Proof against ISI not clinching: NSA

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. India’s decision to set up an anti-terrorism institutional mechanism with Pakistan and the language used to justify it have created a storm of controversy. With me to talk about both issues is the National Security Advisor M K Narayanan.

Mr Narayanan, let’s start with the language used by the Prime Minister to characterise Pakistan at the time when he agreed to the setting up of this anti-terrorism mechanism. He said, “Pakistan is a victim of terror.” He added, “Terrorism constitutes a threat for both countries.”

Does that suggest that India no longer looks upon Pakistan as a perpetrator of terror but a country that, in the sense, is an equal victim and on par with India as a battle against terror?

M K Narayanan: I think you are creating a lot more than what Prime Minister really meant. What he did say and I think what he intended to say was that there have been terrorist incidents in Pakistan. President Musharraf himself has been the victim of terrorist attacks. He is certainly not equating what is happening in Pakistan with what’s happening in India. What he did say was a fact, a fact that there have been terrorist incidents in Pakistan. He just mentioned a fact, he was not making a value judgment. He was not trying to sort of carry out any kind of equation between what’s taking place in our country and what’s taking place in Pakistan.

Karan Thapar: I am glad you said so, because many people who heard the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that he was making an equation, he was making a value judgment. And one reason they came to that conclusion is because the new Foreign Secretary at much the same time said, “We must drive a distinction between terrorist elements in Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan.” Now this contradicts what Farooq Abdullah as chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir had said. He said that, in fact, the ISI is responsible for arming and supporting the jehadi groups. It contradicts what’s the Police Commissioner of Mumbai has said, when he claims the ISI is responsible for the Mumbai blasts. So, whom do we believe? The Police Commissioner of Mumbai, Farooq Abdullah, Ghulam Nabi Azad or the Foreign Secretary?

M K Narayanan: I think the Foreign Secretary has a formidable list of people to contend with. The Foreign Secretary has just come from Pakistan. He was just making a statement. If the question is posed to him, saying that is the terror situation in India comparable with what is happening in Pakistan, I am quite sure he would say something entirely different. I think he did make a statement saying that as a Foreign Secretary, if he makes a statement that the Government of Pakistan is responsible, he will be called upon to say all right give produce evidence. What we all are aware of very clearly is that there are terrorist elements, they have the support of structures in Pakistan and I think it was more or less a statement. And the fact is that the ISI is involved is fairly well known. I think it is not a secret as far as India is concerned and I think is well known the world over.

So, the ISI’s role in one particular incident or another particular incident sometimes becomes difficult to determine. But as far as the Mumbai Police Commissioner is concerned, the involvement of the LeT, which is closely linked to the ISI, has been proved by the investigations. So, I suppose the Mumbai Police Commissioner is right. I would say the Foreign Secretary was being careful in his choice of words as far as what he said. And I think Dr Farooq Abdullah is well known for his very clear unambiguous statements.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: You used a very careful language here. You said the Foreign Secretary was being careful. Actually a critic points out, by perceiving Pakistan in the language that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary used, India has suffered a strategic setback. One of your successors as head of Intelligence Bureau, Ajit Doval, has gone on to record to say, “India suffered its first strategic setback in the fight against terrorism by certifying that Pakistan is not an aggressor, but a state aggressed upon”.

M K Narayanan: I do not wish to comment on what my former colleague has said. First and foremost, I don’t quite understand what he meant by strategic setback. I think the world has recognised the fact that India is a victim of terror. Most, if not all the terror, is coming from across the border. The country which is identified as the aggressor in this matter is Pakistan.

What we have, to a large extent, try to avoid -- and that particularly at the level of Prime Minister, what we try to avoid - is finger-pointing Pakistan. Because as the Prime Minister keeps saying from time to time, we wish to try to make Pakistan understand that unless it gives up terror as a weapon, unless it understands that terror is not going to make India do anything and there is a hope for improved relations between India and Pakistan, it is an ending of terror. So, he does not want to end up in what is called a slanging match between India and Pakistan.

Karan Thapar: Understandably. But the problem is that both the Prime Minister and the new Foreign Secretary used language that created an unfortunate impression. Many people misunderstood them to the point that people concluded that the Prime Minister was seeing Pakistan as a partner in the fight against terror, not a perpetrator. He was seeing Pakistan as a victim rather than an aggressor. And do you think, therefore, that in the light of this, the language used by both of them was unfortunate?

M K Narayanan: I don’t. I mean, if people misunderstood what the Prime Minister said, or the Foreign Secretary said, I think I can’t say. Because I don’t think -- most definitely for the Prime Minister because I am part of that entourage, and I can say because the new Foreign Secretary is somebody whom I have known for many many years -- I think both of them were careful on their choice of language. If people have misunderstood it or misinterpreted it, I think there has been more misinterpretation than misunderstanding. You know our obsession with terror is such that we do sometimes overstretch the limits of what is being said.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: It is not just over his language that people think that the Prime Minister may have dropped his guard. After he came back from Havana, at Nainital, the Prime Minister said that levels of cross-border terrorism have fallen. The truth is that just four weeks earlier, the Home Ministry released figures to Parliament, which showed that during the first six month, the number of infiltration incidents has doubled and the number of infiltrators involved had trebled. So, once again, what the Prime Minister was saying, was in the contradiction with the facts given out by his own Home Ministry.

