Pakistani gunman Ajmal Amir Kasab was sentenced to death on Thursday for the Mumbai terror attacks by a special court, which said that keeping such a terrorist alive will be a “lingering danger” to the society and the Indian government.
The special anti-terror court of M.L. Tahaliyani pronounced capital punishment for the 22-year-old terrorist on five counts of murder, conspiracy to murder, waging war against the country, abetting murder and committing terrorist activities under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. 166 people were killed in the carnage.
Kasab was also awarded life imprisonment on five other counts including attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy and under the Explosive Substances Act.
“In the court’s opinion, Kasab has no chance to reform. Keeping such a terrorist alive will be a lingering danger to the society and the Indian government,” Justice Tahaliyani said while pronouncing his verdict, three days after he convicted him for the massacre.
The judge cited the example of the Kandahar hijack case in which arrested terrorists were swapped for the passengers held hostage. “If Kasab is kept alive, this situation may occur again,” he said.
The judge said Kasab had joined terror outfit LeT voluntarily and offered himself to be a “mujahideen“(holy warrior).
Kasab, who hails from Fardikot in Pakistan, broke down after hearing the sentence.
As the judge was reading out the sentence, Kasab was seen sobbing. He asked for a glass of water during the pronouncement.
After the sentence was read out, Tahaliyani explained to him in Hindi that he had been given death penalty on five counts and whether he wanted to say anything.
But the Pakistani gunman simply shook his head after which he was taken away by the police back to the Arthur Road jail.
Stating that Kasab was mentally prepared to attack India, the judge rejected defence lawyer K.P. Pawar’s argument that he had acted on the directions of LeT founder Hafiz Sayeed.
Branding the terrorist as a “killing machine manufactured in Pakistan”, special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam had on Tuesday sought nothing less than death for Kasab, saying the case fell within “the rarest of rare” category.
The plea of Mr. Pawar, who while admitting that his client was “blinded by religion” sought leniency for the terrorist given his young age, failed to convince the judge.
Describing Kasab as “killing machine” and a “heartless monster”, Mr. Nikam had argued, “such machines are manufactured in Pakistan and if he is not sent to the gallows he would turn into a blood thirsty wild animal.
“Kasab is a heartless monster who is a curse to the society...He not only enjoyed killing innocent people but also expressed anger while confessing before a Magistrate that he could not execute more,” he had said in his arguments on the quantum of sentence for the convicted terrorist.
Mr. Pawar, however, pleaded that given his young age and no previous criminal record, Kasab be given a chance to be reformed and rehabilitated.
“The militancy in Kashmir and Godhra riots had an impact on the mind of young Kasab who was emotionally disturbed and blinded by religion," Mr. Pawar had said.
Showing posts with label Mumbai attacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mumbai attacks. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
I am happy, says Nikam
“I am happy with the judgement,” Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam declared Thursday, after Pakistani national Ajmal Amir Kasab was sentenced to death in the 26/11 case.
“This case was a challenge to us,” Nikam told reporters, adding that capital punishment would help heal the wounds of the victims of the 2008 terror attack on Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists.
“This case was a challenge to us,” Nikam told reporters, adding that capital punishment would help heal the wounds of the victims of the 2008 terror attack on Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists.
Kasab sentenced to death by special court
Pakistani gunman Ajmal Amir Kasab was sentenced to death on Thursday by a special court for the Mumbai terror attacks, three days after he was pronounced guilty of mass murder and waging war against the Indian state.
The special anti-terror court of M.L. Tahaliyani handed death to Kasab, the lone surviving 26/11 gunman, a year after the trial in the brazen attacks commenced.
Kasab was given the death penalty on five counts including waging war against the nation, murder, criminal conspiracy and committing terror activities.
Asserting that Kasab’s role in the attacks that traumatised the nation fell under the rarest of rare category for giving death sentence, Public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam had on Tuesday branded him as “a Pakistani killing machine” and a “heartless monster” who revelled in seeing innocent people dying in pain.
Kasab breaks down in court
Kasab, who hails from Fardikot in Pakistan, broke down after hearing the sentence.
As special judge M.L. Tahilyani was reading out the sentence, Kasab was seen sobbing. He asked for a glass of water during the pronouncement.
After the sentence was read out, the Judge explained to him in Hindi that he had been given death penalty on five counts and whether he wanted to say anything.
But the Pakistani gunman simply shook his head after which he was taken away by the police back to the Arthur Road jail.
The court had on May 3 held Kasab guilty under various sections of IPC, Arms Act, Explosives Substances Act, Explosives Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Customs Act and Foreigners Act.
Prosecution demands the death penalty
Making a strong pitch for capital punishment, Nikam had warned if he was awarded any less severe penalty, “India will become a soft target for every self-styled terror group“.
“There has been a high degree of cruelty and Kasab had total disregard for life. Kasab is a killing machine manufactured in Pakistan,” he had said.
Nikam had said Kasab had “lost the right to live” while defence counsel K.P. Pawar cited Kasab’s young age and pleaded for leniency. He contended that Kasab was “blinded by religion and should be given a chance to reform“.
Nikam had claimed that Kasab was in a “joyous” mood seeing people dying in pain and agony after opening indiscriminate fire at the bustling Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and elsewhere during the attacks.
“There was no remorse and he said in his confession before the magistrate that he wanted to inspire future fidayeens (suicide killers).
“If death is not awarded, it would be a mockery of justice,” Nikam had argued.
According to the prosecution, Kasab had expressed disappointment that he had landed at the CST after the rush hour. Kasab had anticipated a busier station, based on CDs he had been shown of CST before the attack.
The prosecution had also said that in his confession to the Mumbai police, Kasab had stated that he was upset that he could not kill more people at the station. At CST alone, Kasab killed close to 60 people in an hour with his partner, Abu Ismael.
Role of Pakistan
In his 1522-page verdict, the judge had also held that evidence adduced by the prosecution pointed a finger at Pakistan and established that the absconding accused, including LeT founder Hafiz Saeed and chief of operations Zaki-Ur-Rehman Lakhvi had plotted the attacks.
Barring a few minor charges pertaining to forgery and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Kasab was convicted of almost all 86 charges he was arraigned for.
The terrorist’s lawyer’s contention that the militancy in Kashmir and the Godhra riots had impacted a young and impressionable Kasab, who was emotionally disturbed, and his impassioned plea for leniency, failed to cut ice with the judge.
The court had acquitted two alleged Indian collaborators-Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed-of the charge of conspiracy, saying there was lack of evidence against them.
The duo was charged with having prepared maps of terror targets and handed them over to the Lashkar-e-Taiba for execution of their sinister mission.
Ten terrorists from Pakistan had landed on the placid shores of Mumbai near Badhwar Park on the night of November 26, 2009 on a “Fidayeen” (suicide) mission to mount an attack unparallelled in audacity in virulence.
The special anti-terror court of M.L. Tahaliyani handed death to Kasab, the lone surviving 26/11 gunman, a year after the trial in the brazen attacks commenced.
Kasab was given the death penalty on five counts including waging war against the nation, murder, criminal conspiracy and committing terror activities.
