How To Stop Terror?

From Amnesty’s Book Getting Away with Murder: Political Killings & Disappearances in the 1990s

It takes just one key decision to stop political killings and “disappearances” in any particular country. That is the decision by the government to halt them. Once the political will is there, then a series of measures can be implemented which are known to be effective.

In broad terms these are pre-emptive measures to prevent “disappearances” and political killings happening in the first place, coupled with proper investigation and prosecution if they do happen. The latter two measures contribute to prevention by showing public officials in any part of government that their involvement in such crimes is likely to be exposed and punished.

Amnesty International’s recommendations for ending the terror of “disappearances” and political killings are summarized in two 14-point programs, which are attached to this report as Appendices I and II. The following section identifies some of the key points in these two programs.

Prevention

The first, most obvious, task for governments is to make absolutely clear their total opposition to “disappearances” and political killings. They must demonstrate to all police and security forces that such crimes will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Condemnation must be accompanied by convincing action, including establishing prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations, and bringing perpetrators to justice (see below). They must disband special units or paramilitary organizations which carry out “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions, and repeal legislation or emergency regulations that prevent victims or their relatives from getting justice and allow the perpetrators immunity from prosecution.

Governments should ensure that both “disappearances” and political killings are criminal offences under national law, with appropriately severe penalties. The law should be broad enough to cover not just the immediate perpetrators, but also those who order, plan, aid or cover-up the crime.

The authorities must make it clear that senior officers who order or tolerate such crimes will be held criminally responsible for human rights crimes committed by those under their command. Government officials should not be allowed to hide behind the excuse that they did not know what was going on or that they could not control the activities of individual officers.

At the same time, members of the security forces must be instructed that they have the right and duty to disobey any order to commit murder or to perpetrate a “disappearance”: the old refrain of “I was only following orders” must not be tolerated and must not be accepted as a defence.

Officers who disobey orders expose themselves to the risk of severe punishment. The authorities must establish that a soldier’s duty to refuse to commit gross human rights violations takes precedence over the duty to obey orders.

Effective prevention therefore requires proper training for all members of the security forces so that no one can be in any doubt that human rights crimes will not be tolerated. The training should also include education on international human rights standards.

When it comes to the police in the ordinary course of law enforcement, governments should ensure that they are trained to use force only when strictly necessary and only to the minimum extent required in the circumstances as required by international standards. Official guidelines on the use of firearms should specify the circumstances under which they can be used. For example, officers should identify themselves and give clear warnings of their intent to fire, allowing enough time for the warning to be heeded. Detailed reports should follow any use of firearms.

Long experience shows that certain detention procedures often go hand in hand with “disappearances” and political killings and may be designed to evade accountability. Specific safeguards should be implemented for people in custody to make these crimes less likely.

Arrests and detentions should be carried out only by officials who are authorized by law to do so. The officials, who should wear name or number tags, must identify themselves and tell those they arrest why they are being detained at the time of arrest. All this information should be recorded and the records made available to the detainee or his or her lawyer. Details of the place of detention and any transfers should also be made available promptly to relatives, lawyers and courts. All prisoners should be informed immediately of their right to notify family members and others of their whereabouts.

All too often, however, such information is denied to families and friends. If this is the case, those acting on a prisoner’s behalf must be able to invoke the power of the courts to locate the prisoner and ensure his or her safety and release if the detention is arbitrary. This internationally recognized principle is based on the widely accepted legal remedy of habeas corpus. An individual can ask a court to issue a writ commanding the authorities to produce the prisoner in person before the court. The court can then determine the legality of the detention.

Illegal and arbitrary arrests can be prevented by ensuring that all prisoners are brought before a judicial authority promptly, whether or not a writ of habeas corpus or similar order has been issued. Prisoners should also have automatic and prompt access to lawyers, friends and relatives – once a prisoner is seen by concerned people outside it is much less likely that he or she will “disappear” or be killed.

All places of detention should be officially recognized (in other words, not secret) and should be open to regular, independent unannounced and unrestricted visits of inspection.

When prisoners are released, they should be handed over to someone who can verify the release. Officials involved in “disappearances” sometimes try to cover up the crime by falsely claiming the victim was released.

Ultimately none of these measures will be effective unless the political will exists to make them work. Governments can dramatically improve their human rights records in a very short space of time if they decide to do so.

Ending impunity

How can governments change the atmosphere in which security forces feel free to butcher, maim and kidnap ordinary people? The first step is to make sure that whenever such crimes are committed, the truth is exposed. The second is to show ruthless determination in bringing the assassins, torturers and kidnappers to justice. Only the fierce light of justice will eradicate the shadow of fear.

As we have seen, many governments and their security forces go to enormous lengths to conceal their human rights crimes. But the truth must be revealed however complicated, expensive or difficult the task proves to be. Not only do the victims and their relatives have the right to know what happened. Exposing the truth is an essential step for ending states of terror.

Investigations must be prompt, thorough and impartial. They must be carried out whenever there is a complaint or some other reliable report of a “disappearance” or political killing.

The main objectives of an investigation should be to establish the facts, to remedy the injustice to the extent possible, and to assemble the evidence that will allow those responsible to be brought to justice.

An official investigation should be run by people independent of those accused of the crime, who must themselves be impartial and protected from intimidation and reprisals. It must have the necessary powers to call witnesses, conduct on-site investigations, and obtain evidence such as government records. It must also have the human and financial resources necessary to do the job.

The investigations should be completed as quickly as possible and the findings made public.

When there is a pattern or long history of serious human rights violations which cannot be tackled in isolation on a case by case needed. This must consider the institutional changes required to prevent further “disappearances” and unlawful killings.

Of course, unless investigations are acted on, they have little meaning. At the very minimum, the truth must emerge and those responsible must be brought to justice.

The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances summed up what is required as follows:

“Perhaps the single most important factor contributing to the phenomenon of disappearances may be that of impunity. The Working Group’s experience over the past 10 years has confirmed the age-old adage that impunity breeds contempt for the law. perpetrators of human rights violations, whether civilian or military, will become all the more brazen when they are not held to account before a court of law.” 

GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER

Impunity can be defined as exemption from punishment. In some instances, it arises from laws or decrees that specifically exempt agents of the state from prosecution. In other cases the suspects are not brought to trial, or they are not convicted despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Even when they are convicted, they are sometimes sentenced to derisory punishments, or their sentences are not enforced.

If the problem lies with the law, the law must be changed. If it lies with the weakness of the judicial system, the judiciary must be strengthened and its independence assured.

An effective judiciary must, above all, be independent. Only then can it counteract the abuse of power by government.

The judicial process must be prompt, impartial, effective and fair. Trials should be held in civilian courts, which must be properly resourced.

Because “disappearances” and political killings are such serious crimes, time limitations on prosecution – which often apply to other crimes – should be removed. In other words, there should be no provision which prevents prosecution for extrajudicial executions or “disappearances” after a certain length of time.

The officials behind the crimes – those who planned them, gave the orders or helped to organize them – must be brought to justice as well as the people who carried them out.

