The Shocking Falsification by Sunday Guardian – Maligning Ishrat to save NaMo [by Mukul Sinha]

Mukul Sinha

Mukul Sinha
Eminent lawyer and civil rights activist. The post is taken from his recent facebook update.

Abhinandan Mishra, Senior Correspondent of Sunday Guardian on 22 June 2013 declared in his weekly that David Coleman Headley apparently answering to a question by NIA in June 2010 had said the following.

158. On being asked about Ishrat Jahaan, I (Headley) state that in late 2005 Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi introduced Muzzammil to me. Having introduced Muzzammil, Zaki talked about the accomplishments of Muzzammil as a Lashkar commander. Zaki also sarcastically mentioned that Muzzammil was a top commander whose every big ‘project’ had ended in a failure. Zaki added that Ishrat Jahaan module was also one of the Muzzammil’s botched up operations.”

159. Headley stated that apart from this he had no other information/knowledge about Ishrat Jahaan

Abhinandan Mishra alleged that above two paragraphs which “established” the link between LET and Ishrat Jahan were deliberately dropped from the NIA report on the interrogation of Headley.

The paragraphs quoted by Mishra tells us that the Muzammil was first introduced to Headley in late 2005.

However on cross checking the facts from the NIA interrogation report, it is revealed that Headley has told the NIA interrogators that Headley had known Muzzamil since 2002. Further it can also be seen from the NIA report that Muzammil had become Headley’s handler around August 2004. And by January 2005, Headley had started working with Sajid Majid even though Muzammil was his handler. The aforesaid deposition of Headley can be found in the paragraphs 17, 28 and 33 of the NIA Report.

17. In the year 2002 . I met Muzzammil Butt, a kashmiri in Muzaffarabad . Abu Dujana introduced me to Muzzammil. Muzzammil and Abu Dujana had stayed together in Kashmir. Muzzammil is very important operative of LeT. He was Involved in a series of attacks on Indian security forces when he was in Kashmir. I recollect that once Muzzammil had told me how he had goneand killed civilians in a village in South Kashmir before the visit of the then US president . Bill Clinton to India. After coming to Muzaffarabad, he was initially given the charge of the India operations.

28. Post Training Activities in Pakistan: On and around August 2004, I met Zaki and requested him to change my handler as I was not comfortable with yaqoob. Zaki then handed me over to Muzzammil, Abdur Rehamn was also working in Muzzammil’s set up. In his set up. I came across the following operatives like Sajid Majid, Abu Anas Abdul Aziz and the following:

(Extract from description of  Sajid Majid)
Then in 2004 Muzzammil again introduced me to Sajid at safe house in
Muzzaffarabad . Sajid got married around three years ago. I also attended the
marriage

33. On and around January 2005, I started reporting to Sajid Majid. After this
I started working under Sajid Majid. After this I started working under Sajid
Majid .Though Muzzammil was my handler but it was Sajid who used to
interact with me frequently.

 

Headley therefore could not have been introduced for the first time to Muzammil in late 2005 when he already knew him since 2002 and Muzammil was actually his handler since August 2004. By the way, if the LET had planned the ‘sinister project’ of liquidating NaMo in May June 2004 and it was planned by Muzammil as claimed by Gujarat Police, how come Muzammil, Headley’s handler, did not tell him about this project in 2004 itself or possibly get him enrolled?

Right wingers are known to lie and falsify history to achieve their nefarious objective of creating wrong public perceptions. The Sunday Guardian’s article not only does this but goes a step further in planting the two paragraphs which are allegedly “dropped” from the NIA Report. It is obvious that the two paragraphs reportedly dropped could not have been a part of NIA report since absolutely contradictory facts could not have been recorded by the ‘expert’ interrogators of NIA.

The obvious aim of Mishra was to profile an innocent girl as a terrorist in order to create a nation wide confusion and malign Ishrat in order to justify the cold blooded murder of Ishrat. The chorus of the BJP leaders voicing Mishra’s falsification exposes this nefarious design. It is also very disappointing that the media has also fallen in the same rhetoric trap.

Ishrat has again proved herself to be innocent.

————————————

Links:

Sunday Guardian Article - http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/nia-note-claimed-ishrat-was-with-let

NIA Report on CNN-IBN - http://ibnlive.in.com/news/read-david-headleys-nia-interrogation-report/154008-53.html

On Investigative Project - http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1602.pdf

Abhinandan Mishra on FB - https://www.facebook.com/abhinandan.mishra

————————————-

Ishrat Jahan Evidence Series

Vanzara spilling the beans of HM/CM – http://on.fb.me/126i3qp

Sarkar kehti hai Pandey Ji bhaage nahin, to kya sarkar ne chutti di hai? – http://on.fb.me/1baFgeD

Cold Blooded Murderers – http://on.fb.me/14mcvI2

PP Pandey Ji kyon bhaag rahe hai? – http://on.fb.me/158AwU2

Fake Guns and Cartridges in fake encounters! – http://on.fb.me/12vVVFy

Fake explosives for fake encounters! – http://on.fb.me/12g9aXH

Ishrat was probably killed separately. – http://on.fb.me/14dFEVL

Spotless AK-56 Magazines amidst a blood bath – http://on.fb.me/1cHc4tF

Blind folded and mowed down – http://on.fb.me/14wtPJc

  • Anurag

    “Headley therefore could not have been introduced for the first time to Muzammil in late 2005 when he already knew him since 2002 and Muzammil was actually his handler since August 2004.”

    Where is it said he was introduced for the first time in 2005?

    ” how come Muzammil, Headley’s handler, did not tell him about this project in 2004 itself or possibly get him enrolled?”

    The text posted itself says that “Though Muzzammil was my handler but it was Sajid who used to interact with me frequently.” The testimony notes that though Headley expressed his desire to play a role in Kashmir frequently both Zaki and Muzzammil had something different planned for him.

    “It is obvious that the two paragraphs reportedly dropped could not have been a part of NIA report since absolutely contradictory facts could not have been recorded by the ‘expert’ interrogators of NIA.”

    Really? So explain how this set of “contradictory facts” appear in the link quoted by you?

    NIA Report on CNN-IBN – http://ibnlive.in.com/news/read-david-headleys-nia-interrogation-report/154008-53.html

    “At the time of my first meeting, Sajid was not a part of the Indian set up of LeT. ”

    “Then in 2004 Muzzammil again introduced me to Sajid at safe house in Muzzaffarabad . Sajid got married around three years ago. ”

    How is he meeting Sajid twice then? Hmm. Maybe “introduce” here just means introduce in a meeting rather than introduce for the first time. Just like Muzzammil was introduced in different meetings.

  • Sathya

    “how come Muzammil, Headley’s handler, did not tell him about this project in 2004 itself or possibly get him enrolled”

    The term for such behavior is known as Compartmentalization in an intelligence parlance, it simply means, lesser the people know lesser is the possibility of leak, so secretive tasks are let know on a need to know basis. About Headly not being recruited, these terrorists are considerably ‘not so crude’ as you may think, they have multiple ‘projects’ going on, Ishrat Jahan’s project was one of them, I think Headly’s project was another. Headly, I believe, according to them did execute a project which was considerably more successful than Ishrat Jahan’s.

  • Sathya

    “Right wingers are known to lie and falsify history to achieve their nefarious objective of creating wrong public perceptions.”
    I think its rather they would like to stick on to the history, History is the one which creates Right wingers. Read the book “Re-writing Indian Hostory” by Francois Gautier and U will know who lie and falsify history to achieve their nefarious objective of creating wrong public perceptions.