Veteran journalist Mr. Ved Prakash Vedic as member of a Track-2 team visiting Pakistan broke away from his colleagues to interview the head of the pro-terrorist organization, Jamaat-u-Dawa, Hafiz Saeed. When this came to light there was uproar in parliament and on TV channels. The reactions to this event are amusing.

Mr. Vedic justified his conduct by asserting that as a professional journalist he met Hafiz Saeed in order to better understand the mind of this terrorist mastermind. There was nothing unexceptionable about that. Evaluation of his conduct may be withheld until the contents of his interview become public. There is nothing wrong in aggressively debating with an enemy. After all, when Pakistan journalist Hamid Mir obtained an interview with Osama bin Laden it was considered a journalistic coup of sorts.

The reactions of the Congress and other opposition leaders were predictable. They highlighted Mr. Vedic’s links with the BJP government, with Baba Ramdev and the RSS. They tried to corner the government by asserting that Mr. Vedic’s meeting could not have been held without sanction by the government. This too may be dismissed as part of politics and the attempt to embarrass the government and score debating points. This is understandable political activity. The BJP responded by recalling the comparatively muted response when Kashmir separatist leader Mr. Yasin Malik jointly fasted with Hafiz Saeed. The BJP also asked if the Track-2 team led by Congress leader Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyer which included former Foreign Minister Mr. Salman Khurshid was oblivious of team colleague Mr. Vedic’s activities in Pakistan and could therefore be absolved of responsibility.

All these reactions do not merit much attention. What intrigued this writer was the intense passion that the mere mention of Hafiz Saeed aroused among both politicians and several TV anchors. He was described as the epitome of villainy, responsible for the 26/11 terror attack, and any association with him was deemed to be an unforgivable lapse. This writer sympathizes with the passion displayed by politicians and TV journalists. The rage against Hafiz Saeed is understandable. What cannot be understood is the curious lapse of memory and attention regarding other aspects involving Hafiz Saeed which are blissfully ignored by India’s thinking class.

The case against Hafiz Saeed for masterminding the 26/11 terror attack was substantially aided and strengthened by inputs made available by the US FBI to Indian authorities. The evidence offered by FBI was accepted because of its high professional reputation as an investigative agency. What greatly puzzles this writer is the total absence of passion or even interest displayed by the same politicians and TV journalists after the FBI investigated the role of Hafiz Saeed in the Samjhauta Train terror attack. Based on its investigation the US government nailed Hafiz Saeed as a terrorist mastermind, identifying his five accomplices carrying out his orders for the attack, and even moved the United Nations to designate Saeed as an international terrorist and imposed UN sanctions against him.

In contrast India’s National Investigative Agency (NIA) ignored the FBI findings and the UN sanctions to charge Hindu terrorists led by Swami Aseemanand for the Samjhauta Train blast. One has no sympathies for the politics of Swami Aseemanand or an interest in rebutting allegations by Indian sleuths regarding the Swami’s role in other terror attacks such as the Malegaon blast. But how on earth can both the Hindu terrorists and Hafiz Saeed be responsible for the same terror attack on the Samjhauta Express? One is intrigued therefore not by the passion displayed by politicians and media against Hafiz Saeed related to 26/11, but its complete absence with regard to the train blast.

That is not all. It may be noted that both Indian politicians and media quite rightly never fail to castigate the Pakistan army and ISI for supporting Hafiz Saeed. But the same politicians and media hacks maintain deafening silence when it comes to holding China responsible for exercising its UN veto to prevent the world body from imposing international sanctions against Hafiz Saeed. How is Beijing’s conduct any different from Pakistan in protecting Hafiz Saeed? Attacking the actions of Hafiz Saeed is understandable. Doing it selectively and opportunistically is not.