Not only must the individuals responsible for “disappearances” and political killings be brought to justice. The state itself must be held responsible if it ordered or acquiesced in the crimes.

What does this mean? It should mean that an international court that examines the case can find the state responsible for a violation under international human rights law and can then order the state to compensate the victims or their families.

This was exactly what happened (albeit a rare example) in the case of Velasquez Rodrigues, a Honduran student who “disappeared” in 1981. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in 1988 that the Honduran government was responsible for the involuntary disappearance of Velasquez Rodrigues and had thus violated several articles of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered the government to pay compensation to the victim’s next of kin.

In every single country where there is an established pattern of “disappearances” or political killings, impunity is the norm. A determined and consistent government policy of bringing the perpetrators to justice would have an immediate and devastating effect on the minds of past and potential violators. That is why ending impunity is so crucial.

Government officials that proclaim their respect for human rights while allowing impunity to continue must be exposed for the hypocrites they are. Words are not enough. Action is needed.

International laws, standards and institutions

“No state shall practice, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances.”

UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Article 2

“Government shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions…”

UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Article 1.

Every single extrajudicial execution and “disappearance” cited in this report violated international standards on human rights which all governments have promised to respect.

Such standards mostly began to be set in the wake of the Second World War. Universal revulsion at the horrors perpetrated during that war inspired the formation of the UN in 1945. It was hoped that through this organization governments could resolve their differences peacefully and work together to ensure that human rights atrocities were never again repeated.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the UN, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” and that no one shall be subjected to torture, arbitrary arrest or detention. These rights apply everywhere, not just in those countries whose governments choose to grant them. This means that all governments are obliged to protect the rights of people under their jurisdiction, and that anyone whose human rights are violated has a claim against the government which violates them. Furthermore, the fact that the world’s governments collectively adopted the Universal Declaration means that violations are of concern to all governments, not just those in countries where violations occur.

Since 1948, international human rights standards have been strengthened by the adoption of more than 50 other instruments by the UN. In 1966 it adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which even more explicitly prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life – a characteristic of the killings described in this report.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the UN began tackling the issues of “disappearances” and political killings by governments in greater detail, in response to the enormous scale of these human rights crimes in countries such as Argentina, Cambodia (then Kampuchea), Chile and Uganda.

The discussions eventually led to the adoption of two key instruments: The declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance; and The Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (see Appendices III and IV). They came into force in 1992 and 1989 respectively.

Both clearly prohibit “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions under international law and specify detailed measures for their prevention and investigation.

To complement UN functions and standards, governments in different regions have created organizations which cover, among other matters, human rights issues. Three of these regional inter-governmental organizations have adopted human rights treaties which are legally binding on the states in those regions which have become parties to them. They are the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted in 1981; the American Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1969; and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in 1950.

All three treaties recognize the right to life and, in particular, the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. They also provide for the right to liberty and security of the person, and clearly prohibit “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions. In addition, each provides for the establishment of institutions to supervise its implementation.

Even if international and regional human rights standards did not exit, “disappearances” and political killings would still be unlawful. All national laws proscribe murder as well as kidnapping and abduction.

Those who violate national law are supposed to be accountable before the law. If governments or their officials order, carry out, acquiesce in or cover up “disappearances” or extrajudicial executions, they are violating the very laws which they are supposed to uphold. Similarly, those who violate international law should be accountable before the international community. If governments collectively fail to take action to stop serious human rights violations, they are also violating the very laws which they are supposed to uphold.

Of course, the greatest problem in trying to eradicate “disappearances” and political killings is how to turn accountability into reality.

The UN Secretary-General reflected the dilemma facing his organization as human rights crises escalated in 1992:

“…the UN has not been able to act effectively to bring to an end massive human rights violations. Faced with barbaric conduct which fills the news media today, the UN cannot stand idle or indifferent. The long-term credibility of our organization as a whole will depend upon the success of our response to this challenge.”

In fact, from its inception the UN recognized the need for action. For example, the preamble to the Universal Declaration refers to “teaching and education to promote respect for these rights” and “progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance”.

The first substantial resolutions on “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions adopted some 30 years later referred to specific actions which should be taken. One dealing with “disappearances” called on governments to “devote appropriate resources” to searching for the “disappeared”, “to undertake speedy and impartial investigations”, and to ensure that law enforcement extrajudicial executions, called on all governments “to take effective measures to prevent such acts”.

The human rights standards must be implemented. These include calling on authorities to conduct impartial investigations into complaints and reports of “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions, to bring the alleged perpetrators to trial and to establish specific safeguards for the prevention of these abuses. Amnesty International believes that these measures are the basic minimum requirements needed to combat these practices and should be undertaken by every government.

There is a need for the human rights instruments and their provisions to be incorporated into national legislation, publicized and incorporated in training programs for relevant officials. It has established institutions and procedures to monitor compliance with the standards, make recommendations and take action. It has, moreover, made funds available to governments through UN public information offices and technical assistance programs.

Other action has been taken to combat human rights crimes. The UN has adopted resolutions expressing concern about violations in particular countries and requesting the government in question to take remedial action. It has set up subsidiary procedures – the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions – to deal with particular human rights violations and has entrusted special investigation and monitoring assignments to individual experts (also often called Special Rapporteurs) on particular countries.

More recently it has incorporated specific measures to address human rights in the context of peace-keeping operations, such as those in Cambodia, EI Salvador and former Yugoslavia. The concept of on-site monitoring of human rights is also beginning to be developed, as, for example, in Haiti, although this concept is still in the early stages.

None of these UN operations has been free from controversy, however. In former Yugoslavia, the UN has been attacked by various groups both for doing too much and too little. In Somalia, following widespread calls for increased UN intervention, UN forces have been accused of taking sides in an internal conflict and of direct responsibility for human rights abuses.

The UN has also been widely criticized for its inconsistency and selectivity when responding to human rights crises. Four years after the terrible events in Beijing in 1989 and in the face of continuing widespread violations by the Chinese government, the UN has still to take any serious action on China. The Iraqi government was allowed for years to murder thousands of its citizens without censure from the UN – which then suddenly sprang into action after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Other governments responsible for gross human rights violations have also been able to get away without so much as a word of condemnation.

The truth is, however, that the UN’s actions are determined by its member states. When member states are guided by narrow political and economic interests, these will be reflected in the decisions taken by the UN. The best human rights standards are meaningless if governments ignore them; the best human rights machinery is powerless if governments refuse to cooperate with it.

Some of these problems were addressed by the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in June 1993. The objectives of the Conference included a review of the UN’s mechanisms and procedures in the field of human rights and the formulation of concrete recommendations to improve their effectiveness.

