1. Home
2. Editorial

ICJ verdict on Jadhav

Kashmir Times. Dated: 7/19/2019 10:21:27 AM

Suspension of death sentence of Kulbhushan Jadhav and asking Pakistan to review the decision comes as a breather for India

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) verdict delivered on Wednesday in Kulbhushan Jadhav case, an Indian national currently on death row in Pakistan, ruling in favour of India comes as breather for Indian effort to seek his release. The ICJ ruling that Pakistan suspend the death sentence and directing the latter to review the death sentence with full access to available legal remedies apart from the consular access to India is also welcome decision. Indian legal experts have been forced to move the ICJ during the past two years when consular access to Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav was repeatedly denied and rejected by Pakistan on one pretext or the other. Pakistani military establishment has described Jadhav as a spy, who was working on creating disruptions in Balochistan through rebels, challenging Pakistani establishment in the region. On the other hand, India continues to maintain that Jadhav was a former Naval officer and was kidnapped from neighbouring Iran and sentenced to death on charges of 'espionage and terrorism' after a closed trial in April 2017. India's challenge mainly to Pakistan's military court was on the count that his sentence was based on an 'extracted confession' adding that New Delhi was repeatedly denied consular access in breach of Vienna Convention. Now, looking at this case from different angles, the verdict has been interpreted differently in the two countries across the border could harden the position of the two South Asian neighbours further. It is also to be seen how early and how effectively Pakistan implements the ICJ ruling, which has rejected other remedies sought by India on annulment of military court decision convicting Jadhav, his release and his return to India. This case has come into focus for various reasons with India pursuing it vigorously during the past three years. There are many other cases in which not even list of the prisoners in Indian and Pakistani jails have been exchanged. Thousands of prisoners continue to languish in jails without trial or any information on their conditions for years together with no mechanism to share such information and take recourse to legal remedies. It has been on rare occasions that prisoners from each others' jails have been released as goodwill gesture on the even resumption of bilateral talks between the two neighbours.
Apart from this case, some recent developments, mainly opening of Pakistani airspace for commercial flights to and from India, had raised hopes in certain quarters that it was the first positive step to normalizing relations between two countries. The bilateral ties have been under considerable strain since Pulwama terror attack allegedly by Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed and Indian's subsequent purported action against the JeM training camps inside Pakistan. At this stage, India's main aim appears to get Jadhav released and back to India, but a lot will depend on how the ICJ verdict is seen by various political parties in Pakistan. If the Pakistan government feels that it is being pressurized by India and the international community, it could look for ways and means of keeping Jadhav in its custody and minimize India's access to him. It has to be borne in mind that though India and Pakistan are both members of the ICJ and signatory to its charter, the court's ruling is not binding. It is a sort of moral obligation for the countries to follow the ruling. But there are also a number of instances when countries like United States have turned a blind eye to the ICJ ruling and gone ahead with executions of alleged 'criminals from foreign lands' in its custody. It is highly unlikely for Pakistan to follow the US precedent. But it can definitely slow down the pace of implementing the ICJ ruling, especially in granting consular access to India. The other possibility is that Pakistan may use the 'Kulbhushan Jadhav' as a card to make India return to the talks-table and resume the dialogue process. Since the Kulbhushan case has become an added irritant in India-Pakistan relations-with Pakistan trying to showcase him as a spy as part of its counter-narrative against the Indian charge of putting the spotlight on Islamabad for being the state sponsor of terrorism, it is highly unlikely that the neighbour would allow it to melt away without trying to extract a price from Delhi. However, this might not work with the NDA-government which is wants to keep up the pressure on Pakistan until it takes what India describes 'visible, verifiable and irreversible' steps against the terror groups operating from its soil. The senior leaders of the two sides, including the Prime Ministers of the two countries, are likely to cross each other's path at various multilateral fora, India will not be in a haste to resume the dialogue with Pakistan. An added reason for India's reluctance to call a truce with Pakistan could also be recent sequence of developments on Afghanistan. The United States, Russia and China all have welcomed Pakistan's inclusion in the efforts that they have undertaken to restore peace and stability in Afghanistan. As India seems to be totally ignored from these initiatives, it may not come as a surprise if the Indian establishment carefully watches how Pakistan uses its influence over the Taliban to consolidate its place in Afghanistan and the region beyond. The Pakistan-Taliban alliance under the US' blessings in the past had posed a serious threat to India's security. In a way, the return of Pakistan in Afghan game and which is being endorsed by key international players is likely to make India more circumspect in committing itself to normalize ties with Islamabad without any visible evidence of the neighbour's action against terrorism. The developments in coming days will be interesting to watch for India.