In a revelation that has triggered shockwaves in India’s political and security circles, jailed Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) chief and convicted terrorist Yasin Malik has alleged that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh personally thanked him for meeting Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder and 26/11 mastermind Hafiz Saeed in Pakistan in 2006. Malik, who is serving a life sentence in a terror funding case, made the sensational claim in an affidavit before the Delhi High Court. The affidavit raises troubling questions about India’s backchannel peace strategy of the 2000s, its reliance on separatist leaders, and the willingness of the UPA government to engage with dreaded terror figures through intermediaries.
The Intelligence Bureau’s Alleged Role
According to Malik’s statement, his controversial 2006 meeting with Hafiz Saeed was not a personal initiative but a request from senior Indian intelligence officials. Malik claimed that V. K. Joshi, then Special Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), approached him in Delhi before his scheduled visit to Pakistan following the devastating 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. Joshi allegedly asked Malik to use the trip to not only engage with Pakistan’s political leadership but also reach out to jihadist commanders, including Saeed, to strengthen Prime Minister Singh’s peace efforts.
Malik alleged that IB officials told him that no dialogue with Pakistan could succeed unless terror leaders were also drawn into the process. He claimed that it was on their instructions that he agreed to attend a function in Pakistan organised by Saeed, where leaders of the United Jihad Council were also present. In hindsight, Malik has described this move as a “classic betrayal,” asserting that he acted in national interest but was later portrayed as a terrorist sympathiser.
Inside the Meeting With Hafiz Saeed
Detailing the Pakistan visit, Malik described how Hafiz Saeed himself convened a gathering of jihadist groups. At this event, Malik delivered a speech urging militants to abandon violence and embrace peace. Drawing upon Islamic teachings, he said he pressed for reconciliation, urging the militants to “purchase peace” if offered.
Although Malik portrayed his address as an attempt to pacify extremist voices, the meeting later became a flashpoint. Security agencies and political opponents frequently cited the interaction as proof of Malik’s closeness to terror outfits. In his affidavit, Malik rejected such accusations, arguing that the entire initiative was sanctioned by India’s intelligence establishment as part of a backchannel outreach designed to test the waters for peace.
Manmohan Singh’s Alleged Response
The most politically explosive claim in Malik’s affidavit is what transpired after his return to India. Malik stated that soon after his debriefing with the IB, he was requested to brief Prime Minister Manmohan Singh directly. According to Malik, he met Singh in the Capital that same evening in the presence of then National Security Advisor M. K. Narayanan.
Malik alleged that Singh not only heard his account but personally thanked him for his efforts. He claimed Singh expressed gratitude for his “time, patience, and dedication” in engaging with even the most hardline Pakistani elements. Malik went further, saying Singh even told him he considered him the “father of non-violent movement in Kashmir.”
This claim, if true, could prove deeply damaging for the Congress party, raising the specter that a sitting Prime Minister of India extended appreciation to a separatist leader for meeting a man accused of masterminding countless terror attacks against Indians, including the 26/11 Mumbai massacre.
A History of Political Access
Beyond Singh, Malik’s affidavit mentions his frequent engagement with India’s top political leadership. He claimed that since his arrest in 1990, he had been involved in dialogues with successive governments led by V. P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, P. V. Narasimha Rao, H. D. Deve Gowda, I. K. Gujral, and eventually Manmohan Singh. According to Malik, not only was he given domestic platforms to advocate the Kashmiri cause, but governments repeatedly persuaded him to speak on international forums.
Malik alleged he had met leaders such as Sonia Gandhi, P. Chidambaram, I. K. Gujral, and Rajesh Pilot in different capacities. These revelations paint a troubling picture of how separatist leaders, many accused of complicity in terror, were courted as stakeholders in peace processes by successive Indian governments.
A Political and Security Earthquake
Yasin Malik’s affidavit is not merely an attempt by a convicted terrorist to rewrite his past; it is a deeply unsettling account that touches upon the very core of India’s approach to Pakistan and terrorism during the UPA years. His claim that Manmohan Singh thanked him after meeting Hafiz Saeed, one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, risks igniting a massive political storm. It raises questions about whether India’s peace strategy compromised national security by legitimising separatist-terrorist networks.
For the Congress party, already struggling with its national security credentials, these revelations could not have come at a worse time. For the broader public, Malik’s claims revive haunting memories of the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits, the killing of Indian Air Force personnel, and decades of terror inflicted upon the Valley. Even if parts of Malik’s affidavit are contested or dismissed, the fact that such claims are now on judicial record ensures that India’s peace diplomacy of the mid-2000s will come under renewed scrutiny.