At the Conference, Amnesty International challenged governments to support its call for the establishment of a UN Special Commissioner for Human Rights, with a wide-ranging mandate and the authority to take urgent and decisive action in human rights emergencies. But governments attending the Conference excluded Amnesty International and other non-governmental organizations from the drafting process, where the final document of the Conference was completed in closed sessions by the official government delegations. The resulting Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action failed to give a strong and unified endorsement to the proposal for a High Commissioner for Human Rights or to come up with an agreed framework for the structure and mandate of such a post. Instead, the Conference recommended only that the 1993 session of the General Assembly should begin consideration of the establishment of a High Commissioner as a matter of priority.

Amnesty International and others also called for significant further resources for the UN human rights program, including for the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the UN Special rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions. Amnesty International pointed out that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances had reported in 1992 a backlog of around 8,000 cases owing to lack of funds. Its report concluded that “…the members of the staff have reached a point where they can no longer cope with the workload,” and that “unless additional personnel is assigned to the Working Group, an ever-increasing proportion of the cases received by the Group will not be analyzed, processed and transmitted”.

The Conference failed to make any significant contribution to building a world free of human rights violations. Amnesty International’s Secretary General summarized the two week of discussions as “a summit of missed opportunities”. He said: “There has been no reprieve for the victims, as governments fine-tuned their official declarations and reaffirmed the 50-year-old core values of universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights.” There was no specific reference at all in the Vienna Programme of Action to stronger measures to combat extrajudicial executions and the reference to “disappearances” most disappointingly adds nothing new and makes no new commitment to ways of eradicating these practices.

As in the past, the development of activities on human rights by the UN and regional organizations will depend on the role played by non-governmental organizations such as voluntary organizations, human rights groups, professional associations and other non-official organizations. They have eloquently made known their concerns and called for action.

The proliferation of international human rights standards and other measures developed by the UN is a step forward, not least because it aids those engaged in campaigns to stop serious human rights violations.

However, the strength of these measures is entirely dependent on the degree to which the governments of the world abide by them. They are not a substitute for government action – the basic responsibility for protecting human rights still lies with individual governments. The continuing nightmare of political killings and “disappearances” can only be ended if governments, both individually and collectively, have the political will to act. Our job is to make sure they do just that.

                                                          Campaigning for action

Victims of human rights violations are often presented as nameless, faceless statistics, massacres are rounded up to the nearest hundred or thousand. The individual pain and devastation is lost in the deadening effect of abstract reporting from a distance.

This report aims to show some of the lives behind the lies. It hopes to convey the suffering felt by ordinary people as well as whole communities when governments use terror to achieve their goals. The purpose of the report and the worldwide campaign being mounted by Amnesty International is simple – to stimulate action. Action to stop “disappearances” and political killings.

The people who are behind the crimes are state officials. They take the decisions. They must be forced to change their ways. Our job is to pile on the pressure until they conform to decent and humane standards of behaviour.

What are we asking governments to do?

.           We demand that they outlaw “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions. 

.           We demand that they make it clear that such crimes will not be tolerated at any level, under any circumstances. 

.           We insist that governments account for victims and promptly conduct full and impartial investigations into all “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions. 

.           We call for the perpetrators and those who ordered the crimes to be brought to justice. 

.           We call for compensation to be offered to victims, their orphans, their widowed partners and their families. 

We are also asking armed political groups to uphold their obligation to respect basic human rights standards. We call on them to observe international humanitarian standards, specifically to: 

.           Stop torture and deliberate and arbitrary killings, including killings of civilians and prisoners. 

.           Release immediately and unconditionally those they hold as hostages and to desist from further hostage-taking. 

.           Ensure that all those belonging to their organization know that hostage-taking and deliberate and arbitrary killings will not be tolerated, and that those who commit them will be held to account. 

Governments have further duties: collectively, through the international community, and individually where they have opportunities to do so, they must take seriously their responsibilities to prevent “disappearances” and political killings wherever they occur in the world. Individual nations must use and support the machinery of the UN and other intergovernmental organizations to stop the bloodshed. They must create international means for bringing perpetrators to justice where national avenues have been closed. 

Moreover, no government should ever forcibly return anyone to a country where he or she risks becoming a victim of “disappearance” or extrajudicial execution.

In addition, governments should recognize their responsibilities when exporting arms, training, knowledge and equipment that can be used to commit “disappearances” and political killings. Their legislation or arms and other related exports should prohibit such exports from taking place unless it can be reasonably demonstrated that they will not facilitate human rights violations. Such exports should be publicly disclosed in advance, reports should be issued on the human rights situation in the receiving country, and parliamentary bodies should exercise proper control over the implementation of such laws.

Sadly, however, history has shown that we cannot rely solely on the actions of governments or international institutions to stop abuses.

When ordinary criminals offend, governments deal with them through the process of law. When governments commit crimes or fail to stop human rights violations, who is to discipline them? Amnesty International was set up over 30 years ago to speak out when governments refuse to abide by basic human rights standards. This report shows the terrifying scale of political killings and “disappearances” which is still going on – perhaps the greatest threat to human rights in today’s world.

With so many governments trampling on the fundamental rights of their citizens and ignoring abuses abroad, it is up to ordinary people to act. Concerted public pressure can make a difference, even to the most apparently intransigent regimes.

As the Director of the Human Rights Division of the UN Observer Mission in EI Salvador said in 1991:

“…over the past decade non-governmental human rights organizations have played a vital role in protecting and promoting the human rights of the most vulnerable sectors of society, in difficult and sometimes tragic circumstances…. Human rights organizations have been violations and to protect their victims.” 

In EI Salvador, as in many other countries around the world, the savagery of government repression would never have come to public knowledge without the brave actions of individuals and groups on the ground. They are the wives, husbands, parents and grandparents of the “disappeared” who visit police stations, army barracks and government offices trying to find out what has happened to their missing relatives. They are the community activists, journalists and human rights workers who badger the authorities for information. They are the lawyers who demand their clients’ rights. All know the risks they run and some have paid the ultimate price. Without them, the information in this report could never have been compiled and countless human rights violations would remain in the dark.

UN Secretary-General paid tribute to these people in these words:

“In our efforts to build a culture of human rights, we must not forget the importance of human rights workers and non-governmental organizations, nor the courage shown by many who risk their lives and security for the rights of others.”

So how can we build a culture of human rights? It means raising and deepening consciousness among officials and the general public about human rights and governments that violate them. It means developing and supporting international and regional institutions which are designed to tackle these violations at source. It means an uncompromising effort to force individual governments to take human rights seriously in their foreign and economic policies. It means insisting that all governments show the political will necessary for decisive action against “disappearances” and political killings at home and abroad.

To achieve this, all those engaged in defending human rights must develop closer links. Often the most horrific violations are allowed to continue because cosy clubs of governments see it could damage their relations with other countries if they took action. WE must unite our forces with similar determination – they may have the heavy artillery, but we have the numbers.

This campaign aims to equip that massive human force with one of our few weapons – the facts. It also provides a framework for people, wherever they are, to take up the issues and direct their demands for change at those in power who make the decisions.

