The Pak boat that was sunk by the Coast Guard may have merely been carrying drugs or diesel, said some reports. But these theories are even less plausible than the version put out by the coast guard.

Do we believe the doubts raised by some newspapers, all based on unnamed sources, or the official version on the Pakistani “terror boat” put out by the defence ministry?

The latter seems more credible, for reasons one will explain later.

First, the known facts. Some time past the midnight of 31 December, the Indian Coast Guard chased a suspicious Pakistani boat that could have been carrying contraband or explosives, or both, some 365 km off the Gujarat coast. At some point during the chase, persons manning the boat either set fire to it to avoid being caught red-handed, or blew it up with the explosives on board. Both actions suggest that the persons on board preferred death to being caught by the Indian Coast Guard.

The day after the sinking of the boat, now identified as Qalandar, The Indian Express claimed that “new evidence has begun to emerge that those on board might have been small-time liquor and diesel smugglers, ferrying bootleg cargo from the port of Gwadar to other fishing boats which were to have carried it into Karachi’s Keti Bandar harbour.” Today (5 January), the newspaper speaks about the boat as having been used often to carry drugs from Balochistan.

This analysis questions some of the claims made by newspapers debunking the government's version, but logic is on the latter's side. For example, one cannot rule out drug smuggling as a possibility, but drugs are the easiest things to dispose of. All you have to do is chuck it down the side of the boat and pretend innocence. You don’t have to set fire to the boat – unless the allegation is that the Coast Guard did it. Also, if the Pakistani authorities knew all about the drug ring, as the story claims, it stands to reason that the drug mafia was allowed to operate for unstated reasons. What were those reasons? Were the drug traders useful to the government in some way?

Even allegations of smuggling of liquor and diesel make no sense at all. Gujarat has prohibition, but there is no shortage of liquor for those who want it in the state or anywhere else in the country. So trying to bring in liquor seems unlikely. In any case, liquor crates should be easy to dispose of at sea, too.

What about diesel smuggling? This is the most ridiculous theory of them all. To make smuggling profitable, there must be a significant difference between the prices of diesel available in India and Pakistan.

But is this the case? When we last checked, the price of diesel in Ahmedabad/Gujarat was around Rs 56.26 a litre. In Pakistan it was around 86.23 (Pakistani rupees, that is).

The Pakistani rupee is much cheaper than the Indian rupee, and trades at Rs 100.80 against the US dollar. The Indian rupee is at Rs 63.33 today (5 January).

This means the Indian rupee is worth 1.59 Pakistani rupees.

Now do a simple conversion of the price of diesel in Gujarat and in Pakistan and this is what you get: in Pakistani rupees, the Gujarat diesel price of Rs 56.26 would be Rs 89.45. Minus the domestic price of Pakistani diesel from the Gujarat price, and you get Rs 3.22. In Indian rupees, the differential would be even lower.

Are we saying that Pakistani fishermen will be risking life and limb for a paltry Rs 3 differential in Gujarat and Pakistani diesel prices? Smuggling may have made sense when Indian diesel was underpriced due to UPA price subsidies, but under NDA, diesel prices are sold above cost, and now also include additional excise. Whatever incentive for smuggling diesel was there before is now gone.

A boat carrying drugs deserves to be at the bottom of the sea if it did not allow the Coast Guard to capture it.

A boat carrying liquor or diesel is improbable.

Where does that leave us? The smuggling theory does not lead us anywhere. We need to believe the Coast Guard version more than that of newspapers.