09-21-2009, 04:40 AM
Pakistan scares India: Narayanan
Monday, September 21, 2009
News Desk
NEW DELHI: Indian National Security Adviser MK Narayanan says some of Pakistan’s actions scare India because “they only create problems for us”.
In an interview with CNN-IBN on Sunday, he was asked: “President Obama was once quoted as saying that Pakistan scares him. Does Pakistan scare you?” Narayan said: “Pakistan may not scare me but some of Pakistan’s actions scare us because I don’t think they really add to anything except creating problems for us.
To a question about what point or purpose would be served by the foreign secretaries or the two foreign ministers of Pakistan and India meeting at the UN, the adviser said, “The dialogue mechanism or rather the restricted dialogue mechanism, if I might say so, will continue. We are hoping that as a civilised nation although with a civilian leadership not very much in control but hopefully anxious to do something — somewhere, sometime the forces arranged against us operating from Pakistan can be brought to book,” he said.
To a question whether the Indian prime minister had taken a U-turn after the Sharm el-Shaikh meeting with Gilani, the Indian adviser said: “I think what the prime minister said at Sharm el-Sheikh is clearly the policy that is laid down; that dialogue is the way forward. We are not talking in terms of a conflict with Pakistan... I think quite clearly dialogue is the way forward. At the moment, the issue is the dialogue should be essentially confined to discussing terrorism. We need comfort on this issue. Apart from Mumbai there are other issues and, therefore, we will not expand the range or the scope of the dialogue till there is a fair amount of comfort. That is more or less the context in which the statements have been made by the prime minister or others.”
Q: So you are saying to me that media reports or suggestions that the prime minister, because of the criticism he faced over the Sharm el-Sheikh statement, has perhaps lost his nerve or changed his mind - that is not the case?
A: Many people know the prime minister better than I do. But I think there is steel in the prime minister.
Q: And he is committed to dialogue?
A: When he says something he stands by it. He is committed to the dialogue; he also understands the limits of the dialogue at different stages or phases. And, therefore, I do not think there is any contradiction in what he says in place A or at place B or elsewhere. But in the overall context of a particular conference or meeting or whatever the same views gets expressed in different terms.
Q: If then the prime minister’s thinking or attitude has not changed presumably the problem lies in the response and the attitude of the Pakistanis. I want to explore that with you and let’s first start with Hafiz Saeed. The home minister in his interview to Al Jazeera has made perfectly clear the extent of detailed evidence that India has connecting Hafiz Saeed to the Mumbai terror attack. What is Pakistan’s response to that specific detail?
A: Pakistan’s point is that whatever information or evidence that has been provided by India is inadequate to nail Hafiz Saeed and they say that if we did go up and try to get a conviction it will be thrown out, the Supreme Court will sort of condemn us. It’s really a question of how you are willing to marshal the evidence that has been given and put it in court. I think in one of our earlier interviews, if I remember right, sometime in 2006, when you asked me about the evidence that we had with regard to the Mumbai serial blast which took place in the suburban trains, I made a statement for which I suffered because you took it out of context perhaps. I said that we have evidence which is as good as you can get in a terrorist case and beyond that it’s difficult to say.
Now in this case if you take the Hafiz Saeed dossier that has been provided — I think maybe I have probably the longest association with terrorism in one form or the other, actually counterterrorism not so much terrorism — I think we have marshalled almost grade one evidence. You have the evidence from three people, three human beings, three terrorists, admitted terrorists (Ajmal) Kasab, Fahim Ansari, Sohrabuddin, who talk of how Hafiz Saeed had come, talked to them, what he had said, etc, apart from other connecting evidence. I agree one can never be sure what a court would do with that kind of evidence. But if you are not willing - in the context of saying what you said in Sharm el-Sheikh to ensure that terrorism is stamped out - you are not even willing to test that, it certainly leaves in our mind a big question mark as to where Pakistan stands on terrorism.
Q: And that’s the real question mark that hangs over Pakistan today. Despite the rhetoric when they repeatedly say that they will leave no stone unturned to bring the Bombay accused to justice, they don’t act?
A: They don’t act and there are also other issues which we have. I think Mr Chidambaram was on record on this fact, saying there are several other credible threats. I think the prime minister has made the same statement. This evidence is coming from not only our agencies but from friendly intelligence agencies. Unless Pakistan is willing to take action against the two main terrorist groups which are targeting India — the (Lashkar-e-Taiba) and Jaish — the rest is all rhetoric from our point of view.
http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24639
Monday, September 21, 2009
News Desk
NEW DELHI: Indian National Security Adviser MK Narayanan says some of Pakistan’s actions scare India because “they only create problems for us”.
