#dnaEdit: The Lakhvi tangle

A day after the ghastly terrorist killing of 134 schoolchildren in Peshawar, Islamabad’s Anti-Terrorism Court granted bail to Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the main accused in the Mumbai terror attack. That the decision has raised more than eyebrows is hardly surprising. If there is a sense of distaste, if not despair, over the issue in Pakistan’s liberal media, there is equally a strong disapproval in India’s official and non-official circles. But Lakhvi could not finally walk free because the government has now re-arrested him under Maintenance of Public Order (MPO). Further, the government is preparing to appeal against the bail in the supreme court. 

The disappointment at home and the anger in India over the temporary relief that Lakhvi got are understandable because Islamabad has dithered too long in facing up to the threat that terrorism poses even to the internal security of Pakistan. At the same time, Pakistan has damaged its relations with its neighbours in the east and west — India and Afghanistan. It seems that successive Pakistan governments and the army were content to pay lip-service to anti-terrorism acts. But they refused to take concrete steps to rein in jihadi elements operating on its territory. In the face of internal irruptions of terror acts, however, it is no longer possible for the Pakistan establishment to tackle the challenge of terrorism.

According to Pakistani media reports, the defence lawyer of Lakhvi argued that his client’s name was only taken by the other six accused who were also in the Adiala prison in Rawalpindi, but there was no other evidence. He said the only reason Lakhvi was hauled up was because he was heading a banned organisation, Lashkar-E-Taiba (LeT), but there was no direct proof of his connection with November 26, 2008 Mumbai terror attack. On the other hand, the prosecution is citing evidence provided by India and the confession of Ajmal Kasab which the Indian courts found admissible. 

The prosecution will have to work hard to convince the courts about Lakhvi’s involvement in the transnational terror crime. The suspicion on the Indian side that the Pakistan government is dragging its feet in carrying forward the Mumbai terror attack case is certainly plausible, but there is need to allow Pakistan authorities the time to follow up on the case. Given the common legal labyrinths that India and Pakistan share — part of the shared colonial legacy — the case against Mumbai terror accused will take time. India has no other alternative but to wait it out. Indian impatience might appear justifiable but it is not helpful.

The onus of dealing with terrorism and the people involved in it rests on  the Pakistan government. It would be fatal for Pakistan if it were to take refuge in legal delays in dealing firmly with those accused of terror acts. It is interesting that after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif decided to revive death penalty for terror convicts, army chief Raheel Sharif has signed the death warrant for six individuals convicted by army courts for terror activities.

Peremptory acts of retributive justice are not the best bet in the war against terror, especially in a democratically fragile country like Pakistan. Indian hawks wanting to force Pakistan to take a firm stand against terror would be committing a grave error if they were to applaud the Pakistani government executing the terror accused without going through the due process of law: however long that process may take. India should never be a party to punitive justice in any way. It will reflect negatively on India’s own democratic commitments.