The UPA Government has become a liability for national security with the way it has employed CBI in a shameless manner to discredit IB in Ishrat encounter case. CBI says that Ishrat was not a terrorist while the other three of her accomplices had terror links. Notice that Ishrat was innocent and even her accomplices are not ‘terrorists’ but had only ‘terror links’.

One can trust the secularist mindset to churn out such wonderful mind numbing differences. There is definitely a difference between ‘terrorist’ and ‘one having a terror link’. But wait… it gets even better… CBI says that the purpose of their Gujarat visit was to do, what in NDTV secularist speech is ‘chota-mota’ bomb blast jobs in Ahmadabad but they did not intend to harm even a hair in Modi’s beard.

Now those who just planned meticulously with their overseas handlers to do some ‘chota-mota’ bomb blasts and kill a few –just a fifty or hundred Gujaratis- were killed in ‘cold blood’ by Gujarat cops before they could do their ‘Chota-Mota’ job. How sad!

After all they did not plan to kill one man – Modi – whose blood every other secularist is baying for.

All this is despite the fact that on July 15, 2004 the mouthpiece of the LeT, Ghazwa Times, had claimed that Ishrat was affiliated to the Lashkar e Toiba. A few days before, Gopinath the father of Javed Ghulam Sheikh (who was Pranesh before he converted and got radicalized), filed his petition seeking a CBI probe. On May 2, 2007, the Jamatud-Dawa, another mouthpiece of the Lashkar, published an apology to Ishrat’s mother saying it was wrongly claimed earlier that she was a LeT operative. One wonders if Lashkar has CBI handlers or vice versa!

Tamang Report Fiasco

Then in 2009 came the notorious Tamang report. From the day one of the quickly cooked yet half-baked report by Ahmedabad Magistrate S.P. Tamang, the media has been almost filled to the brim with ‘fake encounter’ reports.

In an urgently hand-written 234 pages report Tamang claimed that all killed were innocent. And that they were killed in cold blood by the Gujarat police. Tamang report was hailed by the pro-Congress media as a major victory. CPI(M) asked for Modi’s resignation. For conveniently Tamang also brought in Modi’s name. ‘For Ishrat Jahan’s family, Eid will be special this year‘ a typical headline screamed.

The magistrate report stated that Ishrat Jahan and her boy-friend Javed Ghulam Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai were not linked to any terrorist outfit. This is despite the fact that just a month before in August 2009, the Union Home Ministry has stated in its affidavit filed in the Gujarat High Court that both were actively involved with the Lashkar-e-Toiba.[1]

That was not all. The final nail on Tamang report came in 2010. Gujarat High Court raised doubts on the magistrate’s conclusion (not the conclusion of FSL scientists) about the time of death of four people on basis of post-mortem report, FSL reports and statements.

The division bench observed that this was just a view, which is different from the investigation carried out by Gujarat police and held that the motive described by magistrate SP Tamang, (which is where Tamang had brought in Modi), in his inquiry report on the Ishrat Jahan encounter case cannot be accepted.[2]

However to this day the discredited Tamang report is used by journalists.A reporter for ‘The Indian Express‘ writes on July 4 2013 that ‘metropolitan magistrate S P Tamang exposed the encounter to be fake’ [3].

SIT-Prejudice

Now let us come to 2011:  ‘Times of India‘ report dated Oct-24-2011 is mercifully titled ‘Ishrat Jahan, others had terror links’. Inside the report one finds a naked fight happening between the members of the SIT. Clearly there are some people within SIT who have been trying hard to project Ishrat encounter as a fake. The report says:

The third reconstruction of Ishrat Jahan encounter case by teams of AIIMS and CFSL drew to a close on Sunday. But whether the encounter was genuine or fake still remains a bone of contention among members of the Special Investigation Team. There is, however, a point on which all three members of the Gujarat High Court-appointed SIT – additional DG of Central Industrial Security Force R R Verma, additional DG Mohan Jha and inspector general Satish Verma – agree: the four, who were killed in the encounter, had links with terrorist outfits.

Now an interesting revelation comes:

However, reports submitted by CFSL and AIIMS could not satisfy some of the SIT members’ queries on technicalities of the encounter.

And then the report goes on to say:

Meanwhile, SIT members have paid several visits to Maharashtra, UP and J&K to trace antecedents of those killed in the encounter. “Their history unearthed by us proves that all the four had been linked to terrorist activities. Ishrat and her boyfriend Javed were involved in arms dealing while the other two Amjad and Jisan were associated with a terrorists’ group in Kashmir,” said an SIT member. On November 18 the SIT members will submit their final report. [4]

Note that the SIT did not find Ishrat innocent.

Note that ‘some members’ of the SIT ‘were not satisfied with the reports of AIIMS and CFSL.

The original panel set up by the high court had IPS officers Pramod Kumar, Mohan Jha and J.K. Bhatt, to probe the case. However Satish Verma another IPS officer was nominated by Ishrat’s family. [5]

In his Firstpost.com article Praveen Swami points out that Satish Verma was instrumental in rejecting the AIIMS and CFSL report.[6]  The rejection of this scientific evidence has been so under-reported in the media that none has bothered to even go through these documents or speak to the scientists who did the report.