Human rights violations are neither natural nor inevitable. We can move forward to a world where governments can no longer get away with murder, where political killings and “disappearances” are exceptional aberrations, quickly stamped out by popular outrage and pressure from the international community. We can create a “new world order” in which basic human rights are a reality for everyone, not a privilege for the few. These goals will not be achieved by wishful thinking. We must take action. Join our campaign today!

Colin Gonsalves Denies That He Asked Afzal Guru to be given Lethal Injection

Harsh Dobhal <harshdobhal@gmail.com>
Oct 13, 2006
Dear Friends,

I was taken aback to hear that certain persons are spreading a rumour that I did not defend Afzal in the High Court and instead asked for him to be put to death by lethal injection.

I was asked by advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan who appeared for Shaukat in the High Court to defend Mohd Afzal.   Apparently many persons were approached before me but were not available.  I was brought in at the last moment, perhaps a couple of weeks before the arguments were to begin in the High Court. I was told that payment would not be possible and that I would have to do the case free.

I gladly accepted even though it meant sacrificing my other work because I am totally opposed to the death sentence for any person. This has been my consistent stand over years.

When I appeared for Afzal in the High Court, I found that there was nobody to help me in those days except for advocate Nitya who was more familiar with the case than I was since she had appeared in the Trial Court.  Apart from her I found nobody interested in helping Afzal. I believe campaigns were conducted to help the other accused and also to raise money for them, but not one person met me during the six months of the day to day proceedings in the High Court. The expenses of the case came to about Rs. 40,000 because volumes of materials had to be photocopied.  About half that amount was reimbursed by Afzal’s cousin. I am putting this on record to emphasize that all the current champions of Afzal coming on television were nowhere to be seen when they were needed most.

I argued before the High Court for three weeks continuously.

I have never argued that Afzal accepts his guilt and that he prays for death by lethal injection. I have my written arguments which were filed before the High Court and anyone wishing to read them may contact me. In the 250 page written submissions there is not one word on death by lethal injection. In the High Court judgment there is not one word on that.

You must remember that in those days the High Court arguments were being covered by a battery of journalists on a day-to-day basis. Had I mentioned to the Court that I want Afzal to die by lethal injection that would have made sensational headlines.

I met Afzal in jail thrice. On the second occasion he told me that someone had informed him that I was asking for him to be put to death by lethal injection. I told him that I would never argue such a position. He was satisfied on that explanation and the issue was not raised with me thereafter.

I spoke to Mr. Jethmalani who was also in Court during that period and he has given me a letter which I am attaching with this document.

Colin Gonsalves

 

 

Why Has the Indian Police Picked Up Mohammad Ahmad Kazmi?

The Indian police has recently arrested Syed Mohammad Ahmad Kazmi, a well-respected journalist.

Kazmi has been a freelance journalist for almost 30 years, accredited by the Press Information Bureau. Based in Delhi, he has covered conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Iraq by US-led coalition forces for media outlets such as IRNA, IRIB, Doordarshan and BBC.

In 1993 he launched his own news agency dedicated to coverage of the Middle-East, called Media Star News and Features. He is a familiar face in the Indian media, having covered many international summits and proceedings in Parliament. His work entails frequent travel to countries such as Iran, Iraq and Syria.

On February 13, a bomb blast in New Delhi injured the wife of an Israeli diplomat. With little evidence, Israeli officials immediately blamed Iran and the Lebanese group Hizbullah for the bomb blast, and attempted to link it to a foiled attack in Tbilisi, Georgia.

On February 15, Kazmi appeared on the political discussion programme Primetime on NDTV. He defended Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment, and stated that from his interactions in Iran with lawmakers and MPs he did not believe Iran seeks to develop a nuclear weapon.

On March 6, Kazmi was taken from the Indian Islamic Centre at approximately 11:30AM. No arrest warrant was presented, and later that day his house was searched by five police officers – none whom produced a search warrant. On March 7, Kazmi’s son Shauzab was intimidated into signing an arrest ‘memo’, confirming the arrest of his father. Kazmi has now been accused of masterminding the bomb attack on February 13.

The allegations against Kazmi are politically motivated. It is clear that Kazmi has been targeted due to his affiliation with an Iranian news agency.

Worryingly, Kazmi has claimed that he has been threatened by plain-clothed interrogators to be handed over to Israeli intelligence for harsher interrogation. This raises serious questions regarding not only India’s standards of policing, but also India’s national sovereignty. These concerns must be addressed by the Indian government if it is to be viewed as able to protect its own citizens.

If Kazmi, a respected journalist who on one occasion met with Prime-Minister Manmohan Singh, can be intimidated and detained without charge – what does this say about freedoms under the world’s “largest” democracy?

India must not subordinate its judicial system to the political whims of Israel. Nor should Indian citizens be at the mercy of foreign intelligence services, or the agendas of external forces wishing to pursue their own interests.

William Nicholas Gomes

www.williamgomes.org

 

Now the Bangladeshi Army Being Blamed for the Delhi Blasts

Times Now, a 24-hour English language news channel based in Mumbai has plotted story
http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4387019.cms against the Bangladesh army to twist the focus of Delhi blast into different direction.

Times Now had systematically presented a particular point of view in the news ‘Bangladesh Army link to Delhi blast?’ to create a platform for wider ‘media trial’.

The report said “Months after this strike in the heart of theNew Delhi, the hunt for the terror masterminds continues.

A doctor from Jammu and Kashmirhas now emerged as the key conspirator and his interrogation adding a fresh twist to the National Investigation Agencys (NIA) case. Highly placed sources in the NIA have told TIMES NOW that in his interrogation Dr Wasim Akram Malik revealed the name of a Bangladeshi Army man, a deserter by the name of Major Yassir.

According to high level sources, it was 36-year-old Major Yassir may have been the brains behind the terror strike in the capital”.

While a highly placed source in RAW told William’s desk that that there is connection between Bangladesh army and the Delhi blast .The source also said NIA is not competent enough to deal with foreign intelligence issues.

The source told William’s desk that there is a strong relation between Bangladesh-India army and recently joint military exercise held in Bangladesh. The source also told that the Bangladesh PM’s office special unit directly helping the RAW officials in Bangladesh on high priority issues and combating terrorism is one of the priorities

Indiais facing an enormous problem of violence, often government attributed those to  Maoists/ Naxalites or Hizbul Mujahideen. But the root cause of violence in Indiais Indian government’s own attitudes and deep-rooted systems of operation

Waseem’s father Reyaz-ul-Hassan who is government official said “My son is innocent and has nothing to do with Delhiblast case”. He said his son on the day of the blast was in Jammu, and had drawn the cash from ATM and made shopping in various malls where CCTV cameras are present and the footage can be assessed to prove his presence in Jammu.

Internal security of India is facing serious threats while the government is wasting a large amount of people’s tax by waging war on its people on Jammu and Kashmir. Delhi bomb blast is the naked explosion of poor crime control and law and order in India.

Waseem’s case is not an isolated case which was plotted by Indian government with the help of the corrupted judiciary and law enforcement agencies. In the process notable numbers of corporate media played a successful role and help the forces in plotting ‘media trial’.

Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri who was convicted of conspiracy in the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court of India in 2004, did not receive a fair trial and was subject to a frame up of corrupt and inefficient police work.

Now Indian government finds out another Afzal Guru and corrupt and inefficient Indian police is framing false charges.

Did ISI Personnel Attend Dawood Ibrahim’s Son Wedding in Karachi?

The following report from the Indian press makes some extraordinary claims. It was written by J. Dey, who was gunned-down recently.

India has accessed fresh evidence that proves underworld don and India’s most wanted Dawood Ibrahim continues to live and flourish in Pakistan.

A highly classified intelligence report, prepared by Indian security and intelligence agencies, says a cable of officials from Pakistan’s Army and ISI along with host of his business associates attended the walima (wedding reception) of the underworld don’s son on September 25, which was wrapped under a cloak of secrecy.

Dawood’s son Moin Nawaz tied the knot on September 23 in Karachi. The reception was held at Dawood’s mansion called ‘White House’ inKarachi’s poshClifton area.

Prominent among those who attended the event were Col Ashwaq Ahmed, head of commando unit of ISI’s Special Operations Group (SOG), Brig Rashid Husian Shahid of the ISI’s Joint Intelligence Bureau, Col Rehman Rashid and Lt Col Rashidullah Khan from ISI’s External Intelligence Wing, Lt Col Shujaul Pasha, Lt Col Asidur Rehman Kidwai, Major Sadiq Khan (from SOG) and Lt Col Asidur Reham (from the Pakistan Rangers).

The business associates who attended the reception ceremony included Afsar Ali, a key player in Karachi Stock Exchange; his brother Noor Ali (who has floated several front companies for Dawood); Jumed Usmani of A-One Construction, Karachi; Javed Qasim, owner of Key Project Pvt Ltd; hotelier Sheikh Muhammed Khalid; and Rehman Sueliman and Abdur Wahab, who manage a company called Best Deals.

Dawood did not allow any videography or photography of the wedding reception.

A couple of months back photographs of Dawood Ibrahim’s daughters’ marriage surfaced and Zee News was the first to reveal the exclusive photographs.

Mahrukh, the first daughter of Dawood, had tied the knot with Junaid, son of former Pakistani Test cricketer Javed Miandad, way back in July 2005 at a five-star hotel in Dubai. His second daughter, Mehreen had also secretly tied the knot with a Pakistani-American Ayub at Dawood’s palatial bungalow in Tony Clifton area of Karachi in February this year.

All these could add to the piling up evidences of Dawood’s presence in Pakistan.

Dawood is based in Karachi and is reportedly living under ISI’s protection. He is wanted by India for engineering the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts that snuffed out the lives of 300 people.

The Government of India has continually asked Pakistan to extradite Dawood. However, the Pakistan government has repeatedly denied Dawood’s presence in the country.

The Interpol has already issued a red corner notice against the don.

Why is Shiv Sena in Bombay Supporting the Tabligi Jamaat?

Targeting Tablighi Jamaat

Ayub Khan deliberately sought to court the Tablighis to counteract the influence of the Jamaati Islami. Maulana Kandhwalvi, penned a tract bearing the revealing title of ‘Finta-i Maududiyat’. InIsrael the TJ has been allowed to freely function. Shiv Sena actually went out of its way in order to arrange for a massive TJ gathering inBombay. Lashkare Tayyeba denounced the TJ as a tool in the hands of Jews and Hindus.

My basic argument is that the TJ, as a movement, is not involved in promoting ‘terrorism’ or militancy, although this does not rule out individuals using it for certain militant purposes in some isolated cases, probably without the knowledge of top TJ authorities. What this, therefore, means is that it would be grossly unfair, and also counterproductive, to target the TJ as such for the misdeeds of some individuals who claim to be associated with it in some way or the other.

Writing in the London-based Guardian (19 August 2006), the British commentator Paul Lewis terms the TJ as a ‘fundamentalist Islamic movement, believed by western intelligence agencies to be used as a fertile recruiting ground by extremists’. He describes it as being ‘influenced by a branch of Saudi Arabian Islam known as Wahhabism’.

Likewise, Sandra Laville, writing in the same newspaper (August 18, 2006), quotes the French intelligence as labelling the TJ as the ‘antechamber of fundamentalism’. She mentions the deputy chief of the American FBI’s international terrorism section as claiming that the al-Qaida network has been recruiting among TJ activists.

Common to these and other such reports is the assertion that the TJ has emerged as a major source of what is routinely described in the media as ‘Islamic terrorism’. It may well be that do some TJ activists, in some places, have indeed been involved in radical religio-political movements. However, but to claim, as these reports and the intelligence sources they rely on do, that this is the policy of TJ leaders or of the movement as such is probably erroneous. Being a loosely controlled mass movement, not a rigidly controlled organization, the TJ has no fixed membership and the leaders of the movement do not exercise a total control on its activists.

Any Sunni Muslim can join in the work of the movement, spending between a day and several months at a stretch in its preaching work, and then can choose to continue with the movement or dissociate from it. TJ leaders do not provide their activists any instructions or guidance on political affairs, this being left entirely to the discretion of the individuals concerned. Given the extremely fluid structure of the movement, it is possible that some Muslims might associate with the TJ while at the same time or later be involved in radical movements or militant activities, and this probably without the knowledge or permission of TJ leaders.

However, the overwhelming majority of those associated with the TJ remain aloof from conventional politics, having nothing to do with any sort of militant activism. They believe that worldly woes are a divine means to test their faith and endurance and a punishment for their own sins and lack of adequate piety. Hence, they insist, rather than struggling for political power or even protesting against oppression by non-Muslims, Muslims must first devote themselves to becoming good, practicing Muslims in their own personal lives in order to win God’s pleasure.

Only then might God be moved to grant them political power and also put an end to their woes. Denying any political ambitions, TJ activists often argue, ‘We talk only of the grave and the heavens above and not of the world’. This is quite the opposite of the radical Islamist approach, which aims at the capture of political power through force and violence in order to establish what is described as an ‘Islamic state’.

The suggestion that the Tablighis are al-Qaeda style Islamists is also misleading. Islamists believe that acquiring political power, in order to establish an ‘Islamic state’, is the principal task for Muslims, and here they differ radically from the Tablighis. In fact, numerous Islamist groups are known to be stiffly opposed to the TJ for its presumed apoliticalness, accusing it of depoliticizing Muslims and thereby allegedly playing into the hands of what are described as the ‘enemies of Islam’. Not surprisingly, then, Islamists and the TJ have rarely enjoyed a cozy relationship. Thus, for instance, it is well-known that in the 1960s inPakistan, President Ayub Khan deliberately sought to court the Tablighis to counteract the influence of the Islamist Jama’at-i Islami. The leading ideologue of the TJ, Maulana Zakariya Kandhwalvi, penned a tract (at the behest of Ayub Khan, some critics allege) bearing the revealing title of ‘ Finta-i Maududiyat’ (‘The Strife that is Maududism’), alleging that the Islamist vision as spelled out by the founder of the Jama’at-i Islami, Sayed Abul Ala Maududi, was anathema and not ‘Islamic’ at all! Likewise, it is known that inIsraelthe TJ has been allowed to freely function, while Islamist groups protesting against the Zionist occupation have been fiercely suppressed.

