The latest plant on the investigation into Ishrat Jahan’s encounter death proves two things: Congress’s panic level is rapidly rising; the CBI is a willing tool in the hands of the party
The pattern is well-established by now, as is the purpose behind the pattern. Instead of seeking judicial closure of cases emanating from Gujarat, whether related to the post-Godhra violence of 2002 or the alleged ‘false’ encounter killing of criminals, the Congress is determined to drag them out forever, or at least till sufficient political damage is inflicted on Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Towards achieving this goal, the Congress has deployed both state and non-state actors — spineless officers of the tax-funded CBI, now derisively referred to as the ‘Congress Bureau of Investigation’, perpetually aggrieved jholawallahs and intellectually compromised mediapersons willing to collaborate with a corrupt-to-the-core establishment for reasons that are far too well known to merit reiteration.
The devious ploy of the Congress first surfaced when the Best Bakery case went to trial. A carefully orchestrated ‘outrage’, entirely the creation of professional instigators, led to the case being shifted out of Gujarat. What those given to calumny and worse had not bargained for is that the trial would get over so fast and the case would disappear from public memory so soon. So, tactics were changed and the results are there for all to see.
Trials in other cases have dragged out over nearly a decade; the findings of a Special Investigation Team set up by the Supreme Court to investigate the terrible arson at Gulberg Society on the insistence of jholawallahs have been repudiated just because they did not fit into the Congress-determined template to ‘fix’ Modi; and now the same deceitful game is being played with the CBI’s inquiry into the encounter killing of Ishrat Jahan and three of her associates, Javed Gulam Sheikh, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar, on June 15, 2004. Earlier, we saw this happen with the CBI’s investigation into the encounter killing of inter-State criminal Sohrabuddin Sheikh. Facts cease to matter, fiction and fevered imagination come to substitute evidence, and a vicious campaign of slander is mounted with a view to influencing courts.
As part of this strategy to target and taint Modi, and I say this with great sorrow, sections of the media have chosen to play the role of collaborators, willingly offering front page or cover space and airtime for the Dirty Tricks Department to plant stories with a startling twist. At first glance, these planted ‘exclusive reports’ appear convincing; the most casual scrutiny strips them of the façade of ‘investigative journalism’ and lays bare the unwholesome fact that they are crafted with the despicable purpose of maligning Modi and vitiating the atmosphere prior to an important hearing in a trial court. let’s take the CBI’s investigation into what has come to be known as the ‘Ishrat Jahan case’.
The investigation into this case should really address three related questions. First, who were Ishrat Jahan, Javed Gulam Sheikh, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan JoharIJ If they were indeed lashkar-e-Tayyeba operatives on a terror mission, then that fact should be placed firmly in the public domain. What we do know is that the Intelligence Bureau had received credible, actionable information about Ishrat Jahan and her associates — their leT connection and their mission — which was passed on to Gujarat Police. We also know that the lashkar-e-Tayyeba had declared Ishrat Jahan a ‘martyr’ to its foul cause after she was shot dead by the Crime Branch of Gujarat Police. Subsequently, that claim was removed from the leT’s website after the Congress declared Ishrat Jahan a ‘martyr’ to the cause of its (perverse) brand of ‘secularism’. There’s something more we know: When leT operative and one of the masterminds behind the 26/11 carnage in Mumbai, Daood Sayed Gilani also known as David Coleman Headley, was interrogated by the National Investigation Agency, he confirmed that Ishrat Jahan was indeed a fellow leT terrorist.
Second, was the shootout on June 15, 2004, genuine or stage-managed; in other words, was it a ‘fake’ encounter or an interception that resulted in the death of Ishrat Jahan and her associatesIJ This is the primary focus of the CBI’s investigation, but the issue becomes irrelevant unless the first question has been answered unequivocally. Strangely, the Gujarat High Court, which is supervising the investigation, is disinclined to even consider the first question, leave alone seek a definitive reply to it. linked to this question is a supplementary: What does the police do when it receives actionable input from the IB or any other intelligence agency about jihadis on a terror missionIJ Wait for verification by way of the deed being carried outIJ
Third, what is the culpability of a State Government in a ‘false’ encounter if it is proved to be soIJ Should responsibility and accountability remain restricted to the police or should it extend to the political leadership of the dayIJ If we are to accept that the political leadership is responsible and accountable for a ‘false’ encounter, then similar responsibility and accountability should be fixed across the board, beginning perhaps with Punjab where the Congress went out of its way to sanction extra-judicial killings during the years of Khalistani rage. We should also revisit each and every death of Maoists in Andhra Pradesh where the State Government’s specially-raised Grey Hounds have been successful in driving fear into Red Terrorists. So should every killing of underworld dons and their henchmen in Mumbai now become the subject of intense media and legal scrutiny. The list is endless.
Instead, we have a royal mess which is likely to get messier by the day. The CBI, in its eagerness to appease its political masters — or mistress, if you wish — has not only named and outed a senior IB officer but now wants to arrest and prosecute him for passing on the intelligence input about Ishrat Jahan and her associates to Gujarat Police. The CBI claims, with no basis attached to its claim, that the information was ‘manufactured’. The IB insists that’s not true and has fought back the CBI’s attempt to persecute one of its senior officers for doing his job diligently. The IB chief has written to the CBI chief, firmly and unambiguously reaffirming the validity of the information provided to Gujarat Police. Undeterred, the CBI continues to doggedly pursue a path which can only lead to irreparable damage to the IB.
Meanwhile, an elaborate story has been planted by the CBI, indicating that it will now try to rope in and implicate Modi and his then Minister of State for Home Amit Shah on the basis of what it is nothing but double hearsay: One of the accused is alleged to have overheard two other accused talking among themselves that ‘white beard’ and ‘black beard’ were informed of the encounter with Ishrat Jahan and her associates. The ‘white beard’, it is luridly suggested, is Modi while the ‘black beard’ is Amit Shah. The rag and the news channel where the story was planted would have done well to check whether Modi had a ‘white beard’ in 2004.
The CBI is clearly trying to vitiate the environment before the case comes up in the Gujarat High Court on July 4. Its strategy is there for all to see: Plead that a ‘new angle’ has emerged, perhaps even seek custody of Shah and even question Modi. In brief, secure a fresh lease of life for a case that should have been dealt with and resolved long ago. It would be absurd to suggest that the Congress’s tarred ‘Hand’ is not behind this latest move of the CBI. Had that been true, such elaborate plants would not have appeared in those sections of the media whose journalists are known to be the party’s handmaidens.
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi)
