Home / Pakistan Affairs / India’s Kulbhushan Jadhav quandary!

India’s Kulbhushan Jadhav quandary!

India has a track record that when in hot waters it eagerly turns to the UN and its affiliated institutions for adjudication. And whenever decision is against Indian grandstanding on the issue, it flouts such decisions with impunity. India is flouting over a dozen UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, and is struggling to erode the letter and spirit of Indus Water Treaty brokered by the World Bank. Now India is poised to follow the same trajectory in case of it’s spy  Indian Navy Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav.

Pakistan has received the Memorial (written pleadings) from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), submitted by the Government of India in Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav case. The Memorial is under consideration by a team of lawyers and experts, led by the Attorney General of Pakistan.

Jadhav alias Hussein Mubarak Patel was arrested in a ‘counter-intelligence operation’ from Mashkel area of Balochistan on March 03, 2016. He illegally crossed over into Pakistan from the Pakistan-Iran border. He was in possession of an Indian passport issued by government of India on May 12, 2015 having validity until May 11, 2024. He confessed that he is a resident of Mumbai, still serving in Indian Navy and his retirement is due in 2022. All these facts are difficult for India to refute.

India took the matter to the ICJ on the plea that Pakistan did not provide India consular access to Jadhav. Pakistan took a stance that matter does not fall in ICJ’s jurisdiction because of a bilateral agreement between the two countries. In support of its arguments Pakistan has made a reference to the 2008 bilateral agreement between Pakistan and India that sets limits to which both countries would provide consular excess to captured offenders from the other country. And in its conduct in Jadhav’s case, Pakistan has abided by the parameters of this agreement. As per the agreement, India and Pakistan have agreed not to provide consular access to those prisoners whose offenses relate to national security.

Due to jurisdiction related limitations, even if court decides in favour of India, it’s verdict will not be binding on Pakistan. To conclude the Jadhav saga quickly, Pakistan has asked the ICJ to expedite its proceedings. On September 13 India submitted its initial pleadings, technically known as ‘memorial’, to the ICJ. India had sought until December to file its pleadings but the court allowed it until September 13 to do so. The ICJ had also set December 13 as the deadline for Pakistan to submit its counter-pleadings.

A four-member team handed over India’s memorial, consisting of written submission. India’s written response was submitted to Mr. Philippe Couvreur, registrar of the ICJ. According to MEA, the contents of the submission will not be made public: “India has submitted its Memorial to the International Court of Justice in the Jadhav case involving egregious violation of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 by Pakistan. This is in furtherance of our application filed before the Court on May 8, 2017.”  On May 18, the ICJ had ordered Pakistan to halt the execution of Jadhav, until a final decision in the proceedings. “Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings,” Judge Ronny Abraham, president of the court announced the decision”.

Though Pakistan does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction, it decided that in deference to international norms, it would abide by the stay order. And also avail this God sent opportunity to put forward proofs regarding Indian employment of terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Pakistan has already handed over ample data on this account to the UNSG in 2015 and 2016. Which is now a part of UNSG record.

On March 29, 2016, Pakistan issued a voluntary confessional video of Jadhav over his involvement in espionage and sabotage actives in Pakistan. In his video statement, Jadhav confessed to involvement in sabotage and espionage activities inside Pakistan, which is the crux of Islamabad’s point of view in the ICJ. Some of his terrorists activities are: sponsored and directed IEDs and Grenade Attacks in Gwadar and Turbat; directed attacks on the Radar station and civilian boats in the sea, opposite Jiwani Port; funded subversive secessionist and terrorist elements through Hawala/ Hundi for subverting Pakistani youth against the country, especially in Balochistan; sponsored explosions of gas pipelines/ electric pylons in Sibi/ Sui area in Balochistan; sponsored IED explosions in Quetta; sponsored attack on Hazaras in Quetta and Shia pilgrims enroute Iran and back; abetted attacks through anti-state elements against law enforcement agencies and Frontier Works Organization in areas of Turbat, Punjgur, Gwadar, Pasni and Jiwani, killing and injuring many civilians and soldiers; and launched a website with subversive content in support of anti-Pakistan elements.

For his heinous crimes, Jadhav was lawfully tried by an appropriately composed Field General Court Martial, under the Pakistan Army Act and Official Secrets Act 1923; and was awarded death sentence for doing espionage and executing sabotage. His punishment was upheld by the appellate authority as well. Inter- Services Public Relations (ISPR) issued a statement saying Army Chief had approved the execution of Jadhav after a military court found him guilty of ‘involvement in espionage and sabotage activities’ against the country. India has told the world court that the appeals procedure cited by Islamabad was “worthless” because army officers could not be expected to rule against the verdict since it had already been confirmed by Army Chief. As “an appeal before a Tribunal presided over by him or officers’ junior to him would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar.

Due process of law is not yet over, as he could make a clemency petition to the President of Pakistan. Pakistan had ruled out extradition of Jadhav and on April 10, 2017.