M K Narayanan: No. I think what was reported as the part of the Prime Minister’s speech there, I think a crucial sentence was lost. I have gone through that Nainital speech. It says that the level of infiltration has picked up over last six to eight months.

Karan Thapar: So you mean bad reporting was responsible?

M K Narayanan: I don’t know. But that was very much a part of the speech. And at some stage it has got lost - either in translation, or in transliteration or whatever it is.

Karan Thapar: But the interesting thing is that the Prime Minister’s Office didn’t put out the correction, they permitted the misunderstanding based on misreporting to continue and, therefore, the misrepresentation of the PM sort of become a fact. People now think that he has dropped his guard on Pakistan in terms of his language.

M K Narayanan: After that, there are several statements that the PM has made in which he has attacked terrorist acts coming from Pakistan. I think he did it even very recently. At every forum that I have been present with the PM, when an occasion has risen, in his own very persuasive style, he has referred to the importance of Pakistan restraining and keeping back the terrorist elements from their country. Now, if you wish to pick out a particular statement and see that as evidence of PM’s change of heart, well it’s very difficult to tell.

Karan Thapar: Let me ask you as his National Security Adviser. The people who conclude from the language that the Prime Minister used, seeing Pakistan as a victim rather than a perpetrator of terror, seeing Pakistan as a partner in the fight rather than an aggressor, people who conclude that he has changed his perception of the country, perhaps scale down the threat level from Pakistan - they are wrong?

M K Narayanan: They are totally wrong.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: The Prime Minister continues to see Pakistan as the principal source of terror that India faces?

M K Narayanan: The Prime Minister sees terrorism as India’s biggest problem. He has made no bones on that question. He sees that most of the threat comes from across the border.

Karan Thapar: Pakistan?

M K Narayanan: Yes, Pakistan. And a fair amount of it is also coming in from pro-Pakistan elements in Bangladesh. He has not dropped his guard. He has no intention of dropping his guard. He has given direction to all of us to not to let down our guard in this matter. And what he does, and which is probably different from what many people would like to do, is to not get into a kind of a huge slanging match in a rather unseemly spectacle of the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan exchanging words through the media, outside the media, across the globe etc. I think we have managed everything fine. I don’t think any leader who has met him, or any people across the world have misunderstood what the Prime Minister has wanted to say. There are elements in this country who are very anxious to paint the PM as somebody who is naïve or weak. This is the sixth PM I have dealt with. I find that he is very clear in his mind as to where exactly India’s interest lies.

Karan Thapar: So, in your words you are saying he is strong on terror but he is dignified in his approach.

M K Narayanan: Exactly. I think I could not have put it better.

Karan Thapar: Mr Narayanan, let’s come to the anti-terrorism institutional mechanism that India and Pakistan have agreed to set up. This assumes that Pakistan has changed its attitude to terror as a weapon to use against India. Do you really believe that’s the case?

M K Narayanan: I again fall back on what the Prime Minister says, "Trust, but verify."

Karan Thapar: Is it something we have learnt from the Americans?

M K Narayanan: No, no. But ‘Trust and verify’ is a good way of dealing with Pakistan. There were various options that we went through. One of the things we thought was to give a long rope to Pakistan. In the case of the terrorist attack for instance, we have what we call definite proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack or of a terrorist outfit in Pakistan. Since we are not prepared for a hot pursuit, we thought let’s see what Pakistan does with the evidence we give them. We hope we can give them specific locations, names, telephones. If Pakistan delivers on some, if not all, we can say that the mechanism is reasonably successful.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: You are seeing this as an experiment worth trying. I can understand but the problem as you have said in this interview is that the ISI's hand is discernable in so much of what Pakistan has done and this is something every Indian Government passionately believes in. Then how can the same people be cooperative in a meaningful sense in an anti-terror mechanism? Surely, the ISI cannot be the perpetrator and the solution at the same time?

M K Narayanan: I would say that is Pakistan’s dilemma, not ours. Pakistan has said if you give us evidence, we will help you with the investigation. We have given them the opportunity to prove what indeed they have said in words. We see it as giving them an opportunity.

Karan Thapar: Except that the people you are giving the evidence to are the ones who perpetrated the terror in the first place.

M K Narayanan: Well, every time we give them information and they give us a negative answer. Then we know that the mechanism is not working. Then we’ll see what to do. But right now we want to put Pakistan in a spot, saying ‘This is the evidence, get back to us.’ If it happens in every case, it will become clear that the mechanism is not working and we can tell the rest of the world and Pakistan that there is no point in talking to them because they do not understand the language.

Karan Thapar: I get the clear impression that you will give Pakistan two or maybe three chances to cooperate, but if it continues, then you will call this off.

