KULBHUSHAN JADHAV DEATH SENTENCE: PAKISTAN TO OVERRULE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE’S ORDER

The article originally appeared on India Today.

According to a Dunya News report, Pakistan is going to deny the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Kulbhushan Jadhav case, an Indian national whom Pakistan has sentenced to death alleging of espionage and sabotage in Pakistan. The Dunya News report said “Attorney General of Pakistan was reportedly briefed on Friday over Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav’s issue and according to the sources, Pakistan is to deny jurisdiction of International Court of Justice (ICJ) to over cases that have Pakistan’s national stability at stake.”

According to the report, the briefing states that “Pakistan does not accept international court’s jurisdiction to order the state in issue that involves its national stability.”

In another report of Daily Pakistan, “Pakistan revised its commitment to the ICJ and had withdrawn all domestic and national security related issues from the jurisdiction of the court on March 29, thus making it impossible for Modi led India to pin down Pakistan in this case.”

The Daily Pakistan report further states that Pakistan, before handing over death sentence to Jadhav, had informed the ICJ about changes it made though its UN envoy Maleeha Lodhi. “Disputes relating to or connected with any aspect of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective self-defence or the discharge of any functions pursuant to any decision or recommendation of international bodies, the deployment of armed forces abroad, as well as action relating and ancillary thereto in which Pakistan is, has been or may in future be involved”, the declaration by Pakistan read.

India had approached the International Court of Justice on May 8 with its plea which requested the UN judicial body to stay Jadhav’s execution till it hears the matter and reaches to any conclusion. India in its plea had accused Pakistan of “egregious violations” of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). Both India and Pakistan are signatory to VCCR. India had requested for consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav 16 times but Pakistan denied it every time. But according to the Daily Pakistan report, the Vienna Convention cannot help India as it applies to diplomats and not spies.

After India’s application, the ICJ, using its powers under the ‘Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes of 24 April 1963’ had stayed Jadhav’s execution and had issued notice to Pakistan. The public hearing in the case by the ICJ would be held on May 15.

THE KULBHUSHAN JADHAV DEATH SENTENCE

On April 10, the Pakistan Army chief confirmed Kulbhushan Jadhav’s death sentence, which was handed down by a Pakistani military court that held Jadhav guilty of espionage. Pakistan claims Jadhav, who allegedly used the alias Hussein Mubarak Patel in Pakistan, was attached to the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Pakistan arrested Jadhav in March 2016.

The Indian government has maintained that Kulbhushan Jadhav is a formal Indian Naval officer turned businessman who was on a routine business trip to Iran when he was abducted by Pakistani intelligence. Reports say he was captured by the Taliban and later sold to the Pakistan Army.

India has also said that Jadhav is innocent and there is no evidence against him and that Pakistsan carried out a sham, secret trial in a military court where no information on charges and evidence was given. India has warned Pakistan of ‘dire consequences’ equalling Jadhav’s death sentence with pre-meditated murder and has time and again asked for the consular access to him.

©SantoshChaubey

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE STAYS KULBHUSHAN JADHAV DEATH SENTENCE

The article originally appeared on India Today.

In a major late night development, the International Court of Justice on Tuesday, in an interim order, placed a stay on the hanging of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the former Indian Navy officer sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage.

Jadhav’s sentencing has kicked off a diplomatic row between India and Pakistan, with New Delhi slamming Islamabad for carrying out a “farcical” trial and for refusing to allow consular access to Jadhav.

The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court or The Hague, is the main judicial organ of the United Nations and operates out of the Netherlands in Europe.

In a statement (read full ICJ statement) issued on India starting proceedings against Pakistan, the ICJ said, “Republic of India instituted proceedings against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, accusing the latter of ‘egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations’ in the matter of the detention and trial of an Indian national, Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan.”

