India has been a reluctant keeper of the capital punishment - at least that's what statistics would show. But often enough, we have fiery debates over it. Very seldom, these debates are on its efficiency as a crime deterrent, or even on the ethics of it.

Sometimes, the debate is queered by the bloodthirst of outraged citizens like in l'affaire Kasab, sometimes by the anxiety of making the most measured statement like in the case of Afzal Guru. Today, it is being queered by politics. The Tamil Nadu assembly has passed a resolution asking the high court to review the execution of three jailed conspirators in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The opposition has been raking up the issue in the hope that all the noises it makes endears it to the Tamils. So that it is seen as the force rallying for Tamil interest. The high court on its part has ordered a eight-day stay (till September 9) on the execution. Some of the parties are going to tout this as a victory (however inappropriate it may seem) in front of their constituents. Add to this the inconvenient truth of Omar Abdullah's tweet on Afzal Guru, death penalty and the Rajiv killers. These are easy but dishonorable political pickings.

At the same time, the failure of the establishment to have a grip on the contentious issue has spurred it politicisation. What was the need to hold the three accused's mercy petition  for over a decade? Why, when hangings are to be undertaken chronologically, is a Guru or Kasab pulled out for special consideration? Doesn't such a lack of protocol create conditions for politicisation?