Daily Times

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 17 July announced its verdict on India’s petition challenging the death sentence given to Indian spy Kulbhoshan Jadhav, ruling that Jadhav be allowed consular access and asking Pakistan to ensure “effective review and reconsideration of his conviction and sentences”.

The court found that nothing in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) precludes its applicability to persons accused of espionage and terrorism. The provision basically states that when a national of a foreign country is arrested, they must be informed of the right to have their country’s consulate notified and should also have the right to regular consultation with their consulate’s officials during their detention and trial.

India is claiming victory and trying to besmirch Pakistan, disparaging Pakistan’s military court as a Kangaroo court. India’s success is limited to the grant of consular access only. Pakistan’s triumph lies in the fact that Kulbhoshan Jadhav’s status as a spy and terrorist has been acknowledged by the ICJ. His genuine passport with the fake name of Hussain Mubarak Patel has been recognized. It has been established that Kulbhoshan Jadhav had travelled using the same passport crossing into Pakistan from Iran seventeen times.

The ICJ neither had the jurisdiction of overturning the death sentence of Kulbhoshan Jadhav nor to release him. It has only asked Pakistan to ensure “effective review and reconsideration of his conviction and sentences”. ICJ has made no comment on the retrial if any by a civil or military court.

India is a country that sponsors terrorism in other countries and then covers this with heap of lies. Spies and saboteur like Kulbhoshan Jadhav, Sarabjit Singh, Kashmir Singh and Ravindra Kaushik are cases in point. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had triumphantly announced astride the ramparts of the Red Fort at New Delhi that India would support the separatists of Baluchistan. Ironically Kulbhoshan Jadhav was arrested only months after Modi’s surreptitious claim.

Sri Lanka insurgency is another example of Indian State sponsoring of terrorism where RAW supported Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) with arms, logistics and training the insurgents.

RAW supported Pakistani Sindhi nationalists demanding a separate state. Currently, India supports insurgents in Pakistan’s Baluchistan, as well as backs Tehreek Taliban Pakistan (TPP) which has created mayhem in Pakistan killing thousands of innocent people including 142 children of Army Public School Peshawar.

It is ironic that India did not accept till May 2017 that Kulbhoshan was an Indian citizen and prior to claiming consular access, India had to establish that he was an Indian citizen.

There are two other criminal cases against Kulbhoshan Jadhav that if proved in a trial, will further seal his fate. Credible evidences had also been provided that Kulbhoshan was a serving military officer, a Commander in Indian Navy; therefore, his trial has to be undertaken by military courts as per law no matter India terms military courts of Pakistan established after imposition of National Action Plan as illegal or objectionable.

There are two other criminal cases against Kulbhoshan Jadhav that if proved in a trial, will further seal his fate

On 25 December 2017, as a humanitarian gesture Kulbhoshan’s mother and wife were permitted to meet him at Islamabad. After the meeting, his mother and wife wanted to speak to Pakistani media and thank Pakistan for permitting them to meet Kulbhoshan. Indian diplomats whisked them away and three days later, at New Delhi, Kulbhoshan’s mother and wife were coerced to claim that they were traumatized by Pakistan.

Kulbhoshan Jadhav was not only a spy but also a mastermind of terrorism. Consular access does not apply to a spy and a saboteur who is involved in dreadful terrorist activities. Pakistan had argued that in accordance with the bilateral agreement of 2008 India and Pakistan had agreed to not grant consular access to terrorists and spies. Pakistani lawyer provided precedence basing on historical court decisions of the past and international law that spy and espionage cases are not granted consular access.

India is the first country in the 60 years history of ICJ that has demanded such a concession from the court in the light of Vienna Convention. Any such concession, if provided, will be as per the Customary National Laws or Mutual Bilateral Agreements between both the countries.

The only judge in the panel of 16 judges, Justice TasadduqJillani, who voted against the grant of consular access, in his dissenting note stated: “The Court’s judgment appears to set a dangerous precedent at the times when states are increasingly confronted with transnational terrorist activities and impending threats to national security. Terrorism has become a systemic weapon of war and nations would ignore it at their own peril. Such threats may legitimately justify certain limits to be imposed on the scope of application of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, in the bilateral relations between any two states at any given time.”

Indeed, a dangerous precedent has been set.

The writer is a retired Group Captain of PAF. He is a columnist, analyst and TV talk show host, who has authored six books on current affairs, including three on China