HARISH SALVE REPRESENTING INDIA

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj tweeted about the ICJ’s decision last Tuesday night, saying that she spoke to Jadhav’s mother and informed her about the ICJ’s decision. Senior lawyer Harish Salve is representing India at the ICJ, Swaraj added in another tweet.

“I have spoken to the mother of #KulbhushanJadhav and told her about the order of President, ICJ under Art 74 Paragraph 4 of Rules of Court”, Swaraj said, adding, “Mr.Harish Salve, Senior Advocate is representing India before International Court of Justice in the #KulbhushanJadhav case.”

Responding on India’s petition, the ICJ has forbidden Pakistan from hanging Kulbhushan Jadhav until The Hague conducts a detailed hearing on the matter.

WHAT THE ICJ SAID

In a statement (full statement) issued regarding India’s claim against Pakistan, the ICJ said, “The Applicant (India) contends that it was not informed of Mr. Jadhav’s detention until long after his arrest and that Pakistan failed to inform the accused of his rights. It further alleges that, in violation of the Vienna Convention, the authorities of Pakistan are denying India its right of consular access to Mr. Jadhav, despite its repeated requests. The Applicant also points out that it learned about the death sentence against Mr. Jadhav from a press release.”

“India submits that it has information that Mr. Jadhav was “kidnapped from Iran, where he was carrying on business after retiring from the Indian Navy, and was then shown to have been arrested in Baluchistan” on 3 March 2016, and that the Indian authorities were notified of that arrest on 25 March 2016. It claims to have sought consular access to Mr. Jadhav on 25 March 2016 and repeatedly thereafter,” the statement added.

“According to the Applicant, on 23 January 2017, Pakistan requested assistance in the investigation of Mr. Jadhav’s alleged ‘involvement in espionage and terrorist activities in Pakistan’ and, by a Note Verbale of 21 March 2017, informed India that ‘consular access [to Mr. Jadhav would] be considered in the light of the Indian side’s response to Pakistan’s request for assistance in [the] investigation process’. India claims that ‘linking assistance to the investigation process to the grant[ing] of consular access was by itself a serious violation of the Vienna Convention’,” the statement also said.

INDIA SEEKS RELIEF

According to the ICJ statement, India has sought the following:

Relief by way of immediate suspension of the sentence of death awarded to the accused.

Relief by way of restitution in interregnum by declaring that the sentence of the military court arrived at, in brazen defiance of the Vienna Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36[,] paragraph 1 (b), and in defiance of elementary human rights of an accused which are also to be given effect as mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention.

Restraining Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by the military court, and directing it to take steps to annul the decision of the military court as may be available to it under the law in Pakistan.

If Pakistan is unable to annul the decision, then this Court to declare the decision illegal being violative of international law and treaty rights and restrain Pakistan from acting in violation of the Vienna Convention and international law by giving effect to the sentence or the conviction in any manner, and directing it to release the convicted Indian National forthwith.”

India has also requested the ICJ to direct Pakistan to:

Take all measures necessary to ensure that Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav is not executed.

Report to the Court the action it has taken in pursuance of the required statutes.

To ensure that no action is taken that might prejudice the rights of the Republic of India or Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav with respect of any decision the Court may render on the merits of the case”.

THE KULBHUSHAN JADHAV DEATH SENTENCE

On April 10, the Pakistan Army chief confirmed Kulbhushan Jadhav’s death sentence, which was handed down by a Pakistani military court that held Jadhav guilty of espionage.

Pakistan claims Jadhav, who allegedly used the alias Hussein Mubarak Patel in Pakistan, was attached to the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

The Indian government has maintained that Kulbhushan Jadhav is a formal Indian Naval officer turned businessman who was on a routine business trip to Iran when he was abducted by Pakistani intelligence.

Reports say he was captured by the Taliban and later sold to the Pakistan Army.

India has also said that Jadhav is innocent and there is no evidence against him and that Pakistsan carried out a sham, secret trial in a military court where no information on charges and evidence was given.

