Ishrat Jahan: From LeT to Indian Mujahideen – How many more lies to justify the killing of an innocent?

After spreading around the allegation for 9 years that Ishrat was an LeT operative by quoting the terrorist David Headley, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) appears to have changed its track. All of a sudden, a story has now been planted through the Asian age on 21st October 2013, claiming that their prize catch, Yasin Bhatkal has confessed that Ishrat was part of an Indian Mujahudeen (IM) module! The following is the planted story:

Asian Age Oct 21, 2013 – MANOJ ANAND

The arrest and subsequent interrogation of Yasin Bhatkal has given conclusive evidence to the security agencies in India on pro-active involvement of Pakistan’s ISI in formation and operations of the Indian Mujahedeen (IM) in 2000. Disclosing that Yasin Bhatkal has also confessed that Ishrat Jehan who was killed in an encounter in Gujarat was an IM module, authoritative security sources in the home ministry told this newspaper that there are more than 15 active IM modules who are taking shelter in Pakistan.

IB’s shift from LeT to IM can be understood from the evidentiary point of view since the Headley allegation was a second hand hearsay without any legal validity. The Yasin Bhatkal is slightly better since the IB may be able to get a written statement out of Yasin Bhatkal. But will the statement have any credibility in the eye of law or otherwise? Let us test the statement in relation to the facts.

Firstly lets look at another statement made by Bhatkal on the very same day (21.10.2013) and is published in Times Of India:

To define IM links with Pakistan, Yasin reportedly claimed that IM is totally different from LeT who works as a puppet of Pakistan-based counter espionage agency ISI.

This time around the Dirty Tricks Deparatment (DTD) of IB and the hidden modules of RSS/BJP in IB have put their foot in their mouth. Yasin says IM is totally different from LeT and Ishrat is a module of IM. On the other hand, for 9 long years Gujarat Government and the entire cadre of BJP/RSS have been justifying the unlawful killing on the basis that Ishrat was an LET operative. Since Yasin Bhatkal categorially states that IM and LET are completely different and indepenedent, how does Ishrat become a part of both IM and LET modules?

But there is more. When Ishrat was shot and killed on 15th June, 2004, Indian Mujahedeen (IM) wasn’t even born! Infact according to Ex Gujarat Police DGP PC Pandey, IM was born after March 2008. In a press conference covered by Times of India on August 17th 2008, 3 weeks after Ahmedabad bomb blasts that left 45 people dead, PC Pandey stated that a group headed by SIMI leader Safdar Nagori had executed similar blasts in Jaipur, Hyderabad and Bangalore. After Nagori’s arrest in Indore in March 2008, Mufti Bashar had wrested control of SIMI’s terror module. Bashar re-grouped the SIMI network after Nagori’s arrest and plotted the Ahmedabad blasts with the help of a Mumbai-based techie, an employee of Wipro who is still at large. According to PC Pandey, this group started under the leadership of Bashar is Indian Mujahideen. Here’s his statement as reported in TOI.

SIMI operatives were working under the guise of Indian Mujahideen. Remove the first and last letters of SIMI, and you have the IM.

The Gujarat Police thus claimed to have cracked the case by discovering the hitherto unknown jihadi organisation called Indian Mujahideen and that IM was a metamorphosis of SIMI formed after Safdar Nagori’s arrest in March 2008. So how does Ishrat become a part of an IM module when IM was not even born when Ishrat was gunned down in cold blood on June 15th 2004?

In fact the phrase “Indian Mujahideen” did not appear on any official website of an Indian investigative agency i.e. CBI or Police till as late as December 2008.

Google Search of Indian Gov Websites from 2004-2008 shows that IM was first mention in Dec 2008
Google Search of Indian Gov Websites from 2004-2008 shows that IM was first mention in Dec 2008

Above image shows search results  from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2008 for the phrase “Indian Mujahideen” in all NIC.IN websites which include ALL Police and CBI websites. It is clearly seen that, first time an Indian investigative agency ever used the phrase “Indian Mujahideen” in an official website was in December 2008.

In the past, on TruthOfGujarat, we have already written in great details as to how the David Headley statement about Ishrat being an LET operative is completely incongruous with rest of the NIA report1.

Therefore one has to wonder, why this deliberate and desperate attempt to paint Ishrat as a terrorist? From the legal point of view, a fake encounter is a fake encounter and the quantum of punishment for the Gujarat Police men who are already accused in this case would remain the same, irrespective of the antecedents of Ishrat. So who is going to benefit, if by some logic defying mechanism Ishrat is painted as a terrorist?

When CBI filed its charge-sheet in the Ishrat Jahan case on 3rd July 2013, it included statements of three Gujarat policemen which directly indicts the CM Narendra Modi and the Minister of State for Home Amit Shah. The CBI investigation in Ishrat Jahan case has already reached Amit Shah, Narendra Modi could be next. It is evident from the statements of the three Gujarat Policemen that Modi and Amit Shah had given ‘approval’ for the encounter. By painting Ishrat as a terrorist, are the big guns of Gujarat looking for a legal escape route for sanctioning the encounter, on the pretext that they only sanctioned the use of maximum force according to Gujarat Government’s policy of ‘Zero Tolerance’ for terrorism and that they were completely unaware of the modus-operandi (abduction and murder) of the encounter?

The question we Indians should pose – how many more lies will we be fed to be persuaded that the encounter that the Prime Ministerial Candidate had sanctioned was that of a ‘dreaded terrorist Ishrat’ and not of an innocent nineteen year old girl from the neighborhood?

Some more about IM
If we look at public discourse starting 2004 which would include all types of Media including newspapers, it is evident that Indian Mujahideen did not even exist in any public discourse till 2008. We are producing here the graphs from a Google product called Google Trends ( which measures interests/public discourse based on it’s vast search index.

Google Trends Ishrat Jahan vs Indian Mujahideen
Google Trends Ishrat Jahan vs Indian Mujahideen

It is clearly seen from the above graph that public discourse about Ishrat Jahan (red graph) first started in middle of 2004, while Indian Mujahideen (blue graph) was not in picture till middle of 2008.

  1. The Shocking Falsification by Sunday Guardian – Maligning Ishrat to save NaMo