Pak yet to show it is anti-terror: NSA

Video

Click to play video

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to an interview with India's National Security Advisor, MK Narayanan. I will ask him about how India assesses the response of the Pakistani government in the Mumbai terror attacks. Mr Narayanan, let us start with the dossier that the Indian Government gave Pakistan. It's now been revealed by the Pakistan Foreign Minister that their High Commissioner in Delhi has given an update to the Indian Home Minister about how their investigations are proceeding. What have they informed the government?

MK Narayanan: I haven't spoken to the Home Minister after the Pakistan Foreign Minister met him, but I am assuming it was courtesy call. It was not expected to be a call where he would submit a piece of paper because in that case, if it was a response call, then the call would have been made to the foreign office. My understanding is that the Home Minister was polite after he received a call from Pakistan Foreign Minister.

Karan Thapar: So nothing substantive said or done?

MK Narayanan: I said I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Home Minister. But I know that he saw it as a courtesy call. He had nobody with him so I don't know if anything substantial was discussed with him.

Karan Thapar: Now separately on Friday, Pakistan's High Commissioner in London has gone to say that the plot of conspiracy was not hatched in Pakistan and he has even gone to say that the evidence or material provided by India was fabricated. How do you respond to that?

MK Narayanan: I don't want to comment on the way the personalities in Pakistan are responding to the issue. What I am aware of is that after the receipt of the dossier by Pakistan, the Pakistan government have reverted to us and asked a number of questions to which answers have been provided. So as far as we are concerned, we believe that Pakistan is making an attempt to arrive at the truth. I assume that they are yet to receive reply to the second set of queries they have made. So I don't know what the Pakistan High Commissioner in London is talking about. I can only say that it is part of the dysfunctional manner in which several things are taking place in that country.

Karan Thapar: You are saying that Pakistan has asked queries. It has asked two set of queries and you have responded to them. Does this indicate that they are taking the dossier seriously and are you satisfied by the way they have responding to it?

MK Narayanan: I don't know what is the word 'satisfied' but certainly they appear to be taking things seriously and at least they are proceeding in a manner that one would expect an investigative agency to proceed. Asking queries and not taking everything that is given at the face value that has been given. Whether after all this, they would still accept the truth that will kind of hit them in the face, that I don't know.

Karan Thapar: There are reports that India has not given to Pakistan all the evidence or material it has. We've only given them a truncated dossier. It seems that the log book of Kuber or even the names of the handlers in Pakistan or even the GPS location points were not shared. Are those reports accurate?

MK Narayanan: We've given one set of dossier to the international community and there were some aspects that we were mulling over as to when and where they should be given. So if they ask, answers will be given to them.

Karan Thapar: So if Pakistan asks about things that are not in the dossier you will give it to them?

MK Narayanan:We have already asked them questions which flow from the dossier and to the extent whatever possible, we will answer the questions that are necessary for this investigation.

Karan Thapar: Given the manner in which Pakistan has responded so far, are you expecting a positive response when they come back with their full and formal response?

MK Narayanan: I think you are asking me a very difficult question. We don't know. We are giving Pakistan every opportunity to prove it is bonafide in this matter. Pakistan has been making the claim that it is the non-state actors who are involved. That means the Pakistani state is not involved. If the Pakistani state is not involved, then there is no reason why they should not be honest about it. They should be as honest as they can be about it. But we will wait and see.

Karan Thapar: But from the sound of what you are saying, it doesn't seem that you share the distrust or the skepticism of the Indian press either?

MK Narayanan: I am being careful. I am on camera, so I don't want to say anything that I may have to withdraw later on. You know my past record in this matter. I am suspicious of what Pakistan's intent is. But I am giving them an opportunity. We have provided them with the dossier, they have reverted with certain queries, we have replied to their queries and I presume that they will have more questions and we will assist them. We have taken what I call a very conscious policy of saying whether they want us to assist them in their investigation, and then we will do the utmost. What their response is going to be - from the kind of flip-flops we have seen from time to time - I cannot say.

Karan Thapar: Let's go a little back into the story and look at some of the steps they have already taken. Now that Muridke, the headquarters of the Jamaat have been taken over by the Pakistan government, five of their training camps are supposed to be shut down and their website dismantled, is that an affective implementation of United Nation's Security Council to ban the Jammat or are you not impressed?

