news details |
|
|
| Why India's dichotomy on Masood Azhar ? | | | On one hand India has not mentioned Masood Azhar or his brother while issuing an official report on what transpired between the JIT,Pakistan and the NIA,New Delhi,on the other India has expressed disappointment over a "technical hold" that has been put on its application to include Pathankot terror attack mastermind Masood Azhar in the UN sanctions list, terming the move "incomprehensible". Alleging that the UN sanctions committee was taking a "selective approach" in tackling terrorism, MEA spokesperson Vikas Swarup has said that the move has implications for the entire international community.Why this dichotomy? Only the Government of India can explain.But the way India's application,seeking Masood Azhar's to be included in the UN sanctions list,has been put on technical hold has shown how much China cares about Pakistan and how much Beijing is averse to promoting cordial ties with New Delhi.However,in its first official briefing after the Pakistani probe team concluded its India visit regarding the attack at the Pathankot airbase, the government refrained from mentioning the name of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar for the attacks.
National Investigation Agency D-G Sharad Kumar, who was asked to read out a statement on the visit on Friday, did not name either Azhar or his brother Abdul Rauf Asgar, one of the main handlers of the attacks, and referred them as "office bearers" instead. India has always blamed Azhar for the attacks.The NIA also announced that India was eager to send a probe team to Pakistan. "The Pakistan JIT has been informed that a team of NIA officials would like to visit Pakistan to carry forward the investigation in the Pathankot attack case What is intriguing and amazing is the report indicating that the original press note had the name of Azhar in it but it was dropped after it went for vetting to the government. It was not clear whether the names were dropped at the level of Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) or the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). The Pakistan JIT has informed NIA that they have not found any evidence, which linked the Pathankot attack to Azhar. The JIT had told the NIA that they were still verifying it.
The NIA has sought voice samples of some senior office-bearers of JeM, and DNA sample of the mother of slain terrorist Nasir Hussain. The JIT was also requested to verify the various articles seized from the terrorists, including arms and ammunition as mentioned in the Letter Rogatory sent earlier to Pakistan. The NIA shared with the JIT the identity and the address of the four terrorists and requested the JIT to confirm the same. The NIA presented the JIT with concrete evidence against the office-bearers of JeM who conspired in the attack.Well if the JIT was given concrete evidence about the involvement of JeM senior functionaries why in its official press note names of Masood Azhar and his brother were not mentioned.Possibly it was done because JIT had conveyed to NIA that since Pakistani agencies were verifying the involvement of Masood Azhar and his brother it would be unfair if India named the two as perpetrators of the attack. Also,India wanted to keep the field open for NIA officials visit to Pakistan. Had New Delhi mentioned the names of Masood Azhar and his brother it would have simply offended not only the JIT but also Islamabad forcing them to raise hurdles in the proposed visit of NIA to Pakistan.Well on the face of it it is for the first time during the last 26 years that Pakistan sent members of the JIT to Pathankot for examining details of the terrorist strike at the Pathankot airbase when in the past Islamabad denied simply its involvement in series of terror strikes whether on Parliament or in Mumbai or in Jammu and Kashmir. Naturally India wanted Pakistan to cooperate in such cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
