Thursday, February 12, 2009

Pakistan Accepts India's Charges?

New York Times' Robert McKay has pointed out how the Indian media's news coverage has played fast and loose with the facts as it reported headline news blaring "Pakistan Accepts India's Charges" regarding Mumbai attacks.

Here's what McKay wrote on his blog:

The statement, made at a televised news conference by Rehman Malik, the senior security official in Pakistan’s Interior Ministry, was quickly reported by the Indian media. This report from the Indian news agency ANI, contains some of Mr. Malik’s remarks at the news conference on the Mumbai attacks (which started on Nov. 26, and are now called “26/11″ in the Indian press):

Mr. Malik was careful to mention that his government believes that the attacks were mainly planned in India, but the Indian media was far more interested in the acknowledged links to Pakistan.

After a graphic blaring “MUMBAI 26/11: MADE IN PAKISTAN,” a report by the Indian Broadcasting Network on Thursday began by framing the news this way: “Pakistan finally accepting India’s charges on the Mumbai attacks.” The full report can be read on the IBN Live Web site, or viewed in the (somewhat slow to load) video embedded below:

The coverage in the western media was distinctly different in words and tone from that of the Indian media. Here are some of the excerpts (Note the words "acknowledged" and "partly planned on its soil") :

Wall Street Journal:

Pakistan publicly acknowledged for the first time Thursday that last year's terrorist attack on Mumbai was partly planned on its soil and said it had arrested most of the key plotters, the clearest sign yet that Pakistan intends to cooperate with international efforts to prosecute those behind the attacks.

New York Times:

Pakistan acknowledged for the first time in public on Thursday that parts of the murderous Mumbai terror attacks were planned on its soil and said six new suspects were being held, including “the main operator.”


"Some part of the conspiracy has taken place in Pakistan," he told a news conference in the Pakistani capital Islamabad.

Regardless of the Indian media spin, or the accusations that Pakistanis caved under "pressure from Holbrooke, the Bulldozer", it is absolutely essential for Pakistan to pursue this investigation with sincerity and determination and ensure that any and all Pakistani perpetrators of this heinous crime in Mumbai are brought to justice. This is necessary to send a clear signal to the international community and any would-be terrorists that Pakistan will not allow its soil to be used for any attacks within or outside its territory. Pakistani government has to prove its seriousness in dealing with both domestic and international terror.

Related Links:

Pakistan Probe Finds Bangla Link

India's Choices After Pakistan's Response

Dawood Provided Logistics to Mumbai Attackers

Dawood Ibrahim Behind Mumbai Attacks

Solving Mumbai Puzzle

No One Knows Mumbai Better


Anonymous said...

Yes Pakistan can prove its sincerity and seriousness to the world in fighting terrorism by handing over all the people involved in the Mumbai attacks to India or USA to stand trial and be punished. I would prefer Pak hand them over to US coz if in India those terrorists will get active support from the likes of Arundathi Roy, Teesta Setalvad and the rest of the human rights gang including news channels like NDTV in India.

Riaz Haq said...


I don't think handing over any one to India or US is on the cards. It'll simply inflame Pak public opinion and make it more difficult to fight terror. The best course is for Pak authorities to demonstrate they won't go easy on anyone found guilty of terror attacks in Mumbai and elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

I agree whatever is being said about the media...Indian media did use a lot of rhetorics like 'Pakistan bows down' or 'Pakistan admits' etc. But they did show full covergage of the meeting too, which had acctual details of what was admitted. And media is the same on both sides. There are videos from your media in youtube, claiming that 26/11 was done by RAW & 9/11 was done by CIA in very explosive language.

The main point is, Pakistan's changing colors. To start with, Pakistan was not even ready to accept that terrorist were Pakistani nationals. Your PM Gilani rubbished the Indian dossier as 'information' in your senate. Your envoy to UK alleged that all the terrorist were from Hyderabad & were speaking Hindi, which can be proved wrong even by a child, on the basis of available information. Your interior minister went on to say that none of the terrorists had any record in your database NADRA. Your army flexed its military muscles, was ready to go on a full scale war with India, but was not ready to tackle 26/11 accused in your own country which were later taken in custody. Zarar Shah & Lakhvi are still under house arrest, no official chargesheet. No police custody, even after admitting.

Now suddenly in a matter of few weeks, the colours are changing. Now 'some part' of conspiracy came from Pakistan. Still no exlanation of many points in dossier, like training sites, trainers, their network, their financers. Also only the statements like 'mainly it was hatched in India'. No explanations/proof to back it up. And there are lot many names in your response, which even Indian intelligence do not know. This is like sacrificing sepoys & letting Generals go. We have enough evidense against Zarar Shah, Hafeez Saeed, Dawood Ibrahim, Zaki Lakhvi, Maulala Azhar. I can gurantee, nothing will happen to these big names. Only few minor, unimportant pawns will be scarifised under the name of prosecution.

