The Union Home Minister, Mr P Chidambaram is optimistic of India getting access to the Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley after he made the confession to an American court that he planned the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack.
But the facts speak otherwise. Headley had agreed to plead guilty in return for an undertaking from the US officials that no death penalty would be awarded to him and also that he would not be extradited to India. The deal with Headley was described by the law enforcement officials as a good deal.
Though Mr Chidambaram held that pleading guilty by Headley was "not a setback to India", the fact remains that the Obama administration would never like to expose the operatives of its intelligence agencies. Ever since the case of David Coleman Headley broke out in October 2009 and the way the Obama administration handled the issue it was clear that the administration and FBI were trying to prevent the truth regarding Headley from coming out. With his pleading guilty the issue of producing evidences and witnesses would not arise as it may expose his links with the US intelligence agencies. What is also significant is his admission of guilt has denied the privilege to the relatives of the persons killed in the Mumbai 26/11 terror attack to question him before the court about the details of the attack. It is something else that his confession has strengthened India’s case against Kasab, the lone terrorist arrested after the attack.
Maybe for diplomatic reasons and compulsions the US authorities have assured India to allow its National Intelligence Agency (NIA) to question him but this does not mean that they would allow Headley to be extradited to India for further probe. Headley’s trial in India would put Pakistan in an extremely awkward situation, which the Obama administration would never like. Already two Pakistani nationals living in Pakistan – Ilyas Kashmiri of the Al Qaeda’s 313 Brigade and Major (retd) Abdur Rehman Hashim Syed alias Pasha of the Pakistan Army – have been mentioned as accused along with Headley.
It is significant that despite having fairly actionable intelligence about the Mumbai attacks from Headley, the US authorities did not share it in a manner that was expected of them. Also they did not allow the Indian intelligence officials to meet him. What does it imply? The manner in which the US officials helped Headley to change his name on all the important documents once he became David Headley from Daood Gilani gives rise to suspicion about the role of the US intelligence and the administration.
There is no reason for India to be excited over the prospect that Headley will testify in judicial proceedings where Indian investigators will have a right to question him. In fact the Head of the Justice Department of the US, Mr Eric Holder was also not emphatic in his assertion that India "would" question Headley. Instead his wordings were ambiguous, "It is my understanding that India would be able to obtain access to David Coleman Headley to question him." Nevertheless the government of India should approach the US President, Mr Barack Obama and should make it clear that his administration must not adopt an ambiguous stand in the matter of extradition of Headley and putting him on trial before an Indian court. This would prove to be a litmus test for the US claim to be a strategic friend of India and a partner in countering terror and how far it values and respects its friendship with India.
