New Delhi, India on Saturday in a strong message to Islamabad said that if it claimed to be a “naya Pakistan with nayi soch”, it should show “new action” against terror outfits operating on its soil and end cross-border terrorism in support of its assertions.
“We are seeing the same script that has been played out earlier after the terrorist attacks on our Parliament in December 2001, the Mumbai terrorist attack in November 2008 and the attack on Pathankot airbase in January 2016,” Ministry of External Affairs spokesman Raveesh Kumar told the media here.
“Pakistan claims to proscribe groups and individuals, but this is confined only on paper. Actually, terrorist groups and individuals continue their activities without hindrance.
“Pakistan has not shown any serious intent to address the legitimate concerns of India and the global community,” he said.
“We remain resolute in our determination to persuade the international community of the necessity of compelling Pakistan to move beyond mere words and to show credible, verifiable and sustained actions.
“We have, and we will continue to act with responsibility and maturity. Our armed forces continue to maintain strict vigil and will remain determined in the defence of the nation and its citizens,” Kumar added.
The spokesman added that Pakistan continued to live in a state of denial.
He said that Foreign Secretary Vijay K. Gokhale and the spokespersons of the Indian Armed Forces have already briefed the media on the action taken by New Delhi against the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror outfit.
But, “Pakistan, however, continues to propagate a false narrative of the events of that day”, he added.
Slamming Islamabad for continuing to deny that JeM’s roots were in Pakistan, Kumar said: “It is unfortunate that Pakistan still continues to deny JeM’s own claim of carrying out the Pulwama attack in which 40 CRPF personnel were killed.
“Our non-military counter terrorism strike of February 26 achieved the intended objective. It has demonstrated our firm resolve to take decisive action against cross-border terrorism.
“On February 27, Pakistan instead of taking action against terrorist groups on its soil, chose to escalate through an act of aggression by violating our air space and attempting, unsuccessfully, to target our military facilities.
“Their action was effectively thwarted by the alertness and readiness of our armed forces.
“We have been transparent and open in informing the media that on February 27, itself that, in the process of defending our national sovereignty and territorial integrity, one Mig 21 Bison was lost in action and Wing Commander Abhinandan had to bail out and landed in Pakistan-Administered-Kashmir.
“The statement by our Indian Air Force is in the public domain.
“Only one aircraft was lost by us. If, as Pakistan claims, they have a video recording of the downing of a second Indian aircraft, why have they not shown it to the international media even after more than one week?” the Ministry spokesman noted.
“Questions should be asked to them as to where the fuselage of the aircraft is and what has happened to the pilots? As we have already said, there are eye-witness accounts and electronic evidence that Pakistan deployed F-16 aircraft and that one F-16 was shot down by Wing Commander Abhinandan.
“Evidence of the use of AMRAAM Missile, which can only be deployed on the F-16 with Pakistan, has also been shown to the media.
“Pakistan should explain why it continues to deny that its F-16 aircraft has been shot down? We have asked the US to also examine whether the use of F16 against India is in accordance with the terms and conditions of sale,” Kumar added.
The Ministry spokesman also said that ever since the Pulwama attack, the international community has supported India in their condemnation of the attack.
He highlighted that the UN Security Council had unanimously issued a press statement in which they explicitly referred to the JeM as having claimed responsibility for the attack.
“The UN Security Council Press Statement also calls for perpetrators, organisers, financiers and sponsors of terrorism to be held accountable and brought to justice.
Referring to Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s BBC interview on March 1, Kumar said: “I quote ‘they have not claimed responsibility of that (Pulwama attack). There is some confusion on that. The confusion is that the leadership has been contacted and they said no’ unquote.”
The Indian official questioned whether Pakistan was “defending the JeM and acting as its spokesperson? Does Pakistan’s claim has any credibility?”
The Ministry reminded Islamabad that in 2004, the then President Pervez Musharraf had made a solemn public commitment that they would not allow any territory under their control to be used for terrorist activity in any manner.
“But till today, however, Pakistan has failed to take any credible action against JeM and other terrorist organisations, which continue to operate with impunity from Pakistan.
“The widespread presence of terrorist camps in Pakistan is a public knowledge within and outside Pakistan. Repeated requests by us and the international community for Pakistan to take action against such groups has been met with denial,” Kumar said.
“Since February 26, following demands from the international community, Pakistan is again claiming to take fresh action against terror groups on its soil.
“In an interview to CNN on February 28, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan said, and I quote ‘Well, he is (Masood Azhar) in Pakistan according to my information’ unquote,” he said.
Despite the media interviews by Qureshi and Musharraf acknowledging the presence of JeM in Pakistan, the spokesperson of the Pakistan armed forces on March 6 openly denied the outfit’s presence in the country, he added.
“This statement is a sufficient proof that Pakistan still remains in a state of denial.
“If Pakistan claims to be a ‘naya Pakistan with nayi soch’, it should show ‘naya action’ against terrorist groups and terror infrastructure on its soil and end cross border terrorism in support of its claims,” the spokesman concluded.
