After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, India claims to have furnished enough evidence to Pakistan, about the perpetrators originating from Pakistan, corroborated by US intelligence. Yet the Pakistan Government continues to be obstinate in denying Pakistani involvement, in the worst ever terror attacks of recent past.
Confused by the cacophony of different voices emanating from official, semi-official, demi-official, dummy-official, and non-official sources, an Indian journalist assumed the onerous responsibility to unearth the facts for the benefit of Indian public. Over the years, the journalist in India gathered enough confidence on fact finding missions, since it used to be an easy task; it takes only one visit to the location of an encounter accompanied by some select politicians, and with ease a journalist could declare it to be a fake encounter. However fake the pronouncement might be, there always existed persons from different political parties, ready to sanctify the verdict. Having gathered confidence than facts, the journalist embarked on a tour to Pakistan.
Only on reaching Pakistan, the journalist could realise the hardships involved in fact-finding in the alien land. She was warned about the consequences involved in snooping around in unwanted territories, especially Faridkot and she was reminded about the fate of Daniel Pearl. Having realised the perils involved in fact-finding, she had restricted her activities to only interviewing select diplomats.
The interview was full of surprises and revelations right from the beginning. She had learnt from her younger days, about the intriguing and queer ways a diplomat would respond. She recalled her senior's lecture about diplomats, "When a diplomat says he will, he means he shall try, when he says he will try, he means no and when he says no he is not a diplomat". Equipped with that knowledge, the very first answer from the Pakistani diplomat confused her and her confusion lingered for many more days after the interview. She had sought the help of a local camera person to record her interview with the diplomat and the interview went on for over an hour.
IJ (Indian Journalist): There are talks in India that the terrorists involved in 26/11 Mumbai attacks were from Pakistan. What is your comment on their perception?
PD (Pakistani Diplomat): No they are not from Pakistan and at best they can be termed as Non-State actors.
For a moment the journalist got confused whether he was a diplomat or intelligence person, since she never expected a firm NO from a diplomat. The interview continued.
IJ: Indian Government claims to have furnished all the evidences pertaining to the identity of the persons killed and also a person caught.
PD: No. They have not given any credible evidence. What they have furnished is a bunch of suspicion and we cannot act on suspicions.
IJ: But sir, the terrorist caught by the Indian police, claims he is from Pakistani.
PD: We checked our records, but his name does not exist in our registry. Had his name existed in our records, we would not have spared them.
Indian journalist was confused, as to who is being referred to as them. The terrorists or the officials in-charge of the registry?
IJ: There is news in Indian media, that a person from Faridkot in Pakistan, claims that the terrorist caught in Mumbai is his son.
PD: You are a journalist. Tell me honestly, How much of the news do you trust?
Now the journalist felt the person she was interviewing is a hard core diplomat. Whichever way she answers him, she would be caught. She had ignored the question and proceeded further.
IJ: Even assuming it only as a doubt, don't you think sir, that you should pursue it relentlessly to fight the war on terror?
PD: You are right. But your Government is not allowing us to do so. We wanted to pursue it, so that we can prove that it was a conspiracy, wherein selected police officers were killed, who were pursuing the Malegaon blasts.
Now the Indian Journalist was once again in a fix.
IJ: Are you not raising a doubt, while brushing aside the evidence submitted as a doubt?
PD: No. Not at all. Are you trying to sweep under the carpet what is being said in your Parliament, by one of your ministers?
IJ: But Sir, he had retracted his statement later.
PD: That's the precise point. He had made the statement in the Parliament and retracted it out side. We infer a whole lot, not only from what is said, but also from where it is said.
IJ: I learnt that USA had furnished enough evidence to you about the handlers of the terrorists, giving instructions from your soil.
PD: We are going through the materials submitted by them. If found true, we will try them on our soil.
Indian journalist was once again confused, as to what the diplomat's "try" means. As a last ditch effort, she posed a question pretending to take him into confidence.
IJ: Sir tell me honestly. Where do you think the terrorists are from, who attacked Mumbai?
PD: I have a strong doubt that these men were from the Moon.
The journalist was shocked, yet continued interviewing him calmly.
IJ: What makes you think so Sir?
PD: A terrorist, who is well trained and motivated, from our experience, can never be caught alive. When a terrorist wielding AK47 is caught alive, he could only be a lunatic. The old English expression for a lunatic is "Man in the Moon", and that's why I say he must have been from the Moon.
With that statement, the Pakistani camera person felt "enough is enough" and switched off the camera.