty (Tirukkuṛaḻ 550). Hindu traditions recognized the importance of the criterion of reciprocity to preserve societal harmony and safeguard individual freedom. In other words, Hindu traditions made the right to live conditional upon one respecting the right of others to live. Individuals who commit heinous crimes (e.g., terrorism) subvert reciprocity and hence peace. Such persons have no right to live.


Christian Theological Roots of Death Penalty Opposition

Some of the opposition to the death penalty comes from Christianity.

The Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) allows the death penalty. However, the New Testament (the Christian Bible) reversed this stance. Romans 12:17 urges a believer not to “repay anyone evil for evil” whereas Romans 12:19 urges a believer “to leave revenge and vengeance to god.”

These verses constituted the foundation of the Christian opposition to the death penalty. Pope Francis, for example, said:

“Today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been. It is an offence to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person which contradicts God’s plan for man and for society and his merciful justice, and it fails to conform to any just purpose of punishment. It does not render justice to the victims, but rather foments revenge… Justice is never reached by killing a human being.”

This Christian worldview also led to the formation of penitentiaries in the last two centuries. As the name ‘penitentiary’ indicates, Christians believed that those who commit heinous crimes, if locked up in a penitentiary, would become penitent or remorseful and self-correct.

It is unreasonable to demand that a terrorist’s victims believe that god exists and acquiesce to the insistence on entrusting retributive justice in the hands of god. There is also no evidence that incarcerating someone guilty of committing a heinous crime in a penitentiary brings out remorse.

The history of the persecution of Native Americans, Jews, and Hindus informs us that Christian and Muslim persecutors rarely empathize with the suffering of their victims.

In fact, one could very well argue that a religious fanatic-turned-terrorist is impervious to appeals of reason because his worldview is informed by religious prejudices. The history of the persecution of Native Americans, Jews, and Hindus informs us that Christian and Muslim persecutors rarely empathize with the suffering of their victims. In spite of all of these inconsistencies, Christian prejudices ushered in the anti-death penalty movement in the West. India’s leftists feel subservient to the westerners and are eager to imitate them. So, in imitation of their western masters, they have been campaigning against the death penalty.

Another reason for the campaign against the death penalty is Muslim appeasement, which leftists have institutionalized. Even though India has executed only four individuals since 1995, leftists have been agitating against it and sympathizing with the Muslim terrorists. But the same leftists have neither sympathized with the thousands of victims of Islamic terrorism nor campaigned against the Islamic doctrines that cause it.

Hindus needn’t be informed by immoral Christian prejudices in taking a stance on the death penalty. Instead, we should formulate our views based on our own traditions, reason, and evidence. We should have the death penalty, which of course, should only be applied in the rare cases, where there is nearly absolute certainty of guilt. There have been numerous cases where a person convicted of murder and sentenced to the death row has been later acquitted based on fresh evidence.

Hinduism allowed for remorse for many a crime – but merely saying “sorry” did not count. There had to be “skin in the game” as a show of sincerity. One had to do prāyaścitta, whose severity depended on the heinousness of the crime and a person’s station in society (a person of higher class, who ought to be more responsible, has a tougher prāyaścitta). This can happen only if the person pleads guilty at some point during the trial. Otherwise, there is no point waiting for “regret” to appear while punishment is in progress. If a person does not even admit his guilt, then he ought to be mercilessly punished. Acts of terrorism would’ve counted as mahāpātaka of the kind whose prāyaścitta would involve a painful death.

New Testament

New Testament (Photo credit: image of New Testament/Shutterstock)

Hence, it may be reasonably argued that in those cases where the terrorist is not killed in a preemptive encounter, he and his associates should be tried expeditiously and awarded the death penalty. This is especially true in cases of jihād, where there is the danger of mujāhids demanding the release of a remorseless killer in exchange for hostages. We have seen this happen numerous times in India’s past—for example, the infamous Kandahar hijacking. Death shouldn’t be painless either. A terrorist doesn’t deserve the dignity he denied his innocent victims. Torturing a terrorist to death and telecasting his cowardly screams would take the aura of invincibility away from him. It would deter many from emulating him.

Death penalty isn’t barbaric because it ensures retributive justice on behalf of the innocent victims of terrorism.

Opposition to the death penalty and the advocacy to incarcerate a terrorist for life is barbaric because it allows him to indulge in various forms of pleasure which he denied his victims. We are reminded of a placard the young protesters of Delhi held during the Nirbhaya tragedy. It read ‘fāsī dō’ (‘hang the rapists’). We are confident that the message of that placard resonated well with an overwhelming majority of Indians which wants to swiftly award the death penalty to terrorists and rapists.

