The Ishrat Jehan Conspiracy

The Ishrat conspiracy

Narendra Modi stands in the way of a sell-out on J & K

By Gautam Sen (10 July 2013)

It appears that the attempt to manipulate Lashkar-e-Toiba operative Ishrat Jehan’s death to persuade Narendra Modi to withdraw from India’s prime-ministerial race has more sinister roots than immediately apprehended. An insider with intimate knowledge of Anglo-American policy towards India suggested that a virtual resolution of the historic Kashmir issue has already been negotiated discreetly through the intercession of Washington. It seems an understanding has been reached with Manmohan Singh’s government that major Indian concessions would be on the table. Apparently, this entire package would be in jeopardy if Narendra Modi were to become prime minister of India.

Pakistan, whose rapid acquisition of nuclear weapons’ capability is considered an urgent problem, including its known proliferation activities, is prepared to reciprocate with suitable steps acceptable to Washington. It is hoped that the lowering of India-Pakistan tensions would also reduce the dangers of a nuclear exchange that would have devastating wider global consequences. Pakistan will also restrain the Taliban and accept a half-way house in its expedition to control Afghanistan’s destiny though Hamid Karzai will apparently have to depart.

The grim inference is that the incumbent Indian government is not entirely in dissonance with Pakistani agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence and its arms-length proxy, the Lashkar-e-Toiba, to corner Narendra Modi. The evident bonhomie between the two parties is a product of Washington’s mediation, which is keen to retrieve something from the mess of its Afghan misadventure. Certainly, the elimination of Narendra Modi, physically if need be, as some observers, including myself, have warned of, would suit some quarters because otherwise he is guaranteed to propel the Bharatiya Janata Party ahead at the 2014 general elections.

Private polling has been showing that in the best-case scenario, the Sonia Gandhi Congress would simply not have the numbers to consider forming a government, even if the BJP itself failed to approach the magic number of 220 seats. An interesting question is the extent of involvement of some senior BJP leaders and their advisers in this colossal conspiracy. Some have enjoyed close ties with United States’ agencies since the Cold War period when Nehruvian nonalignment was considered nothing short of support for the Soviet Union. Even closer ties have evolved between some leaders through the intervention of a prominent Indian business family in London who have always been US surrogates.

The so-called solution to the Kashmir dispute would almost certainly be based on the four-point formula suggested by the former Pakistan military president, Parvez Musharraf. It entails softening of Line of Control (LoC), self-governance, phased withdrawal of troops from entire Jammu and Kashmir and joint supervision by India and Pakistan. Pakistan is confident that such a plan would enable it to absorb the entire Kashmir Valley eventually making Indian resistance to such an outcome both politically costly and militarily expensive. Publicly-aired Pakistani misgivings about Musharraf’s four-point formula when it was first outlined were officially sponsored to create the impression that Pakistan would only acquiesce reluctantly. The idea was to make the Indian public believe that it was the gainer from the agreement. However, in private, there was widespread official consensus that the agreement would be a prelude to Pakistan gaining full sovereignty over the Kashmir Valley and possibly even more. The survival of other areas under Indian control would be rendered untenable if Pakistan were to achieve political suzerainty over the Valley and some adjacent areas.

The interim policy, in the aftermath of the agreement being fully implemented, would be to embark on a policy of demographic assault that has already succeeded in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The extensive marital links between PoK Kashmiris and Punjabis, for example, has ensured huge support for the Lashkar-e-Toiba’s activities against India. It is reasoned that encouraging marriage between residents of India’s Kashmir Valley and those on the Pakistani side with the help of local religious authorities would create a growing constituency within the Kashmir Valley that would be Pakistani in essence.

It is concluded that it would be impossible for the Indian authorities to curb this development because there would be an international human rights’ outcry. It is also perfectly well-known in Pakistan that India has failed to stop the massive migration of Bangladeshis into India which has grown to startling proportions in many cities far removed from the Indo-Bangladesh border. The result of such demographic changes would also guarantee the election of governments in Kashmir that would favour Anschluss with Pakistan.

Once such an elected government agitated, in the first instance, for closer ties with their Pakistani co-religionists, prior to elevating the demand to formal accession, the Indian government would be left in an unenviable position. It would have to consider intervening militarily from a position of huge political and military weakness. The Indian authorities would have to arrest very large numbers of Kashmiri politicians, stop all electoral processes and embark on a military crackdown that would result in massive casualties. The international and domestic Indian reaction to such a response to adverse developments can easily be anticipated. It appears Pakistan has leveraged its nuclear weapons with extraordinary success. By contrast, India’s aspiration to great power status would be in tatters, reduced to a weak, minor player.

