Union home minister Rajnath Singh told Parliament on Friday that India had taken a “strong stand against terror” at the Saarc ministerial conference in Islamabad, and had told Pakistan that a terroris
Union home minister Rajnath Singh told Parliament on Friday that India had taken a “strong stand against terror” at the Saarc ministerial conference in Islamabad, and had told Pakistan that a terrorist in one country could not be a martyr for another. Pakistan, the host country of the Saarc interior ministers’ meeting, had hailed Hizbul Mujahideen militant Burhan Wani, who was killed by Indian security forces last month in Kashmir, as a “martyr”. Mr Singh was also greeted with protests in Pakistan’s capital over the situation in Kashmir.
Mr Singh made a suo moto statement in both Houses of Parliament on his visit to Pakistan. Rajya Sabha members, cutting across party lines, condemned the neighbouring country for allowing protests against India and Mr Singh’s visit.
Members also praised Mr Singh’s bold statement in Pakistan and the government’s stand at the Saarc meeting. Mr Singh, replying to clarifications in the Upper House, said all Indian Prime Ministers had done their best to improve relations with Pakistan but “yeh padosi hai ki maanta hi nahin hai (this neighbour never learns)”. Mr Singh said he also hoped Pakistan would soon ratify the Saarc convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters and set up the Saarc Terrorist Offences Monitoring Desk.
The minister also said the Pakistani authorities did not allow the entry of the Indian media, including those from PTI and Doordarshan, inside the Saarc meeting venue in Islamabad. Responding to questions in the Rajya Sabha, the minister said that after the meeting ended, Pakistan’s interior minister, the host, had invited the participants for lunch but had left in a car soon thereafter.
“Keeping in mind the country’s prestige, I did what I should have done. I have no complaints. I had not gone there for lunch,” he said, amid thumping of benches by members.
Replying to clarifications, he said he was “hestitant to say if the host were courteous... I don’t want to comment on it. I have no qualms or complaints”, and added “India is known globally for its ‘meheman nawaazi’ (hospitality).” Many MPs praised Mr Singh for “boycotting” the lunch
and criticised Pakistan for not showing due courtesy to the visiting Indian home minister.
On queries whether there was no telecast of his speech, Mr Singh said he was not aware of the convention and would need to ask the external affairs ministry. “Since I was giving the speech, I did not see if it was telecast live or not. But this is true that Doordarshan, ANI and PTI reporters were not given permission to enter inside (the venue)”, he said, as members condemned it, saying “shame, shame”.
He said the meeting’s agenda was terrorism, smuggling of narcotic drugs, cyber crime and human trafficking. Almost all nations condemned terrorism in the strongest possible terms, he added. He said India placed special emphasis on terrorism as it posed the single biggest threat to peace and prosperity in South Asia. “The dark clouds of terrorism” have engulfed not just South Asia but the entire world, the minister added.
“The entire world community is concerned about this serious threat. This was clear not just from the clear message India gave on the threat it poses to humanity, but also from the fact that most nations expressed concern over it,” Mr Singh said.
He also informed the House that as per the original plan, he had to reach the hotel in Islamabad by road from the Rawalpindi airbase, but probably security officials later decided to use a helicopter. “I saw people were protesting at several places in groups of 10-25 or 100,” he said, and added: “Had I bothered about the protest, I probably wouldn’t have gone to Pakistan.” He also said he did not register any protest over these demonstrations.
Earlier, Leader of the Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad said the Congress and the BJP may have differences but when the Prime Minister or the home minister travel overseas, they were one. He also sought to know whether protocol was not extended to Mr Singh in accordance with India’s standing among Saarc nations, and the host being absent at his reception, and added that if all this was true, it was condemnable.