It is only the leftists and their handlers who glorify terrorists and rapists especially when the case has dragged on for years and hence has faded from public memory. Hindus need not allow this unscrupulous fringe to hijack the discussion and impose Christian prejudices on Indian society.

Kalavai Venkat is a Silicon Valley-based writer, an atheist, a practicing orthodox Hindu, and author of the book “What Every Hindu should know about Christianity.”
  • Peace4U

    Its a bit difficult to digest writings of an atheist who also is a practicing orthodox hindu. May peace prevail upon all of us

  • RVenkatanarayanan

    For convicted terrorists death penalty is eminently reasonable. Keeping the terrorist after his heinous mass murder of innocents, in prison even “for the duration of his/her life” is nonsense because it entails his/her being maintained by the tax payers’ money –food, clothing, entertainment, health etc –. One is amused these days of the more nonsensical permission for “conjugal pleasure to the death-dealing rascals! The modern fad of “human dignity” can not apply, in any rational assessment, to a terrorist but not for his/her victims. Of course India and Hindus should not promote or support a policy for eye for eye, cutting off of limbs etc even if they were recognized thousands of years back.


  • Pingback: Hindu Repercussions on Memon Mourners. | Struggle for Hindu Existence()

  • suru

    Thank you Kalavai Venkat for the nice write up.Kudos to you that you have hit a hard nail on Leftists when you said””” But the same leftists have neither sympathized with the thousands of victims of Islamic terrorism nor campaigned against the Islamic doctrines that cause it.”””.

  • SCC

    If a person does not even admit his guilt, then he ought to be mercilessly punished. This ought to be the case in all crimes including fraud and lying on oath.

  • MahaVakyas

    Brilliant article Mr. Venkat.

    I would also recommend using ‘Christian zombie god’ as the phrase for jesus from now on – something I would like all Hindus to adopt since the western media always calls our deities “Hindu monkey god” etc. Before reading about Dharma and becoming aware of the onslaught of Abrahamic mlecchas on Hindu Dharma and India, I was shocked at reading ‘Hindu monkey god’ in big publications like Time, NYT, WaPo etc. etc. We should reciprocate and call that charlatan jesus ‘Christian zombie god.’ What do you think?

    • Kalavai Venkat

      I like it but I would also offer the choice of ‘A crucified convict who couldn’t save himself on the cross.’

      • Pericles

        Dear author, what about Chance of Error and if you put yourself in the mind of the judge are you 100% sure that the convict is guilty to be punished by death? It is impossible to pardon a corpse. Many convicted murderers were later found innocent, and have been pardoned in the process of law. In 1987, a study published by the Stanford Law Review found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 actually “were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed.” So what is the use of justice after death to the family of the convict?

  • IndiannotAmused

    Next time a terrorist is caught alive, hand the creature over to military courts…….decision and punishment in 6 months.Also there needs to be special ways to inflict death that prolong the pain and suffering for the terrorist.While the wretch is writhing in pain, the State should record it and broadcast it.Send messages to neighbors and those inside the country who empathize with them.

  • NSRajaram

    Imprisonment in the cellular jail in the Andamons was barbaric and inflicted mainly on freedom fighters.

    • Nitin

      Revolutionaries were sent to cellular jail in Kalapani while Gandhi enjoyed the occasional prison term in Aga Khan Palace!!

  • krishnakumar

    Very nice compilation. Thanks, Kalavai venkat and visvaso vasukijaH.

    Per se you had taken dandaviveka, manusmruti and yagnyavalkya smruti to show that they prescribe death penalty for heinous crimes. And ofcourse, thirukkural 550th. The urai of Sh.mu.varadarasanar and Sh.Salaman Pappaiah explicitly interpret this kural that the king should prescribe death penalty for heinous crimes. But the urai karunanidi simply says that they shall be punished.

    From all the above, perhaps you may indicate the scriptures of vaidika sanatana dharma prescribes death penalty for heinous crimes. Is there any scripture (dealing with danda niti) under vaidika sanatana dharma which does not prescribe death penalty?

    Well, I feel this can be the articulation of at the best vaidika sanatana dharma and not entire Hindu Dharma. Jains, Baudh and Sikhs are also considered as Hindus atleast in so far as Income Tax Act and for the purpose of availing the benefit of HUF Status.

    What are the views of Jaina / baudha / Sikh granthas with regard to punishment for heinous crimes.

    If possible please compile prescription of these schools from scriptures in sanskrit / prakrit / punjabi. Then, I hope one gets a complete view as to how Hindu Dharma views death penalty.

  • Brabantian

    This ugly article hides wonderful fact … that it was in ancient India FIRST that sovereign states abolished the death penalty, well over 1200 years ago (over 2000 by some accounts)!