InIndia, the radical Hindu chauvinist group Shiv Sena actually went out of its way in order to arrange for a massive TJ gathering in Mumbai some years ago. A book that I came across recently quoted a spokesperson of the Lashkar-e Tayyeba, a Pakistan based Islamist militant outfit, as denouncing the TJ as a tool in the hands of Jews and Hindus for allegedly denying the need for physical jihad, insisting instead that the divine rewards for that task could be had by simply participating in Tablighi preaching tours.

The argument that the TJ is influenced by or associated with Saudi-style ‘Wahhabism’ is also erroneous. In fact, TJ missionary groups are actually prohibited from preaching in Saudi Arabia, presumably because the Saudi ‘Wahhabis’ do not believe that the TJ is really ‘Islamic’ enough. In fact, Saudi opposition to TJ ideology is so extreme that Tablighi books are not allowed to be imported into the country.

A fatwa issued some years ago by the late Shaikh Bin Baz, chief official Saudi mufti (available online on the ‘Wahhabi’ website http://www.fatwa-online.com), bearing the revealing title ‘The Final Fatwa of Shaykh Abdul Azeez ibn Baaz Warning Against the Jamaah at-Tableegh’, clearly denounces the Tablighis as a ‘deviant’ group. Bin Baz warns his ‘Wahhabi followers, that ‘[I]t is not permissible to go with them, except for a person who has knowledge and goes with them to disapprove of what they are upon’. This is because, he argues, the Tablighis are characterized by ‘deviations, mistakes and lack of knowledge’. They represent ‘falsehood’ and do not follow the Sunni path.

In other words, as this fatwa indicates, Bin Baz clearly regarded the TJ propagating ‘un-Islamic’ beliefs and seems not to have even regarded them as fellow Sunnis, and hence not as proper Muslims, because for the ‘Wahhabis’ only Sunnis are Muslims. In an even more strongly worded fatwa hosted on the same site, Bin Baz went far as to denounce the Tablighis as being destined to perdition in Hell, alleging that they were ‘opposed’ to the Sunni path, and, hence, for all purposes, not Muslims at all.

It is, of course, undeniable that some Muslim youth who join the ranks of militant Islamist groups may be associated at present or in the past with the TJ. Such may be the case with the men accused of being associated with the alleged plot to blow up the transatlantic planes, if at all that story is true and not a concoction of Western and Pakistani governments and intelligence agencies. In fact, it is likely that the powerful emotional appeal for total commitment to the faith articulated by the TJ might well enthuse some TJ activists, who see Muslims as oppressed by hostile non-Muslims, as in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, to graduate on to more assertive Islamist organizations or even engage in militant activities as a means of protest or resistance, often because they find the Tablighi approach too mild and docile and politically un-involved.

The point, however, is that this is probably not a result of a conscious decision or official policy of the TJ. In any case, such individuals are only a fringe minority and do not represent the movement as such.

Government is Silent in the Wake of Call for Nuclear Jihad by Religious Extremist

The PPP led Government remains paralyzed, and fails to take action on the incitement to murder and civil disobedience by religious extremists.

The government has taken no action to either arrest or halt the messages of hatred and intimidation. Mullahs are openly using the loud speaker systems of their Mosques to broadcast their messages of hatred which is, itself, against the law. However, once again the government has not made any attempt to prevent this.

Taking advantage of the government’s appeasement policy towards religious intolerance and the killing of people, the extremists have openly started preaching the use of nuclear weapons against a neighbouring country in the name of Jihad. Now in a recent and shocking incident in Lahore on February 6, 2011, Hafiz Saeed, the leader of the Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD), spoke in a public rally of 20,000 people calling for Jihad in the form of a nuclear war against India.

Saeed is wanted in connection with the bombings in Mumbai and the JuD itself is banned in Pakistan. However, once again the government has turned a blind eye and taken no action to either arrest this man or control the situation. This is, indeed a routine attitude of the government. In an effort to fend off responsibility for the bombings Saeed accused India of masterminding the attacks for political gain.

In his speech to the crowd Saeed said, “I want to give a message to (Prime Minister) Manmohan Singh–quit Kashmir or get ready to face a war…….The jihad should continue as long as Kashmir remains under Indian occupation”. He went on to say that there would be “no problem if the fighting leads to nuclear war between Pakistan and India”.

It is already bad enough that the government takes no action against religious extremists calling for the death of anyone they feel might be against their version of Islam but here we have a situation where a person wanted in connection with terrorism is openly calling for Jihad, a holy war against a sovereign nation and a nuclear war at that!

It is incomprehensible that any sovereign government, elected by the people, and with the mandate and obligation to protect the people, would allow such a public announcement to be made. The government of Asif Ali Zadari must seriously examine its policy of appeasement towards religious extremists. When a government takes no action against the call for Jihad that might result in a nuclear war it must realise that other governments, especially neighbouring governments will be watching the situation closely. In an attempt to avoid further trouble at home, Zadari might just be calling down more trouble on the innocents of a country that is now being intimidated by religious extremists.

By tolerating such threats of the use of nuclear weapons it seems that the government does not fully appreciate the horror of a nuclear attack. They only need examine the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to experience the devastation and misery caused, a misery that lingers even today 66 years after the bombs were dropped. Nuclear radiation has no respect for borders and the Jihadists may be calling down death and destruction on the people of the entire continent, not only their ‘enemies’. What is the point of turning the prize they seek, Kashmir, into a nuclear waste dump?

The most dangerous interpretation of such announcements would be that the nuclear assets of the country are not in safe hands and Muslim extremists have or can have access to these weapons. By failing to reign in the extremists and stop their messages of hate the government is, in fact, colluding with them.

War mongering in the name of religion or any other cause is a crime against humanity and this is especially so when it may result in a nuclear war. The government must immediately take uncompromising action against those militants who are openly calling for the use of nuclear weapons against a neighbouring country. Humanity cannot and will not sit idle and watch two nations destroy, not only themselves, but threaten the entire world with destruction. The government of Pakistan must not only ensure that the country’s nuclear weapons are safe from extremists but also assure the rest of the world that this is so.

Bangladeshis Helped the Indian Airlines Hijackers

A Jaishe Mohammed (JeM) operative arrested in Dhaka has told Bangladeshi investigators that he arranged safe passage to India from Bangladesh for several militants who were involved in the 1999 hijack of an Indian Airlines plane. 

Nannu Mia alias Belal Mandal alias Billal told the interrogators that he helped send 12-13 militants to India from Bangladesh. He knew one Abdur Rahman among them. 

In December 1999, militants hijacked the Delhi-bound Indian Airlines plane (flight number 814) after it took off from Kathmandu. They forced the aircraft to land in Kandahar in the then Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. 

