India Intelligence Report

 

 

   IB Says Cannot ISI Info to Pak

  The Intelligence Bureau Deputy Director Ashok Karnik said that it is cannot provide detailed evidence to Pakistan about ISI’s involvement in the July 11 Mumbai train blasts because “It would be difficult to say what is credible and what is clinching.”
 

 

Hot Topics

IB Says Cannot ISI Info to Pak
China Happy With Border Talks
Solar Vaccine Cooler
Govt Survey Finds 41% OBC
Saudis Warn of Iraq Disintegration

 

Other Stories

China Happy With Border Talks
Govt Survey Finds 41% OBC
Saudis Warn of Iraq Disintegration
Solar Vaccine Cooler
   

The Intelligence Bureau Deputy Director Ashok Karnik said that it is cannot provide detailed evidence to Pakistan about ISI’s involvement in the July 11 Mumbai train blasts because “It would be difficult to say what is credible and what is clinching.” Therefore, he says that “It is not a viable proposal.”

Talking at a Press Institute of India and Indian Liberal Group symposium on “Terrorism—its causes and ramifications,” Karnik said while the joint mechanism to fight terror may stop cross-border terrorism, it will not stop local elements initiating terrorist activities with or without outside help. He recommended that Parliament enact laws that would prevent Government from negotiating with terrorists.

The controversy over whether India had “clinching” or “solid” or “credible” evidence was publicly discussed between confusing statements from National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, Home Secretary V.K. Duggal, and later Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The issue of terrorism is expected to be the key item to be discussed by Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan November 14-15 and the joint mechanism agreed to by Singh and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in Cuba will also be discussed.

The play of words seemingly at variance with each other seriously damages the Indian case and credibility of its charge. The question that the Indian security establishment needs to ask itself is whether they need to discuss their differences in public threadbare. The larger question is whether the different security groups of the nation are united in this strategy of joint mechanism with Pakistan. If they were not, then was it appropriate for Singh to have agreed to such a mechanism without lining up his security staff. On the contrary, since he had agreed to such a mechanism, is it right for the security establishment to oppose this mechanism in public?

All this is set with a context with increasing infiltration from Pakistan . Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad recently asserted that Pakistani infiltration had doubled in 2006 and therefore pleaded that troops not be reduced along the border and asked the Federal Government to retain the level of paramilitary force to fight terror.

The fight against terrorism requires a public united front and private disagreements