Asserting that Kasab’s role in the attacks that traumatised the nation fell under the rarest of rare category for giving death sentence, Public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam had on Tuesday branded him as “a Pakistani killing machine” and a “heartless monster” who revelled in seeing innocent people dying in pain.
Kasab breaks down in court
Kasab, who hails from Fardikot in Pakistan, broke down after hearing the sentence.
As special judge M.L. Tahilyani was reading out the sentence, Kasab was seen sobbing. He asked for a glass of water during the pronouncement.
After the sentence was read out, the Judge explained to him in Hindi that he had been given death penalty on five counts and whether he wanted to say anything.
But the Pakistani gunman simply shook his head after which he was taken away by the police back to the Arthur Road jail.
The court had on May 3 held Kasab guilty under various sections of IPC, Arms Act, Explosives Substances Act, Explosives Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Customs Act and Foreigners Act.
Prosecution demands the death penalty
Making a strong pitch for capital punishment, Nikam had warned if he was awarded any less severe penalty, “India will become a soft target for every self-styled terror group“.
“There has been a high degree of cruelty and Kasab had total disregard for life. Kasab is a killing machine manufactured in Pakistan,” he had said.
Nikam had said Kasab had “lost the right to live” while defence counsel K.P. Pawar cited Kasab’s young age and pleaded for leniency. He contended that Kasab was “blinded by religion and should be given a chance to reform“.
Nikam had claimed that Kasab was in a “joyous” mood seeing people dying in pain and agony after opening indiscriminate fire at the bustling Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and elsewhere during the attacks.
“There was no remorse and he said in his confession before the magistrate that he wanted to inspire future fidayeens (suicide killers).
“If death is not awarded, it would be a mockery of justice,” Nikam had argued.
According to the prosecution, Kasab had expressed disappointment that he had landed at the CST after the rush hour. Kasab had anticipated a busier station, based on CDs he had been shown of CST before the attack.
The prosecution had also said that in his confession to the Mumbai police, Kasab had stated that he was upset that he could not kill more people at the station. At CST alone, Kasab killed close to 60 people in an hour with his partner, Abu Ismael.
Role of Pakistan
In his 1522-page verdict, the judge had also held that evidence adduced by the prosecution pointed a finger at Pakistan and established that the absconding accused, including LeT founder Hafiz Saeed and chief of operations Zaki-Ur-Rehman Lakhvi had plotted the attacks.
Barring a few minor charges pertaining to forgery and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Kasab was convicted of almost all 86 charges he was arraigned for.
The terrorist’s lawyer’s contention that the militancy in Kashmir and the Godhra riots had impacted a young and impressionable Kasab, who was emotionally disturbed, and his impassioned plea for leniency, failed to cut ice with the judge.
The court had acquitted two alleged Indian collaborators-Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed-of the charge of conspiracy, saying there was lack of evidence against them.
The duo was charged with having prepared maps of terror targets and handed them over to the Lashkar-e-Taiba for execution of their sinister mission.
Ten terrorists from Pakistan had landed on the placid shores of Mumbai near Badhwar Park on the night of November 26, 2009 on a “Fidayeen” (suicide) mission to mount an attack unparallelled in audacity in virulence.
Kasab awaits sentence, prosecution demands death penalty
The fate of Pakistani gunman Ajmal Kasab, who shot dead 166 people along with his associates in November 2008, would be decided on Thursday by a special court which will consider imposing either life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Kasab has been found guilty of 80 charges under various acts including 'waging war against the nation' and mass murders, for which the minimum punishment prescribed in law is life imprisonment and the maximum death penalty.
The prosecution, led by Ujjwal Nikam, has demanded capital punishment for the convicted terrorist while defence lawyer K.P. Pawar has pleaded for life imprisonment on the grounds that he was blinded by religion and should be given a chance to reform.
The verdict is expected to be pronounced at 12:30 hours by Special Judge M.L. Tahaliyani, who conducted the trial of Kasab for nearly a year in the high security central prison at Arthur Road in Central Mumbai.
Unprecedented security measures have been undertaken in and around the central prison. Large numbers of police have been deployed all along the Sane Guruji Marg where the jail is located. A total of 200 Indo-Tibetan Border Security guards have been entrusted the task of Kasab's security in the prison.
If Kasab gets the death penalty, the verdict will be referred to the Bombay High Court for confirmation. Kasab also has a right to appeal against the verdict in the High Court.
The government may also consider filing an appeal in the High Court against the order of the trial court acquitting two Indians, Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed, who were also tried along with Kasab for participating in conspiracy by conducting recee of 26/11 targets and giving hand drawn maps of these places to LeT which executed the attacks.
The high court may hear all these matters simultaneously. If the ruling goes against Kasab, he will still have a right to move the Supreme Court. If he is not satisfied with the apex court's decision, Kasab can file a mercy petition before the President.
All these procedures would take quite some time and Kasab would have to wait patiently for the verdicts in the higher courts.
Since his arrest on November 27, 2008, Kasab has been kept in solitary confinement in central prison in a specially made bomb and bullet-proof cell.
So far none of his relatives from Pakistan have tried to contact Kasab or the Indian authorities. He has also not expressed his desire to meet his relatives.
Kasab had approached the court midway during the trial pleading that he would prefer a lawyer from Pakistan to defend him. The court, however, told him that his request has been forwarded to the Pakistan authorities and India has not yet received any response from the neighbouring country.
Prosecutor Nikam, cited nine Supreme Court judgements to show that this case fell within the purview of the 'rarest of the rare' ratio laid down by the apex court to award the death penalty.
"If we do not give him death, then India will be perceived as a soft target by terrorist organisations and they will continue to target us," Nikam argued before the court on Tuesday.
Reading out Kasab's confession, Nikam said he deserved no mercy and added that "he was a blood thirsty maniac who felt unhappy when he saw at Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus that there were not enough people to kill."
Most of the victims were helpless and unarmed and Kasab mercilessly shot them dead. He and slain terrorist Abu Ismail had directly killed 72 persons by using their AK 47 rifles and planting RDX in two taxis.
Among the victims were eight women and seven children.
Kasab was also responsible for the death of other victims who were shot dead by his associates, Nikam said.
The convicted terrorist was a monster in human form and enjoyed the act of killing people. This is clear from his face captured in the photographs shot by two media cameraman, Nikam said.
However, Kasab's lawyer K.P. Pawar said that his client was young and had been brainwashed by LeT.
Kasab had been shown films about Kashmir and Godhra riots and he was "blinded by religion while committing terrorists acts," the lawyer said.
Pawar argued that Kasab should be given a chance to reform.
Kasab has been found guilty of 80 charges under various acts including 'waging war against the nation' and mass murders, for which the minimum punishment prescribed in law is life imprisonment and the maximum death penalty.
The prosecution, led by Ujjwal Nikam, has demanded capital punishment for the convicted terrorist while defence lawyer K.P. Pawar has pleaded for life imprisonment on the grounds that he was blinded by religion and should be given a chance to reform.
