PAKISTAN NAILED AGAIN

Headley’s confessions establish Islamabad’s lies

In his landmark deposition before an Indian court via videoconferencing, 26/11 plotter David Headley said little that wasn't already known or expected, but his testimony is important for two reasons. One, this is the first time in the history of Indian judiciary that a foreign national is deposing before an Indian court from foreign shores. A Pakistan-born American citizen, Headley was arrested by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation in October 2009, and in 2013, sentenced to 35 years in prison for his role in the Mumbai attacks that claimed six American lives among 166 others. India had repeatedly requested US authorities to extradite Headley but the request was denied on grounds of double jeopardy — Headley had already been tried and convicted once; punishing him again for the same crime violates the principles of jurisprudence. While one may view this as a limitation of the much-touted counter-terrorism cooperation between India and the US, it is equally true that getting Headley to depose before an Indian court has been a significant achievement for Indian authorities. Though a hardened and high-profile terrorist, Headley is still a US citizen and, importantly, a prize witness for US prosecutors. The plea deal that he has with US authorities allows him a host of protections and privileges. He turned an approver before the Indian law some two month ago.

The second issue here is of the content of Headley's testimony. Apart from explaining the working methods of his team and himself, he indicts the Pakistani spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, as the mastermind of 26/11. In fact, it was on the basis of Headley’s testimony that the US indicted in absentia a serving officer of the ISI, known only as Major Iqbal, delineating the extent of the agency's involvement. The ISI of course, used the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, for operational purposes, but, as Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju observed, Headley's statement is the final nail in the coffin of Pakistan’s ‘non-state actor' or the ‘rogue official' excuse.

The question now is: What does India do with the evidence at hand? The material clearly shows Pakistan's role but one has to be delusional to hope that the establishment there will take any action. Pakistan will merely reject all evidence as false, irrelevant or inadequate, as it has done for all these years and continues to do so — and as its latest stand on the Jaish-e-Mohammed's role in the Pathankot attack stands proof. India will continue to pursue diplomatic channels to pressure Pakistan but no immediate result is likely. Apart from the Pakistan factor, there are, however, a few other lessons that India and others can learn: First, counter-terrorism measures need to be improved across the board. Headley was a heroin addict and a drug-smuggler well-known to the authorities, before he turned to jihadi terrorism. He should have been apprehended much earlier in the day. Second, spy agencies working towards the same cause need to coordinate better. Headley and others were being tracked by the US, the UK and Indian agencies. Yet, due to inadequate information-sharing, no one connected the dots. Third, Headley visited India, from Pakistan, several times on a valid visa that was issued, shockingly, on the basis of incorrect information.