Headley's mention on Ishrat Jahan exposed. Constitution stands subverted.
NIA document was shown to Congress core committee meeting and mention on Ishrat Jahan was removed from NIA document after that.
So, who runs the terror investigations in India? Congress core committee !!
Kalyan
Leaked NIA document indicates cover up in Ishrat Jahan case
New documents obtained by Firstpost show the union government has suppressed testimony that slain Mumbai resident Ishrat Jehan Raza may have been an Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist. In an 13 October, 2010, note, the National Investigations Agency said Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist David Coleman Headley had told them Ishrat Jehan had been part of a “botched” operation run by the terrorist group. Later, though, mention of this revelation was removed from a 117 page record of the 26/11 surveillance agent’s interrogation released to media.
Highly placed government sources have told Firstpost that the note was found on file on July 5, when it was called for by Union Home Affairs Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde. It was also shown to members of the Congress Core Group, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The government is yet to respond to calls from both the Bharatiya Janata Party, and top Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, to place what it knows about Ishrat Jehan’s background on record.
he NIA document reveals Headley had mentioned Ishrat Jahan. Image courtesy: Ibnlive
Central Bureau of Investigations officials have said they are investigating the wider context and motives behind the alleged murder of Ishrat Jehan and three men, for which it has charged several Gujarat Police officers. It is unclear if the CBI has so far been given access to the UO—a form of unsigned letter different wings of the government use to communicate with each other, without committing themselves to a binding position. It is, however, marked with a traceable file reference—standard practice in the government.
First revealed to exist by The Hindustan Times earlier this month, the revelation of the text of the note raises several key questions.
The NIA note has little relevance to the murder investigation—but does raise questions about whether the government suppressed information on Ishrat Jehan’s possible background, sensitive to the political fallout.
Its revelation also raises the question of what then-Union Home Minister P Chidambaram knew about the case—and what role, if any, he had in excising the information from the 117-page publicly-released interrogation. Chidambaram has refused to discuss the issue, though in September, 2009, he had apparently sought to distance his Ministry from the brewing controversy over the killings. The home ministry also withdrew an affidavit describing the Ishrat Jehan and the three men slain with her as terrorists, replacing it with a more cautiously-worded document.
Lawyers for the victims have argued that there are contradictions in the timeline involving Headley’s reported conversation on Ishrat with Zaki-ur-Rahman. In Para 15, p35, of the NIA report, Headley says he went for his first training with the Lashkar in February, 2002. Later, in para 16, p36, Headley says he went for further training in August, 2002. Finally, in Para 17, p36, he says he was introduced to Muzammil some time during this year”.
Three years later, according to the NIA, he was again introduced to Muzammil—this time, by their common boss, Zaki-ur-Rahman.
It’s not immediately apparent, though, why two introductions—three years apart, and once as a Lashkar rank-and-file trainee, the second time as 26/11 plotter—constitute a contradiction.
Lawyers and family of Ishrat Jehan have, for their part, repeatedly denied she had any connections with the Lashkar-e-Taiba or terrorism, and slammed the media for defaming the dead teenager.
Top officials have muddied the waters with a series of apparently contradictory statements. Earlier this week, then-home secretary GK Pillai said that “from the evidence I had seen, it cannot be said whether she was a willing accomplice of [alleged terrorist, and fellow encounter victim] Javed Sheikh or used as a cover by him. I would be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt”.
In November, 2011, though, Pillai had sparked off a furore by asserting that Ishrat Jehan was indeed a terrorism suspect. He recalled that the Lashkar-e-Toiba website had described her as a martyr. He also controversially noted that “Ishrat used to live with another man in different hotels, which definitely was suspicious”.
Pillai, now in retirement but being considered for appointment as Governor of Manipur, declined to discuss the issue with Firstpost.