India has warned Pakistan of ‘dire consequences’ equalling Jadhav’s death sentence with pre-meditated murder and has time and again asked for the consular access to him.

©SantoshChaubey

PAKISTAN ARMY REITERATES HIS STAND OF NO COMPROMISE ON KULBHUSHAN JADHAV

Pakistan’s Army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa today held a conference of top army commanders at Pakistan Army’s General Headquarters in Rawalpindi (GHQ).

According to the Facebook page of the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), Pakistan Army’s media wing, Gen Bajwa and other commanders were briefed on Kulbhushan Jadhav issue and ‘it was concluded that that no compromise shall be made on such anti state acts’. Pakistan Army’s 201st Corps Commanders’ Conference was held to ‘review national security environment and recent developments in the region’.

It was Gen Bajwa only who had sentenced Jadhav to death. A military court in Pakistan had found Jadhav guilty of espionage and sabotage activities and of waging war against Pakistan by fomenting unrest in Balochistan and Karachi and had sentenced him to death which was confirmed by Gen Bajwa.

The first reaction by the Pakistan’s civilian government came hours letter after it was made public by the ISPR. Though Pakistan’s civilian government, including its prime minister Nawaz Sharif, has toed the military line, a Samaa TV report makes it clear that Pakistan Army acted unilaterally on Kulbhushan Jadhav.

“A meeting took place between the Prime Minister and the Chief Of Army Staff during which the latter took the former into confidence regarding the issue of Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav”, the Samaa TV report said yesterday.

India alleges that Jadhav is innocent and there is no evidence against him and that’s why a sham trial was held in secrecy in a military court where no information on charges and evidence was given. India has warned Pakistan of ‘dire consequences’ equalling Jadhav’s death sentence with pre-meditated murder and has again asked for the consular access to him, 14th time since his arrest on March 3, 2016.

Kulbhushan Jadhav is a formal naval officer turned businessman who was on a routine business trip to Iran when he was abducted by the Pakistani intelligence. Reports also say that he was captured by the Taliban and later sold to the Pakistan Army. Pakistani claims Jadhav, who allegedly used the alias Hussein Mubarak Patel in Pakistan, was attached to the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

©SantoshChaubey

SECTION 59 OF PAKISTAN ARMY ACT UNDER WHICH KULBHUSHAN JADHAV HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH

The article originally appeared on India Today.
Here it is modified and extended.

Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act sounds like a death knell for anyone whosoever is tried under it. Defined as the Section for Civil Offences, it categorically lays out conditions for it to become an overarching legal intrusion into the fundamental rights of humanity.

And when read in conjunction with other supporting sections and sub-sections of the Pakistan Army Act, we find a lethal tool that Pakistan’s Army so indiscriminately uses to suppress voices of human rights activists, lawyers, journalists, its own members who go against senior officials or against Indians, as has happened with Kulbhushan Jadhav. Kulbhushan Jadhav is a formal naval officer turned businessman who was on a routine business trip to Iran when he was abducted by the Pakistani intelligence. A Pakistani statement claimed Jadhav, who allegedly used the alias Hussein Mubarak Patel, was attached to the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

According to an ISPR press release, a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) found Kulbhushan guilty of espionage and sabotage activities and of waging war against Pakistan by fomenting unrest in Balochistan and Karachi. He was tried under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 and Section 3 of the official Secrets Act 1923 and was found guilty of all charges in a secret trial in a military court where no information on charges and evidence was shared.

According to Pakistan Army Act 1952, the Section 59 defines Civil Offence as,

SECTION 59: CIVIL OFFENCES

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person subject to this Act who at any place in or beyond Pakistan commits any civil offence shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if charged therewith under this section, shall be liable to be [dealt with under this Act], and, on conviction, to be punished as follows, that is to say,

(a) if the offence is one which would be punishable under any law in force in Pakistan with death or with 1[imprisonment for life], he shall be liable to suffer any punishment 2* * * assigned for the offence by the aforesaid law or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and

(b) In any other case, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment 2* * * assigned for the offence by the law in force in Pakistan, or 1* rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or 1* such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned [:]

[Provided that, where the offence of which any such person is found guilty is an offence liable to hadd under any Islamic law, the sentence awarded to him shall be that provided for the offence in that law.

The sub-section further defines the powers of court-martial:

The powers of a Court martial [or an officer exercising authority under section 23] to charge and punish any person under this section shall not be affected by reason of the fact that the civil offence with which such person is charged is also an offence against this Act.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force a person who becomes subject to this Act by reason of his being accused of an offence mentioned in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 shall be liable to be tried or otherwise dealt with under this Act for such offence as if the offence were an offence against this Act and were committed at a time when such person was subject to this Act ; and the provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.

Now, let’s see what clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act says:

SECTION 2: PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE PAKISTAN ARMY ACT 1952

CLAUSE D OF SUB-SECTION 1

Persons not otherwise subject to this Act who are accused of__

  • Seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to Government, or
  •  Having committed, in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Pakistan, an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and
  • Raise arms or wage war against Pakistan, or attack the Armed Forces of Pakistan or law enforcement agencies, or attack any civil or military installations in Pakistan; or
  •  Provide or receive funding from any foreign or local source for the illegal activities under this clause shall be punished under this Act.

The Pakistan Army Act sounds like a convoluted document that gives unbridled power and illegitimate secrecy to military courts in Pakistan and these are some of its legal jargons that Pakistan has used against an innocent Indian.

Pakistan has also invoked the Official Secrets Act 1923, a British era document that has been the subject of intense debate in India for its archaic provisions. Both countries have inherited many colonial legacies like this. But Kulbhushan Jadhav’s sham trial and punishment show Pakistan uses it with impunity.

Section 3 of the OSA 1923 defines penalties for spying that can be upto fourteen years of imprisonment and goes on to say,

“It shall not be necessary to show that the accuse person was guilty of any particular act tending to State, and notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted, if from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State.”

Pakistan had established military courts in 2015 with a constitutional amendment to try people for terrorism and related offences committed in civilian areas after the December 2015 Peshawar school massacre and only last month, in March 2017, its parliament voted for another two years extension to them. Since their establishment, the military courts have an absolute record of convictions with no acquittals. According to the Pakistan’s military, the military courts have convicted 274 people in last two years, 161 of them being sentenced to death and 113 to varying prison terms.

India has strongly protested the sentence likening it to murder and claims that the only evidence against Jadhav is his forced confession and is expected to raise the issue internationally to expose the Pakistani sham. Since Jadhav’s arrest in March 2016, India has repeatedly asked for consular access to him but the way he has been arbitrarily and summarily sentenced to death by its Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa, tells us that Pakistan was never serious about the Indian demands and about the established norms of international jurisprudence.

©SantoshChaubey

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL SLAMS PAKISTAN ON KULBHUSHAN JADHAV’S DEATH SENTENCE

The article originally appeared on India Today.

Amnesty International has slammed Pakistan on the death sentence given to Kulbhushan Jadhav, the alleged Indian spy who was arrested by Pakistan in March 2016. A military court in Pakistan has sentenced him to death for espionage, sabotage activities and waging war against Pakistan.

In a series of tweets, Amnesty International’s India arm has questioned the way Pakistan’s military courts function.

Amnesty says that Pakistan’s military courts act against the established norms of jurisprudence with no access to charges and evidence against a person and sentence based on that given.
Follow

Amnesty India @AIIndia
Under Pakistan’s military courts, no info about charges or evidence against suspects, or sentences given, is made public. #KulbhushanJadhav
6:42 PM – 10 Apr 2017

Reacting to the highhandedness and arbitrariness of Pakistan’s military courts, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director Biraj Patnaik has said that the death sentence to Kulbhushan Jadhav “shows yet again how Pakistan’s military court system rides roughshod over international standards”, a PTI report quoted him saying. Amnesty India’s tweets with the hashtag #KulbhushanJadhav say military courts should only be for maintaining the military discipline and the rest should be left for the judicial system, be it Pakistan or India or any country.

