Ishrat Jahan & Co. – Games people play

You can find all of what I’ve posted on the Ishrat Jahan & Co. encounter killing episode here.

And here’s the latest development – Centre’s affidavit cleared over 4 years ago

Government sources confirmed to this newspaper that the affidavit was cleared by the then Special Secretary (internal security) Anil Choudhary on January 28, 2005, seven months after the encounter in which two Pakistani nationals were also killed. The affidavit, which was in the knowledge of the then Home Secretary Dhirendra Singh, was inexplicably not submitted by Standing Counsel and Assistant Solicitor General Pankaj Champaneri in the court hearing the petition filed by Shamima Kausar, mother of Ishrat Jahan. 

Who instructed Champaneri not to file the affidavit or why did the law officer not file it is not known. When contacted, Champaneri refused to comment.  

It is learnt that after the Intelligence Bureau in July 2009 informed the Home Ministry that the affidavit had not been submitted despite the matter coming up before the court on July 31, 2009, MHA officials enquired from Champaneri on the phone about the delay. Then the Standing Counsel confirmed that he had not submitted the affidavit that the MHA officials had rushed after changing only the relevant dates and informing the top officials. All this is a matter of record and available on the MHA files. 

While the government affidavit does not take a position on the June 15, 2004 encounter, it, however, states that neither there was any proposal being considered for a CBI inquiry into the case nor does it “consider the present case fit for investigation by the CBI”. It merely states that the police action was independently inquired into by the State Additional Director General (Intelligence and CID), which is neither working under the Crime Branch nor is the officer subordinate to the Crime Branch.  (End Quote)

The report then goes on to narrate the many famed inconsistencies in the “good conduct” certificates issued by the parents of the accused.

Here’s another interesting piece of news that gives us the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) angle –

After the encounter on June 15, 2004, the Jama’t-ud-Da’wah on July 14, 2004 was quoted in Ghazwa Times of Lahore as having said, “The veil of Ishrat Jahan, a woman activist of LeT, was removed by Indian police and her body kept with other mujahideens (terrorists) on the ground. Ishrat was with her husband on the front seat of the car.” And this was effected as evidence of her links with the terror organisation after she was killed to support the Gujarat police operation. 

However on May 2, 2007, the Jama’t-ud-Da’wah carried an apology to Ishrat’s family on its website. The affidavit has annexed this apology by its spokesperson Abdulla Muntazir on the internet edition of the paper saying he was on leave when this admission was published and called it a “journalistic mistake by my staff”. 

Apologising to her family and all Indian Muslims, he wrote, “It has now been proven that Ishrat Jahan was not a member of Lashkar-e-Toiba and she was an innocent Muslim girl who was murdered by the Modi Sarkar.” What took the Lashkar three years to make the amendment is not explained. (End Quote)

And here comes our “shining armour on horse” Law Minister – 

Union law minister M. Veerappa Moily wants to “correct” a perceived subversion of the judicial process in Gujarat over the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case. He has asked the attorney general of India to look into the matter and submit a report to the ministry. 

Moily is also contemplating a special leave petition before the Supreme Court against the Gujarat High Court’s decision. He has taken exception to the staying of metropolitan magistrate S. P. Tamang’s report by the Gujarat High Court on the grounds that he “overstepped his jurisdiction”. The law minister is also unhappy with the transfer of the magistrate, effected the day after he submitted his report. 

“This is the first time a government has found fault with a report given by a magistrate and has sought a stay. He was also transferred the next day. I am concerned with the course of justice. It should not be obliterated. Which judge can work with independence when there is so much interference?” he asked. (End Quote) 

– Namaste

–Varta–

Palahalli S writes – So in short we have a situation wherein an all important affidavit affirming the details of suspected terrorists had been allowed to gather dust for four years before being produced “on demand” at the nth moment. No one is telling us why there was such a delay. In addition to this we have the mother of Ishrat Jahan filing an LeT website grab from 2007 that supposedly proves that this organization through it’s “political” arm, apologized to the mother for naming Ishrat Jahan as one of theirs, way back in 2004. We now have the country’s Law Minister who refuses to speak about the inconvenient affidavit and instead is wholly focused on rescuing the unfortunate Shri SP Tamang from a supposedly politically inspired transfer from his post.

In the meantime we have our regular secular-liberals intent on proving the encounter was indeed fake. Quite forgetting everything else – naturally.

This is what I need to know – Is Shri SP Tamang’s judicial report the final word on the matter? Isn’t there the court of law where his conclusions should be proved to be true?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: