Kolkata: Japan’s consul general in Kolkata, Nakagawa Koichi, on Saturday said around 1,400 Japanese companies operating in India is a testimony of the close economic ties between the two countries.
He also said the two nations were working on various global issues, including security and climate change.
“As far as economic relations are concerned, about 1,400 Japanese companies are currently operating in India,” Koichi said, speaking at an international conclave here.
He said that Japan is the fifth largest foreign investor in India, with a foreign direct investment (FDI) of nearly USD 42 billion between 2000 and 2024.
Koichi said modern Japan-India relationship began taking shape in the early 20th century through cultural and intellectual exchanges among prominent figures from both countries like Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananda, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Rashbehari Bose.
The diplomat was speaking at the conclave on ‘Justice Radhabinod Pal and Quest for Justice: Historical Perspective and Contemporary Implications’.
Pal, an Indian jurist, had given a dissenting opinion at the International Military Tribunal of the Far East, in 1948, where trials of several Japanese soldiers were held following World War II, and had questioned the legitimacy of the tribunal.
Koichi said Justice Pal played a key role in building the solid relationship the two countries enjoy.
Speaking on the occasion, Supreme Court judge Justice P S Narshimha said a dissent offers counter-narratives, holding up a mirror to the trial and serving as a “reminder of the limitations of the legal processes”.
He said Justice Pal’s dissent decision lays the foundation to mend the disparity among nations by demonstrating to the third world that its concerns must be voiced, and they must unite in their needs.
“What the dissenting judge is doing is giving an absolutely new alternative view of the entire matter,” said Justice Dipankar Datta, another Supreme Court judge.
He said when there are multiple judges in a bench, differences may come up, and that it all depends on how one interprets the law and how the law is applied in the given facts and circumstances.