Amnesty India @AIIndia
Military courts in Pakistan & other countries including India are only apt for military discipline, not any other crimes. #KulbhushanJadhav
6:44 PM – 10 Apr 2017

Amnesty further said that ‘that military courts are linked to coerced confessions, opaque processes and unfair trials’. “Stripping defendants of their rights and operating in notorious secrecy, military courts do not dispense justice but travesty it,” Patnaik’s statement read.

Pakistan’s propaganda claims Jadhav is a serving Indian Navy officer while India has clarified that Jadhav was an ex-Navy officer and he had no link with the government. India has also maintained that Jadhav was abducted from Iran.

©SantoshChaubey

KULBHUSHAN JADHAV DEATH SENTENCE: PAKISTANI CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT CALLS IT WARNING TO PAK’S ENEMIES

The article originally appeared on India Today.

Reacting to the death sentence given to the former Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav by a Pakistani military court, the country’s civilian establishment has likened it to ‘warning to the enemies of Pakistan’.

Pakistan has accused Jadhav of being a Research and Analysis Wing agent, a charge that the Indian government has strongly refuted.

According to a report published in Pakistani publication, The Nation, Pakistan’s defence minister Khawaja Asif said, “No leniency will be given to those with anti-Pakistan sentiments. His (Jhadav) death sentence is a warning to the enemies of Pakistan”.

Asif said that India’s spy agency R&AW was acting in collusion with Afghanistan to foment unrest in Balochistan and to destabilise the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Reiterating the Pakistani rant that law was followed in Jadhav’s case, the Pakistani defence minister said, “India was not their (Pakistan’s) well wisher and it sponsored cross-border terrorism in Pakistan.”

This is the first reaction from any senior minister of Pakistan’s civilian establishment on the Kulbhushan Jadhav death sentence, which was confirmed by Pakistan army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa.

MILITARY VS THE GOVERNMENT

Notably, the civilian establishment is seen not at good terms with Pakistan’s all powerful military.

Asif’s statement on the Jadhav issue is on the expected line as Pakistan’s military wields the real power in Pakistan and its civilian government has always been forced to toe the army line.

At the same time, rivals of Pakistan’s prime minister Nawaz Sharif have slammed him for his alleged soft stance on India.

Also, it is widely believed that Sharif has tried to take on the military establishment to assert the civilian government’s supremacy.

The death sentence to Kulbhushan Jadhav by a military court of Pakistan through a trial conducted in secrecy once again reaffirms the fact that it is the Pakistan’s military that calls the shots in the country.

Just in December, Nawaz Sharif’s Foreign Advisor Sartaj Aziz had accepted in the Pakistani Senate that the dossier on Kubhushan Jadhav had mere statements and more evidence was needed.

And now, all of a sudden, in just four months, in a military court trial, Pakistan has amassed enough evidence to hang Kulbhushan.

INDIA CRIES MURDER

The Indian government, in its reaction, has slammed the Pakistani military court’s verdict announcing a death sentence for Jadhav.

The Ministry of External Affairs sent Pakistan a sharply worded demarche, which read, “If this sentence against an Indian citizen, awarded without observing basic norms of law and justice, is carried out, the Government and people of India will regard it as a case of premeditated murder.”

©SantoshChaubey

INDIA AND PAKISTAN IN HILLARY’S LEAKED SPEECHES

The set of Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to the Wall Street bankers leaked by WikiLeaks has been categorized under different sections, i.e., Clinton Foundation, reducing emission, pro free trade, Wal-Mart, Egypt, Syria and terrorism, among others.

Since delivered to the bankers, as expected, the content is basically economic in nature but as the US profile is (entwined globally) and has Hillary’s career has been, it has myriad of political themes and geopolitical interests.

