Indian soldiers' deaths: Pak trying to internationalise issue, say diplomats

New Delhi: Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar's call for a UN-led third party probe into the brutal killing of Indian soldiers has sparked off an angry response in India. Indian diplomats claim this is Pakistan's attempt to internationalise the issue.
Speaking to IBN18 Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep Sardesai during a debate on CNN-IBN, former Indian diplomat KC Singh said, "Civilian governments tend to duck. When the military does something, then Pakistan puts civilian government in the front. In this case, if Hina Rabbani Khar really was in control, she shouldn't have gone back to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which is provoking India."
KC Singh said, "This has been done to suck UN back in. How can a foreign minister make an argument like this when there is a convention providing means for settling it."

When former Pakistan minister Javed Jabbar questioned during the debate as to why did India want to avoid an independent third party mechanism evaluating the charges, KC Singh said, "There is 49 convention to which both are signatories."
Meanwhile, External Affairs minister Salman Khurshid admitted that the incident is a set back to normalisation of Indo Pak ties but also added that India should tread cautiously taking one step at a time. "I would imagine that this issue has very serious implications. But let's take it one step at a time. I don't think we should either let our guard down or get hysterical. Let's take one step at a time. Let's get a formal response from them and then we will see."
When asked whether India was ready to take it up at the UN International Convention, Khurshid said, "Because we are distressed and disturbed doesn't mean that we will give a go by to sort out positions that we have taken about not inviting multilateral interference. We have consistently maintained this in the bilateral situation between India and Pakistan."
Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar denied Pakistan's hand in the killings of Indian soldiers. Speaking to CNN-IBN, she said Pakistan was ready for a third party to verify their claims if 'India doesn't believe in our enquiry'. She also told CNN-IBN that Pakistan had completed its investigation.
Pakistan Ambassador to India, Salman Bashir, also reiterated that the country did not violate ceasefire or cross the Line of Control (LoC) at any point of time. Pointing that a Pakistani post was attacked on January 6 wherein a soldier had died, Bashir said that though the matter was raised by the Foreign Ministry, Pakistan had refrained from going to the media.
Ex-Pak army general blames LeT for killing of two Indian soldiers
Reacting to India's protest, Former Pakistan Army General Talat Masood has denied the role of the army in the killing of Indian soldiers, saying "Jihadis like Lashkar-e-Toiba could be behind the attack".
Masood further claimed that the Pakistani army is not backing militants.
Clear evidence of Pakistan's involvement: Antony
There is clear evidence that Pakistani troops were involved in the killing of two Indian soldiers in Jammu and Kashmir in an "inhuman" manner, Defence Minister AK Antony said Wednesday.
"That it has happened is real. There is clear evidence to it," Antony told reporters on the sidelines of a function at the Indian Statistical Institute here.
Antony's statements came in the wake of Pakistan denying its involvement in the latest killings.

Delhi Gang Rape Case

On 16 December 2012 a female physiotherapy intern was beaten and gang raped in Delhi. She died from her injuries thirteen days later while undergoing emergency treatment in Singapore for brain and gastrointestinal damage. After watching a film in South Delhi in the early evening, she and a male companion had boarded a bus, which was being driven as an unauthorized "joyride", thinking it was a public bus. The only other passengers on the bus were five men who were friends of the driver. All six, including the driver, were charged in connection with the assaults and have been arrested.
After the attack, she was taken to Safdarjang Hospital, received multiple surgeries, and was placed on mechanical ventilation. On 26 December, she was moved to Singapore for further treatment, where she died on 29 December.
The incident has generated international coverage and was condemned by the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, who called on the Government of India and the Government of Delhi "to do everything in their power to take up radical reforms, ensure justice and reach out with robust public services to make women’s lives more safe and secure". Public protests took place in Delhi, where thousands of protesters clashed with security forces. Similar protests took place in major cities throughout the country.

