External affairs Minister SM Krishna has taken on Lashkar-e-Tayiba founder and Jama'at-Ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed saying India believes Saeed is the "brain" behind the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, telling Pakistan's government that if it wants to prove its seriousness on tackling terror, it must tackle Saeed.
In an interview to CNN-IBN, Krishna also said that the 6th dossier handed over by Indian Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao to Pakistan's High Commissioner last week was "enough to get a conviction if presented with the right advocacy", making it clear that prosecuting Hafiz Saeed successfully is now completely the responsibility of the Pakistani government.
Krishna, who is due to meet his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September reiterated India's position that no "meaningful dialogue" was possible with Pakistan unless it acts on the terror leadership, including Hafiz Saeed.
Is the Indian government still hopeful there will be action against hafiz Saeed?
We have brought it to the notice of the Pakistan government that in the light of his track record for directing terrorist activities against India- and then he heads a terror organisation that is basically inimical to India's interest- we want that such elements should be tackled by Pakistan so that India can be convinced of the seriousness of the government of Pakistan in going after these terrorists.
Pakistan says not enough evidence against Saeed- what is the nature of the evidence in the dossier handed over to the Pakistan High Commissioner last week?
Whatever evidence that we have gathered- in our opinion, is enough to get a conviction to a person, if it is presented through proper advocacy before a court of law. I would not go into the details as to what exactly the dossier contains but once Pakistan mentions the names in the dossier- it will come out
You have been compared to Mr. Shivraj Patil- with due respect to him and you, the opposition's allegation is that you are "out of your depth" in dealing with Foreign policy issues- how do you respond to those critics.
Well I think these criticisms were unfair, and the kind of results our foreign policy has been yielding in the recent past, if there are to be indicators- there are (many). My visit to Australia, for example. I think one could look back with a sense of fulfillment, a sense of achievement that things are happening in the foreign policy field There are no quick fixes in foreign policy over a period of time the policy has to be evolved and that's what we intend doing.
