#dnaEdit: It’s never easy

Death sentences are less controversial when they are handed down by courts to citizens. They become a sensitive issue when foreign nationals are involved. It would have been less problematic if the five Indian fishermen who had been given a death sentence on charges of drug peddling by a Sri Lankan high court had received a similar verdict in India. The issue becomes politically explosive because of the interest and concern of Tamil Nadu’s political parties, especially the regional Dravidian ones, over Sri Lanka’s Tamils. Drug peddling is a serious crime in many countries and many of them deal with it in the harshest terms — through a death sentence. 

Indian government is aware of the legal aspects of the problem. It is aware that objecting to the sentence would be undiplomatic as well as impolitic. At the same time, there is the growing realisation, especially in recent years, that India as an economically and politically emerging global power, cannot be a silent bystander when its citizens face stringent legal punishment in other countries, especially in neighbouring countries which are considered to be ‘small’ in more senses than one. India feels that in keeping with its new status as an emergent power, it should be seen as protecting its citizens beyond its borders. This has not always been so. But the Indian establishment is aware that it cannot be too coercive in these matters. For example, India, cannot hope to pressurise Islamabad in the manner it would Colombo. Nor is India in a similar position with regard to Indian prisoners convicted in the Gulf countries. Sri Lankans, too, are aware of this and they resent India’s Big Brother attitude. 

This flexing of political muscle to protect citizens beyond the borders has Western roots. Most European countries are in some degree or other suspicious and aggressive when their citizens are tried by courts in the so-called Third World countries. European governments always intercede for their citizens and succeed in securing their repatriation. There are two reasons for this unusual activity. First, European powers do not seem to trust the legal processes and procedures in Asian and African countries to be as fair and rigorous as their own. The second assumption — partly racial — is whether a European could ever be tried by non-Europeans. In recent years, European governments have extended their concern to their citizens, irrespective of race. For example, David Cameron’s Conservative government in Britain is concerned that a young Iranian woman, who is a British citizen, has been imprisoned in Iran for trying to watch a football match.

The play of power politics and the suspicion that foreigners will not get a fair deal in the courts will continue to nag governments everywhere in the world. There are no easy solutions. It is quite unlikely that there would ever be a globalised legal system that would inspire confidence across national borders. But each country would have to do what it can to show that its judicial system is above doubt and reproach. It would be necessary for the host government as well as its foreign counterpart to be sensitive to each other’s sentiments. In the present instance, Indian government is playing it right by extending assistance to appeal the death sentence. On its part, the Sri Lankan government should do what it can to soften the blow and extend humane treatment within the legal framework. This will help strengthen and improve diplomatic relations between the two countries.