After New Delhi approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Pakistan of violating the Geneva Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), the court has asked Pakistan to stay the execution of RAW operative Kulbhushan Jadhav, sentenced to death by a military court on charges of stoking terrorism and sabotage. ICJ's formal proceedings are to start on May 15. India has a weak case, though. Few even in that country believe the official version that Jadhav - a serving officer of Indian navy working for RAW, according to his own confessional video statement - was a retired serviceman abducted from Chabahar in Iran and brought, undetected by Iranian agencies, all the way into Pakistan to claim that he was arrested from Balochistan. No less significant is the fact that his work associates or family did not lodge a missing report with the police in Chabahar. Then there is the question if he was an ordinary Indian working in Iran why was he carrying two passports, one in his own name and the other in a fictitious Muslim name, Hussein Mubarak Patel? The government there has failed to give a clear answer to its own journalists.

Irrespective of any legal arguments India might want to present before the ICJ, a lot stands in its way. First of all, before a military court's pronouncement of death sentence against Jadhav, ie, on March 29, Pakistan had informed the ICJ that disputes related to its domestic sphere and national security were no longer part of the court's jurisdiction. Unsurprisingly, Islamabad is preparing to challenge the ICJ's jurisdiction in the matter. India itself set a precedent in this respect back in 1999 when it raised an objection over Pakistan's petition regarding downing of its navy aircraft. And the court had accepted its plea, saying India's declaration contained a reservation according to which "disputes with the government of any state which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth of Nations" are excluded from the court's jurisdiction. Pakistan had also made similar exceptions at the time of adopting the additional protocol. Its March 29 declaration plugged any remaining loophole. Second and equally important, legal experts point out that bilateral agreements, like the one the two sides have on consular access, take precedence over any multilateral frameworks, such as the VCCR. As per this accord, political and security-related issues are to be decided on the merit of each case. Hence consular access is not a matter of right, especially in such a sensitive security-related issue as the present one involving a RAW operative.

Given the background, the Narendra Modi government is not going to get anything out of moving the ICJ unless the purpose is only to show its ultra nationalist support base it is doing something to save Jadhav's life. A better option would have been to pursue the case, as indicated earlier, by providing legal assistance to him in pursuing his right of appeal as well as his mother's clemency petition. The path Modi has taken, though in line with his hard-line policy towards this country, would surely disappoint those hoping back channel diplomacy initiatives, such as his close friend Sajjan Jindal's recent visit for a meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, were to help improve relations. It is interesting nonetheless that India, always rejective of outside involvement in issues of dispute with Pakistan, should seek an international forum's intervention in the present issue. That should encourage Islamabad to approach relevant world forums as well as influential international players to ask for help in stopping India's relentless oppression in Occupied Kashmir.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2017