Indian authorities had to release four terrorists, including Jaish founder Moulana Masood Azhar, in return for safe release of all the passengers. 

Billal, 35, was arrested on March 7, 2010 along with four other JeM militants, including Rezwan Ahmed, a Pakistani national who has been coordinating the Jaish activities here for the last five years. Billal has admitted his involvement in the 1999 plane hijack. 

Although there are doubts in India about Billal’s involvement in the hijack drama, a team of sleuths from New Delhi is expected to come Dhaka to interrogate him, besides probing Pakistan-based JeM’s role in using the Bangladesh route to infiltrate India. A Bangladeshi national who served 10 years in jail in Guwahati in northeast India before returning home, Billal told investigators that he was introduced to Rezwan around seven to eight months back through another Pakistani national and suspected JeM militant Zawad.

Kasab’s Statement in India Held Inadmissible in Pakistan

On March 9, 2010, the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench declared as inadmissible the confessional statement of Ajmal Kasab recorded in India against Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the mastermind of the Mumbai attack. This strengthens Lakhvi’s case and makes it more difficult for the Government now to convict him.

In their judgment on a writ petition of Lakhvi, the operational head of banned Lashkar-e-Taiba, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Saghir Ahmed Qadri observed that under Pakistani criminal laws a confessional statement could be admissible only in the same case, and not in another case.

The court, however, ordered that Lakhvi should face the trial and seek acquittal from the anti-terrorism court where the case was in process.

The decision which was reserved on Jan 26 was announced by Justice Asad Munir and Justice Ijaz Ahmed because the judges who had authored the verdict were not at the Rawalpindi bench this week.

The bench maintained that Ajmal Kasab and Faheem Arshad Ansari had not been cited as co-accused in the case registered by the Federal Investigation Agency and seven accused were being tried by the anti-terrorism court.

The bench said that the name of Kasab was not on the list of 20 accused declared as proclaimed offender in three different investigation reports under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898.

The high court also set aside the decision of the trial court separating the trial of Kasab from that of Lakhvi and others under section 540-A of CrPC and described it as illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. The section 540-A could only be used against the accused who could not reappear before the court for being ill or for any other reason, the order said.

After the court’s decision, Lakhvi’s lawyer Shahbaz Ahmed Rajpoot said that the prosecution in Pakistan had based its case on the confessional statement of Kasab and when the high court declared it as inadmissible under Qanoon-i-Shahdat 1984 the case against the seven men undergoing trial could not be proved.

Lakhvi had challenged the Jan 6 order of the trial court setting aside the acquittal petition filed by him and six other accused. The petitioner sought acquittal on the ground that the prosecution had no evidence against him except the statement of Kasab which was not admissible under Pakistani laws.

RAW & IB Operate Against Pakistani Agents in Nepal

August 4, 2008. Outside the Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu, the local police and Indian intelligence sleuths waited behind a low wall with Himalayan patience. Their quarry: tall, young Fayaz Ahmed Mir, arriving by the PIA flight from Pakistan that afternoon. Mir, the sleuths had been briefed, planned to travel to India after a short break in Kathmandu, where he was to be put up in one of the safe houses of the Pakistani ISI. He was no small fish. A trained Lashkar-e-Toiba militant fluent in many languages, Mir’s brief was to organise surgical strikes in India.

The wait was worth every second of it. As soon as Mir stepped out of the airport, the sleuths scaled the wall and moved towards him. He ran for his life, but was not fast enough. The intelligence men whisked him away in a matter of seconds. Days later, they surfaced in India with their man. From here, the story takes a strange twist.

On August 11, the Anti-Terrorist Squad of the Uttar Pradesh Police produced him in court claiming that they had arrested the ‘Pakistani national’ from Ghaziabad.

In a letter written from jail, Fayaz claims that he is from Kupwara district in Jammu and Kashmir and had crossed over to Pakistan at the age of 16. “I was arrested outside the airport in Nepal and then blindfolded,” he writes. “After a day’s travel, I was kept in a house without windows.” He was then taken in a vehicle the following day. “The vehicle stopped at a border entry point and I saw a hoarding with big letters, Welcome To India.”

Welcome, indeed, to the biggest success story of the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing in a foreign land. It is an extraordinary story. It concerns the compelling account of a massive covert operation by the IB and RAW to flush out terrorists planning strikes on India from their hideouts in Nepal.

What’s more impressive, the terrorists—around 400 till date according to a top officer involved in the operation—were clandestinely brought to India for questioning, thanks to the absence of an extradition treaty between India and Nepal. Their interrogation revealed the sinister plot their handlers in Pakistan had designed for India, targeting key installations and prominent people including cricketers Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly and former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

The latest catch has been Mohammed Omar Madni, Lashkar’s main man in Nepal, who was arrested from ‘Delhi’ on June 4, 2009. Said to be very close to Lashkar founder Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, Madni, according to the chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police, had recruited many youths from across India.

Others picked up and brought to India include Mohammad Hassan alias Abu Qasim of Punjab in Pakistan (nabbed from Nepal on April 15, 2007), who was planning a fidayeen attack on Delhi on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of India’s first war of independence in 2007, and Asif Ali alias Anas, who was arrested from Hotel Jagat in Thamel area of Kathmandu on July 11, 2006. The operation, which continues to this day, has been so successful that India is replicating it in Bangladesh. India’s bonhomie with the Bangladeshi agencies has resulted in the arrest of top ULFA functionaries like Arabinda Rajkhowa and militants like T. Nasir, wanted in several terror-related cases in India.

Nepal’s emergence as a terror transit point started in the late 80s.

First it was the turn of the Khalistan militants at the height of the Sikh unrest in Punjab, when they were hosted by the ISI in hotels, gurdwaras and residential areas in Muslim-dominated areas of Nepal. The turning point came on December 24, 1999, when five Pakistani terrorists hijacked Indian Airlines flight IC814 to Kandahar. The Delhi-bound flight carried mostly Indians returning after enjoying their holidays in Nepal. They were released on December 31, after India agreed to set free three top terrorists including Maulana Masood Azhar, who went on to found the Jaish-e-Mohammed.

“The hijack was the terrorists’ biggest success and mistake,” says former RAW chief Vikram Sood. “It was a defining moment for the intelligence agencies.” In an atmosphere of urgency and desolation, Indian intelligence agencies proposed and won approval for what a senior IB officer called a ‘Soft Op’, a secret operation classified at the highest level to find and destroy terror hubs in Nepal. Within the IB and RAW, it is considered their biggest and the most successful covert operation against terrorism.

The IB’s former joint director M.K. Dhar, one of the creators of the rendition programme, said that the axis of terror spreading from Pakistan and Afghanistan to India was often bridged by an unstable Nepal, which was not prepared to deal with the problem of such proportion. “The rendition programme’s goal was to take in people who were planning to target India or have been involved in terrorist attacks in India,” says Dhar. “We had done that with the Sikh militancy. We picked terrorists and brought them to India but the rendition was limited.” According to Dhar, the ISI had made strategic advances into Nepal between 1985 and 2001. “At one time there were over 150 Kashmiri militants in Kathmandu alone,” says Dhar.

