Bearing Witness: A new report on women in conflict zones

October 6, 2011

The Centre for North East Studies & Policy Research, based in New Delhi and Guwahati, and the Heinrich Boll Foundation, have just released a report on the impact of conflict on women in Nagaland and Assam, two states on India’s northeastern frontier. The study is based on intensive field work and documentation in these areas.

The researchers set out to speak primarily to victims of trauma and PTSD. But in Nagaland, they identified seven kinds of trauma, and found it hard to restrict their conversations to respondents that primarily fit their research design. Their listing of seven kinds of trauma brought home just how profound the impact of conflict can be and how long this impact can last (pages 10-11). Apart from the trauma experienced by individual women when they themselves were assaulted, they also experienced the trauma that others in their family, clan or village suffered or that they witnessed. Moreover, hearing of assault and traumatic experiences, either across generations through family stories or as researchers, also had an impact. Those interviewed experienced the hopelessness of their cause, however righteous, as trauma. Displacement, the loss of place and history, was another source of trauma. Being forced to interact with and adapt to the ways of others—even the ‘other’—contributed to traumatisation.

In Nagaland, the research team found that given the nature of Naga society, trauma was experienced by the village collectively, and people were hesitant to identify themselves individually, as if to suggest their own experience was somehow worse. Naga women drew sustenance from the support system provided by their traditional structures and institutions like the church. Whether or not women knew about the different laws that governed their region, they spoke to the brutality of the Indian security forces.

“All women respondents had stated that conflicts had affected all aspects of daily normal life whether they were socio-economic, health, education, etc. People cutting across class, clans, villages, gender, age, etc., had suffered tremendously over the years due to different conflicts… There were also many discords and tensions in society. There were divorces and broken homes. Conflicts had generated an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion as well as fear.” (page 27)

What the researchers stress is the need for counseling and legal services and for education about the same, so people could seek help. This is borne out by what they learnt in Assam too, except that the research team adds the need to generate and make available livelihood and educational opportunities, the absence of which was identified here as leading to trauma. Timely relief and rehabilitation was also stressed. Where Naga society already has such platforms, it is recommended in Assam that, “Women committees must be formed in conflict affected villages which check any sort of physical or structural violence against women and human trafficking issues.” (page 44)

The importance of this study is two-fold. First, it is based on really sound field research—thoughtful conversations sensitively reported. The report is full of stories that the research team heard and they are the heart of this report, bringing to life the experience of multiple generations living with a conflict that is sometimes with the state and sometimes (or at once) internecine. The research team has used photographs, film and research notes to capture and communicate the experience of women in Nagaland and Assam. This is an unusually comprehensive effort. Second, Nagaland and Assam are important Indian states, but even so, underreported and understudied in the Indian context. A project that begins to look at the marginalized in a marginalized region thus acquires tremendous importance for researchers and policy-makers, but also for other citizens of the same state. And so does the multimedia documentation and communication effort. The research team explicitly points to the limited scope of this project and states that more studies of this sort are needed; they are absolutely right. In the meanwhile, it is important to make this study widely known. Again, it may be accessed at the C-NES website:

The good news about post-conflict societies

July 8, 2011

Tucked away in the 2011-2012 Progress of the World’s Women report is some good news about how changing values are changing the prospects for women in societies that are crawling out of conflict into post-conflict transitions.

The impact of conflict on women is now well-documented. First, the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war cuts across time, place and culture. Second, women disproportionately shoulder the burden of displacements and other breakdown of normal life. This makes them more vulnerable to domestic violence, sexual violence outside the home, trafficking and other exploitation.

This report points to and maps the evolution of thinking about this question in international law and it reflects that thinking.

Unanimity seems to have emerged that sexual violence as a part of conflict is unacceptable. The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy and other forms of sexual violence as crimes against humanity. The five United Nations Security Council Resolutions that deal with women in conflict echo this thinking. 1325 mandates including women in peace processes and transitional arrangements. 1820 calls for prevention of sexual violence and an end to impunity for sexual crimes. 1888, 1889 and 1960 reinforce these two, calling for measures and precautions to be undertaken by conflict parties, governments and international organizations.

