26/11: Pak woos India with testimonies
The statements by five inspectors of Pakistan CID, who testified on Friday against the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, are being seen as an attempt by the Pakistan government to address Indian concerns ahead of a possible visit by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Islamabad.world Updated: Nov 13, 2012 02:09 IST
The statements by five inspectors of Pakistan CID, who testified on Friday against the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, are being seen as an attempt by the Pakistan government to address Indian concerns ahead of a possible visit by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Islamabad.
But analysts wonder whether this means that the Pakistan government has finally decided to move ahead on this sensitive trial after years of inactivity.Pakistan foreign office officials confirmed on Monday that there was pressure from the Indian side "to show some tangible progress" in various areas so that the Indian PM’s visit "could be justified at home."
This is more about how the Indian government justifies to its people why they are going ahead with the peace process with Pakistan, said one official. But at the same time, the bigger beneficiary of any cooperation would be Pakistan, said another analyst.
Pakistan wants to improve trade and exchange of goods and services. Pakistani businessmen have also asked for greater access to the Indian market where they feel their products will do well.
The statements from the Pakistani intelligence officials to the anti-terrorism court come after a long period of inactivity. However, these statements suggest that the Pakistani government did investigate the charges made by their Indian counterparts, say officials.
On Monday, interior minister Rehman Malik told newsmen that it was wrong to suggest that Pakistan was not interested in bringing the guilty to justice.
The Pakistani Federal Investigation Agency had requested the court to resume daily hearings. This was done after a long period of inactivity in which dates were postponed after hearings on basis of the illness of the judge or lawyers.