The verdict is expected to be pronounced at 12:30 hours by Special Judge M.L. Tahaliyani, who conducted the trial of Kasab for nearly a year in the high security central prison at Arthur Road in Central Mumbai.
Unprecedented security measures have been undertaken in and around the central prison. Large numbers of police have been deployed all along the Sane Guruji Marg where the jail is located. A total of 200 Indo-Tibetan Border Security guards have been entrusted the task of Kasab's security in the prison.
If Kasab gets the death penalty, the verdict will be referred to the Bombay High Court for confirmation. Kasab also has a right to appeal against the verdict in the High Court.
The government may also consider filing an appeal in the High Court against the order of the trial court acquitting two Indians, Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed, who were also tried along with Kasab for participating in conspiracy by conducting recee of 26/11 targets and giving hand drawn maps of these places to LeT which executed the attacks.
The high court may hear all these matters simultaneously. If the ruling goes against Kasab, he will still have a right to move the Supreme Court. If he is not satisfied with the apex court's decision, Kasab can file a mercy petition before the President.
All these procedures would take quite some time and Kasab would have to wait patiently for the verdicts in the higher courts.
Since his arrest on November 27, 2008, Kasab has been kept in solitary confinement in central prison in a specially made bomb and bullet-proof cell.
So far none of his relatives from Pakistan have tried to contact Kasab or the Indian authorities. He has also not expressed his desire to meet his relatives.
Kasab had approached the court midway during the trial pleading that he would prefer a lawyer from Pakistan to defend him. The court, however, told him that his request has been forwarded to the Pakistan authorities and India has not yet received any response from the neighbouring country.
Prosecutor Nikam, cited nine Supreme Court judgements to show that this case fell within the purview of the 'rarest of the rare' ratio laid down by the apex court to award the death penalty.
"If we do not give him death, then India will be perceived as a soft target by terrorist organisations and they will continue to target us," Nikam argued before the court on Tuesday.
Reading out Kasab's confession, Nikam said he deserved no mercy and added that "he was a blood thirsty maniac who felt unhappy when he saw at Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus that there were not enough people to kill."
Most of the victims were helpless and unarmed and Kasab mercilessly shot them dead. He and slain terrorist Abu Ismail had directly killed 72 persons by using their AK 47 rifles and planting RDX in two taxis.
Among the victims were eight women and seven children.
Kasab was also responsible for the death of other victims who were shot dead by his associates, Nikam said.
The convicted terrorist was a monster in human form and enjoyed the act of killing people. This is clear from his face captured in the photographs shot by two media cameraman, Nikam said.
However, Kasab's lawyer K.P. Pawar said that his client was young and had been brainwashed by LeT.
Kasab had been shown films about Kashmir and Godhra riots and he was "blinded by religion while committing terrorists acts," the lawyer said.
Pawar argued that Kasab should be given a chance to reform.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Confession of Kasab was not given under duress: Court
The 26/11 court has accepted a major portion of the confession given by convicted terrorist Ajmal Kasab in which he talked about the involvement of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and the security apparatus of the neighbouring country in the diabolic attacks.
“I have accepted most part of the confession and also held that it was voluntarily given by Kasab and not given under duress as claimed by him,” Judge M.L. Tahaliyani said while pronouncing the operative part of the verdict on Monday.
Magistrate Sawant Waghule had done her best to explain to Kasab that his confession can go against him in the trial and also gave him 72 hours to ponder over his move to confess voluntarily, the judge noted.
“I have rejected Kasab’s plea that his confession was not voluntary and was given under police duress,” the judge said, adding he also dismissed the defence argument that a policeman was present in the magistrate’s chamber when the accused was making a statement.
The mere presence of a policeman in the magistrate’s chamber would not suggest “police pressure” because it could be that the magistrate would have ordered the cop to be there because of security reasons, the judge said.
Moreover, Judge Tahaliyani said, the constable who was present during the confession did not belong to the investigating team and was part of the police staff who had been deputed on duty in the court in the normal course.
Kasab had stated in the confession how he was trained by LeT commanders Hafeez Sayeed and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi at a training camp in Pakistan.
He also said they were given arms and intelligence training and carried with them modern gadgets like global positioning system and mobile phones with VOIP services.
He narrated the sequence of events commencing from his joining LeT, training, sailing from Karachi to Mumbai, murdering crew of Kuber boat, killing several people and police officers by planting bombs and opening fire on them.
“I have accepted most part of the confession and also held that it was voluntarily given by Kasab and not given under duress as claimed by him,” Judge M.L. Tahaliyani said while pronouncing the operative part of the verdict on Monday.
Magistrate Sawant Waghule had done her best to explain to Kasab that his confession can go against him in the trial and also gave him 72 hours to ponder over his move to confess voluntarily, the judge noted.
“I have rejected Kasab’s plea that his confession was not voluntary and was given under police duress,” the judge said, adding he also dismissed the defence argument that a policeman was present in the magistrate’s chamber when the accused was making a statement.
The mere presence of a policeman in the magistrate’s chamber would not suggest “police pressure” because it could be that the magistrate would have ordered the cop to be there because of security reasons, the judge said.
Moreover, Judge Tahaliyani said, the constable who was present during the confession did not belong to the investigating team and was part of the police staff who had been deputed on duty in the court in the normal course.
Kasab had stated in the confession how he was trained by LeT commanders Hafeez Sayeed and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi at a training camp in Pakistan.
He also said they were given arms and intelligence training and carried with them modern gadgets like global positioning system and mobile phones with VOIP services.
He narrated the sequence of events commencing from his joining LeT, training, sailing from Karachi to Mumbai, murdering crew of Kuber boat, killing several people and police officers by planting bombs and opening fire on them.
Monday, May 3, 2010
‘We had to protect Kasab from within the police dept.’
Mumbai police authorities had to protect Pakistani gunman Ajmal Kasab not only from an angry public, but also from within the police department, Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Rakesh Maria said on Monday.
Mr. Maria, who was Joint Commissioner (Crime) at the time of the Mumbai terror attacks, supervised the investigation, as well as security measures for the 26/11 trial.
“There was a lot of public anger... the department had lost some of the best officers (during the attack), so we had to protect Kasab from within the department because there was anger in department also,” Mr. Maria said.
The special court here is expected to declare the verdict in the 26/11 trial on Monday.
Mr. Maria, who was Joint Commissioner (Crime) at the time of the Mumbai terror attacks, supervised the investigation, as well as security measures for the 26/11 trial.
“There was a lot of public anger... the department had lost some of the best officers (during the attack), so we had to protect Kasab from within the department because there was anger in department also,” Mr. Maria said.
The special court here is expected to declare the verdict in the 26/11 trial on Monday.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
All eyes on Manmohan, Gilani handshake
Among all possible gestural permutations when 47 world leaders gather together in one room, the meeting of hands which everyone seemed to be waiting for was between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart, Yusuf Raza Gilani.
The two prime ministers met at the Walter E. Washington convention centre in downtown Washington, venue of the Nuclear Security Summit which got underway Monday evening with a reception hosted by President Barack Obama.
Prime Minister Gilani strode up to Dr. Singh and the two men greeted each other warmly.
