Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Behind the verdict, the facts: Pak couldn’t care less, US didn’t help either

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • The convictions in the IC-814 hijack case by a Patiala court hide a fact that the CBI grudgingly admits: India’s failure — despite sufficient diplomatic pressure — to bring to trial the five Pakistani hijackers and three militants released as a swap for the hostages in Kandahar.

    While there is evidence to prove the presence of the perpetrators in Pakistan (in the form of addresses, telephone numbers, confessions of arrested militants), the fact is that the IC-814 hijack case is one instance where the USA failed India, despite the fact that there was an American hostage on board, a psychotherapist by the name of Jeanne Moore.

    On conviction day, even CBI Director Vijay Shankar regrets the fact that the five hijackers and the three militants — Maulana Masood Azhar, Omar Sheikh and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar — still remain on the list of “absconding accused” and on India’s “most wanted” list respectively.

    Ads by Google

    Speaking to The Indian Express, he said: “Despite our best possible effort at the highest level, despite Pakistan knowing full well that Maulana Masood, his brother and others are on Pakistani soil, Pakistan has refused to acknowledge their presence and join the global war against terror.”

    On the failed diplomatic pressure, the CBI chief admitted, “The most intriguing aspect of the hijack case has been the stand of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which registered its own case after the Kandahar hijack due to the presence of Jeanne Moore. The FBI was given all possible help by the CBI and yet its own role can only be described as a major disappointment for us.”

    Few recall that as early as 2003, when the hijack case was still making headlines, the then CBI Director PC Sharma had sounded off visiting FBI Director Robert Muller that India was willing to have the hijackers tried in USA.

    Shankar says he reiterated the offer of an American trial for the hijackers during a meeting with FBI’s Deputy Director John S Pistole a few months ago. However, despite FBI teams visiting India several times since the hijack and permitted free access to crew members and key investigators, little progress has been made by the agency in its own IC-814 hijack probe and this is despite attempts of “highest level” intervention, for instance, when then Home Minister, L K Advani discussed the lack of cooperation with US Attorney general John Ashcroft in Washington in 2003.

    Added to this has been total silence from Islamabad, which has been repeatedly reminded by New Delhi about India’s concern about the hijackers roaming freely on their soil. Till date, Kabul, too, has turned a deaf ear to the CBI’s requests to hand over key evidence needed for the investigations. These include travel and identification papers which US troops are understood to have recovered from a Kabul hideout to prove that that after the hijack drama, the five hijackers got sanctuary in Afghanistan before shifting their base to Karachi.

    For a while, US officials had held out the promise of conducting an “umbrella trial” meant to include the IC-814 hijack and the abduction of Daniel Pearl by Omar Sheikh. Nothing came out of that too. The CBI obviously has almost given up hope of brining the hijackers to trial. As for as the released militants, Omar Sheikh remains in prison and Maulana Masood Azhar under “house arrest.”

    Comments
    Post comment

    Be the first to comment.

    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.