Videos of Jadhav’s confession are in the public domain and are widely circulated in the media. He is responsible for espionage, sabotage and terrorism in Pakistan and has been tried according to the law of the land, in a fully transparent manner. He also made a judicial confession before a Magistrate and the Court, narrating that he was tasked by the Indian Intelligence Agency, RAW, to plan, coordinate and organize espionage and sabotage activities aimed at destabilizing and waging war against Pakistan. Confession indicates that he was involved in both espionage and terrorist/ sabotage activities.

During the process, Pakistan had repeatedly requested India for assistance in the investigation process however; no such request was accepted. Pakistan remains committed to the peaceful resolution of all disputes with India. Protection of its national security interest remains Pakistan’s its paramount concern, for which it will take all legitimate means.

India is trying to bring out the humanitarian aspect of a person who has made a public confession on how he was launched by India to carry out subversive and terrorist activities in Pakistan. Commander Kulbushan’s nefarious activities caused loss of many precious and innocent lives of Pakistanis and inflicted material losses. Many citizens also suffered from life threatening and lifelong injuries due to Commander Jadhav ’s subversive activities. Since India was caught red-handed with irrefutable evidence in a case in which its state institutions and state actors are involved in terrorism, terror financing and subversive activities in a sovereign state, it is trying to divert international community’s attention from the real issue.

Commentaries emanating from prominent international jurists point out numerous legal weaknesses in Indian petition. Precedent already exist whereby the ICJ, while ruling on similar cases, had rejected the arguments so far put forward by India. Previous verdicts by the ICJ uphold the principle of limits placed on international treaties through bilateral agreements.

Like other policy goof-ups, the ICJ verdict on Jadhav shall, in all likelihood, be another national embarrassment for India. Though it’s a lost cause, India is struggling to cook up a humanitarian story before the ICJ in a hope that the court will ask Pakistan to release the Indian spy; however, analysis of previous decisions by the ICJ on such cases points in the opposite direction.

About admin

Check Also

Time to create Rakhine as a Muslim State for Rohingyas

Myanmar insists that Rohingyas are interlopers from Bangladesh despite most of them living for generations in western Rakhine state of Myanmar, they have long been denied basic political rights and liberties. Bangladesh does not accept that Rohingyas have a Bengali lineage. Anthropologists believe that Rohingya roots trace back to Saudi Arabia, who migrated to Myanmar (Burma) around 7th & 8th century AC. Except Bangladesh and Myanmar who think such a return as a good idea, there are hardly any buyers of such forced eviction. United Nations doesn’t want forced eviction to happen. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, warned that forcing the first batch of about 2,200 Rohingya living in refugee camps to ground zero of mass violence against the minority Muslim group would be a “clear violation” of core international legal principles. Human Rights groups have called the move “dangerous and premature.” A number of Human Rights groups say “they are shocked”. Even the people who will be affected the most, Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, are upset that their future, once again, is being decided without their input.So far Aung Suu Kyi’s leadership performance has been derisive. No one expected governing to be easy for her, as country’s leader. Her election had ended more than a half-century of military rule; yet the hegemony has not retrieved; and Bonapartism is galore. In pursuit of her over ambitious political objectives, she has been used and discredited by Junta. Suu Kyi had declared ending the long-running ethnic insurgencies that have torn the country apart as her top priority, but her lacklustre peace effort has proved ineffective. Ever since fighting between government forces and ethnic groups has been spiralling up. Though World has been shocked by reports that the military has carried out atrocities, including rape and murder, against the Rohingya, Aung Suu has said little on the matter and done even lesser. Her government’s growing suppression of speech on the Internet seems perverse for a onetime democracy icon who spent 15 years under house arrest. No wonders her popularity is on decline. Growth has slowed and foreign investment has dipped significantly. Suu Kyi faces daunting challenges. In rebuilding the country, she must overcome decades of mismanagement and profiteering by previous military governments that enriched the generals and their cronies and brought the economy to its knees. The biggest stain on Suu Kyi’s record may be her government’s brutal treatment of the Rohingya, and her tepid response to it. Prevailing World order is known for acting very fast in Muslim versus non-Muslim conflicts where outcome is likely to benefit non-Muslims. And it shows criminal negligence when Muslims are likely to gain through political settlement of any such conflict. When pushed too hard, conflict is settled in a way that it’s a paralytic outcome, ensuring mitigation of equitable advantage to Muslim faction of population. Some of the conflicts like Kashmir and Palestine are deliberately kept on back burners as their settlement would benefit Muslim segment of respective population. Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict also falls in “let ferment” category. Likewise is the situation about Afghan and Yemen crisis, as well as simmering Middle East and North African Muslim countries. Muslims are right to assume that current World Order has not served them a fair deal; and unless there is a significant change in its format, Muslims will continue to be marginalised at state, community and individual levels. But the billion dollar question is that how long the current World Political Order would take to assume ownership of Myanmar crisis? Time has already reached for declaring Rakhine as a sovereign State where Rohingyas could live peacefully and practice their religion peacefully.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *