I read about the two years wait too in the Australian liberal media. We have to wait and see if that would indeed be the case. If they really do drag their feet for more than an acceptable period, then India must necessarily intervene. We are not at that point yet.

If it does drag on for too long, India must approach Australia via the correct channel and demand to see the “classified evidence”, after all we too are part of the fight against terror. Further action would depend on how the Australians respond to that, and our own judgement about the strength of that evidence.

We have lot of diplomatic options. If they really do imprison Haneef for too long without sharing the confidential evidence with our intel, then we can take any number of reciprocal actions, such as refusing to play cricket or whatever it is that connects the Aussies with us. I will be the first to blog about it when we get there.

Regarding immigration, here was NDTVs Nidhi Razdan final question in an interview to the Australian Consul. (My phrases)

Now, will this event have an adverse impact on your countries immigration laws towards Indias, will it get tougher to get a visa !!

Unbelievable.

This decision to lay what is obviously a bogus terrorism charge is comp-letely political, with a desperate government willing to destroy the life of an innocent man in an attempt to induce a spike in the opinion polls. What is the reputation of one Indian, when such are the stakes? Indian don’t have reputations anyway.

The Aussies have to deal with the fact that there is a PR angle to the whole war on terror. The way this story is being played out in the media there are questions being raised on the issue of race. People will get touchy when it comes to this.

Another point is people in Australia and India have a right to protest his detention because the justifications aren’t clear or in their opinion fair. They cancel his visa just when he’s set free on bail. In a free society you treat people fairly. And holding someone without evidence is not the way free democratic society functions. And using the “we have evidence but can’t reveal it” argument is lame. You can always comment on the nature of the evidence and if it in anyway is admissible in the court of law. If it isn’t then there is no case. If they do have something concerete they ought to go out and get a judge to extend his detainment.