ICJ Verdict: What it says, and what it doesn’t

Pakistan's legal teamThe International Court of Justice has responded to India’s case in the matter of alleged RAW spy Kulbushan Jadhav. India approached the ICJ after Jadhav was sentenced to death for his involvement in terrorist activities in Pakistan. The response has been celebrations in India, and outrage in Pakistan. Neither are warranted by the facts.

Here is the actual order of ICJ. Please read the contents carefully before going on.

ICJ order page 1ICJ order page 2ICJ order page 3 All the ICJ has declared at this point is that Jadhav should not be executed until the full proceedings are complete. He has not been acquitted, and he has not been freed. Obviously, we wanted the case not to be accepted, but this is not necessarily a defeat. Actually, the Court can still find completely in Pakistan’s favour after hearing all arguments which would be a much bigger defeat for India because it would leave no doubt. With that explained, it is worth revisiting some of the details of the case so that we can understand why there is so much confusion.

Let us be honest with ourselves. There have been questions about the way that Kulbushan Jadhav case was handled since day one. The surprise announcement of Jadhav’s death sentence may have been what the country wanted to hear, but it left more questions than answers. As I wrote at the time:

Why was the accused denied consular access per diplomatic norms? Does the fact that the weak ‘video confession’ is being promoted again mean that this is the only evidence we have? If the case against Jadhav was strong, why keep the evidence hidden away in secret military trials and classified ‘dossiers’?

None of these questions mean Jadhav was innocent or that he should be released. But as I warned at the time, the secret nature of the proceedings was going to haunt the proceedings. It is easy for us to accept the obvious, but that is because we have been conditioned to believe that RAW is responsible for terrorism in Pakistan by an endless media campaign by TV anchors, politicians, and military officers. The rest of the world, however, is not so certain.

We can blame the entire world’s inability to see things the way we do on a grand global conspiracy, or we can ask why we see things one way and the rest of the world sees them differently. Right now there is a debate about this going on as some are pointing out what we could have done better in the ICJ.

London-based Barrister Rashid Aslam says Pakistan was ill-prepared and did not utilise the 90 minutes it had to make its argument.

“Pakistan had 90 minutes of argument time but we wasted 40 minutes,” said Aslam. He added: “I was surprised why we finished our arguments in such little time. I think Khawar Qureshi didn’t consume all the time that was afforeded to him.”

He added: “Pakistan had the right to set up a judge there but we didn’t do that. I think Pakistan was grossly unprepared.”

Could part of the reason that we were grossly unprepared be that we believed it was an ‘open and shut’ case based on our own media narrative? If we prepared our case with the assumption that we would actually have to convince a sceptical audience, what would we have done differently? Exploring these questions could help us be better prepared for future global engagements including on issues like Kashmir.

Unfortunately, there is another more popular response that is being promoted. It is the one voiced by retired Justice Shaiq Usmani:

“It’s Pakistan’s mistake to have appeared there. They shouldn’t have attended.”

Rather than do the hard work of convincing someone who isn’t already convinced, we could just turn our backs on the rest of the world. We are already convinced, so why bother trying to convince anyone else. Who needs our critics to accuse us of being isolated when we have retired Justices suggesting that we isolate ourselves?

It is important to remember that the ICJ has not acquitted or released Jadhav, nor is the case finished. Actually, it is only beginning. We still have a chance to present our arguments and evidence. If we want to convince the world that we are telling the truth, though, we need to start by giving up the clever narrative management operations that continue to create confusion when things don’t go the way we are conditioned to expect them to. After all, if we aren’t secure enough to allow tough questions at home, how will we ever be able to answer them in an international forum like ICJ?

Why Army’s ‘Withdrawal’ of ISPR’s Tweet Is Not A Victory For Democracy

ISPR’s announcement that Gen Ghafoor’s infamous Tweet ‘rejecting‘ PM’s notification on so-called ‘Dawn Leaks’ has been ‘withdrawn’ is being treated as a victory for democracy. It is not. Allow me to explain why.

Let us look at what the Army actually said in its latest release:

Rawalpindi – May 10, 2017:

The tweet on 29 April 2017 was not  aimed at any government office or person. Recommendations as contained in Para 18 of the Inquiry Committee Report, duly approved by the Prime Minister, have been implemented, which has settled the Dawn leaks issue. Accordingly, ISPR’s said Twitter post stands withdrawn and has become infructuous.

Pakistan Army reiterates its firm commitment and continued resolve to uphold the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and support the democratic process.

