NEW DELHI: India’s response to the latest set of questions sent by Pakistan in connection with their investigations into the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai has been handed over to the Pakistan High Commission here.

Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram said on Saturday that a seven-page response with annexures was given to the External Affairs Ministry for transmission to the Pakistani government.

Responding to queries by journalists, he said the set of questions given by Pakistan were routine and procedural — in the nature of “fill-in-the-blank” type of queries — and asked for information that had already been given to them.

“If only they [Pakistan] would have read our Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) thoroughly, such questions would not have been asked,” he said.

An official release by the Ministry of External Affairs said the response was given to Pakistan’s Deputy High Commissioner Rifat Masood by Joint Secretary in the External Affairs Ministry T.C.A. Raghavan.

Mr. Masood was called to the Ministry and handed over the response, which was finalised in keeping with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s assurance given to his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt last month.

On July 11, Pakistan gave India a dossier providing an update on the investigations in Pakistan into the Mumbai terror attacks, containing a request for further evidence.

Mr. Chidambaram said there was “sufficient evidence” to continue the investigation against Hafiz Saeed, Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief.

On Saeed, the Lashkar-e-Taiba founder whom India has described as the prime accused in the attacks, Mr. Chidambaram said New Delhi has provided “enough evidence” in three dossiers to Islamabad to continue the probe and launch prosecution against him.

Mumbai: Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam on Thursday filed an application in the Special Sessions Court here seeking permission to examine and summon six witnesses from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to present technical evidence on November 26, 2008 attacks in Mumbai. He handed a sealed envelope to the court containing a letter from the FBI listing the names of the six witnesses.

Mr. Nikam pleaded that the names, addresses and identities of all the witnesses and FBI special agents be kept secret. He said the U.S. agency was apprehensive of the potential danger to the lives of the witnesses as it was investigating terror-related cases in other countries. Therefore, their identities had to be protected.

“Their deposition is important in this trial,” the application read. However, Mr. Nikam did not press for an in-camera hearing. Judge M.L. Tahaliyani would give his order on Friday.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan chose on Thursday to remain ambiguous about whether or not it had handed over a dossier to New Delhi detailing the evidence of an alleged Indian involvement in the Balochistan insurgency and in incidents of terrorism here.

A report in Dawn on Wednesday said Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani handed over to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during their meeting at Sharm-el Shaikh a dossier containing “comprehensive evidence of Indian involvement in a number of terrorist acts on its soil.”

The report said the dossier detailed an alleged involvement of India’s R&AW in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers in Lahore as well as the Manawan police training school.

“A substantial portion” of the dossier is said to deal with the insurgency in Balochistan, describing an alleged visit by Brahmdagh Bugti, a rebel leader, to India and his meetings with Indian officials. The dossier is also said to make reference to an Indian training camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Baloch insurgents were allegedly being trained.

India has denied that it was given any dossier at Sharm-el Shaikh by Pakistan. A senior Pakistani official also told The Hindu that the newspaper report was incorrect. The only time that Pakistan handed over a file containing what it called evidence of an Indian hand in Balochistan was at the first meeting of the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism in March 2007.

But Pakistan has evidently thought it best not to deny the report officially. Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit was deliberately vague when journalists asked him if the report was true.

“All I can say is that whatever was discussed and whatever was handed over is contained in the Joint Statement [signed at Sharm-el Shaikh],” Mr. Basit said, declining to comment any further as he could not discuss “intelligence matters.”

The July 16 joint statement says Mr. Gilani “mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.”

Pakistan has reasons for its reluctance to deny the report in unequivocal terms. Over the last few months, the Pakistani media has repeatedly asked Ministers and high officials why, if their claims of Indian involvement in Balochistan or in terrorist incidents in Pakistan are true, they have not been able present the evidence to show up India before the international community.

Always, the question got the same reply: “We are collecting the evidence and we will present it at an appropriate time.”

The reply had worn thin, with an aggressive media maintaining that while Pakistani intelligence agencies had succeeded in gathering “heaps of evidence,” the government did not have the courage or the confidence to confront India on the issue. At press conferences, journalists had openly begun to taunt government Ministers and spokesmen about this.