M K Narayanan: I wouldn’t say two or three, that depends on what happens. But if the mechanism does not work, we will call it off.

Karan Thapar: Your big opportunity will be when you give the evidence of ISI involvement in the Mumbai blasts. When exactly do you plan to present that evidence to Pakistan?

M K Narayanan: We have much of the evidence, but quite clearly the Mumbai blasts would be where the most recent evidence would be available. We have some legal issues to clarify. As soon as that is done... we should be ready by the time the Foreign Secretaries will meet, which is in the middle of November.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: The legal issues you are talking about. Are they the confessions made by those accused?

M K Narayanan: Yes. We do not want to hamper the process of prosecution of the cases in India. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case.

Karan Thapar: All right. Your target is the meeting of the Foreign Secretaries, which is on November 13-14. What would you characterise as an effective and satisfactory response from Pakistan when the evidence is made available to them?

M K Narayanan: Firstly, this is the first formal occasion when the anti-terrorism institutional mechanism will be discussed. If Pakistan says they need to review the mechanism, then there will be a delay in actually presenting the mechanism.

Karan Thapar: There are two aspects to this question then. Firstly, as the NSA, what would you like the shape and form of the mechanism to be?

M K Narayanan: We have on our side something in view that I don’t want to mention yet. Because it has not been presented to the Pakistan side. We have a two-tier mechanism that has been approved by our people. It has not been approved by Pakistan yet. I don’t think it has been formally presented. I think that will happen only at the meeting of the Foreign Secretaries.

Karan Thapar: Does the two-tier mechanism involve a role for intelligence chiefs on either side?

M K Narayanan: Well, I do hope intelligence chiefs or at least intelligence personnel will be involved.

Karan Thapar: So the ISI from Pakistan will be formally involved at one of these levels?

M K Narayanan: Yes, hopefully at one of these levels.

Karan Thapar: Does this two-tier mechanism also involve the sharing of information between both sides?

M K Narayanan: No, this is entirely an anti-terrorism machinery. So, there is no sharing of information.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: So, the sort of information you were good enough to share with me when I last interviewed you in July, when you said that there was credible intelligence to suggest that the LeT could target one or more of India’s nuclear establishments, that sort of information will not be shared?

M K Narayanan: No, certainly not. If the anti-terrorism mechanism goes forward and we see that there is a lot of corporation from Pakistan and that there is a great deal of comfort between India and Pakistan, then we could. It’s our ultimate hope.

Karan Thapar: But that’s at a later stage.

M K Narayanan: That’s at a much much later stage.

Karan Thapar: After you have verified and got your trust. At this point, there will be no sharing of information?

M K Narayanan: No, certainly not.

Karan Thapar: At what level will this mechanism be headed? Will it by the foreign secretaries themselves or will it be by people outside the MEA?

M K Narayanan: No. The foreign secretaries certainly will not head it. Because we have a composite dialogue where all these issues will be discussed in a broader framework. You have a Home Secretary-level talk going on. So I suppose it will be one level below, maybe an additional secretary or a special secretary.

Karan Thapar: And how often will this mechanism meet? Will it be as and when required or will it be in constant function?

M K Narayanan: No, because it is a anti-terrorism mechanism, it will work as and when required. But I presume the mechanism will also look into issues like money laundering. If that requires a broader framework, then it could be looked at definite intervals. But mostly, it will be meant for ongoing investigations and sharing of information regarding investigations.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: Now you have already shared the information about the ISI involvement in the Mumbai blasts with the Americans and the British. What response did you get from them?

M K Narayanan: I did not say we have shared the information.

Karan Thapar: The American Ambassador said so. And I believe that officials in London said that the Prime Minister shared the information with Blair when he met him in London.

M K Narayanan: No, there is no evidence that has formally been supplied to them. We have given them the details. There is a lot of difference between the evidence and the details. As far as evidence is concerned, there are items regarding interrogation reports, which may be needed too. So, we will first give the information to Pakistan, because otherwise it will look as if we are doing some kind of a propaganda. We will provide that information to the Pakistanis. Whether we will share it with the Americans is a political decision.

Karan Thapar: So, newspaper reports that say that you have actually shared the information with them are inaccurate?

M K Narayanan: Information might have been shared, but not evidence.

Karan Thapar: One last question. So you as NSA and former head of the IB believe that India’s evidence against the ISI for its complicity in the Mumbai blasts is clinching or do you think it is suggestive?

M K Narayanan: As the former head of the IB and NSA, I think it is as good evidence as you can possibly get in a terror case. Whether it is clinching is for the courts to decide. I think we have enough connectivity, linkages, confessions and arrests made based on those confessions. All these are pretty good, but there are some pieces of the puzzle missing. If the courts decide they want the full puzzle, it will be difficult. So I am hesitant to say that the evidence is clinching. But it is pretty good.

Karan Thapar: Mr Narayanan, it has been a pleasure talking to you on Devil's Advocate. Thank you very much.