According to Vishnu Prakash, spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, Dr. Singh and Mr. Gilani "exchanged pleasantries". As he was himself not present, he was unable to add any further details, despite being peppered with questions by enthusiastic reporters.
This was Dr. Singh and Mr. Gilani's first encounter since their July 2009 interaction on the sidelines of the Nonaligned Summit at Sharm el-Shaikh in Egypt.
Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao ruled out the possibility of Prime Minister Singh meeting formally with Mr. Gilani in Washington. But Indian officials say the two leaders are likely to meet each other in Thimphu later this month during the SAARC summit and have a more substantial interaction than today's handshake, warm and effusive though it appears to have been.
The two prime ministers met at the Walter E. Washington convention centre in downtown Washington, venue of the Nuclear Security Summit which got underway Monday evening with a reception hosted by President Barack Obama.
Prime Minister Gilani strode up to Dr. Singh and the two men greeted each other warmly.
According to Vishnu Prakash, spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, Dr. Singh and Mr. Gilani "exchanged pleasantries". As he was himself not present, he was unable to add any further details, despite being peppered with questions by enthusiastic reporters.
This was Dr. Singh and Mr. Gilani's first encounter since their July 2009 interaction on the sidelines of the Nonaligned Summit at Sharm el-Shaikh in Egypt.
Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao ruled out the possibility of Prime Minister Singh meeting formally with Mr. Gilani in Washington. But Indian officials say the two leaders are likely to meet each other in Thimphu later this month during the SAARC summit and have a more substantial interaction than today's handshake, warm and effusive though it appears to have been.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Manmohan highlights terror threat emanating from Pakistan
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has conveyed to U.S. President Barack Obama India’s serious concern over terror emanating from Pakistan and its lack of will to punish the perpetrators of 26/11 attacks.
On his part, Mr. Obama said the U.S. shares India’s concerns over Lashkar-e-Taiba and other terror outfits operating from Pakistan.
Dr. Singh said New Delhi wants convincing action against those behind the Mumbai attacks.
The Prime Minister, during his 45—minute meeting with Mr. Obama, also raised the issue of Indian investigators getting direct access to Mumbai attacks plotter David Headley.
Mr. Obama said the U.S. was working through legal processes for giving India access to Headley.
“He (Obama) was fully supportive of our request for provision of such access,” Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told reporters.
Mr. Obama also promised to keep in mind India’s concerns over the end—use of the US military supplies to Pakistan after Singh voiced apprehensions in this regard.
The U.S. President said he favoured reduction of tensions between India and Pakistan but the Prime Minister made it clear that the “future of South Asia would be determined by the manner in which terrorism is tackled“.
During the meeting at the Blair House, Dr. Singh emphasised that Pakistan needed to take “convincing action” against those responsible for Mumbai attacks, she said.
Mr. Obama said the U.S. understood India’s concerns with regard to activities of Lashkar-e-Taiba and other terror groups from Pakistan and Afghanistan and that Washington was “engaging” Pakistan on these issues.
While talking about the menace of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, Dr. Singh referred to Headley, activities of LeT and its chief Hafiz Saeed and HuJI terrorist Ilyas Kashmiri, Ms. Rao said.
“Unfortunately, there is no will on part of Pakistan to punish those responsible for terrorist attacks in Mumbai,” Ms. Rao quoted the Prime Minister as telling Mr. Obama.
“This is where partnership of India and the U.S. could make the difference,” Dr. Singh told Mr. Obama.
To a question, Ms. Rao said the fate of Indo-Pak dialogue had no connection with the meeting between Dr. Singh and Mr. Obama.
She said the U.S. as also the entire world, was aware of India’s approach on dialogue with Pakistan. “The U.S. fully understands” India’s position on the dialogue.
India has suspended composite dialogue since the 26/11 attacks and has refused to resume it till Pakistan takes concrete and transparent action against those behind the terror strike.
Ms. Rao said there would be no meeting between Dr. Singh and Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani here during the Nuclear Security Summit but did not categorically rule out such a possibility in Bhutan during the upcoming SAARC Summit.
Sources said Dr. Singh told Mr. Obama about India’s scepticism on Pakistan army’s role and pressed the US to ensure that army’s influence diminished in Pakistan.
Mr. Obama said India has the goodwill and understanding in the US.
Noting that shared Dr. Singh’s vision for South Asia, Mr. Obama said he understands India’s interest in Afghanistan and recognises its role. He expressed support to India’s continued assistance programme in Afghanistan.
While talking about Indo-US counter-terrorism cooperation, Mr. Obama said the US was working through legal systems for provision of access to Headley. He said he was supportive of India’s request for provision of access.
On India’s concerns over misuse of US military supplies to Pakistan, Mr. Obama said the US was sensitive to these worries and would monitor the end use of the material given.
The US President referred to the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill and expressed hope that it would be passed by Parliament as expeditiously as possible.
The bill, whose passage is critical for implementation of the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal, has got caught in a political quagmire with opposition parties objecting to certain clauses in it, including the cap of Rs. 500 crore on compensation.
On his part, Mr. Obama said the U.S. shares India’s concerns over Lashkar-e-Taiba and other terror outfits operating from Pakistan.
Dr. Singh said New Delhi wants convincing action against those behind the Mumbai attacks.
The Prime Minister, during his 45—minute meeting with Mr. Obama, also raised the issue of Indian investigators getting direct access to Mumbai attacks plotter David Headley.
Mr. Obama said the U.S. was working through legal processes for giving India access to Headley.
“He (Obama) was fully supportive of our request for provision of such access,” Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told reporters.
Mr. Obama also promised to keep in mind India’s concerns over the end—use of the US military supplies to Pakistan after Singh voiced apprehensions in this regard.
The U.S. President said he favoured reduction of tensions between India and Pakistan but the Prime Minister made it clear that the “future of South Asia would be determined by the manner in which terrorism is tackled“.
During the meeting at the Blair House, Dr. Singh emphasised that Pakistan needed to take “convincing action” against those responsible for Mumbai attacks, she said.
Mr. Obama said the U.S. understood India’s concerns with regard to activities of Lashkar-e-Taiba and other terror groups from Pakistan and Afghanistan and that Washington was “engaging” Pakistan on these issues.
While talking about the menace of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, Dr. Singh referred to Headley, activities of LeT and its chief Hafiz Saeed and HuJI terrorist Ilyas Kashmiri, Ms. Rao said.
“Unfortunately, there is no will on part of Pakistan to punish those responsible for terrorist attacks in Mumbai,” Ms. Rao quoted the Prime Minister as telling Mr. Obama.
“This is where partnership of India and the U.S. could make the difference,” Dr. Singh told Mr. Obama.
To a question, Ms. Rao said the fate of Indo-Pak dialogue had no connection with the meeting between Dr. Singh and Mr. Obama.
She said the U.S. as also the entire world, was aware of India’s approach on dialogue with Pakistan. “The U.S. fully understands” India’s position on the dialogue.
India has suspended composite dialogue since the 26/11 attacks and has refused to resume it till Pakistan takes concrete and transparent action against those behind the terror strike.