MK Narayanan: I am not impressed with this very much. I mean training camps can be closed down and reopened at a very short notice at any time they like and taking over of the Muridke's sprawling campus of a few acres, it's only a matter of time and I am sure it will come back somewhere else. I mean these are cosmetic exercises. What we really want is that the perpetrators or the masterminds, who have perpetrated this act should be brought to justice. If Pakistan is honest about it's intentions, if Pakistan believes that terrorism needs to be stamped out from their country and those elements that have been spreading terrorism elsewhere, then it's a very simple matter - handing over those who have named in the FIR. That is how every country that believes in helping each other acts. We believe that that it is the easiest manner and we have as far as possible tried to avoid naming elements in the Pakistani government so that is the way we expect them to respond.

Karan Thapar: Secondly, people like Lakhvi and Zarar Shah have been detained. Infact Pakistan's effective Interior Minister has claimed that as many as 71 members in different militant groups have been detained and a further 124 have been put under surveillance. Is that a meaningful step or is that a shard?

MK Narayanan: They are house guests. At least Lakhvi and Zarar Shah are house guests. And I don't know if it amounts to detention.

Karan Thapar: And what about Hafeez Mohammed Sayeed. His detention has been extended for a further period of two years, so is he a house guest? There are reports that he can visit the mosque locally whenever he wants?

MK Narayanan: I would say that he is an honoured guest.

Karan Thapar: So in both these instances, the treatment is not anywhere India would have expected or wanted?

MK Narayanan: It is not about India. It is a question of are they accused persons, are they people whom we wish to keep out of communication with the rest of the world or the sort that should be treated as common criminals. That's a simple matter.

Karan Thapar: What about the position Pakistan has taken over Masood Azhar. They claim that they not only don't know where he is, that he may not be even there in Pakistan. Does that government in India buy that line?

MK Narayanan: I mean, they once claimed that they had arrested Masood Azhar and then they said it was not correct. I mean I don't think anyone in Pakistan could make a mistake about the identity of Masood Azhar. I think that speaks volumes. Now as to where Mazood Azhar could be, he could always be stashed away in a safe place. He may be in southern Afghanistan or he could be in Pakistan. I mean we don't know at the moment.

Karan Thapar: Stashed away by the authorities in Pakistan to protect him?

MK Narayanan:I would think that Pakistan would be in the best position to know where Masood Azhar is more than any one else.

Karan Thapar: So given that in Indian eyes how Pakistan responds is a critical test. It seems that despite the fact that they have asked a few intelligent questions about the dossier or they have asked for further information, in every other respect they are not living up to the test. Are they doing a lot less than they should, or a lot less than they are needed to do?

MK Narayanan: We are trying to look as far as in the matter as terrorism is a crime and it is internationally recongnised as a crime and there are United Nations directives and sanctions. All that we are asking is, those who fall into this category should be treated as common criminals and that is not happening.

Karan Thapar: Now in January, the Indian Prime Minister publicly said that there is enough evidence to show that the attack must have had the support of some official agency in Pakistan. As you know, the British, the French or the Americans - to one degree or the other - have not supported that position. Does the Prime Minister stand by what he said?

MK Narayanan: Of course the PM will stand by what he says. The PM doesn't say words that he doesn't mean. He says things after a lot of deliberation and when he makes a statement, he makes it based on the reports that he has received from people like me and from our security structure. We have gone into this carefully. Governments find it very difficult for the other governments to make a public pronouncement that state of Pakistan is involved or some other state is involved. We are going by the methodology by which all kind of terrorist incidents are analysed, assessed and estimated. Not only that, I think in this case we also have the benefit of a great deal of exchanges with counter-terror agencies or investigative agencies across five or six countries of the world. I mean it is not a big secret to say that most of them will agree with it, but none of them will make a public announcement that 'yes' that this is so. This is not made lightly; this is made after a careful deliberation. We only wish that Pakistan will also recognise the truth that there is something wrong and they have to deal with the problem before it becomes even more grave than it is.

Karan Thapar: You are saying that this has not been said lightly, that this has been said after careful deliberation. Do you have the material that directly links what happened in Mumbai with agencies in Pakistan?

MK Narayanan: You know this question has been asked several times, directly or indirectly. But I have to say that when any statement is made, then it is made with conscious deliberation. I do not wish to go beyond that. We have no interest in blaming Pakistan. Why should we blame Pakistan? We do not wish to blame any country, unless we have reasons to believe there is something. What is the evidence, how is the evidence etc is not the point. This is based on very a careful calibration of information or intelligence that is not with regard to merely this incident but the totality of terrorist incidents that have taken place. You look at the total incident. You don't look at the single incident. And in this case we have members of Pakistani elements in the whole case.

