By A.G. Noorani
A Month and a half after the Mumbai blasts on November 26, 2008, India-Pakistan diplomacy on the subject is dangerously deadlocked. Initial promise of accord on amends dissipated within three days, setting a pattern that has congealed with time. How far the dialogue has moved can be gauged with two statements by Pakistan’s leaders.
On November 29, President Asif Ali Zardari was asked by an Indian television channel: “Can you assure the Indian people that Pakistan will do everything it can to investigate and to inquire into this connection so that we get to the bottom of this matter?” That connection was “to people in Pakistan”. He replied: “Most definitely, this is a world incident. Today, every terrorist act is a world incident and [there are] multinational casualties. I am sure that the world intelligence agencies will be called. But at the same time, as the President of Pakistan, let me assure [that] if any evidence points to any individual or group in my country, I shall take the strictest of actions in the light of the evidence and in front of the world” (emphasis added, throughout).
Three points must be noted. There was an unqualified pledge “most definitely” to investigate “so that we can get to the bottom of this matter”. That could be done only in Pakistan, as the entire world knew and said. Secondly, he did not belittle the blasts as “one incident”. He called it “a world incident”, which is why world leaders spoke up as they did and the international media descended on Mumbai. Thirdly, he said that “if any evidence points to any individual or group in my country I shall take the strictest of actions in the light of the evidence and in front of the world”.
This is fair. The adequacy of evidence on any matter depends on the purpose. Facts that create a reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence justify the initiation of a police investigation and arrest of the suspect. To justify an order committing the case to the Sessions Court or framing of charges, proof of the commission of the offence is not required. Only a prima facie case needs to be made out. It is defined as evidence which, if unrebutted, leads to inference of guilt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is only required for conviction in a court of law.
The International Court of Justice has ruled that in fixing a state’s responsibility for the actions of its own “non-state actors”, a lesser degree of proof is required (see “Pakistan’s Burden”; Frontline, January 16). Zardari’s use of the expression “points to”, rather than “proves”, is therefore sound. He repeated it – “points to any camps”. He knew, of course, what was afoot. “We need to look at it as [an] action of non-state actors,” he said, in the context of the nationality of the perpetrators, of course.
Contrast this with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s remarks on January 10 and you get a fair idea of the gravity of the impasse and the depths to which the dialogue has been brought. It was adversarial in tone and contradicted Zardari flatly. The Mumbai attack was not a “world incident” but India’s “internal matter” arising out of an “intelligence failure in India”. If this be Pakistan’s stand after six weeks – contrary to that of the United States, the United Kingdom, and very many others, let alone the aggrieved country, India – how sincere is its promise of joint investigation or even of its own internal investigation? He said also, “We are now defending two countries, not one. We are defending them and ourselves.”
Read More