Incident

The victims, a 23-year old woman and her male friend, were on their way home after watching the film Life of Pi in Saket in South Delhi. They boarded a chartered bus at Munirka for Dwarka that was being driven by joyriders at about 9:30 pm. The minor among the accused had called for passengers telling them that it was going towards their destination. The woman's friend became suspicious when the bus deviated from its normal route and its doors were shut. When he objected, the group of six men already on board taunted the couple, asking what they were doing alone at such a late hour.
When the male victim tried to intervene, he was beaten, gagged and knocked unconscious with an iron rod. The men dragged the woman to the rear of the bus, beating her with the rod and raping her while the bus driver continued to drive. Medical reports later suggested that the woman suffered serious injuries to her abdomen, intestines and genitals due to the assault, and doctors say that the damage indicates that a blunt object (suspected to be the iron rod) may have been used for penetration. That rod was later described by police as being a rusted, L-shaped implement of the type used as a wheel jack handle. According to the International Business Times, a police spokesman said that the youngest attacker "sexually abused his victim twice and ripped out her intestines with his bare hands." According to police reports the woman attempted to fight off her assailants, biting three of the attackers and leaving bite marks on the accused men. After the beatings and rape ended, the attackers threw both the victims from the moving bus. Then the accused allegedly tried to drive the bus over the woman but she was pulled aside by her male friend. One of the perpetrators later cleaned the vehicle. Police impounded it the next day.
The victims were found by a passerby on the road, partially clothed and unconscious, around 11 pm. The passerby phoned the Delhi Police, who took the couple to a hospital, where the female victim was given emergency treatment and placed on mechanical ventilation. She was found with only 5% of her intestines left inside of her. A doctor at the hospital later said that the "rod was inserted into her and it was pulled out with so much force that the act brought out her intestines also. That is probably the only thing that explains such severe damage to her intestines.”

Victims

The female victim was born and raised in Delhi while her parents were from a small village in the Ballia district of Uttar Pradesh. Her father, who sold his agricultural land to educate her, works for a private company as a loader in Delhi.
Complying with Indian law, the real name of the victim was initially not released to the media, so pseudonyms were used for her by various media houses instead, including Jagruti ("awareness"), Amanat ("treasure"), Nirbhaya ("fearless one"), and Damini ("lightning", after the 1993 Hindi film Damini), although some media commentators have questioned the judgement of using pseudonyms for her.
The male victim is 28 years old, from Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, and lives in Ber Sarai, New Delhi.
Delhi police registered a criminal case against the editor of a Delhi based tabloid for disclosing the female victim's identity, as such disclosure is an offence under section 228(A) of Indian Penal Code. Shashi Tharoor, union minister, suggested that if the parents had no objection, her identity could be made public, with a view to showing respect for her courageous response by naming future laws after her, but Tharoor's remark created controversy. Later, her father and brother said that "if her name is made public for this purpose, they have no objection to it" as well as "if the government names the revised anti-rape law after her, they have no objection and it would be an honor to her".

Treatment and death

On 19 December 2012, the woman's damaged intestines were resected due to risk of gangrene, and she received intravenous nutrition and medication. On 21 December 2012, the government appointed a committee of physicians to ensure she received the best medical care. By 25 December 2012, she remained intubated, on life support and in critical condition. Doctors stated that the internal bleeding had been controlled to an extent, but her increased bilirubin level (suggesting hepatic dysfunction or hemolysis) was a "serious cause of concern".
At a cabinet meeting chaired by Manmohan Singh on 26 December, the decision was made to fly her to Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore for further care. Mount Elizabeth is a multi-organ transplant speciality hospital.
The decision to move the patient while she was still in critical condition has been criticised for being purely political. Doctors have questioned the need to transfer an ICU patient for organ transplants that were not scheduled for weeks or even months later.
Government sources indicate that the Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit, was personally behind the decision. Hours earlier, Union Minister P. Chidambaram had stated that the woman was not in a condition to move. Some reports suggest that the decision to shift was taken when it was already clear that she would not survive the next 48 hours.
During the six-hour flight by air-ambulance to Singapore, at 30,000 feet (9,100 m), the woman suddenly went into a near collapse. Her blood pressure dipped alarmingly, and doctors on the flight had to create an arterial line to stabilize her. That the doctors were able to perform this procedure in-flight was considered a medical feat. However, the victim never regained consciousness in Singapore.
On 28 December 2012, at 11 am (IST), her condition was "extremely critical" and the Chief Executive Officer of the Mount Elizabeth Hospital said that the woman suffered brain damage, pneumonia, abdominal infection, and that she was "fighting for her life." Her condition continued to deteriorate, and she died of a cerebral edema at 4:45 am on 29 December, Singapore Standard Time (2:15 am, 29 December, IST; 8:45 pm, 28 December, UTC).
Her body was cremated on 30 December 2012 in Delhi under high police security. The government denied access to the media and the public. The "fortification" of Delhi was criticised by many, including the main opposition party of India.

