- yesterday
PM Modi and UK Prime Minister Starmer reaffirmed their commitment to working closely on the extradition of fugitive economic offenders wanted in India.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Let's therefore raise the big question, is the United Kingdom still a safe haven for fugitives?
00:06Why is extradition from the United Kingdom tough?
00:09Is the government really serious, the Modi government serious in nabbing their fugitives,
00:14many of whom have left under the watch of this government?
00:17Joining me now is Kaval Sibbal, former Indian Foreign Secretary joins me.
00:21I'll also be joined in a moment by Tanvir Ahmed Meir, senior criminal lawyer,
00:25and Burzeen Vagman from the SOAS South Asia Institute of the University of London also joins me.
00:32Let me come to you, Burzeen, first there.
00:35We've seen India from time to time claim that they are working with the United States to extradite economic offenders,
00:42but there's been very little progress in that matter.
00:45In fact, today, Jairam Ramesh of the Congress tweeted that we need a fugitive agreement, not just a trade agreement.
00:51What is the reason that UK is seen to be such a safe haven for many of these economic offenders?
01:00I would foreground those remarks against the fact that the obstruction of justice is at heart.
01:07Ambulance chasing lawyers, perverse obstruction of justice by judges,
01:13which works to the advantage of such economic offenders,
01:16but also other illegal aliens who are present on British soil,
01:19and the wide, perverse interpretation of what is the Human Rights Act,
01:25which in itself is a very much discussion that is ongoing as we speak with the current government,
01:31as well as the previous Sunak administration.
01:34And in more ways than one, that has been used perversely to the hilt by such individuals,
01:41and by lawyers who make a killing out of it under the ambit of human rights.
01:46It does work to the advantage, which is why the Home Office is left, you know, pretty much paralyzed.
01:52It is not, Rajdeep, I must state, the political dispensations view not to cooperate on a bilateral basis with another country,
02:02and with India, with whom ties are intimate in more ways than one,
02:06considering that India and UK are now a part of the core Indo-Pacific strategy, so on and so forth,
02:12of building up on centuries of relations.
02:15It's just that it's these aspects which are obstructionist,
02:19and there is much momentum here locally to veer out of it,
02:23in terms of this Human Rights Act and the ECHR provisions,
02:27that have worked in favour of not just these offenders,
02:30but also complaints from other UK close allies, including GCC states,
02:35who have a far more intimate security military relationship with London than New Delhi does,
02:41in terms of Islamists who have found a comfortable haven on British soil,
02:46and where extradition also plays a major role.
02:50And they've also been able to use the question of human rights to their advantage.
02:55You know, Kaval Sipal, listening there to Burzin,
03:00there are two aspects to this.
03:01There is, of course, the legal system in the United Kingdom,
03:05which perhaps offers a protective veil to many of these so-called economic offenders.
03:11But there's also the question of intent.
03:13There's a belief that India, the Indian government hasn't done enough.
03:16For example, in Nirav Modi,
03:18someone who was arrested and remains in custody in the United Kingdom,
03:23crimes committed in India,
03:25but the Indian government has found it very difficult to extradite him.
03:28Can it only be blamed on the law?
03:29Or is there a question of intent as well,
03:31which is why many of the economic offenders are finding UK to be a safe haven?
03:38Let me give you an example of Vijay Malia.
03:41Went through a long legal process.
03:43The courts allowed his extradition.
03:47And one thought that he would be extradited.
03:49And then suddenly the whole process stopped.
03:52And our friend Boris Johnson,
03:54then Prime Minister was pretty candid in saying,
03:57without revealing what the real problem is,
04:00that there is a provision within the government
04:03of freshly looking at the whole thing,
04:06but what the basis and the parameters are secret
04:09and cannot be divulged to any foreign government.
04:12So actually, it's the government that stopped the extradition.
04:14No, but why has the Indian government not front-loaded it?
04:20I mean, let's be very clear, Kaval Sibbal.
04:23Vijay Malia claims, first of all, that he's innocent,
04:26that he's repaid all his loans,
04:28that he would like to come back to India,
04:30but he doesn't have trust in our criminal justice system.
04:33But why hasn't the government front-loaded these issues?
04:36Most of these people have spent a decade and more in the United Kingdom now.
04:40You're absolutely right.
04:43The case was fought.
04:44And as I said,
04:45it went through the full legal process
04:47and the British High Court,
04:49actually,
04:50the Home Ministry to begin with
04:51and the British Court,
04:53sanctioned is allowed this extradition.
04:56But the government has stopped it.
04:57Now, point is,
04:58what you're saying is that
04:59what is the kind of pressure
05:02government of India should use in other fields
05:04to compel Britain
05:06to extradite Malia?
05:08Now, this is a problem that we face diplomatically
05:11with a whole lot of countries
05:13because they will not bend
05:14to your priorities,
05:16to your demands.
05:17And then they place you in a position
05:19where you may have to use
05:21some other points of pressure
05:24to get your way.
05:25Then you have to decide
05:25whether it is worth it.
05:27Now, for example,
05:28in this case,
05:29I'm just speaking theoretically,
05:31we would have said,
05:31look,
05:31we're not going to sign
05:32this Vision to 2035
05:34or whatever else we want to do with you
05:36or enter into some defense agreements with you
05:39unless we get satisfaction on this.
05:41Now, are we willing to make
05:43these kind of links
05:45in our diplomacy towards
05:47not only the United States,
05:49the UK,
05:50Let me ask you very clearly,
05:52should we?
05:53Have we been less than enthusiastic in a way?
05:57Have we?
05:57It's very easy to put all the blame
05:59on the UK government.
06:00The UK government has approved
06:02most of these extraditions.
06:05It's stuck in the legal system.
06:07But has India been proactive enough?
06:09A straight answer to that.
06:10I would say that you have to
06:12measure very carefully
06:15what your larger interests are
06:17and whether Vijay Maliya's extradition
06:19is so much at the core
06:20of your national interest
06:21that you are willing to
06:23sacrifice other areas
06:24of the national interest
06:25which are far more important
06:27and make it an issue.
06:28Look at the whole Kharasthani issue
06:29and all the
06:30all the
06:32space they get in that country.
06:34Now, we've been
06:35protesting against it.
06:36We've been putting pressure.
06:37We've not got full satisfaction.
06:39Again, the same question arises.
06:41Are you going to make this
06:42actually the littlest test
06:44of any future
06:45good relationship
06:46with the United Kingdom
06:48or you keep pressing
06:50on these issues
06:50but let the relationship
06:52move forward
06:53in which you can gain
06:54something very substantial
06:55from the relationship?
06:57Okay.
06:57Tanvir Ahmed Meer,
06:58senior criminal lawyer,
06:59joins me.
07:00Tanvir, we've seen
07:01in most of these cases
07:02there has been
07:04very little progress
07:05made beyond
07:06of course
07:07the UK government
07:09saying they approve
07:10extradition
07:11but then it gets caught
07:12in a legal tangle.
07:14Do you believe
07:14that makes it
07:15extremely difficult?
07:16There are
07:16the United Kingdom
07:17system operates
07:18in a way that
07:19there can be
07:19a series of appeals
07:21that any individual
07:22can make
07:22even going to the
07:23court of
07:24of just
07:25in Europe.
07:27Do you believe
07:28that makes it
07:28very difficult?
07:29Absolutely
07:31Rajdeep
07:32it's a very
07:33difficult process
07:34and
07:35irrespective
07:36of
07:37the bill
07:37of the government
07:38that Mr.
07:39Sybil
07:39was saying
07:40that perhaps
07:41in his understanding
07:42the government
07:42has taken a
07:43backseat
07:44but the issue
07:45is
07:45that insofar
07:47as the extradition
07:48process of
07:48fugitive arms
07:49dealer
07:50Sanjay Bhandari
07:51is taken
07:52into consideration
07:53the government
07:54of India
07:54lost the
07:55matter in
07:55the UK
07:55High Court
07:56and got
07:57a knuckle
07:57blown.
07:59Now in
07:59terms of
08:00those judgments
08:00or whatever
08:01order came
08:02from England
08:02two things
08:03were very
08:04clear.