The 2011-2012 Progress of the World’s Women report points to some good tidings. First, this changing international legal environment means that sexual crimes have been prosecuted and convictions have followed in post-conflict trials in at least three contexts, Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. It is still a challenge to get women to testify and many obstacles remain from logistical issues like childcare and financial assistance for legal counsel to having more women judges preside in such courts.

Second, as women have been mandatorily included in peace processes, a variety of arrangements have emerged that address their concerns, take cognizance of their conflict experiences and provide for their presence in the politics of post-conflict societies. The report points out (page 100) that where on an average women made up 14% of parliamentary membership in non post-conflict settings, in post-conflict settings they make up 27%. Indeed, the country with the largest percentage of women in Parliament (51%) is Rwanda. Correspondingly, the report shows that 93% of post-conflict constitutions include anti-discrimination causes (as opposed to 61% non post-conflict) and 21% mention violence against women (as opposed to 10%).

As the report states:

“The post-conflict moment opens up the possibility of reframing the political and civic leadership, with women at the centre. Women’s participation in the design of all post-conflict justice mechanisms, in peace processes and in political decision-making is essential for ensuring the post-conflict State advances women’s rights and justice for all.” (page 101)

War and accountability in Sri Lanka: Leaked report

Posted on April 16, 2011

This week, leading Sri Lankan daily, The Island, carried excerpts from a leaked report on human rights violations in the last stages of war and post-war Sri Lanka.

Report of the UNSG’s panel of experts on accountability in SL, The Island, April 15, 2011.

The report states:

The Panel’s determination of credible allegations reveals a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government of Sri Lanka. The Government says it pursued a “humanitarian rescue operation” with a policy of “zero civilian casualties”. In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace.

This is not news to those familiar with reports from war-affected areas by organizations like the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna).

Commentary so far from Colombo:

The leaked UN war crimes report: Key points and context,, April 16, 2011.
DBS Jeyaraj, Report on Sri Lanka by the Ban Ki-Moon Advisory Panel, Daily Mirror, April 16, 2011.

Talking about women and peace in Kalinga

March 24, 2011

At the foot of Asoka’s edict marking his renunciation of war, scholars and activists met to discuss women, war and peace in the Indian context.



Less than ten kilometres from Bhubaneswar is Dhaulagiri, site of an Asokan edict associated with his renunciation of war. The legend is that Asoka was the archetypal ambitious, ruthless and even fratricidal prince whose brutal wars savaged their victims. The war with Kalinga was no exception. Asoka, moved to remorse at the sight of the destruction he had wrought, is said to have foresworn violence. The Dhauli, Jaugada and Tosali edicts speak of this in moving words:

“All men are my children, and just as I desire for my children that they should obtain welfare and happiness both in this world and the next, the same do I desire for all men.” (1st Separate Rock Edict at Dhauli and Jaugada)

“If the unconquered peoples on my borders ask what is my will, they should be made to understand that this is my will with regard to them—the king desires that they should have no trouble on his account, should trust in him, and should have in their dealings with him only happiness and no sorrow. They should understand that the king will forgive them as far as they can be forgiven, and that through him they should follow Dhamma and gain this world and the next.
For this purpose I instruct you, that having done so I may discharge my debt to them, by making known to you my will, my resolve and my firm promise. By these actions, my work will advance, and they will be reassured and will realize that the king is like a father, and that he feels for them as for himself, for they are like his own children to him. My couriers and special officers will be in contact with you, instructing you and making known to you my will, my resolve, and my firm promise. For you are able to give the frontier people confidence, welfare, and happiness in this world and the next. Doing this you will reach heaven and help me discharge my debt to my people.
This inscription has been engraved here for this purpose – that the Officers shall at all times attend to the conciliation of the people of the frontiers and to promoting Dhamma among them.” (2nd Separate Rock Edict at Tosali)


In Bhubaneswar, earlier this month, under the aegis of Sansristi, a small group of activists, writers and scholars met to discuss UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and its relevance in the Indian context.