Ms. Rao said there would be no meeting between Dr. Singh and Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani here during the Nuclear Security Summit but did not categorically rule out such a possibility in Bhutan during the upcoming SAARC Summit.
Sources said Dr. Singh told Mr. Obama about India’s scepticism on Pakistan army’s role and pressed the US to ensure that army’s influence diminished in Pakistan.
Mr. Obama said India has the goodwill and understanding in the US.
Noting that shared Dr. Singh’s vision for South Asia, Mr. Obama said he understands India’s interest in Afghanistan and recognises its role. He expressed support to India’s continued assistance programme in Afghanistan.
While talking about Indo-US counter-terrorism cooperation, Mr. Obama said the US was working through legal systems for provision of access to Headley. He said he was supportive of India’s request for provision of access.
On India’s concerns over misuse of US military supplies to Pakistan, Mr. Obama said the US was sensitive to these worries and would monitor the end use of the material given.
The US President referred to the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill and expressed hope that it would be passed by Parliament as expeditiously as possible.
The bill, whose passage is critical for implementation of the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal, has got caught in a political quagmire with opposition parties objecting to certain clauses in it, including the cap of Rs. 500 crore on compensation.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Lakhvi wants use of Kasab’s confession barred
Lashker-e-Taiba ‘commander’ Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, facing trial with six others for his alleged involvement in the Mumbai attacks, has filed a petition in Pakistan’s Supreme Court asking it to bar the prosecution from using Ajmal Amir Kasab’s confessional statement against him.
The petition was filed by Lakhvi’s counsel in the Lahore Registry of the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It asked the Supreme Court to bar the prosecution from using Kasab’s confession to Indian authorities against Lakhvi in the trial in the Rawalpindi-based anti-terror court.
It could not immediately be ascertained when and if the petition would be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Lakhvi’s counsel Khwaja Sultan claimed the prosecution had not levelled “any allegation” against his client about his “connection or interaction” with any of the co-accused and persons allegedly involved in the Mumbai attacks of November 2008.
“The investigation of the case is based on the alleged confession of Kasab, who is in Indian custody,” Mr. Sultan said.
Though three charge sheets were filed by the prosecution, no witness had supported Kasab’s statement and Lakhvi was not “accused of giving training to the terrorists involved in the attack,” he added.
“The prosecution, in its challan (charge sheet), maintained that the petitioner was commander of the Lashkar-e-Taiba but could not establish his link with the Mumbai attacks’ accused. Under article 43 of Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order (Pakistan’s law of testimony), a confessional statement of an accused can only be used against his co-accused if they are being tried jointly,” Mr. Sultan said.
Mr. Sultan further claimed that Kasab’s name was never mentioned in the ‘challans’ submitted against Lakhvi.
“Therefore the statement of Kasab cannot be used against Lakhvi,” he said.
Lakhvi and six others — Zarar Shah, Abu al-Qama, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younas Anjum — are being tried for planning and facilitating the Mumbai attacks.
The prosecution has said that Lakhvi’s lawyers are causing “unnecessary hindrances” in the trial by filing petitions in higher courts. The hearings in the anti-terror court have often been affected by these petitions.
The petition was filed by Lakhvi’s counsel in the Lahore Registry of the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It asked the Supreme Court to bar the prosecution from using Kasab’s confession to Indian authorities against Lakhvi in the trial in the Rawalpindi-based anti-terror court.
It could not immediately be ascertained when and if the petition would be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Lakhvi’s counsel Khwaja Sultan claimed the prosecution had not levelled “any allegation” against his client about his “connection or interaction” with any of the co-accused and persons allegedly involved in the Mumbai attacks of November 2008.
“The investigation of the case is based on the alleged confession of Kasab, who is in Indian custody,” Mr. Sultan said.
Though three charge sheets were filed by the prosecution, no witness had supported Kasab’s statement and Lakhvi was not “accused of giving training to the terrorists involved in the attack,” he added.
“The prosecution, in its challan (charge sheet), maintained that the petitioner was commander of the Lashkar-e-Taiba but could not establish his link with the Mumbai attacks’ accused. Under article 43 of Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order (Pakistan’s law of testimony), a confessional statement of an accused can only be used against his co-accused if they are being tried jointly,” Mr. Sultan said.
Mr. Sultan further claimed that Kasab’s name was never mentioned in the ‘challans’ submitted against Lakhvi.
“Therefore the statement of Kasab cannot be used against Lakhvi,” he said.
Lakhvi and six others — Zarar Shah, Abu al-Qama, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younas Anjum — are being tried for planning and facilitating the Mumbai attacks.
The prosecution has said that Lakhvi’s lawyers are causing “unnecessary hindrances” in the trial by filing petitions in higher courts. The hearings in the anti-terror court have often been affected by these petitions.
Monday, April 5, 2010
India won't hand over Kasab, Ansari to Pakistan: Nirupama
India on Sunday ruled out handing over Ajmal Kasab, the lone terrorist caught during the 26/11 strikes or his associate Fahim Ansari to Pakistan, saying “justice” was taking its course in the case.
“We are trying Kasab and others here in India following the Mumbai attacks,” Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said, when asked about Pakistan approaching Interpol for arresting Kasab and Ansari for trial there.
“The case against Kasab has proceeded over the past few months. The verdict is expected by May 3,” she said.
“We are trying Kasab and others here in India following the Mumbai attacks,” Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said, when asked about Pakistan approaching Interpol for arresting Kasab and Ansari for trial there.
“The case against Kasab has proceeded over the past few months. The verdict is expected by May 3,” she said.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
26/11 trial ends, verdict on May 3
Marking an end to the year-long 26/11 trial, the special sessions court here on Wednesday announced May 3, 2010, as “the day of judgment.” Judge M.L. Tahaliyani announced the date after the defence lawyer for the third and last accused, Sabahuddin Ahmed, concluded his final arguments.
On May 3, the court will give its verdict on the various charges against Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab, and co-accused Fahim Ansari and Sabahuddin. The recording of the judgment will be done in April.
“May 3 ko faisla hoga aapka [Verdict will be pronounced for you on May 3],” Mr. Tahaliyani informed Kasab, who appeared unmoved by the announcement. He did not interact with his lawyer K.P. Pawar on Wednesday and has not done so in a long time.
Speaking to The Hindu over phone, Mr. Pawar said, “I have tried to put my case successfully. I have submitted my arguments in writing. So, there is no fear of leaving anything out. My work was to show the improbability of evidence, which I have done. I am satisfied with my arguments on all accounts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on my expectations at this point.”
A total of 86 charges have been framed in the case. The three accused face charges of waging war, criminal conspiracy and those under sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act among others.
The trial which began on April 15 last year had 191 hearings during which 653 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The final arguments began on March 9 and lasted through the month with the prosecution laying out its case over a span of 11 days.
Sabahuddin's lawyer Ejaz Naqvi said his client was “innocent” and should be given the benefit of doubt. He said the prosecution had not brought anything on record to prove that Nuruddin Mehboob Shaikh, the only eyewitness against his client, had ever been to Kathmandu, in Nepal. He termed the witness “bogus.”
