JINGO patriotism and pseudo right wing RSS nationalists have found a suitable partner in CIA double agent David Coleman Headley who has been given clemency in return for turning ‘approver’ in the 26/11 case. This cover for Headley has given him the license to make claims that are politically suitable for the ruling regime and that help it to wipe out the taint that Modi accumulated as chief minister of Gujarat. As part of this exercise, the public prosecutor claims that Headley has given evidence to suggest that Ishrat Jahan was a Lashkar ‘suicide bomber’. Using this statement, the BJP has said that the Modi government stands vindicated and that it is now proved that the encounter killing Ishrat Jahan was not fake. This reliance on the so-called testimony of a double agent and a participant in planning the 26/11 attacks speaks volumes for ‘the nationalist position’ of the Hindu Right. The fact that the Hindu Right gives more credibility to Headley and less to the CBI and a magisterial enquiry of the government shows that they have scant respect for the law. Hence it is important to remind ourselves about the nature of the case and the facts that had come out of the magisterial enquiry.

‘A TERRORIST’ OR A ‘BREADWINNER’

 FOR A VULNERABLE FAMILY?

According to an affidavit filed by her mother, Shamima Kausar, Ishrat Jahan was the second daughter of seven children who was responsible for supporting her entire family after her father died. This was the case because Ishrat, unlike the rest of her siblings, was educated and was further pursuing her studies along with tuitions. As her mother puts it, she was a hard working girl with no complaints against her, and no record of any criminal proceedings. Even the trust where she was employed in giving morning and evening tutions for a meagre salary had no complaints registered against it. But since she was not able to make ends meet with the tutions she took up a job as a sales woman with Javed (who is now alleged to be a Lashkar operative). Shamima Kausar testifies that Ishrat went out with Javed on work two times but ‘returned in time’ and made phone calls to keep in touch with the family. Hence there was no reason to suspect that she was indulging in any anti-national or anti-social activity. In fact as Kausar points out, that though the police and the Gujarat government claimed that they had intelligence input on the so called ‘terrorist’, such evidence was not provided to the home ministry. Instead the state government merely provided a news report that alleged that some ‘terrorists’ had been killed. Given this situation, it was clear that the whole case was made out after the killing was done so as to cover the tracks of the Gujarat police and its encounter specialists. This was shown in the magisterial enquiry carried out into the fake encounter.

TAMANG

REPORT

The magisterial inquiry by SP Tamang into the killing of Ishrat Jahan fully analyses the circumstances under which she was killed. Describing these circumstances, Tamang writes that the identity of Ishrat and the three people killed with her was hung around their necks at the time of the killing. Describing this as an unlikely and absurd situation in case of a ‘real encounter’ Tamang concludes that the position of the body and their belongings make him convinced that the encounter did not take place in the field while the four were running away from the police. Rather the police appears to have ‘unlawfully detained’ all the four who were killed in the encounter. Further providing evidence for proving the fakeness of the encounter, Tamang also states that the deaths of Javed, Ishrat and two others had taken place at different times and on different locations. Further he noted that there was no evidence of the firing from the vehicle. Rather his inquiry found that “50 rounds were fired by the police from said unlicensed and illegal AK-56 on their Police Gypsy van and on Indica car and thereafter, said AK-56 rifle was placed near arm of Amjadali Akbarali so as to describe him as a terrorist, by the police. And therefore, it is found in my inquiry that the police fired 70 rounds from their weapon at the time when the deceased were killed at some other place.” (Tamang Report p.45-46).  This conclusion of the Tamang magisterial probe is supported by the first chargesheet of the CBI which states that the involved in the so-called encounter Indica was driven by police constable Shafi to the place of the encounter, thus confirming the fact of illegal abduction and detention (CBI First Chargesheet, p 202).

CBI CHARGESHEET SHOWS

PRE-MEDITATED PLANNING

Following Headley’s testimony, an allegation has been that the UPA government influenced the CBI to fix the Gujarat police officers. Hence there was a big conspiracy against the Modi government. But the chargesheets filed by the CBI provide enough conclusive evidence that the investigations were tampered with and evidence was planted. The CBI chargesheet shows that meetings between Vanzara, P P Pandey, Tarun Bharot and N K Amin took place well before the actual encounter was staged. Weapons were handed over from Vanzara’s office and materials were planted to prove that all four victims were terrorists. Kalubhai Santabhai Desai, PI posted at Arham Farm, one of the venues of illegal detention, recalled that Vanzara and Amin made repeated visits to the house for interrogation (CBI First Chargesheet, pp 217-222). Further plans were made to meet at the site of the encounter.  Many of the police constables and inspectors accompanying the officers were not even aware of the conspiracy. They only smelt the conspiracy once they reached on the spot. Thus Commando Menat (who was reported to have fired the shots as per the police FIR) testified in his statement to the CBI that at the time he accompanied his senior Mr Amin, he was unaware that “they were going to kill those people like this” (CBI First Chargesheet, pp 196-198). At the same time Ibrahim Kalababu Mohd Chauhan testified that he only became aware of the conspiracy once the Indica was brought to the scene of crime by a police man (CBI First Chargesheet, pp 202-203). Both constables admitted that they had lied to the special investigation team under the pressure of their seniors. The CBI’s first chargesheet is scathing with respect to the role of the state government because it shows that officers and witnesses deposing before previous investigating officers and the special investigation team were pressurised into making false statements. In fact the fabrication of evidence started from the very scene of the so-called encounter. For example, a tea-stall owner at the Gita Mandir Bus Station stated a policeman in civilian clothes took his signature on the Panchnama which was written in Gujarati language. He states: “I cannot read Gujarati language. I do not know why my signature was taken by the police on the panchnama. I was not told about the reason. Later on November 20, 2009 I was summoned by the SIT at the Dafnala office… Now I was shown the previous recorded statement by the SIT and found that I had witnessed the happenings of hand washings of the dead bodies in the post mortem room. I do not know what I had told to Shri Toliya (on behalf of SIT)” (CBI First Chargesheet, p 63).

The recounting of these facts shows that it was not the CBI chargesheets or the Tamang report which were fabricated, but rather Headley’s testimony that has been fabricated in order to provide a clean chit to Narendra Modi. Hence the BJP is guilty of supporting an anti-national and using his evidence to cover-up their own illegal and unconstitutional activities. Their nationalism and patriotism is thus an ideology of convenience and political expediency, and therefore pseudo in its very character. The campaign to expose it must therefore be intensified so that the democratic ethos of the country can be preserved and saved from the Hindu Right.