If the opening arguments presented in Mumbai on Friday are any indication, the Mumbai attacks trial will bring the rest of the world along on a wild ride through India's dysfunctional legal system — as well as its troubled relationship with neighboring Pakistan.
The day's proceedings began with a surprise application by defense attorney Abbas Kazmi, appointed the previous day. After conferring for about five minutes with his client, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, the only surviving suspect in the attacks, Kazmi told the judge, M.L. Tahiliani, that Qasab claims to be a minor and requests that his case be heard in juvenile court. The courtroom, filled with reporters and police officials, was stunned. Would this trial be suspended before it even began? (Read about the opening day in court.)
The prosecutor, Ujwal Nikam, objected strenuously, arguing that according to the court's record — the confession submitted to a Mumbai magistrate, the jail's entry logs and the charge sheet against him — Qasab had given his date of birth as Sept. 13, 1987. The defense attorney said Qasab does not remember his exact birthday, only that he was less than 17 at the time of the attacks. To resolve the standoff, Tahiliani told Qasab, "Please stand up." Addressing the open court, Tahiliani concluded, "If one looks at Accused No. 1, it looks that he is definitely above 21." At that, he decided to dismiss the application, leaving the door open to making a later inquiry into his age if it became necessary. (See pictures of Mumbai after the 2008 attacks.)
"That's not how it should be done," says Swati Mehta, Coordinator of the Prison Reforms Programme at the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in New Delhi. If a defendant claims to be under 18, she says, the judge is required to order medical tests or investigate school records or other documents that might establish age. (Pakistani officials have acknowledged that Qasab is a Pakistani, but have given no proof of age. It's common in South Asia for births to go unrecorded.) The defense attorney could have also pressed further but instead accepted the decision.
The matter-of-fact dismissal of what appeared to be a fairly serious challenge to the prosecution's case is just one of many reminders that the Arthur Road jail is a long way from the tidy proceedings of "Law and Order." The court allowed the prosecution to present its opening arguments, for example, even though the newly appointed defense attorney had not yet read the 11,000-page charge sheet. (The judge acknowledged that he still hasn't finished the whole thing.) Qasab does not speak English, but there is no Urdu translator to explain the proceedings to him, and his request for an Urdu version of the charge sheet was denied. Most Indian courts leave it to the defense attorney to explain to their client what's happening.
Qasab, has, however, gotten his day in court only six months after being arrested, and his verdicts is expected within a year — an efficiency rarely seen in the Indian court system. This trial, however, is the subject of intense international interest. "We have trials that go on for decades," Mehta says, noting that 65% of the people in Indian jails are simply waiting for their court dates. Convictions in the 1993 Mumbai blasts, for example, were handed down after 13 years, in 2006 and death sentences for several of the accused delivered a year later.
With the question of Qasab's age set aside, the prosecutor launched a full frontal attack on Pakistan — the unnamed but ever-present fourth defendant on trial in Mumbai. (Qasab's co-defendants are Fahim Ansari and Sabahuddin Sheikh, both Indians, who were arrested before the Mumbai attacks but are suspected of helping with some preliminary planning.) As he outlined the details of the case, Nikam focused his argument on the second charge of "waging war against the government of India." The attacks, he said, had "the definite target of capturing Kashmir." (Lashkar e Taiba, a jihadi group that is active in Pakistan, is alleged to have trained and sponsored the Mumbai attackers.) It was extremely strong language, particularly since the Indian foreign ministry has made a concerted avoid linking the Mumbai attacks to the 50-year-old territorial dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
Still, as the courts wrapped up their second day, few observers think the trial itself will generate much protest in Pakistan or worsen the already hostile diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. The rhetoric might have been stronger than usual, but it's no different from what Indian commentators have been talking about for years — Pakistan's attempts to destabilize India with bomb blasts rather than as through conventional warfare. "The involvement of Pakistan is documented very clearly," says Ajai Sahni, head of the South Asia Terrorism Portal. The only difference in this case is the level of detail. Nikam alleged that LeT chief Zaki Ur Rehman Lakhvi personally oversaw some of the training, along with an as yet unidentified Major General in the Pakistani army. Naming names could put pressure on Pakistan to do more to rein in jihadi activity, but Nikam's rant this morning was a solo show. A spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs said he has not yet seen a copy of but the trial proceedings, and declined to comment.
See pictures retracing Qasab's journey from Pakistan to Mumbai.