Torture, however, cannot be a partisan issue. Any incident of torture, whether against a Hindu or a Muslim, a man or a woman, a guilty or an innocent person, is wrong. The right against torture is one of the very few rights in international law that admit to no exception whatsoever. Even killing may be justified in exceptional circumstances (like self-defence), but not torture. It is the ultimate debasement of human nature. Even those of us who adopt a utilitarian moral calculus will only need to imagine ourselves being tortured. Most of us will admit to anything, true or false, in the face of torture, making it a worthless tool for any sincere endeavour to tackle crime (and comes at an enormous personal and civilisational cost). It is useful only to oppress and terrorise. Torture is particularly diabolical when committed with the sanction of the state, knowledge of the community and with complete impunity. In tolerating it silently, we are all complicit.

Surely Advani believes that Thakur’s alleged torture, if it took place, was wrong irrespective of her guilt or innocence, and irrespective of the fact that she is a Hindu sadhvi. If so, he must take the next logical steps to make torture institutionally unacceptable. To begin with, he must persuade his party to give up its demand of a POTA-like law which made confessions to police officers admissible as evidence. In regular criminal procedure, such confessions are not admissible for the fear that they might have been obtained through torture. POTA-like laws make the already bad situation on torture worse by indirectly legitimising it.

... contd.