He blamed the prosecution for remaining silent on the role of American terror operative David Coleman Headley. “The prosecution spoke about the historic depositions by the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigations], but there is nothing on what the FBI has investigated about Headley.”
The court said that since Headley was in the FBI custody, he was not its lookout. “At present we can't discuss these things. The Home Ministry is doing what it wants to do,” Mr. Tahaliyani said.
As for the map, which Sabahuddin allegedly conveyed to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Mr. Naqvi said Kasab and his partner Abu Ismail's movements in the city are not as per the directions of the handmade sketch. Referring to Kasab's confession where he names Sabahuddin, Mr. Naqvi said since all the trainees were assigned different aliases, Sabahuddin could be anybody, other than his client.
The court expressed its displeasure over Mr. Naqvi's seemingly tenuous arguments, which had the courtroom in splits on certain occasions. When they were concluded, Mr. Tahaliyani told Mr. Naqvi, “I thought you would present serious arguments. I am disappointed.”
Mr. Tahaliyani posed four queries to the prosecution. It emerged from Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam's replies to them that the investigators had not taken any steps to verify Nuruddin Shaikh's visit to Kathmandu. The map which was recovered from Ismail's pocket was not examined for bloodstains and for traces of Ismail's DNA.
Asked if the handmade sketch would have served the purpose of navigation better than what was already available, Mr. Nikam answered it was difficult to establish what went on in the minds of the Lashkar handlers.
On May 3, the court will give its verdict on the various charges against Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab, and co-accused Fahim Ansari and Sabahuddin. The recording of the judgment will be done in April.
“May 3 ko faisla hoga aapka [Verdict will be pronounced for you on May 3],” Mr. Tahaliyani informed Kasab, who appeared unmoved by the announcement. He did not interact with his lawyer K.P. Pawar on Wednesday and has not done so in a long time.
Speaking to The Hindu over phone, Mr. Pawar said, “I have tried to put my case successfully. I have submitted my arguments in writing. So, there is no fear of leaving anything out. My work was to show the improbability of evidence, which I have done. I am satisfied with my arguments on all accounts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on my expectations at this point.”
A total of 86 charges have been framed in the case. The three accused face charges of waging war, criminal conspiracy and those under sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act among others.
The trial which began on April 15 last year had 191 hearings during which 653 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The final arguments began on March 9 and lasted through the month with the prosecution laying out its case over a span of 11 days.
Sabahuddin's lawyer Ejaz Naqvi said his client was “innocent” and should be given the benefit of doubt. He said the prosecution had not brought anything on record to prove that Nuruddin Mehboob Shaikh, the only eyewitness against his client, had ever been to Kathmandu, in Nepal. He termed the witness “bogus.”
He blamed the prosecution for remaining silent on the role of American terror operative David Coleman Headley. “The prosecution spoke about the historic depositions by the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigations], but there is nothing on what the FBI has investigated about Headley.”
The court said that since Headley was in the FBI custody, he was not its lookout. “At present we can't discuss these things. The Home Ministry is doing what it wants to do,” Mr. Tahaliyani said.
As for the map, which Sabahuddin allegedly conveyed to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Mr. Naqvi said Kasab and his partner Abu Ismail's movements in the city are not as per the directions of the handmade sketch. Referring to Kasab's confession where he names Sabahuddin, Mr. Naqvi said since all the trainees were assigned different aliases, Sabahuddin could be anybody, other than his client.
The court expressed its displeasure over Mr. Naqvi's seemingly tenuous arguments, which had the courtroom in splits on certain occasions. When they were concluded, Mr. Tahaliyani told Mr. Naqvi, “I thought you would present serious arguments. I am disappointed.”
Mr. Tahaliyani posed four queries to the prosecution. It emerged from Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam's replies to them that the investigators had not taken any steps to verify Nuruddin Shaikh's visit to Kathmandu. The map which was recovered from Ismail's pocket was not examined for bloodstains and for traces of Ismail's DNA.
Asked if the handmade sketch would have served the purpose of navigation better than what was already available, Mr. Nikam answered it was difficult to establish what went on in the minds of the Lashkar handlers.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Kasab’s statement cannot be used against accused in Pak: Lahore HC
In a significant ruling that could affect the trial of seven suspects charged with involvement in the Mumbai attacks in Pakistan, a bench of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday ruled that the confessional statement of Ajmal Amir Kasab could not be used against the accused.
The Rawalpindi-based bench of the Lahore High Court gave its order in response to a petition filed by LeT commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and other accused who are being tried by an anti-terrorism court for planning and help execute the 2008 attacks in Mumbai.
However, the High Court bench dismissed the plea by Lakhvi and the other accused for their acquittal.
Lashkar-e-Taiba is accused of carrying out the attack on November 26, 2008 that killed 166 people.
The bench said they could not be acquitted at this stage while their trial was underway in the anti-terrorism court.
Shahbaz Rajput, a lawyer defending some of the accused, said the High Court bench had ruled that the statement made by Kasab to Indian authorities could not be used in a Pakistani court as it violated Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order of 1984 or evidence act.
“This article states that the statement of an accused can be used against the co-accused only if they are all appearing in the same court for the same case,” Mr. Rajput told PTI.
Mr. Rajput said the High Court had ruled that the anti-terrorism court had exceeded its powers by separating the trial of Kasab from that of the seven accused.
“There was no legal basis for this separation of the trial. The High Court said this was in excess of the powers of anti-terrorism court,” he said.
The High Court said the anti-terrorism court should declare Kasab a “proclaimed offender” or fugitive and authorities should submit a charge-sheet against him.
The High Court also said the accused would be free to submit petitions challenging the evidence presented against them at a later stage of their trial in the anti-terrorism court.
Sources said Kasab’s confessional statement formed a crucial part of the case prepared against the accused by the Pakistani prosecution.
Defence lawyers have been demanding that Kasab’s statement should be excluded from the evidence as he had retracted it during proceedings in a court in Mumbai.
The Rawalpindi-based bench of the Lahore High Court gave its order in response to a petition filed by LeT commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and other accused who are being tried by an anti-terrorism court for planning and help execute the 2008 attacks in Mumbai.
However, the High Court bench dismissed the plea by Lakhvi and the other accused for their acquittal.
Lashkar-e-Taiba is accused of carrying out the attack on November 26, 2008 that killed 166 people.
The bench said they could not be acquitted at this stage while their trial was underway in the anti-terrorism court.
Shahbaz Rajput, a lawyer defending some of the accused, said the High Court bench had ruled that the statement made by Kasab to Indian authorities could not be used in a Pakistani court as it violated Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order of 1984 or evidence act.
“This article states that the statement of an accused can be used against the co-accused only if they are all appearing in the same court for the same case,” Mr. Rajput told PTI.
Mr. Rajput said the High Court had ruled that the anti-terrorism court had exceeded its powers by separating the trial of Kasab from that of the seven accused.
“There was no legal basis for this separation of the trial. The High Court said this was in excess of the powers of anti-terrorism court,” he said.