A word about UNSCR 1325: This resolution’s most well-known provision mandates greater participation of women in all parts of the peace process. But 1325 may be read also as a rubric for a series of UN Security Council Resolutions passed in the decade that has followed: 1820, 1888 and 1889. Between them, these resolutions affirm the following:
1. Women and girls experience conflict in some unique ways and this needs to be factored into peacemaking.
2. More women need to be part of conflict resolution, peacekeeping and peacebuilding processes and provision must be made for their continued participation in post-conflict dispensations.
3. Rape and sexual violence in conflict situations is a crime against humanity.
4. Impunity for rape and sexual violence must end and these crimes must be exempt from amnesty provisions.
5. There is a connection between making rape and sexual violence punishable in conflict contexts and the existing local provisions and attitudes towards them; therefore, efforts must also be made to reform and strengthen local laws and their enforcement where gender violence is concerned.
6. There needs to be cooperation and consultation between UN agencies and operations, Member States and civil society on these matters.

One objective of the conference was to assess how 1325 applies to the Indian context and how it can be used to promote peace. The two-day discussion highlighted three concerns.

The first and fundamental one was the question of drawing lines around ‘conflict.’ What is a conflict area and what is not? What sorts of conflicts fall under the 1325 ambit? The policy-maker’s response is likely to draw a narrowly defined circle. The activist’s instinct is to include the gamut of conflicts and struggles in society. The scholar’s is to recognize the challenges inherent in both views. Participants also saw the existence of the 1325 resolutions as an opening to push the Indian government to recognize the existence of conflict situations that it has been inclined to minimize.

The second concern relates to increasing the participation of women in the security sector. The discussion was predicated on the existence of a natural connection between the women’s movement and peace movement; nevertheless the idea of including token women who may not make a substantive contribution to the peace process was raised. Why don’t we know more about those who can contribute constructively to peace-building? They are out there, but media, scholars and government seem oblivious. The conference participants did not debate military participation; this has not been as much of an issue in India as it is in the U.S.

The third concern related to gender violence in conflict contexts. Many of the participants described the incidence of rape and sexual violence and other human rights violations affecting women. But this is another way in which it becomes hard to draw the line between “conflict” and “peace.” For women and girls who live with the threat of violence everyday in their homes, schools, workplaces and streets, there is not much difference between the two situations.

The conference discussions wove around these three intertwined concerns, identifying India’s current membership of the Security Council and its quest for a permanent seat as an unusual opportunity for advocacy.

Truth, Justice and Protocol

January 20, 2011

This long post disentangles the web of questions raised about gender and international relations following the allegations of domestic violence made against a diplomat.


A quiet afternoon in a quiet London neighbourhood is shattered by the sounds of a scuffle and screams. A woman seems to be in distress, and when she emerges, neighbours see that she is bruised and bleeding. The police investigates but they run up against a wall built to protect the messenger from the arbitrary actions of her/his host: diplomatic immunity.

This incident which occurred on December 11, 2010 but which made news headlines more than a month later has once more pointed to the murky equation between gender justice and international relations.

The British authorities requested that the Indian diplomat’s immunity be revoked. The Indian government refused. The High Commission spokesperson was quoted as saying: “We are carefully looking into the incident. It involves sensitive and personal issues pertaining to individuals. It is premature to make any further comment at this stage. It is now expected that this matter will be resolved between husband and wife It is to their mutual satisfaction.” It took a month but the diplomat has finally been recalled, along with his family. The catch is that in the interim, his wife has disappeared along with their son.

Binay Singh & Pervez Iqbal Siddiqui, Diplomat Verma’s parents swear by his innocence, Times News Network, January 20, 2011.

The particulars of this story are less important than the issues it raises, and this post tries to disentangle each of these from the knotty discussion that is taking place.

Is domestic violence a lesser offence?

In one of the television discussions last week, a former diplomat kept citing other instances, primarily drunk and reckless driving, where immunity had not been waived so an alleged offender could be tried locally. He went on to say that the incident which has triggered this controversy was just about a Christmas tree, thereby infuriating other panelists. He conceded that had the diplomat been a serial rapist or killer, a waiver of immunity might be considered.

Is domestic violence a lesser offence than all of these? The answer really is no. A drunken driving incident could be an aberration; battery and assault within the family seldom are. There is always a long-term pattern of abuse, and it stems from power-play and the need to control. It does not happen because of a Christmas tree. Or any of the other violence triggers that researchers have found—delayed meals, perceived laziness of the spouse, too much salt, too little salt, etc. In fact, even the Christmas tree story would raise a red flag to those who work in this area: the issue reportedly was that the wife had refused the husband’s offer to buy a tree for reasons of economy but accepted a gift from her relatives, and this offended him. Enough said.

