Is it really worth spending another Rs 50 cr on second Kasab? He's not the crown jewels

The capture of Mohammed Naved, alias Qasim Khan, alias whatever, will do nothing to make the Pakistani Deep State - the army, the ISI and their jihadi pals - change its attitude of unremitting hostility to India. It may embarrass the civilian government of Nawaz Sharif for a moment, but not Naved’s prime sponsors. However, the live capture of a jihadi bhaijaan, while changing nothing on the ground, brings costs and benefits to India. The costs may ultimately outweigh the benefits. [caption id=“attachment_2381630” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  PTI[/caption] Let’s look at the intangible benefits first. He could provide important ammo for India to brandish before world opinion. With sufficient questioning, he can give us important information on the terror training camps, methods of operation, the thinking that led to his injection into India, what he and his comrade/s did to create mayhem before he was caught, etc. All useful material for us to tell the world about. It’s not that the world is unaware of Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism against India, but it simply does not have the patience or stamina to engage with the reality in south Asia. The world is more concerned with ISIS and the rump al-Qaeda, two major Islamic terror groups in Africa (Boko Haram, Al Shabaab) and the jihadis sprouting in their own backyards (Chattanooga, London, Paris). They don’t have the energy to deal with the terror groups that affect India. They would prefer to believe that India-Pakistan tensions have only to do with Kashmir. The world will keep asking us to talk to Pakistan (which we should anyway, at low levels) and “sort out” our problems. Naved’s capture will help us combat this subtle pressure for a while. But the Pakistani attacks will continue, as jihad is business-as-usual for our western enemy. Beyond embarrassment, Naved will not do much for us. Now, let’s consider the costs of holding Naved captive. Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar, writing in The Times of India, said that we should get more of the terrorists alive, as “dead men tell no tales,” but dangerous men who live too long in the comfort of padded cells may bring hidden costs, unknown dangers. For example: What if freeing Kasab-2 - assuming he has valuable information - becomes a reason for another terrorist attempt to free him? On the other hand, what if Naved does not bring anything more than what we already know, or what we could have surmised? Lower-level indoctrinated killers do not often have the kind of serious information that we don’t already have. Naved claimed he came here to kill Hindus and had “fun” doing this (his mission was to keep killing, “Bas maarna hi maarna thaa”). We can surely get information about how he was brainwashed, how many people came with him and what they intended to do, the routes they took, their hideouts, what kind of weapons he had learnt to use, etc. This information can be extracted in a couple of months by expert interrogators. His replies can also be videographed and made available to experts to analyse and study. The point to consider is whether a captured terrorist is worth keeping in our jails endlessly once useful information is extracted from him. Let’s be clear, terrorists come here in pursuit of after-life benefits, not to remain comfortably alive in our jails. And trying to keep them alive at huge cost and effort may not be worth the effort. I am not talking about an extra-judicial execution, but about understanding the true costs of protecting someone who came here to die. The effort should be to complete his prosecution and judicial process in a matter of months, and not years. With a new law, if need be. Consider the case of Ajmal Kasab, who came to kill in November 2008, got caught, and then spent four years in jail before being executed. The cost of keeping him alive is estimated at upwards of Rs 50 crore. We spent that kind of money in order to hang him finally. Should Kasab-2 be treated the same way, especially when the death penalty debate is hotting up here and there is a good chance we may end up holding him permanently? According to a Times of India report of 2012, the government spent Rs 43 crore to provide Kasab special security at his Arthur Road jail in Mumbai (including expenses on judicial officers, the public prosecutor, special security for judges and lawyers, etc. Another Rs 8 crore was spent on building a special cell for him, not to speak of Rs 1.5 crore spent to create a special ward in a Mumbai hospital when he needed treatment (this investment was wasted, as he was finally treated in his own cell). Rs 1 crore was additionally spent on other infrastructure and vehicles. In other words, India spent over Rs 3 lakh per day to keep Kasab alive, and to ensure he is not bombed by his colleagues, or enabled to take his own life. Do we want this with Kasab-2? I am not suggesting anything sinister. I am merely saying that once all useful information has been extracted, we should quietly stop spending oodles on cash to give him extra protection, including protection against himself, if he turns suicidal. All he needs is a safe cell and solitary confinement, where he will have no ability to influence anybody and where he can do what he wants to himself. A permanent video in his cell can be used to track what he does, and for proof that he wasn’t bumped off by the jail staff. It may not be worth spending another Rs 50- crore on Kasab-2. After the useful info is obtained, Naved should be left to his own devices like a normal prisoner, but confined to a lonely cell where he can’t attempt to indoctrinate others or do other kinds of harm. He may not be worth gouging the taxayer for. The Naveds come cheap to Pakistan, but are expensive for India to mollycoddle.