The media report that Pakistan has finally handed it all over to India may help silence that criticism, especially at a time when Mr. Gilani is already being praised for successfully bringing up the Balochistan issue during his talks with his Indian counterpart at Sharm-el Shaikh.

The spokesman said following up on the agreement in the joint statement, the two sides were working out details of where and when the two Foreign Secretaries would meet prior to the Foreign Ministers’ meeting on the sidelines of the September United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Pakistan hoped the meetings between the Foreign Secretaries would help “define the timeline and trajectory” for the resumption of the Composite Dialogue process, the spokesman added.

Asked about the agreement in the joint statement that the two countries would share “real-time credible and actionable information on future terrorist threats,” the spokesman said mechanisms for this were already in place, an apparent reference to the joint anti-terror mechanism, and expressed the hope that these would be used.

Ajmal’s lawyer Abbas Kazmi

Mumbai: The Special Sessions Court here on Thursday ruled that the 26/11 trial would continue despite the confession of the surviving terrorist in the attack, Mohammad Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab.’ However, his statement would remain on record and used at an appropriate stage.

Judge M.L. Tahaliyani said: “The court has come to the conclusion that [Ajmal’s] statement of July 20 and the additional statement of July 21 shall form part of the record and remain on record. It will be considered by the court at an appropriate stage.”

He ruled out pronouncing judgment based on the statement as Ajmal had not pleaded guilty to all the offences against him. “At the outset, let me state that I am not inclined to accept the statement and pronounce judgment. It is a partial admission of charges. It may amount to admission of guilt to certain offences. He has not admitted to a lot many charges.”

Ajmal is facing 86 charges. Among them, in six, he has been independently charged under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC.

Citing judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the judge said Ajmal’s statement could not be effaced from the record as demanded by his lawyer Abbas Kazmi.

The court rejected Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam’s prayer that whatever offences Ajmal had admitted be recorded under Section 313 (power to examine the accused) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The court held that as three-fourth of the witnesses had been examined, it would not be appropriate to record Ajmal’s statement, under this Section, partially. This “may cause serious prejudice to the case of the accused,” the judge said. He explained his order to Ajmal and told him that the trial would continue.

Mr. Kazmi threw a surprise by declaring that he wanted to withdraw from the case, as Ajmal was not confiding in him. “In view of the developments now, [I feel] my client is not confiding in me. The court has appointed me to represent him. However, if he is not confident of my assistance, I should excuse myself from the trial,” he said.

When the court asked Ajmal about this, he denied having lost faith in Mr. Kazmi. “Apni taraf se voh mehsus kar rahe hai to voh alag baat hai [If he feels that on his own accord then it is a different matter],” he replied.

The judge asked Mr. Kazmi and Ajmal to sort out any misunderstanding. He advised the lawyer to stay on. Mr. Kazmi said he would continue. Mr. Nikam termed the entire episode a “drama.”

The court noted: “It is clear that he [Ajmal] has understood the implications of his plea and has done it voluntarily without any extraneous reasons and that the court took all the precautions to ensure against pressure.”

Defence lawyer Abbas Kazmi argued that while no pressure was at play, the circumstances leading to the admission were suspect. Alleging mental torture, he said the lone surviving gunman of 26/11 had told him about the psychological pressure from prison guards. “The guards told [Ajmal], ‘You have no chance to escape. The prosecution is on our side, the jail is ours, even the lawyer appointed for you is ours’,” Mr. Kazmi told the court.

However, when the court asked Ajmal about this, he said this torture was not recent; it was at the remand stage when he was in police custody.

Mr. Nikam highlighted the contradictions in Ajmal’s confession statement recorded before a magistrate on December 17, 2008 and his statement made before this court on Monday.

Based on Ajmal’s opposing claims, the Special Public Prosecutor argued that his plea be either “acted upon” or kept on record as a statement for use at “an appropriate stage.”

“This case has international ramifications. Foreign experts have collected clinching evidence. We have to establish the criminal conspiracy. This angle has been [omitted] by Ajmal,” Mr. Nikam told the court.

Later, he told journalists that the prosecution would not be content with securing conviction for Ajmal. “We want to expose the terror network. We are keen to prove why Mumbai was chosen as a target and why foreign nationals were killed.”

“If anyone has a doubt that I have confessed to avoid the death sentence, then beshaq phasi ki saza do [by all means hang me],” the lone surviving gunman of 26/11 told the court at the Arthur Road jail here.

