When you corner an animal, it lashes out. Such is the law of nature.
Our sovereignty when attacked, we vie for blood. We may practice this as a species, as a nation, as a community, as individuals. This is innate; animalistic.
But, we are humans. We have the capacity to think through such savage blood-thirst even in the darkest of corners, unlike most other animals. Our intent is to prevent rather than to cure and we know better than to judge a book by its cover. Isn’t that how or why laws came to be created in the first place?
So when the Supreme Court of India mentions the following, pertaining to an act of terror against our Parliament in what can be called a landmark judgment:
“The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”
after pointing out categorically: “As is the case with most conspiracies, there is and could be no direct evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy.”;
When a man who was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt is hanged on the basis of circumstantial evidence, even if for an act of terror (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/unanswered-questions-are-the-remains-of-the-day/article4397789.ece),
It is most definitely worth asking: humanity or animality?