In addition, it can be safely predicted that Pakistan will find ways to prevent India reaping any sort of peace dividend, by reducing military commitments on the India-Pakistan border once an agreement with Pakistan on Kashmir has been implemented. Such a peace dividend for India would be opposed implacably by Pakistan’s all-weather friend, China, itself examining every option for cutting India down to size. Any reductions in military commitments in relation to Pakistan would immediately mitigate India’s two-front war threat that alarms its defence planners. China will make sure that Pakistani redeployments in the aftermath of any peace deal with India will nevertheless remain a sufficient threat to prevent any significant Indian reduction in commitments against Pakistan. Indeed it may well be hazarded that the loss of Kashmir to Pakistan will create a strategic nightmare for India owing to altered military options on the ground and require even greater attention to the India-Pakistan border. The final denouement will be in the shape of an emboldened Pakistan facing an India militarily and politically weakened by the loss of Kashmir. Nothing that has transpired in the past sixty years suggests that Pakistan will abandon its determined quest to rival India, having emerged victorious over Kashmir.

As the conspiracy unfolds to derail Narendra Modi’s pursuit for national power, though he enjoys massive support along the length and breadth of the country, many outwardly innocuous events acquire more significance. The successful campaign that stopped Narendra Modi from even addressing a mere student gathering in the United States is likely to have been officially instigated. The same officials responsible for intervening against Narendra Modi also hold compromising files on the alternative to him, pertaining to his corrupt financial dealings and personal peccadilloes.

Former US spy, Edward Snowden, has highlighted the extraordinary reach and assiduity with which information is collected by Anglo-American intelligence agencies on even their closest allies. He has also confirmed that India enjoys a special place on their intrusive radar. It is they who have been collecting evidence on the murky social life and financial dealings abroad of their preferred candidate for prime minister of India.

Editor’s note: Intelligence Bureau officials have sounded the warning that they are under enormous pressure from the ruling Congress party to implicate Narendra Modi in the Ishrat Jehan case. A particularly vocal Congress party general secretary has been meeting and harassing Central Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence Bureau officials to manufacture evidence against the Gujarat chief minister. There is desperation in ruling party circles as Modi nears his goal of becoming prime minister. The Intelligence Bureau is resisting the pressure and there is growing resentment within the institution about this. Worse is expected in the coming days unless Manmohan Singh steps in and ceases the witch-hunt against Narendra Modi.

Dr Gautam Sen has taught Political Economy at the London School of Economics.
Source: From here

Advertisements

80 Comments

Filed under Narendra Modi

80 responses to “The Ishrat Jehan Conspiracy

  1. niraj

    About Israt Jahan:

    (1)Ishrat’s family first met Javed Sheikh( Pranesh Pillai alias Javed Gulam Sheikh , been charged with involvement in a fake currency racket , was the son of Gopinatha Pillai, a native of Noornad in Kerala. He was married to Sajida, and had three children, including a daughter) just two months before her death.
    He had taken Ishrat to Nasik, Bangalore and Lucknow, where he is believed to have met Amjad.
    (2)Amjad Ali Rana, also known as Akbar or Salim, was alleged to be an LeT terrorist from Haveli Diwan, Pakistan. He was reportedly found dead with an AK-56 rifle near his body. Amjad is believed to have met Javed several times in Oman, and also Javed and Ishrat in Ibrahimpur once.Amjad introduced Ishrat and Javed to Zeeshan, the fourth victim.
    (3)Zeeshan (alias Jisan Johar alias Abdul Ghani Son of Kalu alias Janbaaz), along with Amjad, is said to have been caught in a trespassing case in Srinagar in 2003. (4)Nobody claimed the bodies of Amjad and Zeeshan after the encounter.
    (5)An identity card with a Pakistan address was reportedly recovered from Zeeshan’s body.
    (6)However, a later report by the metropolitan magistrate SP Tamang stated that identity cards were forged by the police and the two men were Indian citizens, although it did not give any evidence on this.