08:05One is that
08:05we are not
08:06going to
08:06extradite a
08:07person who
08:08will be put
08:08to a lot
08:09of human
08:09right abuse
08:10politically
08:11motivated
08:12prosecutions
08:13and anything
08:13ancillary
08:14and you know
08:15appendent to
08:15that.
08:16I have a
08:17different solution.
08:18The government
08:19of India
08:19in the case
08:20of even
08:21Nirav Modi
08:22or Vijay
08:23Malia
08:23should straight
08:24away say
08:25to the
08:25courts of
08:25the London
08:26and give
08:26an undertaking
08:27that if
08:28these people
08:29do come
08:30back to
08:30India
08:30we are not
08:31going to
08:31arrest them
08:31at all.
08:32And why
08:33should they
08:33be arrested
08:34and put
08:34through the
08:34custodial
08:35interrogation
08:36when you
08:37have the
08:38will,
08:39the where
08:39with all
08:39to do
08:40an expedited
08:41trial rather
08:42than taking
08:43the people
08:43into custody
08:44forefront,
08:45give them
08:45an opportunity
08:46to contest
08:46the cases,
08:48do cross
08:48examine your
08:49witnesses and
08:50prove that
08:50you are good.
08:50That's an
08:52interesting point.
08:53You see,
08:53that's it
08:54because in
08:54the Sanjay
08:55Bhandari
08:55case,
08:56which is a
08:57defense dealer,
08:58the UK
08:59high court
09:00rejected the
09:00extradition
09:01citing risks
09:02of extortion
09:03and violence
09:04in Indian
09:04custody.
09:05So,
09:05the UK
09:06system doesn't
09:07seem to see
09:07the Indian
09:08system as
09:09providing a
09:09fair trial.
09:10So,
09:11you're saying
09:11the guarantee
09:12will have to
09:12be given to
09:13give a speedy
09:14trial.
09:14Am I correct?
09:14No,
09:16I'm saying
09:16that the
09:17government of
09:17India should
09:17go a step
09:18of,
09:18for example,
09:19in Vijay
09:19Malaya,
09:20as against
09:21an outstanding
09:22debt of
09:226,000
09:23crores,
09:24which he
09:25owed to
09:26the bankers,
09:26there is a
09:27total recovery
09:28of 14,000.
09:29Why do you
09:29need the man
09:30to go into
09:30custody?
09:32If you give
09:32him an
09:32assurance that
09:33you come
09:34back to
09:34your homeland,
09:35where you
09:36were one of
09:36the biggest
09:37promoter,
09:38directors of
09:39companies at
09:39a young age
09:40of 28,
09:41yes,
09:42there are
09:42criminal
09:42prosecutions,
09:44we give an
09:44assurance that
09:45we will not
09:45take you into
09:46custody,
09:47please come
09:47down back to
09:48your homeland
09:48and contest
09:49your cases.
09:51Okay.
09:51This is not
09:52needed.
09:53That's a very
09:54interesting viewpoint.
09:55Burjian,
09:55you're raising
09:55your hand,
09:56go ahead.
09:57Very quickly,
09:58your previous
09:59guest made a
09:59very pertinent
10:00point.
10:02Rajdeep,
10:03India can make
10:04a case as
10:04the world's
10:05largest functioning
10:06democracy that
10:07we do not
10:08visit torture
10:09upon such
10:10individuals who
10:10are repatriated
10:11to India.
10:12I mean,
10:13barely did
10:13Taha Wurrana
10:14land in
10:15New Delhi
10:15that he was
10:16afforded legal
10:17protection.
10:18Now,
10:18the case is
10:19going on,
10:20not in the
10:21public domain,
10:21true,
10:22but he was
10:22afforded legal
10:23aid upon
10:24returning to
10:24India,
10:25from what I
10:25understand.
10:26Likewise,
10:26with the
10:27Ajmal Kasap
10:27case,
10:28he was in
10:28shot dead,
10:29he was
10:30rehabilitated,
10:31he was
10:31recuperated,
10:33and a
10:33full-fledged
10:34trial took
10:35place where
10:35he was
10:36implicated for
10:37as the
10:38trial set.
10:39But do you
10:40agree,
10:40Burzeen,
10:41with the
10:41point which
10:42is being
10:42made by
10:43Tanvir Ahmed
10:43Meir,
10:44that rather
10:44than say
10:45that we
10:45are immediately
10:45going to
10:46put them
10:46into custody,
10:48give the
10:48assurance to
10:49the UK
10:49court that
10:50whether it's
10:50a Vijay
10:50Malia or
10:51whether it's
10:51a Neerab
10:52Modi or
10:52whether it's
10:52a Lalit
10:53Modi,
10:53they will
10:53go through
10:54the,
10:54they will
10:55also be
10:55given the
10:56rights that
10:56we give
10:56every Indian
10:57citizen.
10:57exactly.
10:59And I
10:59concur with
11:00Mr.
11:01Meir,
11:01why does
11:02not New
11:02Delhi very
11:03robustly make
11:04that out to
11:04London,
11:05D.C.
11:05or elsewhere
11:06that these
11:07protections are
11:08afforded to
11:09every individual
11:10who is
11:10repatriated and
11:11that the
11:12world's largest
11:12democracy does
11:13make a case.
11:14And I've cited
11:15two serious
11:15examples,
11:16Tawur Rana,
11:17which is ongoing,
11:18and the Ajmal
11:18Kasap case,
11:19which eventually
11:20saw him receive
11:21capital punishment,
11:22which in India is
11:23given only in the
11:23rarest of rare cases
11:24as the Supreme
11:25Court has
11:25consistently stated.
11:27So the question
11:28of India being
11:28run like a
11:29police state or
11:30a banana republic
11:31where torture is
11:32a visit upon
11:33individuals beggars
11:34belief, and that
11:35is what happens
11:36coming back here
11:37on the London
11:37home front, is
11:38the question of
11:39torture, which is
11:40what these ambulance
11:41chasing lawyers
11:41bring up, that
11:42they would not
11:43have a fair trial
11:44and they would be
11:44physically mutilated
11:45with that they
11:46were repatriated.
11:47And that's where
11:48things hold as
11:49such under this
11:50human rights
11:51convention and
11:51Strasbourg and
11:52Europe and the
11:52rest of it.
11:53But India can bring
11:54in these two
11:55robust cases
11:56that I've
11:56mentioned, among
11:57a slew of
11:58others, that
11:58a democracy
11:59doesn't operate
12:00under such
12:00conditions.
12:01Tanvir, you
12:02want to respond,
12:03you raised your
12:03hand.
12:03Yes, I just
12:04wanted to say
12:05that there is
12:06no gainsaying
12:07the government
12:08of India and
12:09the law enforcement
12:10agencies in
12:11these cases
12:12will lose
12:13nothing if
12:14they give an
12:14upfront assurance
12:16in the form of
12:17an undertaking
12:17or an
12:18affidavit of
12:19a responsible
12:20officer of
12:21government of
12:21India, maybe
12:22of a law
12:22enforcement agency,
12:24simply saying
12:25that, Your
12:25Honour, if
12:26this man is
12:26extradited or
12:27if he comes
12:28on his own,
12:29we give an
12:30assurance that
12:30we will not
12:31oppose his
12:31bail.
12:33Let him go
12:34out, let him
12:35go out of
12:35his home.
12:36You press
12:37your indictment
12:38in a court of
12:38law and rely
12:40upon your
12:40witnesses to
12:41earn yourself a
12:42conviction.
12:43Why do you
12:44need the man to
12:45go into custody
12:46who's paid
12:4740,000 crores
12:48for a debt of
12:496,000 crores?
12:51What will you
12:51get out of
12:52it?
12:53You know, that
12:54brings me
12:55therefore, Kaval
12:57Sibal, circling
12:57back to you, is
12:58the government
12:59serious about
13:00these cases?
13:01There's a lot
13:01of noise which
13:02is made around
13:03it, but is
13:03the government
13:04of India serious
13:05in terms of
13:06ensuring that
13:07the prosecution
13:07takes place in
13:08a fair manner,
13:10in an expeditious
13:11manner?