Earlier, Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam contended that Ajmal’s guilty plea was a shrewd move to escape the death penalty.

On Wednesday, Mr. Nikam called attention to the manner in which Ajmal’s plea was recorded on Monday. He said the court had to ensure that the accused was fully aware of the consequence of his admission and that his decision to confess was voluntary. “The whole procedure was irregular,” Mr. Nikam said.

Judge M.L. Tahaliyani, refuting his contention, said all safeguards were in place and the court had recorded Ajmal’s statement verbatim. In a bid to re-establish Ajmal’s freewill, Mr. Tahaliyani asked him if he was confessing under pressure, to which the gunman said ‘No’.

The judge took on record an earlier statement by Ajmal in which he said: “The world will punish me for what I have done in this world. I do not want god’s punishment; I seek punishment from this world.”

Mumbai: “We have to see whether he [Ajmal Amir] is really pleading guilty to all the charges levelled against him. Accepting or rejecting his plea comes at a later stage,” Judge M.L. Tahaliyani said on Tuesday at the special sessions court in the Arthur Road Jail.

He noted that there were three options before the court. One — to accept Ajmal’s plea, two — to reject it, and three — to let it remain on record and continue with the trial. He said, since a precedent in this regard in a case of such a nature was less likely to be found, the prosecution would have to find out how to proceed legally.

Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said outside the court that on Wednesday the prosecution would table a detailed submission after discussions with the investigators.

“It is important to probe ‘Kasab’s’ intention behind confessing and what exactly he is hiding. Ajmal had not mentioned the name Jundal to the police or the magistrate; that too has to be investigated. The police are minutely examining his statement,” he said.

Mr. Nikam said, in the opinion of the court, Ajmal’s plea falls under Section 229 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), but “we object to that.” The Section states: “If the accused pleads guilty, the judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.”

The Special Public Prosecutor also said leaking of information to Ajmal would to be looked into, although there was nothing wrong in it.

The prosecution does not see Ajmal’s sudden decision to confess as an unguided move. “He is well advised and well practised,” Mr. Nikam told the media.

Commenting on his client’s confession for the first time, Ajmal’s lawyer Abbas Kazmi said even he was taken by surprise. The defence lawyer refuted the prosecution’s persistent allegations that he was delaying the trial. “The fact that I allowed Ajmal to confess shows [that I am not making any such attempt].” As for the discrepancies between Ajmal’s version and that of the police, he said, “Since Ismail is no more, his actions have been thrust on ‘Kasab’.”

While Ajmal has confessed to firing, he has denied killing Assistant Sub-Inspector Tukaram Ombale. Moreover, he has said it was Ismail who fired at top police officers Hemant Karkare, Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar. He has also denied any knowledge of the maps.

ISLAMABAD: The confession by Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’ before a court hearing the Mumbai terror strikes case may rekindle demands in Pakistan for his extradition if the statement is included by Pakistani prosecution as evidence against the five suspects who face proceedings here for their alleged involvement in the attacks.

Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit said on Tuesday it was “too premature” to say anything about Ajmal’s confession.

“We have only read media reports about it, we haven’t heard anything about this officially,” Mr. Basit told The Hindu.

But a lawyer for Hammad Amin Sadiq, one of the five men in Pakistani custody for allegedly planning and facilitating the attack, said he would want to cross-examine Ajmal if the statement was presented as evidence against his client by the prosecution.

“If he has given any statement against my client, I would like to check the veracity of the statement, and in order to do that,” said Shahbaz Rajput, “he has to be produced before the court here for cross-examination.”

At the last hearing on July 18, Mr. Rajput submitted his power of attorney for Hammad Sadiq to the anti-terror court where the proceedings are being held. He is the only defence lawyer thus far.

The hearings, being held in the high security Adiala jail in Rawalpindi, are still in the pre-trial stage. The Federal Investigation Agency, which probed the role of Pakistanis in the Mumbai attack, has submitted a charge sheet against the five. The court has yet to frame charges against them.

“‘Kasab’ is a Pakistani and as such he is in the custody of the authorities in an enemy state. The first thing is to check whether it was a voluntary statement or whether it was made under duress. That will determine how credible it is. So he will need to be cross-examined at any cost and for that he will have to be brought to the court here,” Mr. Rajput said.