The High Court said the anti-terrorism court should declare Kasab a “proclaimed offender” or fugitive and authorities should submit a charge-sheet against him.
The High Court also said the accused would be free to submit petitions challenging the evidence presented against them at a later stage of their trial in the anti-terrorism court.
Sources said Kasab’s confessional statement formed a crucial part of the case prepared against the accused by the Pakistani prosecution.
Defence lawyers have been demanding that Kasab’s statement should be excluded from the evidence as he had retracted it during proceedings in a court in Mumbai.
Monday, March 1, 2010
26/11: Pak court fixes March 6 for next hearing
The anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi also reportedly issued notices asking some prosecution witnesses to be present at the next hearing
A Pakistani court conducting the trial of seven suspects, including Lashker-e-Taiba commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, charged with planning and facilitating the Mumbai attacks on Monday scheduled the next hearing of the case for March 6.
Sources said Monday’s hearing was a mere formality as the last hearing, scheduled for February 27, was not held as it coincided with the holiday marking Prophet Muhammad’s birth.
“The judge scheduled the next hearing for March 6,” Shahbaz Rajput, a lawyer representing some of the accused, said.
Sources said the anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi also issued notices asking some prosecution witnesses to be present at the next hearing.
The trial is being conducted by judge Malik Muhammad Akram Awan within the heavily guarded Adiala Jail for security reasons.
The seven accused — Lakhvi, Zarar Shah, Abu al-Qama, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younas Anjum — are being held in the same prison.
They were last year formally charged with planning and helping execute the assault on India’s financial hub in November 2008 that killed nearly 166 people.Wednesday, February 24, 2010
26/11: arguments to begin from March 9
The special sessions court trying the Mumbai terror attacks case on Tuesday proposed March 9 as the date for starting the final arguments. Judge M.L. Tahaliyani, however, said the date would be officially declared on Wednesday.
Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam is slated to open his argument, followed by Defence Lawyer K.P. Pawar for Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab, and lawyers for the other two accused — Fahim Ansari and Sabahuddin Ahmed.
Khalid Azmi, the brother of Ansari’s lawyer Shahid Azmi — who was murdered earlier this month — has been appointed to represent the accused. R.B. Mokashi would be the senior counsel arguing Ansari’s case.
Expressing concern over his security, Mr. Azmi requested the court to ban the media from publishing his name. However, the court said there was no law restricting the media from publishing a lawyer’s name.
Mr. Tahaliyani urged the young lawyer to shun his fear. “If lawyers are afraid how will the society survive?” he said.
Mr. Azmi has not yet asked for protection. However, Rakesh Maria, Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), told journalists that the advocate would be given protection.
Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam is slated to open his argument, followed by Defence Lawyer K.P. Pawar for Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab, and lawyers for the other two accused — Fahim Ansari and Sabahuddin Ahmed.
Khalid Azmi, the brother of Ansari’s lawyer Shahid Azmi — who was murdered earlier this month — has been appointed to represent the accused. R.B. Mokashi would be the senior counsel arguing Ansari’s case.
Expressing concern over his security, Mr. Azmi requested the court to ban the media from publishing his name. However, the court said there was no law restricting the media from publishing a lawyer’s name.
Mr. Tahaliyani urged the young lawyer to shun his fear. “If lawyers are afraid how will the society survive?” he said.
Mr. Azmi has not yet asked for protection. However, Rakesh Maria, Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), told journalists that the advocate would be given protection.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
U.S.condemns Pune terrorist attack
The Obama Administration has strongly condemned the Pune bombing and said it believes that counter-terrorism cooperation is a key element of the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and India.
“We do note that the United States and India view enhanced cooperation in counter-terrorism as an important element to our bilateral strategic partnership,” the State Department Acting Spokesman, Gordon Duguid, said on Tuesday.
Condemning the terrorist attack in the strongest terms and sending condolences to the families of the victims, Mr. Duguid said the US and India are working together as never before to combat terrorism.
“The United States and India, since the Mumbai attacks, are working together to enhance information collection, intelligence sharing, and analysis capabilities, and our governments are sharing significant information to help safeguard our countries,” he said.
“The information we have shared so far has been quite unprecedented, and we intend to continue to working with the Government of India to try and protect our two societies from these types of attacks,” Mr. Duguid said, in response to a question.
The State Department spokesman said America is working with both India and Pakistan against the threat that all the three countries face from terrorists and extremist groups.
“We do note that the United States and India view enhanced cooperation in counter-terrorism as an important element to our bilateral strategic partnership,” the State Department Acting Spokesman, Gordon Duguid, said on Tuesday.
Condemning the terrorist attack in the strongest terms and sending condolences to the families of the victims, Mr. Duguid said the US and India are working together as never before to combat terrorism.
“The United States and India, since the Mumbai attacks, are working together to enhance information collection, intelligence sharing, and analysis capabilities, and our governments are sharing significant information to help safeguard our countries,” he said.
“The information we have shared so far has been quite unprecedented, and we intend to continue to working with the Government of India to try and protect our two societies from these types of attacks,” Mr. Duguid said, in response to a question.
The State Department spokesman said America is working with both India and Pakistan against the threat that all the three countries face from terrorists and extremist groups.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
India willing to normalise ties with Pakistan: Krishna
India has indicated its willingness to normalise ties with Pakistan following indications that Islamabad is serious about prosecuting the masterminds of the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008. The first step in this direction would be the Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s end of the month visit to Rawalpindi to attend a meeting of SAARC Ministers where he could “get a chance to have useful exchanges” with Pakistani leaders in addition to the planned multilateral meetings, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna told newspersons accompanying him for a visit to Kuwait.
Taking note of Pakistan’s readiness to accept the lone surviving gunman’s confessional statement as evidence to prosecute the planners of the Mumbai attacks and other evidence with respect to boats used to ferry the attackers from Karachi, Mr. Krishna said India interpreted these as constructive signals. “Any step forward in the direction of Pakistan also investigating the Mumbai attacks will certainly make it easier for India to carry our normalisation of business with Pakistan,” observed Mr. Krishna.
Asked whether India would move in the direction of reviving the composite dialogue if Pakistan continued to show resolve to bring to book its nationals involved in the Mumbai attacks, the Minister felt “India should be quite satisfied with Pakistan taking a few steps to investigate the Mumbai attacks”. He hoped Pakistan would continue to focus its attention on rooting out elements plotting violence in India and termed such an attitude as “extra helpful” to Indo-Pak bilateral relations and dialogue.
The External Affairs Minister had given indications of the possibility of a change in India’s position a day earlier when he said the “doors were not closed” to talks with Pakistan but it should continue to demonstrate its steadfastness to combating anti-India formations.
India had broken off all talks with Pakistan immediately after the Mumbai terror attacks but unlike the rift in bilateral ties after the Parliament House attacks in December 2001, it had not sundered people-to-people and trade links in the hope that the Pakistani leadership would also take the fight against terrorism to its eastern borders with India.