13:11In the case of
13:12Lalit Modi, for
13:13example, money
13:14laundering charges
13:15were made in
13:152010, extradition
13:17statuses, there's
13:18no significant legal
13:19proceedings anymore.
13:20In the Neerab
13:21Modi case, there's
13:22an appeal in the
13:23high court claiming
13:24mental health issues
13:25that are pending.
13:25He's of course in
13:26custody and in
13:28Vijay Maliya's case
13:29also an asylum bid
13:30has delayed
13:31extradition, but
13:31the general feeling
13:32is that the
13:33Indian government
13:34has not really
13:35made this a
13:36priority issue.
13:37Do you agree?
13:38Look, there are
13:39a couple of things.
13:40One is that do
13:41we seriously believe
13:42amongst us that
13:44the British don't
13:45know what our
13:46system is aside?
13:47The cases that
13:48have been cited
13:48by the gentleman
13:49from SOS, the
13:51British also
13:52know this.
13:52They know the
13:53inside and
13:54outside of our
13:54in and out of
13:55our legal system
13:56as it's not as
13:57if India is
13:58such a black
13:59hole that they
14:00have no concept
14:00of how our
14:01democracy works
14:02or our legal
14:03system works.
14:03These are just
14:04excuses.
14:05And we are
14:06unnecessarily
14:06putting ourselves
14:07on the defensive
14:08by trying to
14:09tell the British
14:10that we are a
14:11democracy and our
14:11legal system works
14:13according to known
14:14sets and rules
14:15and it's a fair
14:16system.
14:16What's your
14:17second point?
14:18Number one.
14:19Number one is this.
14:20Number two, as I
14:21said before, you
14:23talked about the
14:24delays in our
14:25legal system.
14:26What about the
14:26delays in the
14:27British system?
14:28Look at all.
14:29Years and years
14:30have gone by and
14:31appeal after appeal
14:32for this reason or
14:33that reason and
14:34this review and
14:34that review.
14:35What does this
14:36say about the
14:36British legal system?
14:39It also delays
14:39and lastly, the
14:45point is, as I
14:46said earlier, at
14:47the end of the
14:48day, when all the
14:49legal procedures are
14:50completed, there
14:51is an internal
14:52political process
14:53which is secret,
14:55which is not
14:56known and under
14:57which the British
14:58government can
14:58decide not to
14:59extradite and this
15:00has happened in
15:01the case of Malia.
15:02You know, Britain
15:03has become a safe
15:03haven for all these
15:05fellows and they
15:05want to preserve
15:06that.
15:07It has larger
15:07implications internationally
15:0930 seconds.
15:1030 seconds,
15:11Burzin.
15:12Quick response.
15:13Rajdeep, moving
15:15back to the
15:15Khalistan and
15:16separatism and
15:17irredentism issue.
15:18Colombo begged
15:19London for decades
15:21from mid-70s when
15:22the ELAM issue
15:23started.
15:24Only in 2001, it
15:25was prescribed by
15:26the Home Office
15:27and the final
15:28showdown which
15:28happened and the
15:29LTTE was destroyed
15:30only in 2009.
15:31Sri Lanka does
15:32not carry that
15:33much weightage or
15:33heft as say India
15:34would, but I just
15:35wanted to put that
15:36as a historian that
15:37despite a smaller
15:38state which suffered
15:39much more than
15:40India does and
15:41that too fell on
15:42deaf ears.
15:43I just wanted to
15:43put that into
15:44historical context.
15:45Okay, let's leave
15:46it there.
15:47Let's leave it
15:47there.
15:48Very, very
15:48interesting.
15:50Amongst all the
15:51bonhomie, the
15:53fact is that the
15:54two countries, while
15:55they've got the
15:56trade deal done and
15:56that's good news,
15:57they just haven't
15:58got their act
15:59together when it
16:00comes to extradition
16:02of economic
16:03offenders.
16:04I appreciate my
16:05guests joining me on
16:07the show tonight.
16:08Thank you very
16:08much.
Recommended
0:35
1:37