US citizen David Coleman Headley, alleged Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) operative, has become a bone of contention between India and USA but Pakistan is being blackballed in the case. Ever since he pleaded guilty to 12 charges including helping a 2008 militant attack on Mumbai and plotting to kill a Danish cartoonist after prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty or allow extradition, Indian investigators have been vying to interrogate him. Headley and his accomplice Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Chicago-based Canadian citizen, were arrested by the FBI in October 2009 during an investigation into an alleged plot of the LeT to attack a Danish newspaper which had published cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (SAW) in 2005. Their interrogation led to information regarding their role in attacking Mumbai. Reportedly Mr. Headley, of a Pakistani origin father and US descent mother, was one of two men arrested in 1997 for smuggling heroin into the USA. In exchange for information about his drug contacts, he received a fifteen months jail-sentence and five years of supervised release. In November 2001, after an early discharge, Headley traveled to Pakistan multiple times to conduct undercover surveillance operations for the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). He admittedly attended LeT training camps in Pakistan in 2002 and 2003.
Two recent stories, one, the March 25, 2010 “New York Times” Op-Ed: ‘American Terror Suspect Traveled Unimpeded’ and the other by the infamous RAW operative B. Raman in the RAW sponsored web portal “South Asia Analysis Group” (SAAG) of March 24, 2010 titled: ‘Headley’s case: Curiouser & Curiouser’ shed light on India’s disappointment. First a mention of “Newsweek” December 27, 2009 account: ‘Feds Reveal U.S. Role in Mumbai Terror Attacks’, quoting federal prosecutors, which discloses that there was a direct U.S. connection to the attack. Since its publication, intelligence relations between the US and India have been at an unprecedented low. B. Raman concedes that the post-9/11 Indo-US counter-terrorism cooperation so painstakingly built up lies shattered because of the 2004 case of Major (retired) Rabinder Singh of the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), who had been allegedly recruited as its agent by the CIA. The CIA helped him to seek asylum in the US when he was about to be arrested by the Indian counter-intelligence. The second case which dealt a massive blow to Indo-US intelligence cooperation came with the discovery of another alleged CIA mole in the National Security Council Secretariat of the Government of India, which is part of the Prime Minister’s Office. The third and most recent event which has shattered the trust between India and USA is the perceived reluctance of the FBI to consider an Indian extradition request and to allow Indian investigators to interrogate Headley in Indian custody. According to B. Raman, the US “reluctance” has revived the wall of distrust between the two intelligence communities. There has been strong criticism in India of what is seen as the double standards of the US intelligence. He then concedes: “Indian professionals feel that since then the FBI has been dragging its feet to repeated Indian requests for an opportunity to interrogate Headley even in US territory. The plea bargain entered into by the FBI with Headley has created strong suspicions in India that the FBI wants to avoid a formal trial of Headley and was reluctant to allow Indian investigators to interrogate him because Headley was a deep penetration agent of the US intelligence, who horribly went out of control.” His conclusion is: “So long as Headley is jailed in the US, extradition is not a life and death matter for India. New Delhi has no interest in embarrassing the FBI, but it has a right to expect that as a much-trumpeted strategic partner and natural ally of the US, its core concerns regarding the need to neutralize the LET before it indulges in more 26/11s will be understood and shared by the US intelligence and that Indian investigators will be given unrestricted access to Headley and Rana—even if it be in US custody. Unless this is done, the counter-terrorism co-operation between the two countries may face difficulty in recovering from the present set-back.” Coming to the “New York Times” story, it is a far cry from the “Newsweek” narrative. It tries to implicate Pakistan, its Army personnel and rogue Al-Qaeda elements in the sordid tale of terror planning and execution. To start with, US citizens comprise people who descend from origins around the globe, Caucasians, Africans, Hispanics, native Americans, Europeans and Asians to name a few. It’s a pity that if any of the other races indulge in a crime, no mention is made of their origin or religion but it is becoming a habit of the US media to highlight it if the accused was of Pakistani origin or a Muslim. If Mr. Headley was a US agent, launched specifically to track drug agents or whatever task assigned to him and at a certain stage, he allegedly became a rogue agent, the onus for the responsibility and culpability for lack of control rests with the CIA, FBI or DEA, whichever agency was handling him. Any crime he may have committed or abetted to, his handling agency should have kept an eye on him. If it failed in its task or was duped by Mr. Headley, that specific organization should be taken to task for its omission. A crime was committed on Indian soil and the accused is a US citizen, let India and USA sort out the Headley connection, without dragging Pakistan in it. Alas that is not so, instead of approaching the US for redressing its grievances, India is taking potshots at its favourite punching bag: Pakistan. Take the March 31, 2010 Rediff.com story ‘US must declare Pak a terrorist state: Indian-American group’, in which an Indian-American group has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Pakistan as a terrorist States and seize all its nuclear weapons; arguing that Islamabad is using terrorism as a tool for its foreign policy, especially against India.