There are a few key items to note. First is that the statement begins with a completely ridiculous and unbelievable claim. Gen Ghafoor’s Tweet said ‘Notification on Dawn Leak is incomplete and not in line with recommendations by the Inquiry Board’. That is a specific notification that was issued by a specific government office of a specific person, namely the Prime Minister. This is how it was understood by everyone, and to try to pretend otherwise only confirms the inappropriate and unprofessional nature of the original Tweet.

Most importantly, though is the beginning of the third sentence: ‘Accordingly’. This follows a recognition that PM implemented the Inquiry Committee’s recommendations (a committee that included representatives of ISI, MI, and IB). Army’s new statement says recommendations of the Inquiry Committee have been implemented, therefore Army is withdrawing its Tweet.

The reason Gen Ghafoor’s Tweet should have been withdrawn is that it was prima facie insubordinate as well as inappropriate and unprofessional and furthering suspicions and conflicts between arms of the state. Army’s new statement should have said, “The tweet on 29 April 2017 was inappropriate and is regretted. Accordingly, ISPR’s said Twitter post stands withdrawn.” Instead, Army said that it was withdrawn because PM implemented recommendations made by a committee including Army men. By doing so, Army has reserved the right to ‘reject’ future notifications by the PM if he fails to follow their orders.

The fact that Army’s ‘withdrawal’ is being treated as a victory for democracy and a set back for the military only shows just how firm the military’s grip on the state is. This is not a victory for democracy, it is only a sign of how far we are from it.

Iran Rejects Saudi Alliance, Now Border Heating Up. Coincidence?

jaish-al-adl

Security situation on the border with Iran is heating up. Ten Iranian border guards have been killed by militants from Pakistan side and Iranian government has issued a statement declaring that “the Pakistani government bears the ultimate responsibility of the attack”. This accusation can be understood in two ways: Either we do not control these areas as much as we claim to, or we do control these areas and the state is pursuing some strategy of using militant proxies to annoy Iran.

The possibility that we do not really have control of these areas is probably true. Despite media events showcasing surrender of hundreds of Baloch insurgents at a time, attacks against FC soldiers continue and jihadi literature is being openly distributed by state-approved militant groups posing as ‘relief’ organisations in areas controlled by Army. The spread of such extremist ideology is impossible to control, and Army’s tight controls on reporting from these areas means no one can be sure what is the actual security situation.

However there is another possibility, which is that the border attacks have heated up as a response to Iran’s rejection of Saudi military alliance led by ex-COAS Gen Raheel Sharif. FO has been trying to bring Iran on board with the Saudi military alliance despite their belief that there is a ‘hidden agenda‘ in the scheme. Foreign Office officials have rejected Iran’s claims, saying that the alliance is for good of all Muslims and is not against any country but terrorism. Could these attacks be orchestrated to pressurize Iran into joining the alliance? Or are certain quarters taking a page out of an old play book to send a warning about what can happen if preferred policies are not accepted?

Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua said last week that ‘We have no border issues with Iran and our border with Iran is friendly’. Iran’s Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan has given a different view, warning that ‘we reserve the right to give a firm response to such acts of terror’.

We are already facing rising tension with Afghanistan and India. We cannot afford to open another front against Iran also.

Ehsanullah Ehsan: How did ‘patriotic Pakistanis’ end up as RAW agents?

Ehsanullah Ehsan’s confession has confirmed what we have said all along: TTP are fighting to destabilise Pakistan under the direction of hostile foreign intelligence agencies. After Kulbhushan Jadhav’s confession, what more evidence needs to be provided? There is only one problem: This is not what we have said all along. Let us review some history.

In 2006, Army signed a ceasefire that was followed by hugs and return of weapons.

Maulvi Nek Zaman MNA read out the agreement after which the militants and military officials hugged each other and exchanged greetings. The venue was heavily guarded by armed Taliban and journalists were not allowed to shoot or film the event.

In 2011, Army allegedly entered peace talks with TTP. This was ‘strongly and categorically‘ denied by ISPR, but immediately after a cease fire was announced. That cease fire ultimately failed, but negotiating with TTP was still the official policy. COAS Gen Kayani even confirmed Army’s support for the process. This policy was not only continued but expanded by Gen Raheel who declared peace talks with TTP a national security ‘top priority‘. In 2014, we accepted another month long ceasefire that was supposed to break the deadlock in peace talks. Reconciliation with TTP was state policy for years.

Nek Muhammad with Army officer

This begs the question, if TTP are RAW/NDS agents, why would the state want to reconcile with them? To find the answer, let us ask our top security officials themselves.