And because domestic violence is seldom a one-off occurrence, chances are the record of abuse and violence would equal that of a serial rapist or killer even though the number of victims is much smaller. So if the number of instances of violence is the threshold that decides whether something is a greater or lesser offence, wouldn’t most domestic violence perpetrators qualify?

How many reported (and unreported) incidents of domestic violence, or other gender violence, are to be tolerated before they attain the threshold required for immunity to be considered?

Is diplomatic immunity never to be waived?

This is not the first time local law enforcement has rued diplomatic immunity. It is actually a regular grievance for police in any city with a large diplomatic presence. The army of UN-accredited diplomats in New York park anywhere and don’t pay fines for it, and it doesn’t take a long stay in the city or any research to hear about it! Abuse of domestic workers who are brought in by diplomats is another issue that human rights activists have been highlighting. This can hardly be the first-ever case of domestic violence reported in the history of diplomacy.

What is diplomatic immunity? International law exempts select officials and representatives of foreign governments from the jurisdiction of local governments and laws; this is called “diplomatic immunity.” The idea was really to protect the messenger: “the channels of diplomatic communication by exempting diplomats from local jurisdiction so that they can perform their duties with freedom, independence, and security.” (See E-Diplomat) The rules for how diplomatic immunity works are set up by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. The foreign government may waive immunity and the host government may declare a diplomat ‘persona non grata’ without explanation, so a diplomat really cannot take that status for granted.
Where the conflict arises in this case is actually in the reading of the offence. What we can surmise from the conflict over waiving the Indian diplomat’s immunity, is that while British authorities appear to regard the allegation of domestic violence as a serious enough offence to warrant a waiver, the Indian response has been paternalistic and dismissive. This raises questions about what would happen if the couple returned home to an Indian investigation.

Salil Tripathi, Immunity from Justice,, January 19, 2011.
IANS, Indian UN diplomat recalled after incident on flight, Economic Times, January 19, 2011.

An Indian investigation

There are two questions that stare us in the face on this count. First, how will the case be tried in India if the evidence and witnesses are elsewhere? Second, what is the track record of gender violence trials in India?

There are probably ways around the first, such as travelling investigation officers who can interview witnesses. Perhaps the British police who visited the site initially can share their evidence and reports.

The harder question is really the second; it’s also an embarrassing question. The number of cases registered under the relevant section of the Indian Penal Code has risen steadily between 2005 and 2009, from 58,319 to 89,546, but when you search for the conviction rate, the numbers vary but there is consensus that the rate is very, very low.

National Crime Records Bureau, “Crimes against Women,” Crimes in India 2009, Delhi, 2010.
Madhu Kishwar, Laws against domestic violence: Underused or Abused? Manushi, Issue 120, September-October 2000.
Rashme Sehgal, Delays do not bode well for Domestic Violence Bill, InfoChange India, March 2006.

The reasons are many—from the reluctance of a family to pursue and press charges even if they filed a complaint in the first instance, to the pressure of the extended family and community to come to a mediated solution, to the lack of evidence. In spite of this very low conviction rate, there are many in India who complain that those provisions of the law that deal with different kinds of domestic violence are actually mostly misused by women to discredit their husbands and marital families.

Furthermore, in recent years, very high-profile cases of sexual assault have had obstacle-ridden investigations, protracted trials and where there has been conviction and sentencing, the handing out of bail so that the perpetrator more or less walks free. A paternalistic streak in many Indian courtrooms has also sought conciliatory and conservative solutions to the uncomfortable reality of gender violence rather than justice. Rape victims are thus advised to marry the person who raped them. Domestic violence victims are apt to be advised to adjust or consider the family or the children.

It is no wonder that even the most nationalistic Indians find it hard to express confidence in the way this system would respond to domestic violence in the diplomatic enclave. Would the bureaucracy bat for one of its boys? Would the weight of the establishment be on the side of ‘adjusting’ and making peace—not for family, not for the kids, but in the national interest?