Earlier this month, Firstpost exclusively revealed that the United States’ Federal Bureau of Investigations had told the Ministry of Home Affairs about Headley’s claims on a “female suicide bomber named Ishrat Jahaan [sic].” “Zaki,” Headley went on, “mentioned Muzammil’s plans to attack Akshardham temple, Somnath and Siddhi temples. These attacks were revenge for the 1988 attack on the mosque in Yuppe [sic, the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh]”.
David Headley did not name Ishrat, NIA tells Home Ministry
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is learnt to have told the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that 26/11 suspect David Coleman Headley has not mentioned Ishrat Jahan in his "official" confession.
The MHA had sought a report after Congress leader Digvijaya Singh asked Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde to clear the air on the issue.
Confirming this, NIA sources said the agency has, however, asked the MHA not to refer to Headley's statement in any other case, as it is part of the "sovereign assurance" given to the US.
"The use of Headley's testimony in any other case may affect the 26/11 probe. The CBI can approach the NIA court for details," said a top NIA official.
Earlier, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) was reported to have claimed that Headley, in his statement to the NIA soon after his arrest in the US in 2009, had admitted that Lashkar-e-Toiba commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi had told him in 2005 about the failed operation involving Ishrat and the men who were killed with her in 2004.
When contacted, G K Pillai, who was the home secretary between 2009-2011, said: "To the best of my knowledge, there is no mention of Ishrat in Headley's 117-page interrogation report submitted by NIA before me."
The NIA is yet to trace the origin of the report which is being circulated as Headley's testimony in which he mentions Ishrat. NIA informed the MHA that it had dismissed the report as "hearsay" and was yet to get any corroboration from the FBI.
Ishrat case: Centre verifying coercion complaint
First Published: 23:58 IST(14/7/2013) | Last Updated: 01:30 IST(15/7/2013)
The government is verifying alleged coercion complaint by a former home ministry official against CBI-SIT officials investigating the Ishrat Jahan encounter case even as it is in no hurry to reply to Congress and BJP's demand to clarify whether Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist David Headley had described the Mumbra teenager as operative of the proscribed group.
Urban development secretary Sudhir Krishna said the ministry was now examining deputy land and development officer RVS Mani's June 24, 2013 complaint against officials of the CBI-SIT team, particularly then inspector general Satish Verma who was assisting the CBI in the probe. Mani as under secretary in home ministry was responsible for submitting the two 2009 affidavits filed by the ministry before the Gujarat HC.
While the CBI has denied any coercion on part of its officials in the probe, the matter seems to be more complicated as home ministry has found statement of Headley in its file pertaining to the encounter. After a senior Congress leader and BJP demanded clarification from the home ministry on whether Headley had mentioned Ishrat Jahan module in interrogation by the NIA on July 5, the home ministry found the NIA note (UO NO 04/2009/NIA/16/104 dated October 13, 2010) in its Ishrat Jahan file confirming the same.
It is understood that the NIA note was shown to home minister Sushilkumar Shinde the same day, who in turn informed the highest levels of government within hours.
RVS Mani in his complaint has said he should be allowed to engage a lawyer and from now his further statements should be recorded in the presence of chief vigilance officer of the UD ministry or his representative as Satish Verma pressurised him to say that the draft of the affidavit was brought to him by now IB special director Rajinder Kumar — who is under CBI scanner, a charge Mani denied.
"I will not comment on anything that happened while I was discharging my official duties. Period," said Verma.
Mani has stated that Verma alleged he was colluding with Rajinder Kumar and he knows the IB officer very well. Mani has denied the charge.
Verma, according to Mani's complaint, also alleged they all were stooges of the IB as one needs clearance from the IB to become the home secretary. He included senior IPS officer Karnal Singh in the category of IB stooges who headed the SIT formed by the Gujarat high court to look into the case. Mani says Verma narrated to him how he fought with Karnal Singh after which Singh left the SIT.
