‘Dialogue only if Pakistan acts against terror’ | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 24, 2017-Friday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

‘Dialogue only if Pakistan acts against terror’

delhi Updated: Jul 25, 2009 01:12 IST
HT Correspondent

India will not talk without terror action. In an attempt to defuse the furore over the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement, a senior Indian official insisted that the future of “the limited dialogue” between India and Pakistan will “depend on Pakistan’s action against terrorism”.

Until then, there will be no question of resuming the composite dialogue.

“India has started a limited dialogue process at the level of foreign secretaries,” the official said. “But it’ll depend upon Pakistan’s action against terrorism. That’s the crucial issue.”

He said no decision had been taken on the resumption of the composite dialogue process, stalled since the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai.

“At the moment, what they have done isn’t enough for the composite dialogue to begin,” he said.

“It would be strange if, ignoring everything, we go back to the composite dialogue with them. What form of dialogue and when it’ll take place will depend on actions by Pakistan to dismantle terror infrastructure, punish those behind the Kabul embassy blast and the Mumbai attacks, and prevent future attacks.”

He denied that Islamabad had handed over a dossier to New Delhi detailing the evidence of an alleged Indian involvement in the Balochistan insurgency.

“There was no dossier,” the official said.

“On the night of July 14, we were handed over a list of actions taken by Pakistan post-Mumbai that was one-and-a-half pages long. It was a bland statement listing the actions they had taken, which left out January 5 (the day India handed over the first Mumbai dossier to Islamabad).”

Claiming that Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani wanted Balochistan to be mentioned in the joint statement issued after his meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the official said, “We are happy to discuss everything. No one can question the motive or what the statement says.”