China, US policies on Pak adversely impacting India: Brajesh Mishra | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 28, 2017-Friday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

China, US policies on Pak adversely impacting India: Brajesh Mishra

Former India’s national security adviser Brajesh Mishra on Friday in New Delhi said the United States and China policies towards Pakistan were both having adverse impact on India. Manish Tiwari reports.

india Updated: Oct 30, 2009 14:34 IST
Manish Tiwari

Former India ’s national security adviser Brajesh Mishra on Friday in New Delhi said the United States and China policies towards Pakistan were both having adverse impact on India.

“While China is supporting Pakistan military for reasons well known, India ’s friend, the US has also been pursuing policies for the past eight years that have the same adverse impact on India as China ’s policies on Pakistan ,” he said during the HT Summit in New Delhi.

Mishra raises serious concerns over change in China ’s attitude in the past two years towards the issue of Kashmir and its claims to disintegrate India , and said

Participating in the discussions on “lessons from Mumbai 26/11: security India against terror” organised by the Hindustan Times , the former national security adviser said India was up against unprecedented challenge being posed both on internal and external fronts and India would have to seriously focus on increasing its military strength to face the external aggressions.

“ India has fought many wars, but two fronts were never simultaneously alive in the past. But in the next five years, I will not rule out that possibility (with both China and Pakistan opening fronts against India ),” he warned.

Mishra said the country was faced with difficult situations and the will of political leadership to face terrorism without communalizing the situation was the need of the hour. Unfortunately, he said, all political parties are responsible for communizing the terrorist situation which must be immediately discarded.

He also underscored the need to have greater cooperation and coordination between intelligence agencies, not only at the Centre but also in the states to face the internal security threats. “It’s well known that intelligence agencies in India never cooperate with each other. They do it either to hide their sources or incompetence. I can testify to that,” the former national security adviser remarked.

He also cautioned that the growing nexus between politicians and police force was dangerous for the country. Politicalisation of police force in the country through political interference in recruitments, transfers and promotions of police officers was crippling the security and police forces. “Unless that is stopped immediately, we won’t be able to prevent terrorist activities,” he said adding that training of police force has to change to tackle the much bigger problem of terrorism.

Advocating use of “hot pursuit” to tackle global terrorism, Efraim Halevy, head of the Shasha Centre for Strategic Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stressed on devising “new rules of the games” to tackle growing menace of terrorism the world over. “Countries like India , the US and Israel cannot defend itself within their own borders. We have to have rules of hot pursuit to pursue attackers and those who give save heavens to them to effectively deal with the global terror,” he added.

Saying that “We’ll no longer be able to combat terrorism with one hand tied behind our back,” Halevy said, “right to hot pursuit should be prolonged right…We’ll no longer be able to combat terrorism if you can’t hit those who are attacking, perpetrating and abetting terrorism.”

Holding Pakistan Army and ISI responsible for terror attacks in India , Prof. Shaun Gregory, founder director, Pakistan Security Research Unit and Associate Dean, School of Social and International Studies, University of Bradford, said they could be pressured and supported to abandon its links to these groups and turn its security apparatus against them only when these groups no longer serve its policy objectives.