New Delhi: While the Pakistan government’s narrative of the ICJ verdict is that it has been “vindicated” completely, the country’s civil society has been more circumspect in asserting that the judgment is not as one-sided as officially depicted.
On the morning after the ICJ verdict, Pakistani newspapers projected only a single winner at The Hague. While The Daily Times’s front page headline was that “India bites the Dust”, The Express Tribune said “Pakistan Vindicated” and The News just pithily said “No retrial, no release”.
The Dawn newspaper, which has been the target of a campaign by Pakistan ruling party supporters, also limited its headline to highlighting that there will be no release of Kulbhushn Jadhav, the Indian national sentenced to death by a military court on terrorism and espionage charges. The deck did mention that Pakistan was told to provide consular access to the “Indian spy”.
Also Read: ICJ Effect: Pakistan Informs Kulbhushan Jadhav of His Rights to Consular Access
Statements from Prime Minister Imran Khan, foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Pakistani military spokesperson have welcomed that the ICJ has not ordered the release of Jadhav. However, none of them referred to the key ruling that Pakistan has been found to have violated the 1963 Vienna Convention of Consular Relations.
Pakistani lawyer, Reema Omer, who is the South Asia legal advisor for the International Council of Jurists, had been the first to post the judgement on social media on Wednesday, with the commentary that the ICJ had ruled in favour of India’s position on merits. She also mentioned in subsequent tweets that the ICJ had not ruled in favour of India’s argument for release of Jadhav.
And the decision in the #Jadhav Cade is out!
ICJ has ruled in favour of India on merits, affirming Jadhav’s right to consular access and notification
The Court has directed Pakistan to provide effective review and reconsideration of his conviction and sentences pic.twitter.com/DE3dAb9eIv
— Reema Omer (@reema_omer) July 17, 2019
But, her initial tweet was enough to have Omer targeted not just by a horde of irate tweets, but also by Pakistani government functionaries.
Pakistan Punjab chief minister’s spokesperson said that her post was “lame” and that the ICJ had claimed that Jadhav was an “Indian spy”.
When Omer corrected Pakistan federal human rights minister Shireez Mazari’s assumption about the ICJ judgment, the latter accused her of “bias”.
Incidentally, another Pakistani lawyer Imaan Z. Hazir Mazari commented that India had “won more than they lost” compared to Pakistan. In a tweet thread, she noted that if the military establishment had not tried Jadhav in a military court and followed “due process”, Pakistan would not have been found in breach of Vienna Convention of Consular Relations.
Meanwhile, veteran Pakistani journalist Imtiaz Alam said that the ICJ judge was a “good omen for the right of the accused”, better than Jadhav’s repatriation to India or execution.
ICJ’s Judgement a good omen for the right of the accused to be informed about his rights under GEN Con and right to have consular access and for reconsideration and review of conviction, rather than acquitting,repatriating Kulbhisan to India or execution. Now IHC/SCP to Review
— Imtiaz Alam (@ImtiazAlamSAFMA) July 17, 2019
However, he also felt that the India’s celebrations over the ICJ judgment were not seemly, as the verdict was just made on legal merits and Jadhav had not been set free.
Why should be India celebrating over ICJ judgement in kulbhoshan Yadev case? ICJ has asserted its jurisdiction, if it served India purpose today, tomorrow it will serve Pakistan’s purpose. Yadev is not being repatriated as India wished. He will have Review opportunity
— Imtiaz Alam (@ImtiazAlamSAFMA) July 17, 2019
Strange jubilations in India and Pakistan. Only beneficiaries of ICJ judgement in Spy Kalbhushan Yadev case would be the alleged spies forgotten and languishing in Indian and Pakistani prisons. They could now get consular access, lawyers and due process.
— Imtiaz Alam (@ImtiazAlamSAFMA) July 18, 2019
Pakistani Supreme Court advocate, Saleem Akram Raja, tweeted that the local media was continuing to misrepresent the ICJ verdict as being about “determination of Jhadav’s guilt”.
He pointed out that the ICJ had put the onus on Pakistan to provide Jadhav with a “fair judicial hearing before a court with a Pakistani lawyer of his choice”. He was referring to the ICJ’s directions that the “review and reconsideration” had to bear the “full weight” of the effect of violation of Jadhav’s rights and meet standards of a fair trial.
Also Read: Kulbhushan Jadhav Case: India Dismisses Pakistan’s Claims of Victory
A sincere defence of Jadhav in the court was important for Pakistan’s “dignity”, he felt. Most of the respondents of this tweet were predictably ad-hominem attacks.
ICJ has placed an obligation on Pakistan to provide Jadhav a fair judicial hearing before a court with a Pakistani lawyer of his choice. Which lawyer will come forth to perform his duty to faithfully defend Jadhav by presenting his version? Pakistan’s dignity depends on this.
— salman akram raja (@salmanAraja) July 18, 2019
Marvi Sirmed, member of the executive council of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, wrote in an Indian paper that consular access would allow India to “demolish” Jadhav’s ‘confession’. “He would now most definitely claim confession under duress,” she wrote.
“At the moment”, Sirmed notes, “key decision-makers in Pakistan do not want to disobey the court verdict”. She pointed out that Pakistan’s action may have repercussions for its relations with US. “If Pakistan offers to graciously comply with the ICJ verdict, it might raise it’s ask too. The stick raising mood in White House has already changed to a carrot granting one”.
“In any case, a dead Jadhav doesn’t benefit anyone,” she concluded, adding “Except may be, Jadhav’s handlers, if he is indeed a spy.”