In a complex arrangement with Nepal’s intelligence agencies, RAW and the IB started closely monitoring the movement of suspected terrorists in Nepal. The intent was there, backed by necessary action. Post IC814 hijacking, Nepal also woke up to the ISI operations on its soil. It was not news to the Nepali administration that there were safe houses for terrorists all round the country. Most of them were in Jhapa, Ilam, Tapleganj, Panchthar, the Tarai region, Birganj and Kathmandu city.

It was in 1997 that the needle of suspicion began to point at the Pakistan embassy in Nepal. In August 1997, Sikh militant Bhupinder Singh Bhuda of the Khalistan Commando Force was arrested from a hotel in Kathmandu. He was secretly brought to India and during interrogation he gave details about the ISI network in Nepal.

Two months later, six more terrorists were arrested in Nepal and brought to India. During interrogation they dropped the name of Pakistani diplomat Mohammad Arshad Cheema (reportedly then ISI unit chief in Kathmandu) as their point man in Nepal. “Cheema had been running a tight network in Nepal,” says Dhar. “From educational institutions to business firms, he used different ways to gain influence against India. He was kept under surveillance and once his connections with terrorists became evident, the Nepal government deported him.”

According to Sood, there was no commercial justification in having four direct PIA flights a week between Nepal and Pakistan. “Our information was that the ISI was using the PIA flights to bring weapons from Pakistan to Nepal, which would then be passed on to the different terrorist groups in India,” he says.

Mirza Dilshad Beg, a Nepali parliamentarian who had close links with the ISI, played a significant role in the spread of the ISI network in Nepal. With deep contacts in the Nepali establishment, he provided hideouts and other logistics for the terrorists till he was killed by ‘unidentified gunmen’ in 1998. In a report given to Nepalese authorities in 2000, India had revealed the details of Pakistan’s dangerous game in Nepal. Indian intelligence officers have long been aware of the ISI’s activities to fuel anti-India feelings in Nepal, which was all the more evident when actor Hrithik Roshan’s comments on Nepal were played again and again on a local TV channel just to flare up passions against India. The channel, the Indian agencies later came to know, had been funded by the ISI.

The Nepal Police’s former additional inspector-general Rajendra Bahadur Singh admits that terrorists have been using Nepal as a hideout. “But we have cooperated fully with Indian agencies,” he says. “Every time India has brought a case to our notice, we have taken action. It has been a very special relationship.” That relationship froze when the Maoists came to power briefly.

Interrogation of terrorists arrested from Nepal foiled many terror attacks and led to the arrests of their contacts in India. For instance, Mohammed Hassan, one of the terrorists picked up from Nepal, revealed the whereabouts of his commander in India whom he knew by the name Ammar. The information led to Ammar’s encounter killing in the Doda region of Kashmir three months later in April 2007.

In the high-security Tihar jail is housed one of India’s bigger catches, Lashkar militant Tariq Mehmood, who was arrested from Nepal in 2001. In a letter written to the trial judge some time ago, Mehmood had claimed that he was befriended by an Indian spy in Nepal, who brought him to India through the India-Nepal border.

Upon arrival, he was arrested on December 20, 2001, by the Special Cell of the UP Police. Mehmood allegedly told his interrogators that he was sent to India to abduct Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly and seek the release of Harkat-ul-Jihadi Islami founder Nasrullah Langriyal, who is currently lodged in a Rajasthan jail. Langriyal’s name also figured in the list of terrorists to be released in exchange of passengers aboard IC814 but India refused to play ball. According to the chargesheet, Mehmood and his team were also planning to assassinate then Defence Research and Development Organisation chief A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and attack the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre at Trombay.

“Mehmood’s interrogation helped security agencies arrest six Pakistani terrorists besides the local operatives from different parts of India,” claims a police officer. Apparently, Omar Sheikh, one of the three terrorists released in the Kandahar drama, trained Mehmood and others in Indian lifestyle and food habits besides giving them a crash course in Hindi.

There are  at least eight suspected terrorists in Tihar who were picked up from Nepal. Three former detainees who were held in jails in Bihar and UP state that they were made to sign papers showing they were arrested from within India. They said they had helped provide logistics to terrorists but were never directly involved in any terrorist attacks.

The agencies go to great lengths to protect the secrecy of the rendition programme. “We’ve got an understanding with the Nepal government,” said Dhar. “We share information with them and get them on board [before operations]. We take their cooperation and when they feel satisfied about the information provided they allow us to take the terrorists to India.” Taking suspected terrorists to India is a cakewalk once Nepal cooperates. Some are flown in at the middle of the night. Some, like 32-year-old Jaish activist Fayaz Ahmed Mir, are brought by road.

The programme follows a standard procedure, says an officer. Once a person is suspected with anti-India intentions, he would be picked up with the help of the Nepal Police, blindfolded, handcuffed and in some cases given sleeping pills. Once in India the first destination would be either an interrogation centre operated by the one of the intelligence agencies or one of the police stations referred to in classified documents as ‘black sites’. The interrogation could last a day or take many months. Once the questioning is over, their arrest is recorded and are produced in court.

According to RAW’s former deputy chief Lt-Gen. V.K. Singh, a variety of factors has prompted the ISI to set up base in Nepal. “The long, porous border touching Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Sikkim makes it ideal for terrorists to enter India through Nepal,” he says. Going by the data obtained from the Union home ministry, as many as 5,571 smugglers have been arrested from the Indo-Nepal border since 2001. It is not clear whether they were just criminals or terrorists. “It is hard for us to verify the identity of a person,” says K.M. Cariappa, spokesman for the Shasastra Seema Bal, the paramilitary force that guards the border.

The success of the operation has not slackened the vigil. “Suspected terrorists are still being rendered,” said a senior Nepal home ministry official. “There are people around here who keep watch on everything. Our joint mission is to refuse to give any space to terrorists.” According to Guna Raj Luitel, a senior Kathmandu-based journalist, Nepal has become a playground of spies. “An impression is gaining ground in Nepal that India is pressuring the police to hand over suspects wanted in India,” he says. “You really don’t know who is doing what here.”

As is the case with most wars against terrorism, human rights violations happen on a regular basis. A case in point, according to human rights organisations in Nepal, is that of two missing Kashmiri brothers, Mohammad Shafi Rah and Mushtaq Ahmed Rah, who were allegedly taken away from their residence in the Samakhusi area of Kathmandu on the night of August 27, 2000, by plainclothesmen. “They were handed over to Indian security agencies,” said one of their relatives. There has been no news about them since.

A senior officer involved in the programme did not deny excesses. He said that he was bothered neither about his legacy nor about what others might think of him. “We are expected to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists so as to avoid further atrocities against civilians,” he says. “In Nepal, what we did was in the cause of India’s war against Pakistan-backed terrorism. We prevented so many terrorist attacks. We saved so many lives.” As they say, all is fair in war and love.