![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Saturday, Mar 10, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Front Page |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Front Page
Nirupama Subramanian
ISLAMABAD: A bunch of articles in a Sindhi nationalist newspaper published from New Delhi and photographs of Indian diplomats at a London seminar on Balochistan comprised a major part of the "evidence" Pakistan handed over to India during the meeting of the joint anti-terror mechanism here earlier this week. A Sindhi woman, who lives in the Indian capital, runs the newspaper and the articles expressed pro-Sindhi nationalist sentiments. Indian officials were given copies of more than 100 articles printed in the newspaper as evidence of New Delhi stoking trouble in Pakistan. Other evidence includes a photograph of a recent Baloch conference in London showing the presence in the audience of three Indian High Commission officials. The Pakistani dossier also contains photographs of an official of an Indian consulate in Afghanistan posing with a Baloch nationalist magazine that seemed to have been ceremonially handed over to him. Indian officials are said to have made the argument at the meeting that newspaper articles hardly constituted clinching evidence of India's involvement in anti-Pakistan activities and such articles were only to be expected in a free country with a free press.
"Solid evidence"
But Pakistan believes that the dossier provides "solid evidence" of India's assistance to anti-Pakistan elements on its soil and through Afghanistan. Pakistani officials said it contained "very specific information about systematic involvement" of the Indian hand in terrorist acts in Balochistan.
"Two-way street"
More than anything else, it appears that Pakistan wanted to make the point that the joint mechanism is a "two-way street," and not just a forum for India to air its demands. Other than asking for help in tracking down a Samjhauta firebombing suspect and identifying an unclaimed body found after the July 2006 Mumbai blasts, India's demand list included information about an alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba activist wanted in the case of the October 2005 bombing at the Special Task Force office in Hyderabad. This particular individual is said to have been arrested in a "third country" in "India's neighbourhood," but has since been repatriated to Pakistan. Indian officials told Pakistan at the meeting that they had access to his "confessional statements" in planning and carrying out the attack and wanted help in tracking him down and questioning him.
Additional names
As part of the effort to define the scope of the joint mechanism at its first meeting, the Pakistani side is believed to have raised concerns that India used the occasion to add six names to the list of the "most wanted" fugitives, alleged to be living in hiding in this country. This, the Pakistani officials felt, was more the preserve of the Home Secretaries, who exchange these lists at their meetings held under the framework of the Secretary-level talks of the composite dialogue process. But the Indian side said that as these six additions related directly to ongoing investigations into terrorist cases, it was relevant to bring up these Interpol-issued "red corner notices" at this meeting. Included in the list of six are Azam Cheema, said to be the "overall military commander" of the LeT and wanted in a weapons and explosives haul case of 2004; Rasool Parti, wanted in the 2003 murder of Gujarat Minister Hiren Pandya; and Zaibuddin Ansari, wanted in the May 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case.
"Not a forum to dig up old cases"
It was Pakistan's view that the joint mechanism should not become a forum to "dig up old cases," and that the mechanism should focus on prevention of terrorist acts in each other's countries. But the Indian side held that unless Pakistan assisted in the investigation of old cases, prevention of further acts of terrorism would be impossible, as it was most likely that the same actors would be involved. It was for this reason that India pressed for and managed the inclusion in the joint statement of the clause for sharing of information for investigation of terror-related cases, aside from such exchanges for prevention of terrorist acts in both countries, officials said.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2007, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|