A few days ago, a Panchayat (village court) in Madhya Pradesh ordered a weird form of punishment which was also carried out to perfection - that three women of a given family be raped. Their offence? Being the kith and kin of a rape accused. Tit for tat! If this sounds like law of the jungle, then what do we make of the High Courts and the Supreme Court that pass death sentances to accused criminals?

There's a raging debate going on, on whether Dananjoy Chaterjee should be hanged or not. For the latecomers, he happens to be awaiting his execution for raping and murdering a school girl, some 13 years ago. His mercy petition is now before the president. "Beasts like him should be put to death, and shown no mercy" and other such typical middle class sentiments have been echoing across the media. Joining the bandwagon are the women's lib types (just coz the crime-list included 'rape') stepping up the general decibel levels, thereby obfuscating the fundamental question of whether death sentance is a dark justice or not.

Do the courts have the power to take one's life? Unfortunately, they do, in this country. But should they have that power? Who gave them that? Who legalized their murders? If the courts are justified in passing death sentances, then isn't the above-mentioned panchayat too justified in passing the verdict it thought fit? Dont both examples involve a tit for tat? A revenge? If a society is justified in taking a collective revenge against its offenders (the rapists, murderers, assassins, terrorists and the likes), then in what way is the collective psyche of that society any better than that of the offenders themselves (who are labeled 'beasts' and so forth, by the glitterati that appear on television debates)? Is an 'eye for an eye' the only solution that we could think of, after thousands of years of progress?