Lakhvi- China's only intent was to bail out all weather friend
Why did China block action at the United Nations against Pakistan for freeing Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the Lashkar-e-Tayiba operative? While India has raised objections to this, the reasoning behind is very simple- China has just defended its all weather friend.
The action by China is not something to do with its fight against terrorism. It was a simple gesture to defend its all weather friend Pakistan.
Defending an all weather friend:
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has raised this with Beijing and expressed displeasure. India had sought to move the UN seeking action against the release of Lakhvi who is one of the masterminds of the 26/11 attack.
C D Sahay, former Chief of the Research and Analysis Wing tells OneIndia that this has nothing to do with China's fight against terrorism. It is just a case of defending Pakistan which it calls as an all weather friend. The close friendship between the two countries is what one got to see at the UN yesterday, Sahay adds.
China has its own set of problems where terrorism is concerned. It has no connection with the Lashkar nor Lakhvi. The talk that China would want to use the services of Lashkar as a proxy to deal with terror on its soil is also wrong. All China wanted to do at the UN was bail Pakistan out.
China quotes lack of proof:
China while backing Pakistan gave out a sugar coated response as to why it was doing so. This was a response for the international community and one wonders if the Chinese had even done their homework before defending Lakhvi's release.
Sahay says, " I would like to believe that as per the norms India would have made a move in the UN backed with proper proof and a backgrounder of the case. Normally when you move a proposal like this, you have to add to the papers all the proof as to why such an action is being sought."
China could have at least spoken with India and asked about the proof before coming to such a conclusion. China instead said that there was inadequate proof and this decision could be debated. There is no point in debating why China defended Pakistan as it was obvious they were bailing them out, Sahay adds.
Pakistan has the proof:
The question of proof against Lakhvi is something Pakistan needs to provide. The man is in their country, his organization operates in their country. This means that they are the ones with the access to information. India has done its bit in sending out whatever proof available and it is for Pakistan to build on it.
However Pakistan has ensured that the trial against Lakhvi has moved slower than a snail. This is largely to do with the fact that Lakhvi is an asset and is also considered to be the imam of all jihadis. In such a context it would be impossible to expect any action against Lakhvi.