The inconvenience of taking women’s rights into consideration

Feminists make a lot of people uncomfortable not because they are wrong but because it is so inconvenient to acknowledge that they are right. So much of international order depends on private-public, inside-outside, domestic-international being posited as binaries. Feminist thinking rejects all these binaries. To take issues of gender justice and women’s rights into account, would force a re-imagining of many of the axiomatic premises of world order.

Female genital mutilation and honour killings are not ‘nice’ issues to raise because they reflect a judgment on the traditional practices of other societies. Human rights standards stop short of others’ cultural practices, whoever defines them and however they are defined. The practices that most communities are very sensitive about are, unsurprisingly, the ones that affect women—FGM, sati, honour killings. The material and ideological origins of the practices are never examined in a reverse kind of orientalism because that sort of rationality can neither be expected of the “other” nor is it comfortable for a liberal to grant. It’s just easier to adopt a cultural relativist stand.

It’s easier to pretend that sexual violence and exploitation do not occur in conflict zones, because facing up to that would show that the best-intentioned military training and socialization do not stop the brutality from spilling over into the interpersonal arena. The words of the intelligence officer who once told me that rape was part of the ‘spoils of war’ have never left me. If you face up to the reality of conflict rape, then you have to look closely at the ethics of this and the morality of that and the many definitions of that particular context.

In this instance, if we affirm that violence against women is wrong, then at least while the allegations against the diplomat are being investigated, it must be clear that this person cannot represent India. If he did, what would that say to the world about the status of women in this country? Not something any country would want said.

Acknowledging that violence occurs within more homes than we know and acknowledging that a life free of violence is an inalienable human right, both simplify and complicate the diplomatic universe. Decision-making is simplified because then immunity waiver or recall, investigation and action must follow. But everything else is complicated because when you blur the line between private and public and say that a diplomat—any person—is as responsible to society for what they do in private as for what they do in public, other boundaries blur as well. Why should local jurisdiction not extend to certain people for what they do in their private lives? Should the dependents of those protected by immunity be deprived of the protection to which others in their situation are entitled, both in home and host countries? Should we now look for ways in which to standardize our laws on these problems so that the victim’s rights are not lost in the “we are better than you” tug-of-war between home and host country’s legal systems?

S Kalyana Ramanathan, Britain forced India’s hand to take back diplomat, Business Standard, January 20, 2011.

In 1989, when Cynthia Enloe first published “Bananas, Beaches and Bases” she wrote about the women in garment factories, sex-workers around bases, migrant domestic workers and diplomatic wives as the invisible characters in the stories about international politics. Zooming in further, twenty-two years later, we see not just the characters we first overlooked but the little complications—domestic violence, exploitation, sexual harassment—that were not earlier visible. When we do, we have to make choices: to ignore these realities and pretend the world still looks like our theories or to rewrite the theories to look like the world we now see; to overlook the things our laws do not account for or to change the law to account for them. What choices will we make?

The simplest possible reading

For all this greyness and complexity, the most important question is a very simple one, I think: Is domestic violence a grave human rights issue? I think it is, and all my positions and response follow from this answer. You?

What fate worse than death

May 23, 2010

The question of capital punishment squarely spotlights the close relationship between human rights and security. In India, the debate on capital punishment is limited, muted and occurs in an episodic fashion. India revisits this debate in the wake of death sentences recently awarded in prominent cases.


In the last month, Indian courts have handed out the death penalty thrice in high-profile cases, two involving terrorism and one involving sexual violence.

1. April 23, 2010: Three persons convicted in a fourteen year-old Delhi bomb blast case were sentenced to death.
2. May 4, 2010: Ajmal Kasab, the sole surviving gunman of the Mumbai attacks, seen by millions live on television, was sentenced to death.
3. On May 12, 2010 Surinder Koli who was convicted of rape and murder in the second of 19 cases registered following the recovery of human remains in a Nithari  yard, was sentenced to death.

The question of capital punishment squarely spotlights the close relationship between human rights and security. In India, the debate on capital punishment is limited, muted and occurs in an episodic fashion.

The Supreme Court of India held in a judgment that the death sentence must be awarded only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.

Kasab joins others on death sentence list, Press Trust of India/, May 6, 2010.