According to Mr. Rajput, Ajmal’s statement would have relevance to the Mumbai attacks case in Pakistan only if he were to repeat it in court here.

Independent legal experts also countered the suggestion that Ajmal’s confession would automatically strengthen the case of the Pakistani prosecution when the trial of the five men begins.

In his statement on Monday to judge M. L. Tahaliyani, the 21-year-old Ajmal, who detailed his killing spree in Mumbai along with his partner-in-terror Abu Ismail, also named Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi among his handlers back in Pakistan.

Lakhvi is one of the five men in Pakistani custody and is described by the FIA in its charge sheet as a Lashkar-e-Taiba commander and “mastermind” of the attacks.

“If I were Lakhvi’s lawyer, I would first want to cross-examine the guy who made the statement against him,” said Ahmed Bilal Soofi, a Supreme Court advocate. “There is no way that any lawyer will allow a confession of this kind against his client to go uncontested.”

That would mean demands by defence lawyers, Mr. Soofi said, that Ajmal be extradited and produced in court here.

“Pakistan may demand to see [Ajmal’s confessional] statement and India will probably send it. But there are limits to dossier diplomacy, and while the exchange of these dossiers is good for political symbolism, their legal value is not much, particularly if you have a case to prove in court,” he said.

The Foreign Office spokesman said he had no idea whether the Pakistani prosecution planned to make Ajmal’s statement part of the evidence to present in court here, and therefore could not predict if the demand for his extradition by defence lawyers for Lakhvi or anyone else named in the statement would arise.

“We have been saying in the past that it would be great if ‘Kasab’ could be extradited so that the Pakistani authorities can talk to him, but the Indian government was not amenable, so that’s where things stand,” Mr. Basit said.

Mumbai: After surprising the world with his confession, Mohammad Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’ on Tuesday signed a copy of his confession statement in the Special Sessions Court in the Arthur Road jail.

The court asked him how he learnt about Pakistan’s acceptance of his nationality, particularly when he had no access to either newspapers, television or the Internet. The lone surviving gunman replied that he had received the news from a guard on duty outside his cell.

Ajmal told the court that when he and Abu Ismail were given the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) as a target, they were told to take hostages and move them to a higher level. “We were told to open fire and take hostages to an upper floor and to fight with those who were coming to their rescue, including the police,” Ajmal said.

Ajmal made some crucial statements on Tuesday as part of his confession. They pertained to the purpose of the attack as indicated by the perpetrators and masterminds and the message they wanted to send to the government of India. Ajmal also wanted to convey a message to his handlers. However, this part of his confession faces a court ban on publication.

In view of the communally sensitive nature of Ajmal’s statements, judge M.L. Tahaliyani passed an order banning the publication and broadcast of Ajmal’s statement recorded on Tuesday by any media or person, except the part which pertains to the CST. Mr. Tahaliyani remarked that the trial was at “a delicate stage.”

Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam asked for a day’s adjournment.

Mr. Tahaliyani remarked that it was not in all cases that a lengthy plea, such as this one, was recorded. However, “since there are many charges against ‘Kasab,’ it was done in this case.”

Ajmal was given training along the Karachi shore

— Photo: Shashank Parade

Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam talks to journalists in Mumbai on Monday after Mohammad Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’ confessed to his involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks.

 

Mumbai: Back home, in the city of Jhelum in Pakistan, Mohammad Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’ was eking out a living doing a petty job. Frustrated with his poverty, he and co-worker Muzaffar decided to commit dacoity.

Gunman Ajmal, who stunned the Mumbai special sessions court on Monday confessing to his crime committed here on November 26 last, narrated his journey to become a terrorist and carry out a massacre that shook the world.

Ajmal and Muzaffar went to Rawalpindi, where the latter had an acquaintance. While taking a stroll in the market during the time of Bakrid, “some persons belonging to the LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba] were making some purchases. I came to know that they were Mujahideen,” he said.

 

src=”http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/21/images/2009072160621201.jpg” height=”270″ />
Police constable Arun Jadhav, one of the witnesses, comes out of the special court.

Discussing with Muzaffar the problem of committing dacoity without weapons, Ajmal spoke to him about the Mujahideen he saw in the market and suggested that the duo could seek training from them.

