India denies receiving Baloch dossier; Islamabad evasive
New Delhi: India on Thursday flatly
denied having received any dossier from Pakistan about its
alleged involvement in terrorist acts there slamming Pakistani
media reports in this regard as "entirely wrong" even as
Islamabad remained evasive on the matter.
"No such dossier was given in Egypt...It is entirely
wrong," Minister of State for External Affairs Preneet Kaur
said in New Delhi.
"It was only mentioned that Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani voiced some concern that the PM said that he had no problem in addressing, since we had everything in an open book. And we certainly have not been doing anything (there)," she told reporters.
Sources in the Prime Minister`s Office (PMO) said,
"We have not received any such dossier," a day after media
reports in Pakistan claimed that a dossier was given to India
on its alleged involvement in terrorist acts including one on
the Sri Lankan team in Lahore as well as in the unrest in the
south-western province of Balochistan.
The Dawn, a leading Pakistani English daily, had
yesterday claimed that Islamabad has handed over to New Delhi
a dossier containing "comprehensive evidence" of Indian
involvement in several terrorist acts on its soil, including
the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore in March.
The daily stood by its report today.
The dossier with proof of "India`s involvement in
subversive activities in Pakistan" was handed over by Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to his Indian counterpart Manmohan
Singh during their recent meeting at the Egyptian resort of
Sharm el-Sheikh, the newspaper claimed quoting sources as
An Indian High Commission official has also, yesterday, said that the only information provided by Pakistan in the meeting between the two Prime Ministers was on its dossier on Mumbai attacks which included reference to the five LeT people, who are undergoing trial in Pakistan, and 13 other suspects declared as proclaimed offenders.
Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor
described the charges as "preposterous" and said "it is not
wise for us to react to media reports.
"I have not seen the dossier myself. If there is the dossier, then I am sure that the competent colleagues in my ministry are looking at it and when they have studied it, we will have a suitable response," he said.
"But we don`t believe that deflecting responsibilities
for things that are happening in the disfunctioning of the
state to their neighbours who have conducted themselves very
differently is a very healthy practice," he said.
In Islamabad, Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit did not
confirm or deny the media reports saying the issue involved
intelligence matters which cannot be discussed in public.
Basit evaded several pointed questions on the matter
saying only that Pakistan`s position was amply reflected by
the Joint Statement.
"All I can say is that whatever was discussed and handed
over is contained in the Joint Statement," Basit told a weekly
news briefing, responding to a question on whether Gilani
had handed over to Singh a dossier on India`s alleged
involvement in unrest in Balochistan
The issue involved intelligence matters and Pakistan does
not discuss such issues in public as a matter of policy, he
Asked about the issue, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood
Qureshi told reporters in Phuket where he is attending a ASEAN
meeting that if there are any unwanted problems being created
in Balochistan Pakistan has "tabled" them in the spirit of
"It is important for us to make Balochistan stable. It is
an important area for us. Pakistan is concerned about
Balochistan. We only want to solve issues, not complicate
them," Qureshi added.
More from India
More from World
More from Sports
More from Entertaiment
- DNA: Analysis of terror attacks in Baramulla and Kupwara
- DNA: Farooq Abdullah insults national anthem, talks on phone
- Should IAS officers express their opinion on social media platform?
- Should IAS officers express their opinion on social media platform?- Part II
- Should IAS officers express their opinion on social media platform?- Part III