close
This ad will auto close in 10 seconds

India names serving Pak officer in dossier for 26/11 role

A serving Pakistani Army officer has been named in one of the three dossiers handed over by India to Pakistan today for his suspected involvement in the Mumbai terror attack.



New Delhi: A serving Pakistani Army officer
has been named in one of the three dossiers handed over by
India to Pakistan today for his suspected involvement in the
Mumbai terror attack.

The dossier has also named another officer, who has
retired as a Major. The two officers have been referred as
`Major Iqbal` and `Major Samir Ali,` sources said today.
The dossiers were handed over during the Indo-Pak Foreign
secretary level talks.

The role of `Major Iqbal` is believed to have emerged in
the interrogation by the FBI of US terror suspect David
Headley, arrested in Chicago in September last year in
connection with the Mumbai attack.

India has named 8 people, including `Major Iqbal` and
Hafiz Saeed, the leader of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), the
suspected 26/11 mastermind. India wants Pakistan to take
action against these men and then hand them over to India.

Another dossier given by India says Pakistan is
providing sanctuary to militants of the Indian Mujahideen and
Khalistani supporters.

This dossier demands handing over of seven
Khalistani militants and 17 Indian Mujahideen terrorists which
includes five Pakistani nationals for their role in subversive
activities

Four of the seven Khalsitani militants were named. They
are Jagtar Singh Hawara alias Tara, Ranjeet Singh alias Neeta,
Harminder Singh and Lakhvinder singh alias Rody.

PTI

From Zee News

0 Comment - Join the Discussions

trending

photo gallery

video

DNA EXCLUSIVES

President-elect Kovind: Big mandate, bigger pressure

Ram Nath Kovind elected as new President: How it can help PM Modi en route 2019

World Bank treats road safety as public health crisis, so should we

Indian IT’s crisis of innovation: Industry has allowed arrogance to replace its original vision

DNA Edit: Privacy vs public safety