Riaz Haq said...

Peaceful Indian,

You predict, "I can gurantee, nothing will happen to these big names. Only few minor, unimportant pawns will be scarifised under the name of prosecution."

Well, let's just wait and see. I do hope you are wrong. If Pakistani government doesn't act against the Pakistani individuals who participated in Mumbai attacks, it'll send a very bad message of impunity to other terrorists who are killing Pakistanis too.

Anonymous said...

Peaceful Indian: I can gurantee, nothing will happen to these big names. Only few minor, unimportant pawns will be sacrificed under the name of prosecution.

Agree. To expect what Condoleeza Rice wanted to happen - "follow this investigation wherever it leads" (i.e. the ISI) - is too much to expect. That Army will not allow it. This is the same Army that allows American drones to take-off from Pakistani territory - per Dianne Feinstein - (27 more killed today) and then throw hissy fits about about "territorial integrity". They're a joke - and they're in charge.

Anonymous said...

Anon -
You do seem to be knowledgable :-) Yes I did see that report today. Actually Dianne F was not supposed to say publicly, that the Drone took off from Pakistani airbase. It was reported that it was slip of tongue, which landed Washington & Islamabad in trouble. So far, Pakistan government is asserting that drones are operating from Afghan base. It indiacated that there is secret deal between US & Pak about this. Publicly, Pak condemns these strikes, but secretly, it promotes it. I know I do not have sufficient proof to back up this claim, but mild reactions from Pak also indicate that there are such ties. So in that matter at least, Obama does not seem to have different policy from Bush.

Anonymous said...

Pakistan agreed because of the pressure of USA and its failing economy. It will do nothing sincerely to stop any such action in the future, which USA and india knows. That is one of the reason there are repeated attack in the north west frontiers by USA which pakistan is watching quietly.

It might not be too far away where pakistan goes into self destructin mode to the emerging of taliban in a very powerfull manner in the north west frontiers region.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's a story from Indian media about Mumbai terror trial:

Agencies Posted online: Tuesday , Dec 22, 2009 at 1918 hrs
Mumbai : Lone surviving Pakistani gunman Ajmal Kasab said on Tuesday that he was not a "Jihadi" and had not undergone any training at the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) camp in Pakistan.

Kasab told the court, which was recording the gunman's final statement on the prosecution evidence, he was a cook with a catering company in "Saarayee-Alamghir" near Jhelum in Pakistan.

Denying any involvement with terror outfits LeT and Jamat-ul-Dawa (JuD), Kasab declined meeting Hafiz Sayed, Zaki-ur-Lakhvi, Abu Kahfa and Abu Hamza--all wanted accused and alleged LeT operatives.

"I heard the names of Lash-e-Taliban and JUD from the police here. Crime Branch officials had shown the photograph of Lakhvi," Kasab said.

Asked by the court if he was introduced to one Major General Saab at the training camp, Kasab said, "This is absolutely wrong."

The judge, M L Tahaliyani, was putting questions to Kasab on the basis of his confession before magistrate in February; however Kasab disowned the confession, saying it was given under duress.

When special Judge M L Tahaliyani referred to his statement in the confession that Hafeez Sayed had told 30 boys at the LeT training camp that they would have to lay down their lives for liberating Kashmir, Kasab said: "This is absolutely wrong".

Alleging that the police had threatened to administer electric shocks to him if he did not give a statement to the magistrate, Kasab said the police had prepared the confession and forced him to recite it.

Asked by the court, if he was told in the training that they would go to heaven if they attacked India, Kasab replied in the negative saying he did not attend the training.

Kasab also denied having told the police anything about Kuber boat and a dead body found on the boat. According to the prosecution, the group of ten terrorists had highjacked Kuber on their way to Mumbai from Karachi in Pakistan.

"I have never seen the boat; crime branch and FBI had showed me pictures of Kuber and my clothes and articles seized from the boat. These articles must belong to either fishermen or smugglers. The AK 47 rifle may belong to the police and it is not mine."

An I-card recovered from his trouser pocket was shown to Kasab in the court on Tuesday, but he refused to identify himself. "It's not me. Trousers are not mine, I was wearing leather pants," he stated.

Similarly, about the money seized from him, he said that it was not his. "The police had taken Rs 2,400 from me on November 25, which I had kept for my return ticket. Those currency notes did not have any marks on them. These notes have something written on them," Kasab said when he was shown the Rs 100-note.

The gunman further alleged that all the witnesses were briefed by the police. "One witness had in the identification parade identified me as the one in Hotel Taj. That witness was not brought to court during the trial," Kasab said.

He further said all the witnesses were shown his photograph prior to the parade and thus they could identify him and witnesses were prompted by the police.

