Marines' return: Why is Cong taking credit for what SC did?

Even as the Congress rushes to claim credit for bringing back the killer marines from Italy, the sad truth of India is that yet again it’s the judiciary that saved the country’s honour. Honour is not a progressive expression, but in this context, let’s keep it because it makes sense. It’s about the country’s image, prestige and respectability in our backyard and elsewhere. The supercilious and glib ones in the government — foreign minster Salman Khurshid and finance minister P Chidambaram — were categorical that it’s their diplomacy that worked while Manish Tewari and Ashwani Kumar gave some credit to the Supreme Court as well. Of course, the BJP, even while sounding ludicrous, also claimed credit for the success because they had created some ruckus in the parliament. But what is so evident, that the politicians chose to ignore, is that it was the Supreme Court that told the Italian Ambassador that he can’t leave the country and that he had forfeited his diplomatic immunity by standing guarantee to his countrymen who are wanted by Indian law. By the turn of events, it was so clear that Italy, along with its Ambassador to India, had hatched this plan meticulously. It was a silly plan alright, but probably that was the country’s respect for the “diplomacy” of India that our smart men are waxing eloquent about now. Ask for a vacation, come back as good boys to win the trust of the court, and then go back again for good. The Ambassador can fool India and its courts by standing guarantor and later default by claiming diplomatic immunity. How simple was that? [caption id=“attachment_671464” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The two Italian marines in this file photo. PTI[/caption] It was exactly like a pauper standing guarantee for a big bank-loan. In their eyes, India was still a semi-literate third world country that can be brow-beaten, bribed and easily influenced. They would have seen how the whole guarantee system works in government run banks which give away thousands of crores of public money to conmen. They also would have studied the Quattrochi best practice in fooling India. And it almost worked, until the Supreme Court chief justice cracked the whip. This is perhaps where the Ambassador’s briefing went wrong. While hatching the conspiracy, perhaps his staff hadn’t advised him that many of Indian courts are different from its governments and politicians; and that for some time now, it’s in fact the courts that are running the country and maintaining rule of law. They should have pointed him to the legal toughness of the magistrate in Kollam in Kerala, before whom the marines were originally produced. There is enough reason to believe that had the Chief Justice pooh-poohed the Ambassador’s claim for immunity and asked the government agencies to stop him if they spot him trying to leave, things wouldn’t have been this easy. First he said he had immunity and that violating it will be violation of international law and second, he said his guarantee was not stand-alone, but came with a lot of additional arguments on why the Italians cannot be tried in India. Whatever, their plans were, the Supreme Court was firm unlike the UPA government. The message to Ambassador was — you stood guarantee for them, now bring them back; otherwise you are stuck. Now the key question. Isn’t the UPA ashamed of claiming success for a deed in which they had very little role? Before and after the Supreme Court observation, what was the Government’s role other than the so called “tough” stand it took? Is it repeating Manmohan Singh’s meek utterance that “we are tough”? Unfortunately there is nothing to indicate that the government was tough. Just by saying that we are tough, we don’t look tough. It will be a great lesson for students of public policy and international relations if Salman Khurshid could spell out the the steps the government took, exclusive of the Supreme Court stand, that reversed the Italian con-job. Although it is a great victory for the country’s judiciary, it is also saddening that without the courts, we are in serious trouble. In the past it had been mainly in corruption and criminality where the courts stepped in when the governments willfully failed. There is no argument that without a fearless and constitutionally sound CAG and the Supreme Court, none of the mega scams such as the 2G and CWG would have been investigated the way they are being done now. The courts in different parts of the countries also intervened to build the confidence of people and maintain rule of law on cases of criminality, rights-violations, common public goods, delivery of services, and even civic affairs. It is with the continuous and laborious oversight of the courts that the Republic is still a livable place. Now, the Italian case points to a national tragedy that we need the support of the courts even for international affairs and diplomacy. Would the government have been able to talk “tough” with the Italians had the Supreme Court not expressed its opinion in no uncertain terms? As much as it is reassuring, unfortunately, it is not good for our democracy. The courts are overburdened and take inordinately long periods of time to deliver justice, but we have no option because our institutions are failing. Politicians, including the glib talkers of the Congress, ask us to go to court if we have any complaints with the way they work. We have the example of Pakistan where the over-reliance of people on judiciary and the military has contributed to the weakening of the democracy. Some might say it was the other way round; but either way, it is a vicious cycle that ultimately kills democracy. In Pakistan, both the military and the judiciary are sacred for the people because they are the only institutions that work for them. India is not Pakistan, but somewhere this gnawing parallel smirks at us.