Time for ‘legal diplomacy’

IT was 2016. We at RSIL routinely studied all major disputes and issues between India and Pakistan — Kashmir, Sir Creek, Siachen, the Indus Waters Treaty, Samjhauta Express, Babri Masjid, Junagarh, etc. Each issue had a dominant legal dimension that required sustained research. Following the Mumbai attacks in 2008, bilateral bitterness was still on the rise as the trials of suspects Zia ur Rehman Lakhvi on the Pakistani side and Ajmal Kasab in India were not well managed. Both states, instead of cooperating, were actively denying each other access to the suspects, the investigation and even the cross-examination of witnesses. That’s when team leads Jamal Aziz and Awais Anwer discussed a potential workshop for suggesting ideas on law-enforcement cooperation to both governments. The growing distrust between two nuclear neighbours was the direct result of poor progress in the legal proceedings following terrorism cases on both sides of the border. It led to the idea of a workshop on improving Pakistan-India ties through ‘legal diplomacy’, a term we coined. The then foreign secretary Aizaz Ahmed Azar showed interest in the idea and conducted the session. Attorney general Ashtar Ausaf joined as special guest. There were participants from various ministries and security set-ups. We insisted that representatives from the Indian High Commission attend as well. After some back and forth, an invite was extended and the Indian High Commission sent two senior officials to attend. But ‘legal diplomacy’, though lauded as a concept by the participants, didn’t see the implementation of several of its recommendations. One major recommendation was to strengthen cooperation for terrorism cases between Pakistan and India through non-diplomatic channels as well — direct police-to-police cooperation as required under UN law (Resolution 1373). It’s a done thing in advanced jurisdictions where countries assist each other in law-enforcement cooperation. Had cooperation followed incidents li