Two recent stories, one, the March 25, 2010 “New York Times” Op-Ed: ‘American Terror Suspect Traveled Unimpeded’ and the other by the infamous RAW operative B. Raman in the RAW sponsored web portal “South Asia Analysis Group” (SAAG) of March 24, 2010 titled: ‘Headley’s case: Curiouser & Curiouser’ shed light on India’s disappointment. First a mention of “Newsweek” December 27, 2009 account: ‘Feds Reveal U.S. Role in Mumbai Terror Attacks’, quoting federal prosecutors, which discloses that there was a direct U.S. connection to the attack. Since its publication, intelligence relations between the US and India have been at an unprecedented low. B. Raman concedes that the post-9/11 Indo-US counter-terrorism cooperation so painstakingly built up lies shattered because of the 2004 case of Major (retired) Rabinder Singh of the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), who had been allegedly recruited as its agent by the CIA. The CIA helped him to seek asylum in the US when he was about to be arrested by the Indian counter-intelligence. The second case which dealt a massive blow to Indo-US intelligence cooperation came with the discovery of another alleged CIA mole in the National Security Council Secretariat of the Government of India, which is part of the Prime Minister’s Office. The third and most recent event which has shattered the trust between India and USA is the perceived reluctance of the FBI to consider an Indian extradition request and to allow Indian investigators to interrogate Headley in Indian custody. According to B. Raman, the US “reluctance” has revived the wall of distrust between the two intelligence communities. There has been strong criticism in India of what is seen as the double standards of the US intelligence. He then concedes: “Indian professionals feel that since then the FBI has been dragging its feet to repeated Indian requests for an opportunity to interrogate Headley even in US territory. The plea bargain entered into by the FBI with Headley has created strong suspicions in India that the FBI wants to avoid a formal trial of Headley and was reluctant to allow Indian investigators to interrogate him because Headley was a deep penetration agent of the US intelligence, who horribly went out of control.” His conclusion is: “So long as Headley is jailed in the US, extradition is not a life and death matter for India. New Delhi has no interest in embarrassing the FBI, but it has a right to expect that as a much-trumpeted strategic partner and natural ally of the US, its core concerns regarding the need to neutralize the LET before it indulges in more 26/11s will be understood and shared by the US intelligence and that Indian investigators will be given unrestricted access to Headley and Rana—even if it be in US custody. Unless this is done, the counter-terrorism co-operation between the two countries may face difficulty in recovering from the present set-back.” Coming to the “New York Times” story, it is a far cry from the “Newsweek” narrative. It tries to implicate Pakistan, its Army personnel and rogue Al-Qaeda elements in the sordid tale of terror planning and execution. To start with, US citizens comprise people who descend from origins around the globe, Caucasians, Africans, Hispanics, native Americans, Europeans and Asians to name a few. It’s a pity that if any of the other races indulge in a crime, no mention is made of their origin or religion but it is becoming a habit of the US media to highlight it if the accused was of Pakistani origin or a Muslim. If Mr. Headley was a US agent, launched specifically to track drug agents or whatever task assigned to him and at a certain stage, he allegedly became a rogue agent, the onus for the responsibility and culpability for lack of control rests with the CIA, FBI or DEA, whichever agency was handling him. Any crime he may have committed or abetted to, his handling agency should have kept an eye on him. If it failed in its task or was duped by Mr. Headley, that specific organization should be taken to task for its omission. A crime was committed on Indian soil and the accused is a US citizen, let India and USA sort out the Headley connection, without dragging Pakistan in it. Alas that is not so, instead of approaching the US for redressing its grievances, India is taking potshots at its favourite punching bag: Pakistan. Take the March 31, 2010 Rediff.com story ‘US must declare Pak a terrorist state: Indian-American group’, in which an Indian-American group has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Pakistan as a terrorist States and seize all its nuclear weapons; arguing that Islamabad is using terrorism as a tool for its foreign policy, especially against India.
Comments
Post a Comment