    As Dharma religions spread across Asia by their lustre, with scholars from across Asia studying at Nalanda – India was followed by Daoist China & Buddhist Japan who at points abolished death penalty too! … all a millienium before ‘Western Enlightenment’ abolitions of the 1800s began to occur! That was the power of India’s Dharma before being soiled by foreign invaders!

    India betrays its ancient heritage both by having death penalty, & by using barbaric mediaeval & British colonial hanging, in fact slow strangulation, taking up to 1 hour for victim to die (tho long rope drop can sometimes break neck causing merciful coma). More merciful methods are bullet or beheading.

    Hindus should be shamed by how death penalty today is largely Muslim practice. Over 85% of world’s nations no longer do it; 2/3 of ones that do, are Muslim.

    It is the cold-bloodedness of death penalty that makes it so awful, which great Indian police investigator Bahukutumbi Raman was feeling when he declared regarding terrorists, “Kill them in action and not in custody.”

    Sad that some ancient Hindu texts show same body-mutilation horrid barbarism as ancient Bible, Talmud & Qur’an texts … but at least Hindus generally do not claim such texts to be ‘inviolable word of God’, and did not create culture of mutiliating all baby boys at birth (circumcision).

    From USA where individual states have option of having death penalty, it is clear that death penalty is not deterrent, but in fact excites criminals to commit more murders and rapes … criminals are basically gamblers & enjoy the ‘game’ more if risk is higher.

    If India feels as if too poor and frightened a country to yet dispense with the death penalty … at least it should dispense with British colonialist torture-hanging horror. Bullets or beheading would be a merciful improvement … but I pray that India will move to an even higher level, in line with its glorious ancient past.

    • krishnakumar

      \ As Dharma religions spread across Asia by their lustre, with scholars from across Asia studying at Nalanda – India was followed by Daoist China & Buddhist Japan who at points abolished death penalty too! …\

      Sir, really interested to know as to at what point of time that death penalty was abolished in Hindustan. could you please share the source. m……….. not like so and so said so and so. please quote original source.

      \ This ugly article \

      What is so ugly about this article? could you please substantiate. At the best you may say, the article bases its opinions on the basis of some of the scriptures of vaidika sanatana dharma and not the entire Hindu Dharma. But again, it is putting forth the perspective as they are. How do you come to the conclusion that it is ugly.

      • bharatpremi

        Authors have aptly put the title “A Hindu perspective” Obviously there may be other perspectives.
        Those who claim other wise need to put those for debate

        • krishnakumar

          Sir, by the term ***Hindu***, I had included jains, budhists and Sikhs. Do you not agree with this contention?

          The references covered in the article from danda viveka, manusmruti to thirukkural …….. all belong to vaidika sanatana dharma. But to extrapolate that as the opinion of Hindu Dharma is flawed.

          you may note that I hold in esteem the prescriptions in vaidika sanatana dharma and I personally also feel that the govt of the day shall punish people who commit heinous crimes with death penalty.

          If you consider jaina / baudha and Sikh dharma as non Hindu, and their perspective as other perspective, sorry, I disagree from your view point.

    • krishnakumar

      \ From USA where individual states have option of having death penalty, it is clear that death penalty is not deterrent, but in fact excites criminals to commit more murders and rapes … criminals are basically gamblers & enjoy the ‘game’ more if risk is higher. \

      poor logic. When a punishment……… whatever it may be ……….. is not a deterrent to perpetrators of crime………. would you say the law is not effective and dispense with the law itself.

    • Venkataraghavan KS

      Personally one may or may not like to support capital punishment, but that no wqy must affect dharma that is global and eternal.

  • Venkataraghavan KS

    how different is this from saudi-arabian law?If you are going to identify this as Hindu dharmA what’s wrong in equating hindu with islam atleast on the basis of these type of punishments (which are suggested to be carried out.)

    • krishnakumar

      Sir, this is just views from some of the scriptures of vaidika sanatana dharma per se. Even then, only in so far as severity for punishment of heinous crimes, you may find commonalities between some of the schools of Hindu dharma ( not the entire HIndu Dharma ……… I would still like to know whats the position of jaina/baudha and sikh granthas) and Abrahamic Religions.

    • prashants5 .

      dharmA is not Religion. Isalam is a religion not dharmA. Read “Being Different” by Rajiv Malhotra to understand more. The moronization is rampant among Hindus who are misinformed and underinformed. It is more pathetic they don’t want learn more!.

      • Venkataraghavan KS

        Your reply is no way connected to my response because I never mentioned that dharma is a religion and we must be mindful of the fact that muslims project Islam as a way of life and not just a religion at all. That obviously leads to a question.. ‘What constitutes religion”?

    • NK Sarma

      Why should it be different in all aspects?

      • Venkataraghavan KS

        It has to be different because you are also dealing with Islam and christism.