    About encounter (comments):

    (1)CBI declared the encounter as staged, but did not comment on whether Ishrat Jahan was an LeT associate or not.
    (2)In 2004, a Lahore-based publication affiliated with LeT claimed that Ishrat and her companions were operatives,
    (3) but in 2007, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the political wing of the LeT retracted the statement as a “journalistic mistake”, offering apology to Ishrat’s family.
    (4) In 2010, some media outlets reported that the convicted terrorist David Headley had implicated Ishrat in terrorist activities in a statement given to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
    (5)However, the NIA called these reports as “baseless”,
    (6) And the CBI suspects that this input was fabricated by the IPS officer Rajendra Kumar, who is a suspect in the fake encounter case.
    (7) After further investigation, in 2011, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) told the Gujarat High Court that the encounter was not genuine, and the victims were killed prior to the date of the staged encounter.
    (8)In June 2013, the Intelligence Bureau chief Asif Ibrahim told the office of Prime Minister and Home Minister of India that the Bureau had enough evidence to prove that Ishrat was a part of an LeT module which planned to kill Narendra Modi and Lal Krishna Advani.

  2. nitha

    The incumbent Indian government has been joined hand with Pakistani agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence and its arms-length proxy, the Lashkar-e-Toiba, to corner Narendra Modi.

  3. malaydeb

    Whether Ishrat Jahan was a terorist or not is not the question. That’s for the courts to decide. Question is, does police have the right to kill people in custody? Are we living in a banana republic?

    • shankar

      Police had killed her in custody is also the courts to decide.

    • Indian Realist

      I believe terrorists should be killed with extreme prejudice – they don’t have human rights as they refuse to treat others as humans. Human rights of terrorists is a modern fad.

      • malaydeb

        I will agree with you 100%. If only you agree that I have a right to kill you instantly with extreme prejudice, since I have convinced myself that you are a terrorist. Done?

        • shankar

          @malaydeb,
          A man with gun ( an officer on special duty to restore national security) needs more intelligence than you.
          A man with gun (a terrorist ) do not needs that.

        • Indian Realist

          If I am a proven terrorist going to kill other people, feel free to intercept me and kill me. I won’t have any problem. I deserve that. Ishrat Jehan was a proven terrorist as she was in the company of three Pakistani terrorists carrying AK 47 rifles, LeT vowed to avenge her death and posted a message on its website stating so, and Headley during interrogation revealed that she was a LeT suicide bomber. So what are you cribbing about?

          • malaydeb

            Are you deaf? I am shouting at the top of my voice, where is the proof, that she was a terrorist. A police version is not a proof. Even if she was terrorist, it has to be proven in a court of law. Just as it was in the case of Ajmal Kasav, or Afzal Guru. I have no problem with that.

            • Indian Realist

              Presumably, LeT writing on its website that she was one of their own, Headley saying she was a suicide bomber and she travelling with three LeT members inside India is not enough “proof.” Maybe she was supposed to do cabaret in front of you wearing a suicide jacket for you to be properly convinced. Take your Jihadi sympathies elsewhere. We have enough yahoos running in India planting bombs already. Do you demand the same standards of “proof” for Modi?

              • malaydeb

                I have proof that Modi is a terrorist, who use his police to kill people in custody. Does that give me a right to kill him? Mind you I have all the proof.

                • som

                  Modi is a terrorist or not this is the matter of court.
                  You have no right for extra-judicial killing.,

                  • malaydeb

                    @som
                    I agree with you. I have no right for extra-judicial killing, and it’s the same with Gujarat police. You are right. Whether Modi is guilty or not, is matter for court to decide. It’s the same for Ishrat Jahan, you, me, or anybody else.

                • cnm

                  @ malaydeb
                  Of course you can kill him. But where is the proof?

                  • nikhil

                    @malaydeb
                    He belives in ‘hearsay’ (gossip).

                  • malaydeb

                    @cnm
                    I have already said in my comment, that I have all the proof. The allegations that we have read in the media are proof enough. Even some officers of Gujarat administration has spoken against his innocence.

                    • cnm

                      @Malaydeb
                      What about Ajit Doval’s take on Isharat Jehan?

                    • Anonymous

                      @Malaydeb
                      SO for you reports in the “secular” media are enough proof but not the reports of the SIT under the SC.

                    • Indian Realist

                      That’s why I asked him if he requires the same standards of proof for both Modi and Ishrat Jehan. Apparently, Ishrat needs a court decision to prove her guilt, but for Modi, newspaper reports (planted by Congress) are enough to hang him.