Kasab also alleged that even when he was in jail custody, three crime branch officials were guarding him and used to threaten him to give the statement before the magistrate.

"I had given this complaint in writing to the magistrate on February 18, when I was produced for recording my confession. But when nothing was done on it, I kept mum and did not complain again," Kasab said.

Kasab and two Indians- Faheem Ansari and Sabaudding Ahmed are facing trial for their involvement in the 26/11 terror attacks.x

Hopewins said...

Dr. Haq,

You yourself said (above): "It is absolutely essential for Pakistan to pursue this investigation with sincerity and determination and ensure that any and all Pakistani perpetrators of this heinous crime in Mumbai are brought to justice. This is necessary to send a clear signal to the international community and any would-be terrorists that Pakistan will not allow its soil to be used for any attacks within or outside its territory..."

Well? Has this happened? Has any investigation been carried out? Has anyone been arrested for questioning? Has a single person been charged with anything? Any trials? Any convictions? Anything at all?


Then, as an inverse derivative, it follows from your own statement that:
"Pakistan has just sent a clear signal to the international community and any would-be terrorists that Pakistan **WILL** allow its soil to be used for any attacks within or outside its territory."

Do you disagree? If so, why?

Thank you.

Riaz Haq said...

HWJ: "Then, as an inverse derivative, it follows from your own statement that:
"Pakistan has just sent a clear signal to the international community and any would-be terrorists that Pakistan **WILL** allow its soil to be used for any attacks within or outside its territory."

No, it just means that Pakistani courts are not willing to accept the kind of evidence that Indian courts routinely accept after POTA or the US courts accept under Patriot Act.

It's much harder to get a conviction for domestic or foreign terrorism cases in Pakistan.

Riaz Haq said...

Who really committed #MumbaiTerrorAttack 2008? #LeT? #Indian agencies? #Pakistan agencies? Will we ever know the truth? Is it a betrayal of #India?

Elias Davidsson

Incompetence is a fact of life, but there are times when the incompetence theory is strained to the breaking point and it is more rational to posit deliberate deception. In the case of the Mumbai investigation, Davidsson depicts its failures as going well beyond incompetence.

Neither the police, nor the judge charged with trying the sole surviving suspect, made public a timeline of events (188-189; 688-689). Even the most basic facts of when a given set of attacks began and when they ended were left vague.
Key witnesses were not called to testify. Witnesses who said they saw the terrorists commit violence, or spoke to them, or were in the same room with them, were ignored by the court (e.g., 279 ff.).
Contradictions and miracles were not sorted out. One victim was apparently resurrected from the dead when his testimony was essential to the blaming of Pakistan (229-230). A second victim died in two different places (692), while a third died in three places (466). No one in authority cared enough to solve these difficulties.
Eyewitnesses to the crime differed on the clothing and skin color of the terrorists, and on how many of them there were (328-331). No resolution was sought.
At least one eyewitness confessed she found it hard to distinguish “friends” from terrorists (316). No probe was stimulated by this odd confusion.
The number of terrorists who committed the deeds changed repeatedly, as did the number of terrorists who survived (29 ff.; 689).
Crime scenes were violated, with bodies hauled off before they could be examined (682-683).
Identity parades (“line-ups”) were rendered invalid by weeks of prior exposure of the witnesses to pictures of the suspect in newspapers (101; 582).
Claims that the terrorists were armed with AK-47s were common, yet forensic study of the attack at the Cama Hospital failed to turn up a single AK-47 bullet (156).
Of the “hundreds of witnesses processed by the court” in relation to the attacks at the CafĂ©Leopold, Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Oberoi-Trident Hotel or Nariman House, “not a single one testified to having observed any of the eight accused kill anyone” (40).
Indian authorities declined to order autopsies on the dead at the targeted Jewish center in Nariman House. The dead, five out of six of whom were Israeli citizens (427), were instead whisked back to Israel by a Jewish organization based in Israel, allegedly for religious reasons (453). Religious sensitivity seems to have extended to a large safe at the crime scene, which the team also transported to Israel (454).
(3) Extreme secrecy and the withholding of basic information from the population, with the excuse of “national security”

The surviving alleged terrorist had no public trial (661).
No transcript of his secret trial has been released (670).
One lawyer who agreed to defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated (670).
The public was told there was extensive CCTV footage of the attacks, despite the mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of CCTV cameras on the days in question (97-98; 109 ff.; 683 ff.); but only a very small percentage of the claimed footage was ever released and it suffers from serious defects–two conflicting time-stamps and signs of editing (111).
Members of an elite Indian commando unit that showed up with between 475 and 800 members to battle eight terrorists (534) were not allowed to testify in court (327; 428-429).
The “confession” of the suspect, on which the judge leaned heavily, was given in secret. No transcript of this confession has been released to the public and the suspect later renounced the confession, saying he had been under threat from police when he gave it (599 ff.; 681).....