India's
prevarication on Sarabjit
Why is India's
generosity not reciprocated?
There
is nothing unusual in a government taking extra-special care of its nationals
who get involved in an activity that constitutes a crime in an alien country. Governments
go out of their way to get concessions and reprieve from other countries for
their nationals – the concessions that are not, sometimes, available to their own
countrymen in their own country. It is the rule, not an exception, in the
conduct of international affairs between nations the world over. There are
numerous instances in the past. Let us recall only the recent ones.
The latest is the case of the two Italian marines Salvatore Girone and
Massimiliano Latorre charged with killing two Kerala
fishermen. The Italian government raised a hell with the Indian government to
save them, at all cost. When the two were initially arrested, the then Italian Prime
Minister even threatened his Indian counterpart with dire consequences on the
bilateral relations between the two countries.
India has treated the duo not as accused facing
trial for murder but as VVIPs. First, they were allowed a one month's vacation
for Christmas. Then, after two months they were allowed to go to Italy for full
one month to exercise their right to franchise. No mortal of Indian origin charged with murder or any other
heinous crime is allowed parole to celebrate Dussehra, Diwali, Holi, Navratras,
Ramzan, Christmas or the like. No accused in jail have ever been allowed to
visit their native places to exercise their democratic right to franchise even
for a day. Even our elected representatives in Central and State legislatures
facing similar charges in courts are not extended this privilege.
The
Italian government first refused to send the two back for trial as promised. It
was at the pain of action by the Supreme Court of India against the Italian
Ambassador in India that the Italian government resiled and sent the two back
to India, bot not before it hammered out further concessions for the duo – no
death penalty and "good living conditions" being interpreted as a sort of house arrest under the care of
the Italian ambassador. All this, in spite of the fact, that there is no
extradition treaty between the two countries.
The VVIP treatment meted out – and assured – to the Italian
accused violates the provisions in Article 14 of the Constitution of India
which provides that the "State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India
on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth"
(emphasis added). Article
15 prohibits discrimination on the same grounds.
Whether a person is
guilty or innocent of the charge brought against should, or should not, face
death penalty or whether the crime is "the rarest of the rare cases"
is the exclusive jurisdiction of the judiciary and not of the executive, i.e. the
Government of India. But our Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid stated that "this case would not fall in the category
of matters which attract the death penalty, that is to say the rarest of rare
cases." Our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has, in the
past, decried the judicial "overreach" of the courts. Does Khurshid's
assurance not amount to executive "overreach"?
|
Another is the case of the Purulia arms
dropping on the night of December 17, 1995,
when an AN-26 aircraft dropped arms and ammunition in West Bengal's Purulia
district. The consignment had hundreds of AK-47 rifles, pistols, anti-tank
grenades, rocket launchers and thousands of rounds of ammunition. A criminal for case waging, or attempting to wage war, or
abetting waging of war, against the Government of India and a conspiracy under various
sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Explosive Act, the
Explosive Substances Act and the Aircraft Act, 1934. Yet, the arrested
Latvian crew members were released from a prison in Kolkata in 2000 after
requests from Russian authorities while another accused Bleach was given a
presidential pardon in 2004 following requests by British government.
Proceedings for the extradition of the main accused Kim Davy from Denmark are
still under way.
But
Manmohan government has proved itself an exception to the rule. It has failed
to be vigilant enough in protecting the life of Sarabjit Singh languishing in
Lahore Jail in Pakistan for more than 22 years after having been convicted by a Pakistani court. After the hanging of Pakistani terrorist Kasab for the 26/11 Mumbai case,
the various terrorists groups, like LeT operating from Pakistani soil, had
threatened "revenge". The UPA Government should have anticipated
that the easiest and soft target could be Sarabjit Singh. It should have taken up the matter in right earnest to protect his life. Why
the Manmohan government didn't and failed to make Pakistan guarantee
Sarabjit's safety remains a mystery. It is a display of the Manmohan
government's strength or weakness remains anybody's guess.
|