                    • karan

                      Media proof are enough to hang???
                      THIS IS ONE OF THE GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE HYPOCRISY OF PSUDO-SECULAR BRIGADE.

            • Anonymous

              Er… well, she was travelling with terrorists, and the LeT says that she was their terrorist, and Headley who is not in Indian custody, says that she was a terrorist, what’s your problem ?

      • cnm

        @ Indian Realist
        Terrorists cannot have any human rights because they are not humans.( having a pair of hands and legs does not make one human being) They are ATATAYINS and deserve to be killed in the ghastly possible manner.

    • shankar

      The real question is that this was fake or real encounter.

      • malaydeb

        In real encounters there is an exchange of fire by both party, or by the terrorists atleast. In this case the only party who fired shots was the police.
        No evidence has been found of a single shot fired by those killed, no bullet mark on the bodies of any of the policemen, their vehicle, or any of the the walls of near by houses, trees, or on anything.

        • shankar

          @malaydeb,
          In real encounters with terrorist is the matter of self defense,as well as the information related to terrorism,and life is precious for an officer on special duty to restore national security.

          A man with gun ( an officer on special duty to restore national security) needs more intelligence than you.
          A man with gun (a terrorist ) do not needs that.

          • malaydeb

            We all know how police works for nationa security. 21 POLICE MEN HAS BEEN CONVICTED ONLY DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY FOR EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLING IN MUMBAI.

        • Indian Realist

          They were clearly ambushed. Keep happening all the time in Kashmir where terrorists being monitored don’t get to fire a single shot before being killed.

      • Indian Realist

        Fake or real, all encounters with terrorists are good.

        • malaydeb

          “Fake or real, all encounters with terrorists are good.”
          You are talking like a fascist. It is no surprise then, there is no difference between you and the terrorist you condemn. They also think just like you, so why claim the moral high ground?

          • Indian Realist

            When faced with Jihadi Yahoos, of course I am a fascist. Screw the moral high ground. Jihadis and their sympathisers need to be shot at sight. To beat terrorism, you have to strike terror in the hearts of terrorists. Nothing makes Jihadis wet their shalwars more than the barrel of a gun pointed at them.

            • cnm

              I completely agree with Indian Realist. Terrorists be they Maoists or Muslims are ATATAYINS or felons. Our shatras say that ATATAYINS are to be killed and killed mercilessly, without trial of course.

              • malaydeb

                If your shastras say that, then its a fascist manual.

                • cnm

                  I know so long as our shastras never praise to the sky the perpetrators of violence on innocent people, the rapists , and the vilest criminals they can not pass your test of being termed as Shastras.

          • Shlok

            @Malaydeb, it has been proven that Ishrat Jehan was a terrorist. Whether she came to kill Modi or not is immaterial as far as most of us are concerned. Terrorists definition is a person who spreads terror, and her membership of an organization that has killed thousands, clearly shows that there is no harm in eliminating her. Sorry my friend, go and preach about human rights to terrorists in the US, Pakistan, or elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, terrorists should have no human rights because they do not believe in that. They should be killed en masse, to hell with your moral high ground. You people only thrust this on HIndus.

      • Anonymous

        So the facts are established – that Ishrat and Co. were LeT terrorists ?

        • malaydeb

          Established where? to whom? and by whom? All by Gujarat police. Where is the independent verification?

          • cnm

            IB is not independent?

            • malaydeb

              @cnm
              No, it is not. You need to read the constitution, and understand the difference between ‘Executive’ and ‘Judiciary’ and also the limits of their reach. IB is an organ of the state. If state organs were to be presumed independent by the makers of the constitution, there would have been no courts. And it’s same all over the civilised world. A State cannot be the plaintiff, judge, jury and executioner at the same time.

              • cnm

                If IB is an organ of state then CBI is no different so why will we believe CBI- the caged parrot ?

                • malaydeb

                  I didn’t ask you to believe CBI. Let the court decide who is right between IB and CBI. My point is, that I’m as much right or wrong in believing in CBI, as you are in believing IB.

    • cnm

      @Malaydeb
      But dear friend how is it that you have suddenly realized that killing people in custody or in an encounter by police points to the fact that India is a banana republic ? Is it for the first that someone has been killed in an encounter or in custody? What about the suspicious deaths during the congress regime ? I have never heard you saying anything about them. Why?