Karan Thapar: You are talking of Kasab?

MK Narayanan: Yes.

Karan Thapar: Are you therefore dismayed with the responses of people like David Miliband or the American ambassador or even senior officials from France, all of whom didn't support the Indian Prime Minister to one extent or the other?

MK Narayanan: No, I don't want to tread into the area of what others have said. What I am saying is, it is not for others to substantiate our cases. We have substantiated the case and as I said, I personally and the members of counter-terrorism and other establishments of the country have been in touch with the status. I think if their views are taken re-consideration than it would be obvious to many of these countries who exactly were party, to the over all guilty party or the guilty group.

Karan Thapar: And that party, guilty group would include official agencies?

MK Narayanan: Of course it would.

Karan Thapar: Let's turn to the position that Pakistan has repeatedly taken over India's request for extradition of the accused. At various levels they have said that the extradition will not happen, and to one extent or the other this has been supported by the British Foreign Minister or the American ambassador. So let me ask you, is an extradition a non-negotiable demand? Is it something that you insist on?

MK Narayanan: I think we have made this point time and time again. As I said, terrorism is a crime and a crime has been committed in India, it's been committed in Mumbai. I think those who did it, one of them is alive and those who are responsible or planned it, who have been named in the FIR and other documents, they have to be tried in the country. That is why we have been asking for their extradition. That is the way any crime is and this incident should be treated.

Karan Thapar: So just to clarify, it is not just the extradition of Indian citizens who are fugitives in Pakistan. You also want the extradition of Pakistani citizens who are accused of committing crimes in India?

MK Narayanan: Yes. Indian citizens who are in Pakistan, who are accused in various cases, we think there is no reason as to why should they not be extradited and sent to India. If they have been accused in a crime of this magnitude and this gravity, and in the interest of Indo-Pak relations, quite clearly we would not like Pakistan not to give us an opportunity for trial. We are only asking for a trial, we are not saying that they would be put in front of a firing squad or something of that kind. This is reasonable. There may be legal processes that are required before this happens and we concede that. But to not allow extradition before the pros and cons are considered is something that does Pakistan a little credit.

Karan Thapar: What do you make of the fact that on one hand Pakistan repeatedly rules out extradition and on the other hand it emerges that Pakistan's own laws don't regard as a crime, offences committed outside their country. So doesn't that suggest that if there is no extradition, the accused just cannot be brought to justice in Pakistan?

MK Narayanan: This is part of my point. My point is that it is very difficult to try somebody for a crime committed in another country. If you want to follow the legal process, then what about the witnesses? Who are to testify to what happened? For all that has happened in Mumbai, what is any court in Lahore or any court in Faridkot going to say about this?

Karan Thapar: But even more than that, Prime Minister Gilani has admitted and accepted in the Financial Times - to whom he gave an interview - that the crime committed outside Pakistan are not in Pakistan's laws, which only consider crime inside Pakistan. So people can't be tried for them in Pakistan?

MK Narayanan: Possibly. I mean I am not familiar with that part of the thing, so I would find it difficult for a crime that has been committed in Pakistan for an Indian court to try them just of here.

Karan Thapar: David Miliband in an interview to Devil's Advocate - and also publicly - said that he doesn't support India's request for extradition and supported his argument by saying that the time had come for India to give the Pakistani judicial system a chance to prove itself. And then it emerged that Pakistan's own law doesn't permit the country to try Pakistani citizens for crimes committed outside their territory. What do you say to David Miliband after this?

MK Narayanan: I don't know. You should ask David Miliband yourself. I don't know what he meant or what he wanted to say.

Karan Thapar: Were you disappointed with the position he took?

MK Narayanan: David Miliband is the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom with which we have close relations. I think relationship between the UK and India is excellent, as is between Prime Minister Gordon Brown and our Prime Minister. So if we take the totality, I would only like to say that we did not expect this from the British Foreign Secretary. We thought he would be more understanding and sympathetic.

Karan Thapar: Were you upset with his manner and his general abrasiveness?

MK Narayanan: I don't wish to comment on it. I would rather discuss it in private with you.

Karan Thapar: Alright let's end this interview.

More on IBNLive Right Now

MOST SHARED

• When Peter Carl Faberge's eggs came to India
• Who was Peter Carl Faberge?
• Pics: Peter Carl Faberge's exquisite eggs

PHOTOGALLERY