Why we must look towards the Danes!

Pakistan and Denmark have one thing in common: a pending demand from the Indian government to extradite those of our nationals who have perpetrated acts of terror on Indian soil. The Mumbai attack implicating Pakistani nationals is well-known and well-publicised by the Indian government. However not so well-known is the case of a Danish national whose extradition New Delhi failed to secure leading to India's decision to freeze bilateral co-operation with Denmark this year. When asked by this correspondent during a recent senior Pakistani editors' tour to the country to comment on Indo-Danish relations the response was 'no comment.'
A Danish national, the 49-year-old Niels Holck known as Kim Davy in India, admitted dropping a cache of arms and ammunition in West Bengal's Purulia district on December 17, 1995. The consignment included hundreds of AK-47 assault rifles, anti-tank grenades, rocket launchers, pistols and around 25,000 rounds of ammunition. India's request to Denmark to extradite Holck was dismissed by the Danish court on the grounds that he would be at risk of torture or other inhumane treatment in an Indian prison. Denmark's public prosecutor decided not to refer the case to the Supreme Court as he considered the lower court's decision would be upheld. In August of this year, the then Danish Foreign Minister Lene Espersen expressed concern over India's decision to freeze co-operation with Denmark as India "is an extremely important partner" in terms of a market for Danish goods in the fields of green technology, treatment of waste water, equipment for airports and agriculture. She, however, added "but I neither can nor will involve myself in the Danish court's decision, which we must accept."
Responding to the Danish court's decision the spokesman for India's external affairs ministry Vishnu Prakash noted earlier this year that the Danish government had decided to extradite Holck on April 9, 2010 but lamented the fact that "the Danish authorities failed to successfully defend their decision in the Danish courts and it is regrettable that they have decided not to appeal the high court judgement in the Supreme Court." He added that "in our view, the judgement has grave and far-reaching implications and can only serve as an encouragement to terrorists and criminals". Rejecting the grounds cited by the Danish court as the basis for its decision, Prakash said "our demand for the extradition of Kim Davy to India stands. He must face the law in India for his actions." Indian government sources reiterated that Danish authorities must ensure that "terrorists and gunrunners do not find an easy safe haven" in their country and made it clear that relations and interactions between the two countries would always be based on the strict principle of reciprocity.
India's Central Bureau of Investigation, as well as India's intelligence agencies reportedly informed the Indian media that they would be willing to cross-examine Holck via video link. However Denmark has yet to receive such a request. Denmark is a small albeit rich country that considers itself a part of the international community and is unlikely to take decisions at odds with the West. India, unlike in its relations with Pakistan, where it clearly favours a multilateral approach on all matters excepting Kashmir, is dealing with Denmark bilaterally.
One is forced to contrast the Danish government's support for their court's decision with what our own government has been engaged in post-9/11. The first conclusive proof the country had about an executive decision to extradite Pakistani nationals to the US without recourse to local courts is contained in Musharraf's book "In the Line of Fire". While this admission angered Pakistanis though it surprised no one, yet analysts justified this as a decision and subsequent actions typical of a military dictator focused on ensuring the perpetuity of his own rule.
The question resurfaced with greater force after the Mumbai attack and the alleged complicity of several Pakistanis, including our premier spy agency. President Zardari was forced to defend the ISI and stated that 'non-state actors' were responsible. Later Indian and Pakistani police exchanged DNA evidence, photographs and items found with the attackers in an effort to complete the narrative of the Mumbai attack. Pakistani police arrested seven people, including Hammad Amin Sadiq, a homeopathic pharmacist, who arranged bank accounts and secured supplies for the terrorists. Sadiq and six others began their formal trial on 3rd October 2009 in Pakistan, though Indian authorities have accused Pakistan of not prosecuting top Lashkar leaders who, it alleges, were complicit in the attack. On the eve of the first anniversary of 26/11, a Pakistani anti-terror court formally charged seven accused, including LeT operations commander Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi.
The Indians have not overtly made any statements challenging the decisions of the Pakistani court. However in November 2009, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh accused Pakistan of not doing enough to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice, a charge that India levels against Pakistan at every forum to this day. This charge is strengthened by the fact that our executive decisions not to implement some of the Supreme Court's verdicts (including the decision on the National Reconciliation Ordinance) as well as remarks made by the Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan accusing the prosecution of deliberately weakening a case to ensure someone favoured is not subjected to a guilty verdict lend considerable credibility to India's continued accusations.
The case of Raymond Davis, who killed two Pakistanis in broad daylight and a US embassy car that mercilessly and criminally ran over a third man on a cycle as it came to Davis' rescue was markedly different. Allegedly the country's spy agencies became involved and invoked the Muslim law of compensation, subsequent to considerable pressure from the Obama administration - from the President down to the US Ambassador. Davis, on October 1, 2011, was arrested in the US for third-degree assault and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanours, stemming from a dispute between Davis and 50-year-old Jeff Maes about a parking space. According to US media reports Maes and his family got to a parking spot first and parked. A witness told police that Davis then confronted Maes and said, "I was waiting for that spot and it wasn't right for you to take it." When Maes refused to move Davis struck Maes. The blow sent Maes to the ground. Davis was released on a $ 1,750 bail bond. When prosecutors later learned that Maes may have suffered a broken vertebra in the incident, they increased one of the charges against Davis to second-degree assault (a felony), a crime of violence that carries a five-year mandatory minimum, and Davis' bond was raised to $ 10,000. Pakistan allowed a violent man to go scot-free, after the Obama administration insisted that he be freed as he had diplomatic immunity which of course was a blatant lie as maintained by Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the then Foreign Minister.
However, one must recall the killing of Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari by US forces in Iraq, sent to Baghdad to rescue journalist Giuliana Sgrena who later told the media that the claim of US forces that they fired on the two after they failed to heed signals to slow down was patently false. Bulgaria's call to US to investigate the fatal shooting of a Bulgarian soldier in Iraq, known to have been killed by the US forces has also fizzled out of the news. However one doubts, if the Italians and the Bulgarians would have had the same approach as adopted by Pakistan in the death of three of its citizens in Lahore, if the deaths had occurred on their own soil. But one must also note the recent revelation that the CIA used a government building codenamed Bright Light as a makeshift prison for its high profile detainees in Romania - a revelation vociferously denied by the Romanian government that was proved false after a joint investigation by the Associated Press and German public television. As Orwell said so aptly in his book, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. US clearly falls in the latter category for not only Pakistan.
There is a clear linkage between decisions taken by the national courts relating to criminal activities by foreign nationals, decisions that must be premised on transparent and impartial investigation by the government's investigative/prosecutorial branch, government agreements with a foreign power denied publicly, and foreign policy objectives. The Danish government to all intents and purposes agreed with the Indian government to seek Davy's extradition but was stopped by the court, based on its own constitution. And while the Italian and Bulgarian deaths occurred in a war zone and could be dismissed as collateral damage yet the request for an investigation was made to the US but came to nothing in the end. In this context, the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in Mohmand by Nato forces is also unlikely to come to much in the end.
However, what we must and can do is strengthen our own courts by ensuring implementation of its decisions while urging the honourable justices to remain within their constitutional limits. (For example, setting sugar prices clearly is not the prerogative of a court,) and urging the investigative branch of the government to proceed impartially on all cases. Last but not least, the government should be aware of its limitations in terms of foreign policy as should those aspiring to power and the power brokers and while supporting our foreign policy objectives, seek to protect Pakistani nationals within Pakistan to the extent possible.