And as expected, China has some pretty frequent mention in terms of frequency – 62 times. The next thing to expect naturally would be about India, the next big thing to happen to the global economy after China. And if India has just 12 mentions, we can see why. When Hillary was saying all these things, China was on top of the mind. Bur China has now started stagnating (and slowing down) while India has become the fastest growing economy with ‘boon to market’ dividends like a young demography and a burgeoning middle class that will be soon largest in the world.

India’s 12 mentions are in four categories – Clinton Foundation, reducing emission, pro free trade and Wal-Mart – basically personal, environmental and financial in nature. As expected, it is both, positive and negative. If Hillary lauds India somewhere, she also cautions us on our trade and economic policies. And she also supports India’s stand on tricky issues like emission reductions.

Clinton Foundation: “So a few examples of what we’re doing at the Clinton Foundation. First, the Clinton Climate Initiative has a solid waste management program that works with governments and with businesses to reduce their dependency on landfills and develop systems to convert waste into new products or into sources of energy. For example, we are working with the city of Delhi in India to develop that country’s first integrated solid waste management system.”

Reducing Emissions: “And at that time you could not get China and India to agree to do anything on their emissions because they, I think understandably, one an authoritarian regime, one a democracy, a raucous democracy, were of the opinion it would interfere with their efforts to continue to grow, a totally rational response if you were the leader of China or India.”

Free Trade: “I thought I was doing pretty well. I’m making the case, making the argument for openness, fairness, transparency, claiming, look, Malaysia manufacturers want access to markets overseas as much as American manufacturers, Indian firms want fair treatment when they invest abroad, just as we do, Chinese artists want to protect their creations from piracy, every society seeking to develop a strong research and technology sector needs intellectual property protection to make trade fair as well as freer. Developing countries have to do a better job of improving productivity, raising labor conditions, and protecting the environment, on and on.”

Indian Ocean Nations (Trade): “More than half the world’s population lives in the vast region from the Indian Ocean to the Island Nations. Here we find some of our most trusted allies and valuable trading partners, many of the world’s most dynamic trade and energy routes. A few years ago, when our country was struggling through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, American exports to the Asia-Pacific helped spur our recovery. Our future growth will get a real shot in the arm if we reach farther into the burgeoning consumer markets across the region. […] And you are on track here in this state, in this city to take full advantage of a 21st century economy, and to help make sure that the United States remains a strong presence and a power in the Pacific.”

Wal-Mart (Trade): “I think that if India can ever get its regulatory system straightened out, you know, we have gone back and forth on opening up to retailers, large, multinational retailers. Wal-Mart just withdrew and it is a real shame and because one of the things Wal-Mart promised to do was to help set up the supply chain for agricultural products to actually get to the end user consumer. The harvest in India loses about 40 percent because there is no good storage; there is certainly no good cold storage. So if there is a way to get the politics to open up somewhat in India, you know, the market is just overwhelmingly large.”

But our neighbour Pakistan, our historical enemy who believes that maintaining friction and hostility in ties with India is the only way to look at par with India on global platforms, performs poorly even here. The leaked speeches mention Pakistan five times – and all in disturbed categories like Egypt, Syria and terrorism.

A further look on ‘Pakistan’ mentions clearly tells us that whenever she has quoted Pakistan, it is either for breeding terrorists and promoting terror or for illegally proliferating nuclear weapons. See it to reaffirm what you already know.

“We also were very concerned about the breeding of instability in terrorist havens in the Sinai which could be used just as the FATA between Pakistan and Afghanistan had been used by AlQaeda as launching sites for extremist attacks against Egypt, against Israel, against Jordan and further afield in the Gulf.”

“So the free Syrian Army and a lot of the local rebel militias that were made up of pharmacists and business people and attorneys and teachers—they’re no match for these imported toughened Iraqi, Jordanian, Libyan, Indonesian, Egyptian, Chechen, Uzbek, Pakistani fighters that are now in there and have learned through more than a decade of very firsthand experience what it takes in terms of ruthlessness and military capacity.”

