NEW DELHI: The BJP on Friday said the US jury clearing Pakistan-born Canadian Tahawwur Hussain Rana of charges of involvement in the Mumbai terror attack was a foreign policy setback for India and has raised suspicion of a deal between the FBI and ISI.
The party pounced on the development, describing it as a manifestation of the lack of seriousness displayed by the UPA government in tackling terrorism. It has been particularly critical of the handling of the post-26/ll developments by the government.
Recalling Washington's claim that Pakistan's top leadership was not involved in shielding Osama Bin Laden who was killed in Abbottabad near Islamabad, the BJP said it saw a "pattern" in the US approach. This, it said, was an indication that India has to fight its own battle against terror.
"The US declaring Tahawwur Rana innocent in the Mumbai attack has disgraced the sovereignty of India and is a major foreign policy setback," Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi said in Ahmedabad.
BJP's chief spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad told reporters here that the UPA government should examine the entire matter and ensure that as per US law an appeal is filed by the prosecution agencies. Pointing out that summons have been issued to the ISI chief in a case filed by relatives of the Jews killed in the 26/11 Mumbai attack in a New York court for heavy damages, Prasad said this gave a "golden opportunity" to expose the ISI.
India can, however, derive some consolation from the fact that Rana was convicted for his linkage with Lashkar, with the jury's verdict reflecting the growing recognition of the ISI-backed terror group as a threat to global security.
But that does not take away from the sense of disappointment over Rana's acquittal on the 26/11 conspiracy charge. Although U K Bansal, secretary (internal security) in MHA, said he did not see it (the acquittal) as a "setback' and stressed that the Indian case against Rana was still being investigated, sources in the government acknowledged said that the Lashkar jihadi being let off will have a bearing on India's move to get access to Rana to get to the bottom of the 26/11 conspiracy. In fact, government had even planned to seek his extradition, an unlikely prospect now.
"We had planned to first move for his access after his conviction. It was also discussed when US homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano visited India. But the access now seems difficult as Rana's defence will oppose the move on the ground of his acquittal,' said a senior officer.
The home ministry sees the US system of 'jury trial' as one of the reasons for his acquittal. The ministry said, "It must be remembered that Rana was tried in a US court in accordance with US law. Criminal trials in the US are jury trials and there are special rules governing such jury trials.'
Unlike in India where there is a system of 'bench trial', a 'jury trial' is a legal proceeding in the US in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge. In America, every person accused of crime punishable by imprisonment for more than six months has a right to a trial by jury. This system was abolished in India in 1960 on the grounds that the jury could be influenced by media and popular pressure.
Bansal said prosecution in India against Rana and Headley depends on India's own investigation. "In our handling of terrorism in India, we do not rely overtly on prosecution in other countries. We have to rely on our own strength,' he said. India feels that it has got enough evidence against Rana and Headley.
Nobody, however, here denies that the NIA was heavily dependent on what the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had collected in its probe and subsequently produced before the Chicago court against Rana during the trial.
Even the home ministry said, "After examining the verdict in the US court and after reviewing the documents and evidence that it expects to receive, the NIA will take a decision (timing) on filing a chargesheet against Headley, Rana and others in an Indian court.'
The ministry cited evidence that was produced in the US court against Rana. It pointed out that Headley had advised Rana of his assessment to scout potential targets in India; Headley obtained Rana's consent to open an office of First World Immigration Services as a cover for his activities; Rana advised Headley on how to obtain a visa for travel to India and both of them had reviewed how Headley had done surveillance of the targets that were attacked in Mumbai.
The ministry said, "Evidence was also produced that Rana told Headley that the terrorists involved in Mumbai attacks should receive Pakistan's highest military honour posthumously.'
Indian's next move will depend on what the US authorities decide on filing an appeal against the acquittal. While Rana's lawyers have said they will file an appeal against the verdict as their client was convicted on two counts, it is not yet clear whether the US authorities will go for an appeal or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment