India presses Pakistan to pursue new leads in Mumbai case, no breakthroughs in latest talks

No breakthroughs: Pakistan, India to keep talking

ISLAMABAD — India said it was hopeful Pakistan would pursue new leads in the deadly Mumbai attacks, even as it was clear following high-level talks Thursday that the two countries are nowhere near resolving key issues that have sparked three wars between them over the past six decades.

Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna became the most senior official to come to Pakistan since the November 2008 attacks, which left 166 dead and which India blames on Pakistan-based militants. The result of meetings with his Pakistani counterpart basically came down to one thing: an agreement to talk again in the future.

In an often tense press conference Thursday night, both sides termed the talks useful, but avoided divulging details on how they plan to tackle major obstacles to peace, including the fate of the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Ahead of the talks, Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai was quoted by an Indian newspaper as saying that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency orchestrated the Mumbai attacks. He said that information had emerged from the interrogation of David Coleman Headley, an American who pleaded guilty in the U.S. in March to being in on the planning of the attacks.

The Pakistani agency has previously denied any involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

Krishna, who met with Pakistan’s president, prime minister as well as the foreign minister, said he had been assured that Islamabad would pursue leads from Headley so as to “bring all the perpetrators of that horrific crime to justice.”

Without commenting specifically on the allegations against the Pakistani intelligence community, however, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi took exception to the fact that the Indian home secretary had made the comments at all ahead of the talks, saying it was unhelpful to the peace process.

“We discussed it, and we’re both of the opinion it was uncalled for,” Qureshi said.

India has insisted that no real improvement in the relationship can come until Pakistan demonstrates its determination to crack down on Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group allegedly behind the Mumbai attacks.

Pakistan helped establish Lashkar-e-Taiba around 20 years ago to pressure India over the disputed territory of Kashmir. The government banned the group in 2002 following U.S. pressure, but many analysts believe it still maintains links.

Pakistan has bristled at criticism it is not doing enough, noting it has put seven Mumbai suspects on trial while saying it needs more evidence from Indian investigators. Qureshi said the two sides had discussed ways to make the trial process more efficient, but noted that Pakistan’s judiciary is independent.

“Today, India and Pakistan, both are victims of terrorism,” Qureshi said. “The best way to deal with this challenge is to recognize this as a common enemy and adopt a common approach vis-a-vis this menace.”

The press conference was delayed six hours Thursday as both sides debated what message to take to the media.

Some of the more tense moments came when the two ministers were asked about alleged Indian backing of ethnic Baluch nationalist insurgents in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province.

Krishna insisted that Pakistan had never provided a shred of evidence to back the claim. He then went on to say that India had seen a 40 percent increase of militant infiltration from Pakistan into Indian-held Kashmir between 2008 and 2009.

To which Qureshi replied adamantly: “Infiltration is not the policy of the government of Pakistan or any intelligence agency of Pakistan, period. If there are individuals who have crossed over, deal with them firmly and Pakistan will cooperate.”

The U.S. is keen on seeing Pakistan and India resolve their differences, in large part because it would free Pakistan to focus on the growing militancy problem along its border with Afghanistan.

Many analysts believe Pakistan’s reluctance to take on some of the Taliban groups in its borders is driven by its desire to maintain a strategic influence in Afghanistan.

Associated Press Writer Sebastian Abbot contributed to this report.