Taking note of Pakistan’s readiness to accept the lone surviving gunman’s confessional statement as evidence to prosecute the planners of the Mumbai attacks and other evidence with respect to boats used to ferry the attackers from Karachi, Mr. Krishna said India interpreted these as constructive signals. “Any step forward in the direction of Pakistan also investigating the Mumbai attacks will certainly make it easier for India to carry our normalisation of business with Pakistan,” observed Mr. Krishna.
Asked whether India would move in the direction of reviving the composite dialogue if Pakistan continued to show resolve to bring to book its nationals involved in the Mumbai attacks, the Minister felt “India should be quite satisfied with Pakistan taking a few steps to investigate the Mumbai attacks”. He hoped Pakistan would continue to focus its attention on rooting out elements plotting violence in India and termed such an attitude as “extra helpful” to Indo-Pak bilateral relations and dialogue.
The External Affairs Minister had given indications of the possibility of a change in India’s position a day earlier when he said the “doors were not closed” to talks with Pakistan but it should continue to demonstrate its steadfastness to combating anti-India formations.
India had broken off all talks with Pakistan immediately after the Mumbai terror attacks but unlike the rift in bilateral ties after the Parliament House attacks in December 2001, it had not sundered people-to-people and trade links in the hope that the Pakistani leadership would also take the fight against terrorism to its eastern borders with India.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Rana to be arraigned in court today
Pakistani-Canadian LeT operative Tahawwur Hussain Rana, indicted for involvement in the Mumbai attacks, is set to appear in a court here today to respond to the charges against him.
Forty nine-year-old Rana will be arraigned before U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys in the District Court in Northern District of Illinois, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The arraignment of the co-accused in the case, Pakistani-American David Coleman Headley, has been set for January 27.
Headley and Rana, both of whom were based in Chicago, were indicted by a federal grand jury on January 14 on charges of being involved in the Mumbai attacks and planning a terror strike against a Danish newspaper.
The 12-count superseding indictment contained the identical charges that were filed against Headley on December 7 while adding Rana as a defendant in three counts charging material support of the terrorism plots in Denmark and India, as well as support to the terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Ilyas Kashmiri, a Pakistan-based terrorist linked to al-Qaeda, and Abdur Rehman Hashim Syed, a retired major in the Pakistani military, were also indicted along with Headley and Rana.
Headley, who the government says is cooperating in the terror investigation, had in December last year pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against him.
Rana, in custody since his arrest last year, has been making desperate attempts to be released on bail while federal prosecutors are opposed to this and fear that he may flee.
Rana, in his bail plea, argued that he is a Pakistani army deserter and if he flees the US, he will be forced to live as an “international fugitive“.
A status hearing scheduled last week for Rana’s appeal of detention was cancelled and has not yet been rescheduled
Saturday, January 16, 2010
‘India faces threat of another 26/11’
Facing the “undeniable” threat of another Mumbai-type attack by Pakistan-based terror groups which may act under al-Qaeda’s direction, India is most likely to retaliate militarily in such a scenario, according to a prominent US think tank.
“The threat of another Mumbai-type attack is undeniable, numerous Pakistan-based groups remain motivated and able to strike Indian targets,” said Daniel Markey, of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in his latest paper ’Terrorism and Indo-Pakistani Escalation.’
Many of these Pakistan-based terror groups have incentives to act as spoilers, whether to disrupt efforts to improve Indo-Pak ties or to distract Islamabad from counter-terror crackdown at home, said Markey, a well known South Asia expert.
“Thus the immediate risk of terrorism may actually increase if New Delhi and Islamabad make progress on resolving their differences or if Pakistan-based terrorists are effectively backed into a corner,” he said in his 11-page contingency planning memorandum of the CFR.
While traditionally Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are the two terror groups that have proven themselves the most capable and motivated to carry out attacks in India, this time al-Qaeda could don the mantle, he said.
“Al-Qaeda has historically focussed its efforts outside India, but if the group’s leadership feels threatened in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border areas, it might direct and assist regional proxies to attack India as a way to ignite a distracting Indo-Pakistani confrontation.”
Other regional terrorist groups, including those based in India, are improving their capacity to inflict mass-casualty violence, but because these outfits lack clear-cut connections to Pakistan-based organisations, their attacks are far less likely to spark another crisis between India and Pakistan, Markey said.
He said the more clearly a terrorist attack can be identified as having originated in Pakistan, the more likely India is to retaliate militarily.
He said groups that India perceives to have closer links with Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment - especially LeT - are more likely to “inspire retaliation against official Pakistani state targets” than those that are perceived as more autonomous, such as al-Qaeda.
The perception in India that Islamabad has responded inadequately to the Mumbai attacks - trials of accused plotters are moving slowly and LeT ideologue Hafiz Muhammad Saeed is not in custody - strengthens Indian advocates for unilateral military retaliation, Markey said.
Should multiple attacks occur in quick succession, the cumulative effect would further diminish India’s inclination for restraint, he said.
“Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been a strong voice against Indian military retaliation, but his voice could be silenced by a future attack or otherwise drowned out by domestic political pressures,” Markey said.
Markey, an American, said if New Delhi determines that its assailants acted with little or indirect assistance from Pakistan’s military or intelligence agencies, its most likely response would be to conduct air strikes against suspected terrorist training camps in Pakistan.
“During these operations, India would attempt to limit civilian casualties and direct combat with the Pakistani military to reduce the prospects for escalation. Such an attack would not significantly curtail the terrorist threat, but it might satisfy India’s domestic compulsions to punish the perpetrators,” he said.
Markey said the more egregious the terrorist attack and the more India’s leadership is convinced that members of the Pakistani state sponsored it, the more it will be treated as an act of war.
“Under these conditions, New Delhi would consider a wider range of options, including, for instance, a large ground-force mobilisation of the sort India conducted in 2001-2002 in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament or a naval blockade.”
“Unless the initial terrorist attack is nuclear - which is implausible for now because Pakistani terrorists do not appear to have access to nuclear materials or the capacity to utilise them - India would refrain from using its nuclear weapons in retaliation,” Markey said.
He said Pakistan’s leaders would come under tremendous domestic pressure - and for the most part would be inclined - to counter nearly any sort of Indian military retaliation.
Even the least invasive of India’s possible military options, “such as a resumption of artillery shelling across the Line of Control,” Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership would be consumed by the crisis and distracted from other issues, Markey said.
“Pakistan’s military response could be intentionally disproportionate to the initial Indian attack so as to compel the international community to force a ceasefire.”
“That said, Pakistan’s present government and military command also have meaningful incentives to calibrate their actions from the start, not least the desire to limit international pressure and to retain ties with partners in Beijing, Riyadh and Washington,” he said.
However, Markey said a military exchange between India and Pakistan sparked by a terrorist attack in India is not likely to cross the nuclear threshold.
Several conceivable circumstances could alter this conclusion, but two stand out: “(1) India suffers additional catastrophic terrorist attacks in the midst of the crisis, driving it to intensify the conflict to a point where Pakistan’s army determines it cannot defend the state by conventional means, and (2) Pakistan’s nuclear command, as yet untested by major conventional attacks, is blinded or confused to the point that it authorises a first strike.”