 

After the death

After the woman's death on 29 December, protests were staged all over India, including Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Thiruvananthapuram, Mumbai, Visakhapatnam. Many of the mourners carried candles, wore black dress and some pasted black cloth across their mouths.
The following day a large number of people staged protests near Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. There were minor clashes between some groups of protesters and the police; the police then shifted some protesters from the spot. One group of protesters also observed a one-day hunger strike at Jantar Mantar. All roads leading to India Gate were closed by police and areas where protesters had gathered during the previous week were out of bounds to the public. Some of the protesters drew graffiti and slogans on papers spread on the road, condemning the incident, demanding stricter laws and speedy judgement. The main opposition party of India, the BJP, renewed its demand for a special parliament session to discuss the case and to adopt stricter laws on crime against women.
New Year’s celebrations were scaled down to a large extent, with the Indian armed forces and some clubs and hotels in Delhi cancelling their new year parties.

 

WHY INDIA CANT GET DAWOOD IBRAHIM ?

From his safe house in KARACHI the DON continues to expand his business empire in INDIA while the authorities shows their unwillingness to break down the DON’s network. 

Why India can’t get him?

India refuses to apply enough political pressure on Pakistan to deport the man who has terrorized the country. It doesn’t even call him a TERRORIST.

DAWOOD IBRAHIM figures at a lowly number 8 on the home ministry’s now withdrawn dossier of the 50 most wanted fugitives from the law in INDIA. Way below Lashkar-e-Toiba head HAFIZ MOHAMMED SAEED and even Major SAMEER ALI of the ISI. He is wanted for “conspiracy for the bomb explosions in Mumbai in 1993 with intention to cause death”. Nearly 18 years after the serial bombing in Mumbai that killed over 250 people, memories may be fading. The ISI trained DAWOOD’s gang members to wield arms and explosives. It also shipped almost 3 tons of RDX, Ak-47, and grenades. Yet the bombings are still treated as a criminal case than an ISI- backed terrorist plot like the 261/11 attacks. This has further weakened Indias case against DAWOOD. “ DAWOOD does not get the attention as that HAFIZ MOHAMMED SAEED or MAULANA MASOOD AZHAR gets”, says an Indian intelligence official. That could be because the DAWOOD gang is still seen as an underworld outfit and nor a terrorist group like the Lashkar-e-Toiba or the Jaish-e-Mohammed.

India does not have an extradition treaty with Pakistan. The other more serious hurdle: Pakistan simply denies the gangster terrorist is in the country. Ahead of the 2002 Agra summit, President PERVEZ MUSHARRAF told the then home minister L.K.ADWANI “Mr. ADWANI, let me clear you one thing emphatically that DAWOOD IBRAHIM is not in Pakistan”. It is a story Pakistan has steadfastly clung to even as India has continued to the bomb the Pakistan side with the most wanted lists every time the two sides meet.

India has been unable to apply sufficient political pressure on Pakistan to deport DAWOOD. The closest it came to doing this was between 2003 and 2004 when ADWANI took up DAWOOD’s case with the US. The US department of treasury designated him a ‘SPECIALLY-DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORIST’ under an executive order that could freeze assets belonging to him with the US and prohibits transactions with the US nationals. For a while, it appeared as if Pakistan would finally concede to DAWOOD’s presence, but when political pressure from India slipped, it went back to the denial mode. Since then, DAWOOD has used his underworld network to facilitate terror operations in India and expand his presence in the fake Indian currency business and hawala transactions for terrorist outfits.

Experts say there is a case for DAWOOD to be put in a special category of individuals threatening national security. “The US went after OSAMA BIN LADEN not only because he master minded the 9/11 attacks but also because he was a clear present danger to them”, says former director intelligence bureau, AJIT DOVAL.

With all other options to get DAWOOD fading, legal experts say India need to get the US to apply pressure on Pakistan to deport him. “The US was the first to declare DAWOOD a global terrorist, India should now ask the US to pressure Pakistan into not seltering him”, says UJJWAL NIKAM, special public prosecutor in 1993 Mumbai blast case.

In 2006, 100 of the 129 accused in the Mumbai bombings were found guilty and convicted by the special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court. It is the longest running trial in India’s history. Indian investigators admit that there has been no investigation that conclusively links DAWOOD to the 1993 balsts. The sole thread that connects DAWOOD to the blasts is a confession made before the police by one of his lieutenants who saw him, Tiger Memon and three unknown Pakistani nationals hatch the blast conspiracy. ”Even if we do bring DAWOOD back, can we convict him in the 1993 blasts case? All we have is a single confession made before the police which in inadmissible in court”, says former CBI director JOGINDER SINGH.