“We tried to search them in the market. I knew they sported long beards and hair,” Ajmal said from his box in the court. His enquiries took him to a lane at Raza Bazaar, where he knocked at the doors of the ‘Mujahideen’ office.

“One person opened the door. He wanted to know our details. I told him that we had come for jihad. So he allowed us in.”

Another unnamed person wrote down the address and other details of Ajmal and Muzaffar. He asked them to come the next day with their luggage.

The address

The next morning at the same office, they were given an address: Markaz Taiba, Murdike. Accompanied by the unnamed person, they took a bus to Markaz Taiba, where there were “two rooms made of fibre.”

Here Ajmal met two suspects listed in the 26/11 charge sheet — Abu Fahad Ullah and Abu Mufti Saeed. The latter taught them the Koran. Twentyone days later, Ajmal was sent to Markade in Mansehra (Muzaffar was not to be seen after seven days at Markaz Taiba).

“I was told to sit with the other boys. In the evening a van arrived and took us to a hilly and forest area,” known as Bhattal.

For three months and 21 days, Ajmal was trained in operating all kinds of weapons. This session was called ‘Daura Aam’.

After this, he was told he would be going to ‘Daura Khaas’ — a special training programme.

There were three ‘ustads’ or trainers — Abu Anas, Abu Bashir and Abu Abdul Rehman. Ajmal was told to get an identity card from his residential district of Faridkot, from where he was directed to go first to “Azad Kashmir,” then to Muzaffarabad and lastly to Shawai Nullah.

“I was told to enquire about Saeed bhai. One person helped me reach there.” After completing formalities at the office, Ajmal was taken to a camp in Maskar Aqsa. Abu Mavia, Abu Saif-Ur-Rehman, Abu Talha trained him there for three months.

On completion of the training, Abu Kahfa and Abu Hamza selected Ajmal. This was followed by sea training along the Karachi shore. It was in Karachi that 10 trainees were paired. Hamza would call each pair separately. He showed a movie and some pictures of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus to Ajmal, who was paired with Abu Ismail. Later, they were given bomb kits and timers.

On November 21, 2008, the 10 trainees were given arms and ammunition. Their bags were transported to Al Husseini. At this point in his confession, Ajmal said, “There was a person Abu Jundal. He was an Indian. He taught us Hindi.”

“The trainers do not know where the boys are to be deployed. Zaki-Ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Kahfa, Jundal and Hamza decided where the boys have to be sent,” Ajmal said.

Discrepancies

Some parts in Ajmal’s statement contradict the contention by the investigating agency. For example, Ajmal said he did not know anything about the maps recovered from his bag and that they were not his.

In another surprising disclosure, he said he had never fired at Assistant Sub-Inspector Tukaram Ombale; he had only hit him in the abdomen with the rifle butt.

Ajmal said that it was Ismail, and not he, who planted a bomb in a taxi. He also said he did not see who killed captain of the fishing trawler Kuber, Amarsinh Solanki, as he was on the upper deck. When he came down, he saw Abu Shoaib washing his bloodstained hands.

The attackers had received specific instructions from Hamza who, Ajmal said, asked him to throw his Global Positioning System (GPS) sets in the water.

However, Ajmal left one on Kuber and broke another on landing in Mumbai. He went back to Kuber to retrieve the GPS, but did not find it there.

The terrorists had used the same inflatable dinghy used in the attacks for the training.

Ajmal told the court that the fake identity cards produced in court in the form of evidence were the same they had made in Pakistan. The bomb kit, which was produced in court, belonged to him, Ajmal said.

“Not under pressure”

The accused denied that he was confessing under pressure. After he finished, he pleaded to the court that it pass a sentence and end the trial. The court told Ajmal that a copy of his confession would be served to him on Tuesday and he would have to sign it.

Objection to jibe

The court took exception to a remark made in jest by Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam. In a jibe at Ajmal’s lawyer Abbas Kazmi, Mr. Nikam said Ajmal had not mentioned “Abu Abbas Kazmi.” The court immediately asked Mr. Nikam to withdraw his comment.

As for Ajmal’s confession, judge M.L. Tahaliyani said: “I am not taking any decision today [Monday], except that it [confession] has been recorded.”