Daily Times

The current hue and cry on this issue seems to be a case of looking at things from the wrong end. Everybody seems to think that Jhadhav has been granted a reprieve by the ICJ’s stay order. This is not true. Any court which has jurisdiction would immediately order a stay. There would be little point to the hearing if the accused were executed.

The issue therefore, can only be one of jurisdiction.

The ICJ can have jurisdiction only on issues between states. Foremost then, is the question of whether this is an issue between states or of one between an individual and a state? Jhadhav is accused of crimes against Pakistan. Does that fact not grant Pakistan exclusive jurisdiction? Second, he has done so while pretending to be a Pakistani citizen; does his pretense not grant Pakistan exclusive jurisdiction?

No less a person than the Attorney General made a public statement  contending that Pakistan had accepted the jurisdiction of ICJ in 1960 and that the 2017 acceptance actually limited the jurisdiction. He is correct.

Does that constitute a blanket acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction? Is it no longer then the right of Pakistan to still refuse to be ‘party’ to any case; rendering ICJ incapable of giving a judgment, though it could still issue a ‘non-binding opinion’?

And, if the jurisdiction is blanket, why was Pakistan’s lawyer arguing over jurisdiction? And, if he did so, why did he not question issues like the ones raised here? Is our selected and exceedingly well paid advocate that inept?

This is really the matter of concern. Jhadhav’s capture, trial, and execution is an issue of national significance. But, since he was pretending to be a military officer, it is of primary significance to the military which apprehended, tried, and sentenced him. It is also an issue affecting the morale of soldiers.

For some obscure reason, both at the national and international levels, the government and its selected representatives seem most inept when tackling issues that have a direct or indirect impact on the military.

Is there method to this consistent madness? Perhaps that should be the focus of public discontent on this, and similar issues. Deteriorating civil-military relations are also not a one-way tweet. *