The Indian spy who has been sentenced to death, Kulbhushan Jadhav, is the most recent individual to be tried on surveillance charges, but Pakistan and India have a long history of arresting and trying ‘spies’.
Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested during counter-terrorism operation in Balochistan. After his confession about being an Indian Spy agent and admitting different terrorism and extremism activities in Pakistan, he was sentenced to death by Field General Court Martial (FGCM).
The news of his death sentence on Media about Raw agent swiftly created mess in India. Protest, Criticism and bashing had been done on Indian Government. Not only by public gathering on roads, rather the issue was raised in Parliament to take immediate actions. The Indian government had been in fierce criticism and under pressure to take soon any decision on this matter and had no choice but to secure Kulbhushan Jadhav at any cost and extent.
FM of India, Sushma Swaraj, in her speech to parliament warned Pakistan stating ” I would caution the consequences for our bilateral relationship if they proceed on this matter.” She also expressed her sympathy towards Jadhav calling him “a son of India”
Pakistan on the other hand had sentenced death no matter whose warnings or pressure made it take back its verdict. Keeping in view of this stance of Pakistan, India had started pressurizing Pakistan on different international platforms, and now India has moved to the International court of justice (ICJ) against Pakistan accusing latter of violating the Vienna convention.
India did claim that Jadhav is innocent citizen of India and was kidnapped from Iran where he was doing his business.
And that was the statement that changed the perspective and opposed on Pakistan’s verdict of sentencing him death.
Since the verdict has come into the favour of India, it is assumed to be the great diplomatic victory of India. Where court has stayed the execution of Jadhav and afforded protection and counselling to spy. On court’s verdict of Jadhav conviction. Pakistan replied ,ICJ has no jurisdiction to hear Kulbhushan Jadhav’s conviction Case, Nor Pakistan is binded to its decision. Pakistan also assured that ICJ is not a criminal court and it has no right to influence their national security decisions.
Meanwhile many blame this defeat to fault of bad civil-military relationship which has not been good so far. Even the lawyer sent by Pakistani government was arranged by the army force. Although it was the job of civil authorities and Foreign ministry, this clearly shows the acrimony in Civil-military relationship. Some experts and barristers are also bashing the Lawyer for his incomplete preparation. He completed his arguments forty minutes before the total time and left such precious time idle.
While Experts in India also have dual opinion on India’s claim in ICJ, Some call it victory while other name it big a mistake. An Expert and analyst stated that: it was a serious mistake for India to go to ICJ. People are gloating over India’s victory before the international court of justice regarding Kulbhushan Jadhav, as we have played into the Pakistan’s hands, and given it a handle to open up many other issues. In fact that is why it seems that Pakistan did not seriously object to the jurisdiction of ICJ.
Now it is certain that Pakistan will approach the ICJ for deciding the Kashmir dispute, and it will then hardly lie in our mouth to object to the jurisdiction of ICJ over a single individual’s ffate. Nowthey can raise all kinds of issues, particularly kashmir,in international fora, to which we had always objected till now. By going to the ICJ we may have opened up a Pandora’s box.
In above discourse it would be noteworthy to mention herein that some kind of game behind the screen is going on. Is that what, Pakistan is looking for? A great victory in exchange Jadhav?
As both sides have played their role carefully and soon it would be clear to people who is the actual winner of this game, will their actually be justice or just another political drama to end and let the blood of innocents remain unjustified?