India on Wednesday lodged a protest against Pakistan at the International Court of Justice for the strong language used by its counsel, Khawar Qureshi, in his arguments in the ongoing hearings on Kulbhushan Jadhav's trial on Tuesday. Thursday is the final day of the four-day hearing of the ICJ on Kulbhushan Jadhav's trial.
India asked the ICJ to set Jadhav free for the “brazen’’ defiance of the Vienna Convention, annul the verdict of the Pakistan military trial or at least order a fresh trial in a civilian court after setting aside the confession, so that he could be given a fair chance at defending himself.
India, also, for the first time, chose to use the 'P' word—Pulwama. “There was a time when the world respected Pakistan, but now the world doesn’t have the same respect in its present incarnation,’’ Harish Salve, the head of the Indian legal team, said.
This was a clear reference to Pakistan’s counsel Qureshi’s remark on Tuesday that he had respected India, but didn’t recognise the current incarnation of the Indian government. Salve also blamed Pakistan for the Mumbai blasts and for harbouring Dawood Ibrahim as well as Hafiz Saeed.
It was a tit-for-tat response to Pakistan’s attack on India. A very sombre Salve responded to Pakistan’s memorial, taking exception to the language used by Qureshi. “Pakistan made a scathing attack and didn’t even spare the legal counsel,’’ said Salve, as he stood up to deliver his 1.5 hour rebuttal. “This court conducts with dignity and restraint; Humpty Dumpty has no place in this court,’’ Salve said.
Refusing to trade insults with Qureshi, Salve said there is an old saying in the legal world, “When you have the fact, you hammer the facts, when you have the law, you hammer the law, and when you don’t have any, then you hammer the table.’’ Indian culture prevented him from responding in kind, Salve said.
The oral submission made by Qureshi was “peppered’’ with the words “shameless’’, “nonsense’’, which Salve claimed was used five times and “disgraceful’’ and “ridiculous” four times. “India takes exception,’’ Salve said.
If Qureshi had used theatrics to make his point against India, Salve chose—in his usual, rather dry, manner—to focus on the facts. Dismissing Pakistan’s first accusation of abuse that India had not established that Jadhav was Indian, Salve said, “Pakistan had no doubt that he was an Indian national when Pakistan 'treated the world' to his confession as he is an Indian national. If they so dearly, fondly believe his confession, why doubt his nationality?’’ he asked.
Apart from a 'passport', Pakistan had nothing as evidence against Jadhav, contended Salve. Despite repeated requests by India, Pakistan shied away from submitting the evidence used to convict Jadhav nor had it provided the judgement of the court.
“Pakistan has nothing but the confession… having a passport doesn’t make you party to offences; participating does,’’ Salve said. Asserting that Jadhav was being used as a pawn by Pakistan, Salve contended that the time had come to take the law “forward”.
In response to the concerns expressed by Pakistan on the absence of its ad-hoc judge, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, due to an illness, ICJ president Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf assured Pakistan that despite him not being present, he could still participate in the hearings. Jillani had been sent the transcripts of the Jadhav case hearing and could watch the proceedings on the website.
Jillani had the same rights as the other judges and would be able to attend the deliberations, with the other judges once he was well. If Pakistan wanted, however, they could replace him at a later stage.