Headley says Ishrat was ‘ LeT operative’
■ Girl’s family sees conspiracy, lawyer raises red flag on prosecutor’s tactics
Pakistani-American Lashkar- e- Tayyaba terrorist David Coleman Headley told a special court here via video link from the US that Ishrat Jahan, killed in an alleged fake encounter in Gujarat in 2004, was a LeT operative and possibly a “suicide bomber”. Headley picked up the name of the 19- year- old girl from three names when questioned by special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam about a “botched- up operation” that was mentioned to him ( Headley) by LeT commander Zaki- ur Rehman Lakhvi. He also confirmed that LeT targeted the Akshardham temple over the Babri Masjid demolition.
At the end of his testimony, when his statement ( recorded by the court) was read out to him so corrections could be made if there was any misunderstanding, Headley told the special judge he wanted to clarify that Ishrat Jahan was an Indian. “Zaki Saab ( Zaki- ur Rehman Lakhvi) mentioned some police shootout at some area in India and later Muzammil Butt explained it to me,” said Headley, while replying to a question by Nikam. Headley also elaborated that “some female” was killed in that operation in Gujarat.
Prodded by Mr Nikam for details about the “botchedup” operation, Headley said: “I don’t know which part in India. But there was one female who was killed in the shootout. I think she was an Indian national and not a Pakistani, but ( she) was a LeT operative.”
The family of Ishrat Jahan on Thursday dismissed David Headley’s claim that she was part of the LeT.
The issue, however, became politicised, with the Shiv Sena demanding an apology from those who have been claiming Ishrat was innocent. On the other hand, the NCP said the court would take the final verdict on the matter.
Musarrat, Ishrat’s sister, said she was innocent. “We do not know who Headley is and why he has taken my sister’s name after so many years. Various court commissions have said that she was innocent,” she asked.
Musarrat added, “We have our doubts that Ishrat’s name has cropped up to save some criminals. However, we have complete faith in the judicial system and are hopeful of getting justice.”
Ishrat’s mother’s lawyer Vrinda Grover questioned prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam’s tactics, saying certain questions he had put to Headley had nothing to do with 26/ 11.
“The prosecutor gives three multiple choices and he says ‘ Noor Jahan Begum, Ishrat Jahan and Mumtaz Begum’. He ( Headley) selects Ishrat Jahan... It is not evidence. It is a mockery pointing to a conspiracy. There may be politics,” Ms Grover alleged.
Abdul Rauf Lala, a social worker, echoed her sentiments saying, this shows that a name was put in Headley’s mouth and Ishrat is not connected to the 26/ 11 attacks.
“So far, Headley has proven to be a double agent, and there is no reason to believe his words, if he does not have anything to back his claim,” Mr Lala said.