Dumping the scientific evidence

Remember the earlier report too ‘could not satisfy some of the SIT members’ and that was in 2011. In its report dated Feb-21-2012 Times of India merely reported ‘Ishrat case: SIT, scientists differ’. Now what does the report of the investigations conducted by AIIMS and CFSL say in 2011? The Times of India report says:

The board was formed by Gujarat high court on SIT’s insistence, and the experts reconstructed the offence on the spot as per SIT’s demand. Head of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of AIIMS, Dr T D Dogra and chairman of CFSL Dr Rajinder Singh along with their sub-ordinates comprised the board and reconstructed the scene of offence. However, SIT had problems with the conclusions by Delhi experts, as they did not stand scientific scrutiny. In its report after reconstruction, CFSL gave a clean chit to Gujarat police by stating that the shoot-out was very much possible in the manner as narrated in the FIR and reconstructed by the cops in 2011. [7]

Then R R Verma (not Satish Verma but most probably at the insistence of Satish Verma) questioned the report and ultimately dismissed it.

Remember that AIIMS and CFSL were made to reconstruct and test the events of Ishrat encounter not once but thrice.

And also remember that the reports were rejected repeatedly because the reports simply did not fit the accusations and foregone conclusions of the prejudiced ones in the SIT.

‘In Modi’s Gujarat engineering college ‘experts’ reject Forensic and Medical scientists’

Now let us imagine the reverse. Had the AIIMS and CFSL reports concurred with the SIT’s pre-concluded and prejudiced stand that the encounter was a fake, how the media would have reported, howled and made the report part of the public psyche!

Had then the report been rejected by one of the members of SIT and then based on a ‘with help of other expert bodies from an engineering college in Gujarat and by citing a research paper from University of California’, then the media would have exploded with mocking headings like ‘In Modi’s Gujarat engineering college ‘experts’ are used to reject Forensic and Medical scientists’ findings’ and would have had a field day.

However there is not a single TV interview, not a single journalist query to the forensic and medical scientists who based on repeated reconstructions, consistently gave a clean chit to Gujarat cops.

This is not a quest for justice. This is witch-hunt of Gujarat cops and Intelligence establishment. This is dismantling of the nation’s internal security and capacity to fight against Jihad terror.

The 1500 page CBI charge-sheet, one can be sure, is nothing but the sophisticated yet recycled edition of the 234 page Tamang report. It already has more holes than a sieve.

However there is going to be a severe negative in India’s fight against terror. In 2008 in the aftermath of the Ahmadabad bomb blasts, investigating ‘Desi Jihad’, India Today reported that the state intelligence had failed in anticipating and preventing the bomb blasts. The report then chillingly added in the end:

How to identify terrorists without hurting the community-recruitment aspect for terrorists- is a challenge before law enforcement officials. One officer who had mastered this technique after acquiring sound knowledge of the working of the Wahhabi tanzeems was Gujarat Police DIG D.G. Vanzara, who was in-charge of the state Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS). [8]

In other words the human rights mafia and pseudo-secular vote bank politics as well as compromised media had zeroed in on Vanzara and got him eliminated from the scenes which in turn helped the Jihadists to carry out ‘Chota-Mota’ bomb blasts in Ahmedabad that claimed 53 lives.

Now along with the Gujarat cops the entire IB network has been penalized and demoralized for doing their duty of proactively eliminating a terror module – whose terror-credentials have been proved beyond doubt from Headley confessions to ‘Headlines Today’ revelations of audio tapes.

However to their advantage Jihad terrorists from across the border and within India have found a new comrade joining their cause –CBI under Sonia Raj.

The Islamist Jihad against India has found a coalition in UPA which is waging its own secularist jihad against Modi.

References:

[1] The Politics of Encounter, India Today, Sep-10-2009

[2] HC picks holes in Tamang report, Times of India, Aug-12-2010

[3] Rajinder Kumar: the game changer, The Indian Express, Jul-4-2013

[4] Ishrat Jahan, others had terror links, Time of India, 24-Oct-2011

[5]Praveen Swami, Ishrat Jahan: The inconvenient story no one wants to tell,www.firstpost.com, June 13 2013 (http://www.firstpost.com/politics/ishrat-jahan-the-inconvenient-story-no-one-wants-to-tell-867173.html)

[6] Ishrat Jehan encounter probe: IPS Satish Chandra Verma’s long list of friends, foes, The Economic Times, Jun-20-2013

[7]Ishrat case: SIT, scientists differ, Times of India, Feb-21-2012

[8] Desi Jihad, India Today, July 31 2008.


The following two tabs change content below.

Aravindan Neelakandan

Co-author of acclaimed book "Breaking India", Aravindan Neelakandan has worked for the past decade with an NGO in Tamil Nadu serving marginalized rural communities in sustainable agriculture. He is also a popular science writer in Tamil and is part of the editorial team of highly popular Tamil web portal www.tamilhindu.com.

Latest posts by Aravindan Neelakandan (see all)