Mani added that at the end, Verma dictated a note saying two IB officials came to the room of his senior officer with a draft affidavit, which was put up for approval and filed in the court in June, 2009. On the order of the then home minister, another affidavit was drafted and filed in September, 2009.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Ishrat-case-Centre-verifying-home-minister-s-coercion-complaint-against-CBI/Article1-1092521.aspx
![File photo of Ishrat Jahan: CNN-IBN]()
http://www.firstpost.com/india/more-evidence-against-ishrat-surfaces-what-is-the-upa-hiding-958087.html
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/07/16/nia-documents-reveal-ishrats-terror-links-104801.html
More evidence against Ishrat surfaces: What is the UPA hiding?
by FP Editors Jul 16, 2013
The Ishrat Jahan case is getting murkier and murkier with increasing evidence that the UPA government is hiding the truth about who she really was.
Although the courts have categorically said that they are only concerned with whether or not Ishrat was the victim of an extra judicial killing and not whether or not she was a terrorist, the details coming to light are raising several important questions on the conduct of the government in this matter that cannot continue to be completely ignored.
Firstpost exclusively reported last month, that 26/11 mastermind David Headley had mentioned Ishrat Jahan while being interrogated in the United States:
Lakhvi told Headley he would be working with Muzammil Bhat, the full-bearded 6’4” giant in the room, who counted among the Lashkar’s most able operatives. Bhat’s achievements, Federal Bureau of Investigations interrogators recorded Headley as being told, included multiple strikes in Kashmir and recruiting a “female suicide bomber named Ishrat Jahaan
File photo of Ishrat Jahan: CNN-IBN
And now a new report in theHindustan Times offers more damning evidence against the UPA government, as it clearly mentions that the MHA had not only received an NIA note on Headley’s comments on Ishrat, but had also forwarded it to the highest levels of government within hours.
HT reports,
The matter seems to be more complicated as home ministry has found statement of Headley in its file pertaining to the encounter. After a senior Congress leader and BJP demanded clarification from the home ministry on whether Headley had mentioned Ishrat Jahan module in interrogation by the NIA on July 5, the home ministry found the NIA note (UO NO 04/2009/NIA/16/104 dated October 13, 2010) in its Ishrat Jahan file confirming the same.
It is understood that the NIA note was shown to home minister Sushilkumar Shinde the same day, who in turn informed the highest levels of government within hours.
This raises several questions on the conduct of the UPA government and its decision to remain silent on the evidence against Ishrat even as it has been making statements saying that those guilty of carrying out the alleged fake encounter should be punished:
1. why the NIA has chosen to be silent about this whole issue for so long, and evade a direct answer to the Gujarat High Court
2. why P Chidambaram, as Home Minister, excluded any mention of this from the David Headley interrogation shared with the media
3. why, since since Digvijaya Singh and the BJP have both asked the government to come clean on this, Sushil Kumar Shinde has chosen not to respond and clear the air
2. why P Chidambaram, as Home Minister, excluded any mention of this from the David Headley interrogation shared with the media
3. why, since since Digvijaya Singh and the BJP have both asked the government to come clean on this, Sushil Kumar Shinde has chosen not to respond and clear the air
The possibility that the truth about Ishrat Jahan is being masked to facilitate political gain is getting harder and harder to dismiss, and even more disturbing is the fact that this looks like it is being done at the cost of the country’s efforts to fight terrorism.
As Firstpost noted, Like all truths, the whole truth about Ishrat Jahan’s life and death likely won’t please anyone. It’s critical, though, to the credibility of India’s criminal justice system, and the future of our struggle against terrorism. Nothing anyone has done so far, though, suggests anyone really wants to tell the story—and nothing the CBI is doing gives reason to think that’s going to change.
http://www.firstpost.com/india/more-evidence-against-ishrat-surfaces-what-is-the-upa-hiding-958087.html
NIA documents reveal Ishrat’s terror links
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/07/16/nia-documents-reveal-ishrats-terror-links-104801.html