“We have no big issues with the militants in Fata. We have only some misunderstandings with Baitullah Mehsud and Fazlullah. These misunderstandings could be removed through dialogue.”

The truth is, our own Army termed TTP as ‘patriotic Pakistanis‘.

So what happened? Is the military really that incompetent that they were fooled by RAW/NDS for so many years? Did we just not get it? Or was it all BS? Are the allegations about RAW connections BS or was all the stuff about ‘patriotic Pakistanis’ BS?

Before you answer, consider this. Despite Ehsanullah Ehsan’s allegations about TTP’s  RAW links, the idea that TTP are simply ‘misguided patriots’ and not actual RAW agents is still being projected.

This begs a serious question: Are claims of a RAW connection meant to cover up an ISI connection?

Long before anyone had thought to point fingers at India, it was widely reported that our war against TTP was a fight against our own Frankenstein’s monster. This point has been swept under the rug and replaced with the claim that TTP was a creation of hostile foreign agencies. However the facts are the facts, and in the digital age, history is not so easily re-written.

Ehsanullah Ehsan in state custodyOn a related note, there has been a lot of anger expressed about Ehsanullah Ehsan’s media appearances, and even PEMRA has now issued a notice banning such presentations. However, what is not being asked is how Ehsanullah Ehsan, who is in Army’s custody, has been able to give such interviews and appearances without Army’s nod?

In the shadowy world of spy games and proxy wars, the truth is often hard to find. Be careful about believing anything you hear without seeing some actual evidence first, especially if what you are being told is exactly what you want to hear. The truth might be a little more complicated.

When do ‘turning points’ become a death spiral?

Mashal Khan

I have been hesitant to write anything about Mashal Khan lynching. What can be said that has not already? Not only this time, but the time before? And the time before that?

Some are expressing a ‘cautious optimism‘ that the strong reaction against Mashal Khan’s murder coming from certain quarters of society points to a ‘turning point’. But three years ago, we were told that the bloody APS massacre was a ‘turning point‘. Since then, we have witnessed many ‘turning points’. Sabeen Mahmud murder was a ‘turning point’. Safoora Chowk bus attack was a ‘turning point’. Sehwan blast was a ‘turning point’. Lahore Easter blast was a ‘turning point’. These are just a few examples.

With due respect to these courageous voices, I cannot help but have the exact same thought as blogger Dan Qayyum

The problem is so deeply rooted in society that even the defences of Mashan Khan cannot challenge it. So many are arguing that he did not ‘deserve’ lynching, but inside this defence is the acceptance that someone does deserve it. That the violence and hatred is not the problem, only the problem is that the wrong person was targeted. Zarrar Khuro describes this cancer perfectly.

We have nurtured our own disease, have fed this cancer of the soul, this cancer which has a mind of its own; this cancer with purpose. The fault lies with a society that sups on hate and willingly butchers its own children at the devil’s altar, mutilating their bodies and crushing their skulls like some kind of ritual sacrifice.

And so here we stand, bending over backwards to ‘prove’ that he was not a blasphemer, that he was a ‘good’ Muslim and did not deserve the fate that should, by implication, be reserved only for the not-so-good. But none of that matters either, because evidence is accusation, is a death sentence to be carried by public acclamation in some dark, murderous perversion of democracy.

Our dilemma can also be found in our debates about blasphemy laws themselves. Over and over again we see cases where innocents are tortured and killed due to blasphemy accusations. Most often these are not tried, sentenced, and executed by the state. They are accused and lynched. Yet the debate is always about how to ‘prevent misuse of blasphemy laws‘. But what law is it that was misused in lynching of Mashal Khan? What law was misused in the lynching of Shama and Shezad? What law was misused in murder of Salmaan Taseer or Sabeen Mahmud or Rashid Rehman or any of the others who have been killed not by any law but by lawlessness?

State institutions have been strongly pushing the fight against blasphemy. From government to judiciary to even ISI, all institutions have been promoting the narrative that blasphemy is a major problem of Pakistan. Political leaders tell us that the offence of blasphemy is ‘unpardonable‘ while Mullahs threaten ‘dire consequences‘ if anyone dares try to reform the laws. What did they think was going to happen?

The solution, we are told, is to also give death penalty to those who misuse blasphemy and take the law into their own hands. But in the most famous case fake blasphemy killing, the killer was given death penalty and hung. It did not make him a warning for our society.

It made him a hero.

Qadri Janaza