“It depends upon how you define national interest. We certainly do with chemical weapons. We certainly would if Syria became even, in part, like the FATA between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a training ground for extremists, a launching pad for attacks on Turkey, Jordan, the non-tetarian elements in Lebanon and, eventually, even in Israel.

“And you know, it is like these terrible plots in James Bond movies where you have got some really creepy guy sitting around saying, I want to get a hold of some nuclear material, and I can bring the west to their knees and they will have to give me a hundred billion dollars in my private account. Well, unfortunately, there are people like that. And we saw what happened with the Pakistani scientist, Mr. Khan, who basically proliferated nuclear knowledge to as many countries as he could. He thought that was part of his religious mission to give the bomb to as many Muslim countries as he possibly could reach.”

Hillary’s words reiterate what we already know yet Pakistan behaves as if it can maintain its equal status with India on global platforms. Yes, it is not about a country’s size but its policies. And Pakistan’s policy of endorsing and promoting terror and proliferating nukes certainly make it one of the most rogue nations on earth.

©SantoshChaubey

AN INDIAN AND A PAKISTANI SHARE PEACE NOBEL: NOTHING REALPOLITIKAL ABOUT IT

It was all so good. It looked brilliant on screens wherever the broadcast was being shown. The rounds of applause were spontaneous. The value addition of musical performances by artists from India and Pakistan was a treat to eyes and ears.

It happens like this every year, except the value addition.

What was announced two months ago had its final movement today, like it happens every year.

Yes, it echoes more in the niches that belong to the winners – their field of work and the part of the world they come from.

But, the echo remains more on the airwaves and in black and white words and for masses, it, at best, serves the purpose of giving recognition and spreading the symbolism that recognizes the cause and the efforts being made by the person/organization for it.

That is the limit and the reality of it, irrespective of the value additions done.

In terms of engineering change, it is nowhere close to the realpolitik of the ground reality in most of the cases and when the case in question is India Vs Pakistan, then a Peace Nobel jointly to an Indian and a Pakistani doesn’t make any ground for a ‘India + Pakistan’ scenario.

Kailash Satyarthi has made India proud but it is equally true that he is still not widely known in India and there are many other social activists in his league.

Malala Yousafzai has successfully highlighted the plight of girls in Pakistan once again but it is equally true that she is not the voice that can reach deeply in Pakistan, to the subjects that she mentions in each of her speeches. No one can say when she would be able to travel back to her country to take on the field work.

Apart from talking points, the joint Peace Nobel 2014 doesn’t hold any ground for the two Asian rivals where one is an emerging global power and a giant when seen on the scales of economy and military while the other is a chaotic nation following the policy of state sponsored terror pushed by its military, the strongest institution in the country.

Pakistan, born out of India, on religious divide, could never reconcile with the dominant status which India naturally had, being an old civilization with a rich and diversify history and a much larger country. The unsolved border issue and Jammu & Kashmir gave an early start to the aspirations of people heading the military there and a limping start of democracy soon gave them the avenue to usurp the power. Since then, it has been the inferiority complex of the Pakistan’s military complex that has pushed it to wage many wars with India to prove its superiority. Pakistan has lost all – the only natural consequence possible.

And in desperation, it has led its military establishment to try all, including sponsoring and exporting proxy war and terrorism in India.

And it all began and has sustained in the name of religious fanaticism.

That religious fanaticism and Pakistan military’s over-dependence on it are the basic elements of the realpolitik that guide the way Pakistan keeps up with India and the ground reality is really hostile, with increased ceasefire violations and anti-India rhetoric by Pakistan in the recent months, that has found a tough respondent in the Narendra Modi led Indian government.

While talking on ‘India Vs Pakistan’ to ‘India + Pakistan’ realpolitik, we need to come back to this reality again and again.

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/