      • malaydeb

        Because you didn’t raise the topic. I don’t indulge in ad hominem (hope you know what it means) attack and try to stick to the point. All extra judicial killings are condemnable. Period.

        • cnm

          Oh really ! in my last comment when did I make an ad hominem attack? Now I am sorry I have not raised the topic.Anyway , I waiting for you to enlighten me about the topic.

  4. malaydeb

    Also the the police planted arms on the bodies of the dead ones to make it look like an encounter.

    • Anonymous

      What about LeT saying that they were terrorists ? And what about Headley ?

      • malaydeb

        Shall we kill people because of what LeT or Headley says or doesn’t say?
        Whatever is said by honourable LeT or Headley has to placed before a court of law. Look, I am not saying that Ishrat was not a terrorist, nor I am saying that she was. But I want the court to tell me whether she was innocent or not. All I am saying is that the state has no right for extra-judicial killing.

  5. karan

    Raising questions on the independence of CBI, the apex court called it a ‘caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice’.
    http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-05-08/india/39115662_1_cbi-probe-law-minister-ashwani-kumar-cbi-director-ranjit-sinha

  6. malaydeb

    All is fine when CBI absolves Advaniji of HAWALA Case. CBI is not so fine when it indicts Gujrat police. Hypocracy at best.

    • nikhil

      @malaydeb
      Either you blaming Advani or the apex court made a scathing comment on the functioning of the investigating agency and said, “It’s a sordid saga that there are many masters and one parrot.”

      • malaydeb

        I am neither blaming Advani, nor I’m blaming the apex court. I’m only pointing at the hypocracy of the Saffron brigade.

        • Anonymous

          Hypocrisy of the Saffron Brigade, eh ? What happened to the Ishrat Jahan case now ?

          • malaydeb

            We also remember Bangaru Laxman caught on camera taking bribe, but not send to jail by NDA.

            • som

              He send to jail by UPA.

            • karan

              On 12 June 1975 the HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD declared Indira Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha VOID ON GROUND OF ELECTORAL MALPRACTICE. In an election petition filed by Raj Narain (WHO LETER ON DEFEATED HER in 1977 parliamentary election from Rae Bareily), he had alleged several major as well as minor instances of using government resources for campaigning.The court thus ordered her to be removed from her seat in Parliament and banned from running in elections for six years. The Prime Minister must be a member of either the Lok Sabha (Lower house in the Parliament of India) or the Rajya Sabha (the Higher house of the Parliament). Thus, THIS DESITION EFFECTIVELY REMOVED HER FROM OFFICE. Mrs Gandhi had asked one of her colleagues in government, Mr Ashoke Kumar Sen to defend her in court.

              But Indira Gandhi’s rejected calls to resign and announced plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. The verdict was delivered by Mr Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha at Allahabad High Court. It came almost four years after the case was brought by Raj Narain, the premier’s defeated opponent in the 1971 parliamentary election. Gandhi, who gave evidence in her defence during the trial, was found guilty of dishonest election practices, excessive election expenditure, and of using government machinery and officials for party purposes.

              Indira Gandhi moved to restore order by ordering the arrest of most of the opposition participating in the unrest.
              Her Cabinet and government then recommended that President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declare a state of emergency because of the disorder and lawlessness following the Allahabad High Court decision.
              Accordingly, Ahmed declared a State of Emergency caused by internal disorder, based on the provisions of Article 352 of the Constitution, on 26 June 1975.
              THIS IS ONE OF THE GOOD EXAMPLE OF HYPOCRECY OF PSUDO-SECULAR BRIGADE

  7. JGN

    @ malaydeb, Bangaru Laxman was trapped by Tehelka at the behest of Congress. Did they ever do a sting operation on any Congress leader? They had even used prostitutes for their sting operations. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tehelka-expose-revelations-about-call-girls-being-used-in-sting-operation-rile-politicians/1/231115.html The less we talk about their credibility, the better.

    • @JGN
      Please give me a break. Give a little more respect to other peoples’ intelligence. Are you telling me that Banaru Laxman was a kid who can be trapped with a few toffees and made to do the bidding of the giver. A trap was laid to test his integrity, which he failed. Period.

  8. JGN

    Bangaru Laxman was accused of accepting a bribe of mere Rs. one lakh. How many Politicians have been sent to jail for accepting that kind of money? Do you think some “pimps” have the moral authority to test the integrity of any one (forget Bangaru Laxman)?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s