In an interview with CNN-IBN on Sunday, he was asked: “President Obama was once quoted as saying that Pakistan scares him. Does Pakistan scare you?” Narayan said: “Pakistan may not scare me but some of Pakistan’s actions scare us because I don’t think they really add to anything except creating problems for us.
To a question about what point or purpose would be served by the foreign secretaries or the two foreign ministers of Pakistan and India meeting at the UN, the adviser said, “The dialogue mechanism or rather the restricted dialogue mechanism, if I might say so, will continue. We are hoping that as a civilised nation although with a civilian leadership not very much in control but hopefully anxious to do something — somewhere, sometime the forces arranged against us operating from Pakistan can be brought to book,” he said.
To a question whether the Indian prime minister had taken a U-turn after the Sharm el-Shaikh meeting with Gilani, the Indian adviser said: “I think what the prime minister said at Sharm el-Sheikh is clearly the policy that is laid down; that dialogue is the way forward. We are not talking in terms of a conflict with Pakistan... I think quite clearly dialogue is the way forward. At the moment, the issue is the dialogue should be essentially confined to discussing terrorism. We need comfort on this issue. Apart from Mumbai there are other issues and, therefore, we will not expand the range or the scope of the dialogue till there is a fair amount of comfort. That is more or less the context in which the statements have been made by the prime minister or others.”
Q: So you are saying to me that media reports or suggestions that the prime minister, because of the criticism he faced over the Sharm el-Sheikh statement, has perhaps lost his nerve or changed his mind - that is not the case?
A: Many people know the prime minister better than I do. But I think there is steel in the prime minister.
Q: And he is committed to dialogue?
A: When he says something he stands by it. He is committed to the dialogue; he also understands the limits of the dialogue at different stages or phases. And, therefore, I do not think there is any contradiction in what he says in place A or at place B or elsewhere. But in the overall context of a particular conference or meeting or whatever the same views gets expressed in different terms.
Q: If then the prime minister’s thinking or attitude has not changed presumably the problem lies in the response and the attitude of the Pakistanis. I want to explore that with you and let’s first start with Hafiz Saeed. The home minister in his interview to Al Jazeera has made perfectly clear the extent of detailed evidence that India has connecting Hafiz Saeed to the Mumbai terror attack. What is Pakistan’s response to that specific detail?
A: Pakistan’s point is that whatever information or evidence that has been provided by India is inadequate to nail Hafiz Saeed and they say that if we did go up and try to get a conviction it will be thrown out, the Supreme Court will sort of condemn us. It’s really a question of how you are willing to marshal the evidence that has been given and put it in court. I think in one of our earlier interviews, if I remember right, sometime in 2006, when you asked me about the evidence that we had with regard to the Mumbai serial blast which took place in the suburban trains, I made a statement for which I suffered because you took it out of context perhaps. I said that we have evidence which is as good as you can get in a terrorist case and beyond that it’s difficult to say.
Now in this case if you take the Hafiz Saeed dossier that has been provided — I think maybe I have probably the longest association with terrorism in one form or the other, actually counterterrorism not so much terrorism — I think we have marshalled almost grade one evidence. You have the evidence from three people, three human beings, three terrorists, admitted terrorists (Ajmal) Kasab, Fahim Ansari, Sohrabuddin, who talk of how Hafiz Saeed had come, talked to them, what he had said, etc, apart from other connecting evidence. I agree one can never be sure what a court would do with that kind of evidence. But if you are not willing - in the context of saying what you said in Sharm el-Sheikh to ensure that terrorism is stamped out - you are not even willing to test that, it certainly leaves in our mind a big question mark as to where Pakistan stands on terrorism.
Q: And that’s the real question mark that hangs over Pakistan today. Despite the rhetoric when they repeatedly say that they will leave no stone unturned to bring the Bombay accused to justice, they don’t act?
A: They don’t act and there are also other issues which we have. I think Mr Chidambaram was on record on this fact, saying there are several other credible threats. I think the prime minister has made the same statement. This evidence is coming from not only our agencies but from friendly intelligence agencies. Unless Pakistan is willing to take action against the two main terrorist groups which are targeting India — the (Lashkar-e-Taiba) and Jaish — the rest is all rhetoric from our point of view.
http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24639