The last death sentence carried out in India was in 2004, when Dhananjoy Chatterjee who was convicted of raping and murdering a 14 year old girl, was hung to death.  Since then, the man who carried out the sentence, India’s last official hangman, has died.

But all this is trivia. I want to raise two questions in this post.

Why is there so little debate in India about the death penalty? Is it because the courts themselves recognize it to be an extreme measure? Yes, there is debate in the wake of such sentencing, but a cursory look at civil society and popular culture suggests that this is not an issue about which Indians debate anyway. I cannot think of civil society organizations whose single issue is abolition of capital punishment, rather it is part of a package of liberal ideals, emphasized in relation to the issue at hand. Similarly, you don’t see school and college debates about the death penalty. Cinema is ambivalent about the death penalty, including it as a plot detail rather than problematizing it or glorifying it. In vigilante films, of course, death is summarily handed out to the villains. To my mind, the question remains: in a society where people are politically aware and especially articulate in the discourse of rights, why is there no special concern about the rights and wrongs of capital punishment?

What is changing about India’s politics and society? Why have there suddenly been so many sentences? In the last two or three years, the mobile revolution has powered the rise of “citizen journalism,” best symbolized by ‘sms voting’ (voting by text messages) and most recently by the recourse to Twitter quotations by both print and electronic media. Much is written about the intemperate tone of the electronic media, but surely it is effective only because it resonates with people. The sense of “India besieged,” “the ordinary person short-changed,” “justice delayed and denied” playing in parallel to a sense of entitlement which is closer to that of a consumer than a citizen prompts people to press for action. And where the slower than due process time horizons of Indian courts represent inaction, perhaps the death sentence represents decisive action. Is popular pressure to act, expressed through citizen journalism and the social media, resulting in a more frequent recourse to capital punishment? Or are the ‘rarest of rare’ cases becoming less and less rare?

Debates in democratic societies about terrorism are about human rights and security with multiple arguments and points of contention. Human rights violations lead to terrorism. Both antagonistic sides are responsible for human rights violations; the polemical tug of war is about who is worse. State responses to terrorism are scrutinized by human rights activists. States accuse them of being soft on terror. Others accuse the state of being afraid to act. So when a terrorist, filmed by closed circuit cameras and spotted on television, is convicted to death, is that appropriate or inappropriate?

In closing, I also want to point to the implicit equation of terrorism and gender violence as exceptionally brutal crimes. Those of us who write about gender violence as insecurity do so partly as intellectual argument and partly as a very political act of securitization—that is, trying to draw the same attention, resources and sense of urgency to this issue as war and peace merit. But there are two cautions to be made here, if it is a concern with human rights that engages us in working on gender violence in the first place. First, securitization leads to greater secrecy and less accountability. Second, a very severe sentence is a sentence by definition less frequently awarded, so that a heinous crime may actually ultimately go unpunished.

Read more on capital punishment in India and glimpses of the emerging debate:

Only 58 countries still award death penalty, Times of India, May 10, 2010.
Sanjoy Majumder, India and the death penalty, BBC News, August 4, 2005.
India and the capital punishment (Video), from Times Now.
Amnesty International USA, Document – India: The Death Penalty in India: A lethal lottery: A study of Supreme Court judgments in death penalty cases 1950-2006 (summary report), May 2008. Full Report here.
Articles on the death penaltry at Legal Services India site.
Rakesh Shukla, Playing God: The arbitrary nature of capital punishment,, November 2006.
Is it time to end the death penalty in India? Reuters, May 20, 2010.
Jug Suraiya, Hang in the balance, Times of India, May 5, 2010.
An eye for an eye, says urban India, TOI Crest, May 15, 2010
Saabira Chaudhuri, Why kill Kasab, LiveMint, May 14, 2010.
Manoj Mitta, Death sentence: How the die is cast, TOI Crest, May 15, 2010.
T.M. Krishna, Death of a humane society? The Hindu, May 16, 2010.
Neetu Banga, Is death penalty the right way to punish terrorists? Merinews, May 17, 2010.
Kalpana Sharma, Sentenced to death, The Hindu, May 16, 2010.
Bikramjeet Batra, Justice or revenge? Frontline, May 22-June 4, 2010.