Opinion Indian exceptionalism

Why does India think Pakistan will prosecute and convict Hafeez Saeed? What if Pakistan were to turn around and make a similar demand of India...

August 9, 2009 02:48 AM IST First published on: Aug 9, 2009 at 02:48 AM IST

Why does India think Pakistan will prosecute and convict Hafeez Saeed? What if Pakistan were to turn around and make a similar demand of Indiawhat would the reaction be? After all,Jamaat ud Dawa is very much like the RSS. It is a volunteer social work organisation with a vicious,violent ideology. So what if Pakistan asked for the arrest and conviction of Sudarshan?

MHA will say Hafeez is a terrorist and we have proof that he has sponsored the 26/11 attack. I doubt if that is enough to convict someone in a court of law which follows the British traditions. In British courts,it has been difficult,if not impossible,to get conviction for terrorists. This is because those who commit the suicide bombing are dead anyway. It is not easy,however,to catch the people who sent the suicide bombers on their mission. British law was amended in 2005 to make conspiracy to commit an act of terror a crime. But here there is a problem that with the right of free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the UK as well as India are signatories,you have to prove that the defendant did more than just use speech acts to conspire with others to commit an act of terror.

In the years since 9/11 and even more particularly,the UKs own 7/7 London underground bombings,counter-terrorism forces have often made arrests. In the well-publicised case in 2006 where there was an alleged conspiracy to blow up many aircraft in flight by some liquid jelly which the bombers were to carry in their hand luggage (whence the tough security regulations at airports about carrying liquids onboard),the UK police arrested more than a dozen but could not get any conviction.

I am not a lawyer but watching the course of counter-terrorism legislation as a member of the House of Lords,I am not at all convinced that the many people whom the public may resent because they are Islamists are guilty of anything except violent language. Moral indignation has no weight in a court of law.

And in any case,how good is Indias own record at convicting terrorists? Of course,we have the three convictions about the Zaveri Bazaar bombings. These three convicts were ordinary people with no political clout. Those who killed with impunity in Delhi in 1984 and in Mumbai in 1993 and in Gujarat in 2002 are all still free. Indeed some have acquired such immunity that even the new generation of Congress leadership has honoured them with important assignments. No one has been convicted following the Sri Krishna reports. Those who were convicted after 13 years for the 1993 bombings were mainly Muslims,except for Sanjay Dutt. Dutt got it in the neck because the powers that be in the Congress then had disapproved of his fathers conscientious stance on the killing of Muslims by Hindus. Even those convictions are under appeal.

The idea that if we tell Pakistan to arrest someone they have to jump and comply is based on the delusion of moral superiority or perhaps Indian exceptionalism. That is why the BCCI is encouraging its cricketers to defy the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). So who cares if Abhinav Bindra and Roger Federer comply? BCCI is rich and it has 20-20,IPL and much more commercial revenue to flaunt in the worlds face. Of course Indian cricketers are immune from laws which all else obey. What is the point of being on dozens of commercials and playing in IPL for money if one is treated like some aam aadmi?

BCCI should tell WADA that as far as India is concerned,there are layers of immunity from the law. Ministers and their families and hangers-on of political parties do not get convicted even if they break the law. The very rich can buy a slot in this immunity club. The cricketers have a friend in the Cabinet and he will see to it that whatever the anti-doping law may be,our cricketers will be immune from it.

And then again,may be not. Ask Buta Singh.