On
13th March, when the Twitter was full of comments from professional
analysts and self-proclaimed nationalists that how India has become a soft
state, how UPA, Man Mohan Singh, and Sonia Gandhi are hands in glove with Italy
in damaging Indian interests, and how Italy is some rogue mafia style country that
it cannot be expected to honour the solemn commitment given to the Supreme
Court of India, I decided to post this tweet reproduced below:
|
I still think the Italian marines
will be back in India, when their bail period is over.
|
This
Tweet invited so many reactions, some expressing agreement with me, others
laughing at my misplaced optimism, and some others questioning my loyalties. I
defended my tweet, which according to me was based more on realism than optimism.
Today,
when I woke up to the news that Italian Marines are indeed coming back to India
to be present here when their bail is getting expired, I felt vindicated. Why did I feel confident that they will
eventually be back in India? This confidence was based on various factors that
are the subject matter of this post.
With
all due respect, I still do believe that the apex court of India erred in
granting such a bail (or leave, as being reported by the media) to the two foreign
national accused of a serious crime of murder. No doubt, the Court used its discretion
based on a solemn commitment given by the State of Italy, through its
Ambassador. However, Court erred in appreciating the ramifications of a default
on that commitment. The very fact that same Court was forced to issue an order restraining
Italian Ambassador from leaving the country is an indication how things could
have gone wrong by this act of the Court.
Secondly,
would Supreme Court of India grant such a permission to Somalian Nationals, if the
Envoy of Somalia give such a commitment? Was the Supreme Court setting a
dangerous precedent by this action? It is a fact that no government can make a
decision to bail out or release an accused who is under judicial custody. So,
the entire discretion was bestowed in the Court, and the Court seems to have
exercised it without properly appreciating the consequences.
Keeping
the decision of the Supreme Court aside, why was it not feasible for the
Italian Government to refuse the Marines’ presence in India, to face trial?
First and foremost, Italy and India are not some banana republics that can act
without any consideration of larger issues involved. Secondly, this was not a case
of some foreign nationals jumping the bail. This was a case, where these
nationals were released strictly on the basis of an assurance from a sovereign
country that they will be presented back to the court, in time.
If
a State goes back on a commitment given through an affidavit from its Ambassador,
what will be the sanctity of diplomatic relationships and discussions? Could India
have merely accepted such a decision as fait
accompli and kept quiet? India would have been forced to take severe measures
including the potential arrest of the Italian Envoy for contempt of court, at least
to satisfy its domestic compulsions. It is even more so since the name of the Chairperson
of ruling coalition UPA, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, was being sullied by the opposition
and analysts alike, linking the Supreme Court decision to her connection with Italy.
No government could have afforded not to act under these circumstances.
No
act in diplomacy goes without a retaliation and, therefore, any steps would have
ended in severing of diplomatic relations between the two countries. India may still be able to afford it, but
Italy may not. Neither will the EU or any other power side with Italy in this
matter because it involves (a) the second largest market in the world, and (ii)
the very basics of diplomatic relations.
The
sovereign countries have only three options in dealing with each other. First
is to follow the accepted principles of diplomacy (which is based on mutual
respect and commitment) and second is to go to war. The third option is not
dealing with each other, at all. As stated above, severing the relationship
with a market as big as India will surely hurt Italy, in this world that seems
to be under a constant threat of recession.
What will happen to the diplomacy
itself? Like the underworld, diplomacy also has to function under some Omerta
or code of honour because it is dealing with sovereign partners, and there is
no supervisory authority to settle their disputes. If a State goes back on its commitments, its
credibility among other nations is also bound to get affected, impairing its
power of negotiation.
Last but not the least, if the intention was
to dishonor the commitment given to judiciary why would have Italy disclosed it
so soon? It could have waited till the date on which Mariners were expected to
report back in India and then announced the same. The very fact that advance
notice was given suggested a strategy involving testing of waters, and probably
seeking some concessions and assurances regarding the trial. It is naïve to
believe that Italy might have not expected the kind of reaction from Indian
authorities and public.
In a highly politicized atmosphere, it is
natural for people to view any incident through political prism. However, for
professional analysts to miss these points and reduce the debate to mere name
calling of political leaders is, to say the least, appalling. What many people did
not realize was the fact that when they blamed Mrs Sonia Gandhi for the
decision to send Marines home, they were not insulting her or Congress, but the
very Supreme Court of India and its decision.
