Harish Salve, who represented India before the International Court of Justice in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case, pulled no punches in his scintillating arguments while dismissing the justification of the Pakistan government in sentencing Jadhav to death (“Jadhav’s trial farcical”, May 16). The arguments of the counsels for Pakistan were also of a high order. However, the issue is: even in the event of the ICJ issuing an order that is favourable to India, will Pakistan accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ and show deference to its order? As we know, the ICJ has no mechanism to execute its orders. Ultimately, it is the Security Council that has to give effect to the ICJ’s orders. Members of the Security Council have themselves not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ when it did not suit them. In the Jadhav case, if the matter goes to Security Council, not only China — Pakistan’s ally — but also other members may not necessarily take a pro-India stance. The proper approach for India would be to take the bilateral route and convince Pakistan of the importance and necessity of annulling the death sentence and repatriating him to India.
K.R. Jayaprakash Rao,
Mysuru
India has so far maintained that there should be no third party intervention in any of its problems with Pakistan — especially Kashmir. Therefore, the Jadhav case ought to have been settled through dialogue. Much has been written about the bonhomie between Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif. Couldn’t the leaders have discussed the Jadhav issue? Pakistan is bound to pay India back in its own coin and take up festering issues with the ICJ. If, in future, the ICJ directs India to hold a referendum in Kashmir, will India accept it? India has opened a Pandora’s box.
T. Anand Raj,
Chennai
