The death sentence given by Qatar to eight retired Indian naval personnel — seven officers and one sailor — on espionage charges is unprecedented in India’s diplomatic history. In the past, Indians have been given the death penalty and executed abroad, but these have been on charges of murder or narcotics. It is also true that Pakistan has convicted Indians on espionage and terrorism, including Kulbhushan Jadhav, a retired naval officer, who is currently under a death sentence. But there is a fundamental difference between an inimical country like Pakistan and Qatar with which India has multifaceted ties. Besides, this is not a case of a solitary individual, but a group of retired defence officers. Hence, this case presents the Narendra Modi government and, in particular, Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar, who is responsible for the welfare of Indians abroad, with a most difficult challenge. The country would expect that not only are the death sentences lifted, but that the convicted personnel return safely to India at the earliest.
In December last year, Jaishankar assured Parliament that the eight were “very much in our priorities”. He said that this was a sensitive case and implicitly advised patience. He was right. The country, including the Opposition parties, have to keep the welfare of the eight uppermost in their mind. That requires that the words of MEA’s spokesperson in his media statement yesterday — “Due to the confidential nature of the proceedings of this case, it would not be appropriate to make any further comment at this juncture” — be followed in government and outside.
However, some people within the government are commenting on the case to sections of the media. This is apparent from reports in this morning’s newspapers attributed to “sources”. It seems that the objective of these “sources” was to assert that India could not intervene in the judicial processes of another country. This is true, but only up to a point, for all countries seek to do so; many often succeed. The “sources” also asserted that these retired officers were working on a “commercial, for-profit” basis. How this remark will play with the veterans’ community is uncertain for it was insensitive regarding the naval personnel already sentenced to death. The “sources” also emphasised that the government will continue to do whatever it can to address their situation. The people will not be satisfied with assurances alone but will want positive results.
Media reports indicate that the eight were met by the Indian ambassador to Qatar last October. Thereafter, they were given consular access. Charges were submitted in court against them in March this year and they were convicted and given the death sentence on October 26. In view of Jaishankar’s assurance to Parliament it would be reasonable to assume that India would have taken up this matter with Qatar on the diplomatic, and perhaps, also at the political level. What is not known is how the Qataris responded and also the extent of information they were willing to give to their Indian interlocutors. Countries, even “friendly” ones, are unlikely to share details of the manner in which they gathered information in espionage cases though they may indicate who the accused were spying for.
The question is whether the Indian authorities had received any kind of assurance regarding the nature of the sentence which would be handed down to the naval personnel if the charges against them were established in a court of law. The use of the unusual formulation in the spokesperson’s statement that “we are deeply shocked by the verdict of the death penalty and are awaiting the detailed judgement” suggests that the government was not expecting that the death sentence would be given, even if the eight were convicted. The word “shock” is seldom — and should be seldom — used in diplomatic statements for it indicates that a government was taken unawares. Also, instead of giving a message of calm determination which is required at such junctures, it can give rise to a sense of alarm.
This writer’s training as a professional diplomat prevents him from speculating on the alleged spying. The government would perhaps get to know more case details from the judgment. The spokesperson’s comment that the judgment is “awaited” indicates that the Qatari authorities have assured the government that they will share it with Delhi. That will enable it to help the convicted naval personnel with the appeal process.
Ultimately, espionage issues are determined not only by judicial verdicts but also by the nature of relations between states. Eight lakh Indians live and work in Qatar. India and Qatar have deep ties in the energy field. However, the two countries do not have converging views on the situation in West Asia. India has moved a great distance from the time it confined itself to having bilateral ties with all West Asian states and did not involve itself in their internecine issues. It had pursued this policy since the 1980s when it began to develop major economic and commercial interests in Saudi Arabia and the other states of the Arab peninsula. The development of its ties with Israel did not detract from this policy of direct bilateral relationships. This policy marked a departure from its alignment with the progressive Arab states till the 1970s.
India has moved away from its policy of direct bilateral ties in West Asia as seen from its membership of the I2U2. It is also perceived, after October 7, to be abandoning its commitment to the Palestinian cause even though it reiterated its traditional position on October 12. This has added to the political distance between Qatar and India. Qatar is a bastion of Islamic conservatism (recall its reaction to Nupur Sharma’s comments) and has sought to play a major role in the politics of the region for many years now.
All this will compel India to play a very deft diplomatic hand on the naval personnel issue. The country will support Jaishankar’s efforts, for the life and liberty of the eight is at stake.
The writer is a former diplomat
