Or is It colonel purohit used LET for a false flag Op ?
Get real for once and stop burying your head in sand
During an army's Court of Inquiry as many as 59 witnesses stated to the court that Purohit was doing his job (of gathering intelligence inputs) by infiltrating extremist organizations.Officers have testified that he was doing what he was asked to do as a military intelligence man.It was all Politically Motivated and have no grounds in Court of Inquiry When the Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) asked for the officer, on the grounds that he belonged to the Abhinav Bharat, the Army hastily handed over its man, then posted in Madhya Pradesh.
But during the Court of Inquiry, which concluded last month in Mumbai, the portrait that has emerged of the officer is a flattering one.
Officers have testified that Lieutenant Colonel Purohit had, in the course of his duties, infiltrated organisations like the Students Islamic Movement of India or SIMI. This is exactly what he had been ordered to do as a military intelligence man.
I infiltrated Abhinav Bharat: Purohit - Hindustan Times
Lt Colonel Purohit: Did the Army sell short an effective officer?
Does these report can be presented in courts as evidence ?
Same case is for Aeemanand he Granted Bail after NIA Failed to Frame charges against him In his bail petition, Aseemanand had been arguing that his name did not figure in the initial FIR lodged on February 19, 2007, by the railway police.
"In fact, the FIR was lodged against one Ajmat Ali, arrested on the basis of a sketch prepared on description given by two passengers.
Its clearly Stated his Named is Added because of the Political reason It the conspiracy to Target RSS chief
which uncovered in courts
I was forced by NIA to confess, says Aseemanand - Rediff.com India News
I am being forced to make false statements: Swami Aseemanand | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis
Ajmer blast accused alleges Shinde, others pressurized him to name RSS leaders - The Times of India
Did FBI presented any evidence which confirms LET link to Samjhauta blast ?
Come On, There is a reason Indian Military intelligence Colonel Purohit is in custody because of the sophisticated explosives used in the Blast. Do you believe LET can get their hands on such explosives in India ?
The arrest of Rajendra Chaudhary allegedly for planting bombs in Samjhauta Express, during Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik's visit to India has exposed the ugly symbiosis between bilateral ministerial visits between India and Pakistan, and new conspiracy theories on “Hindu Terror”.
The Samjhauta Express blasts of 18 February 2007, the plot around which the narrative of Hindu Terror is being scripted, had preceded the visit to India by the then foreign minister of Pakistan Kurshid Mahmud Kasuri.
The timing of the blast was significant and the involvement of terror groups in Pakistan to derail Kasuri’s visit was almost obvious.
This was later vindicated by US Department of Treasury Press Note in July 2009 which specifically blamed Arif Qasmani, Karachi-based businessman, for involvement in the blasts.
Qasmani was later caught by Pakistani authorities for two-timing ISI and Pakistan Taliban. He, at one time, was one of the main financers and coordinators of Laskar-e-Toiba and also had close links with Al-Qaeda.
David Headley’s involvement in the Samjhauta blasts was revealed to US authorities by none other than his former Moroccan wife Faujia Outlaha. The same has been corroborated by Wikileaks as well.
The NIA to perpetuate the poorly cultivated myth of Hindu Terror has refused to divulge Headley’s interrogation details in the court.
Again in a run up to then Indian foreign minister S M Krishna’s visit to Pakistan in early September this year, supplementary charge sheets in respect of Rajendra Chouhan and one more suspect was filed in Panchkula Court. This was also in the backdrop of the explosive disclosures by Abu Jindal on 26/11. It betrays the desperation by the Indian establishment to balance 26/11 and Samjhauta blasts.
In equating the two and in repudiating Abu Jindal, Rehman Malik was probably echoing the script, co-scripted by vested interests in India having abiding faith in the shared destinies of the two countries and lordship of the West.
There is little doubt amongst majority of Indians that the ISI masterminds, who unleashed the terrorists on Mumbai on 26/11, had very carefully choreographed the entire attack in a manner so that it could be labeled as ‘Hindu Terror’.
All the ten terrorists, who participated in the attack, had saffron wristbands (maulis). Abu Jindal, an Indian, one of the key masterminds of the attack, who was part of the control room in Pakistan during the attack, has categorically stated during his interrogation that his group, the Lashkar-e-Taiba at the behest of the ISI had carefully planned to make the Mumbai attacks appear as a handiwork of Hindu radicals. He was deported by Saudi Arabian authorities to India in June 2012.
The terrorists were also provided fake IDs bearing Hindu names. They were painstakingly taught Hindi by none other than Abu Jindal, who holds an MA degree in the language. Further, Jindal has also revealed that the plan was to portray the perpetrators of terrorist attack as Hindus, out to avenge Hemant Karkare’s drive against ‘Hindu Terrorism’.
The uncomfortable conclusion: How Indian elements could've had a hand
Jamaat-ud-Dawah warns India against 'striking' Pak - Rediff.com News
Samjhauta Blast Case:
Counter Investigation To NIA Investigation
NIA suppresses evidence against LeT, Arif Qasmani, David Headley and Pakistan
And
Fabricates Charge Sheet to fix Indians
To create notion of Hindu Terror
By
S. Gurumurthy
I. Executive Summary
- This Paper documents the counter investigation against the National Investigation Agency's [NIA] investigation into the Samjhauta blast and against NIA's charge sheet resulting from the investigation.
- The Paper brings together all credible and official evidence mostly available in public domain pointing and admitting to the involvement of Pakistan and Karachi based businessman Arif Qasmani, LeT and Al Qaeda, David Coleman Headley and his third wife Faiza Outalha, as assisted by SIMI from Indore but suppressed in the investigation by the NIA. And the evidence thus brought out virtually demolishes the NIA charge sheet in the Samjhauta blast case.
- The NIA charge sheet in the case, filed on June 20, 2011, charges five persons, Indians, namely, Naba Kumar Sarkar alias Swami Aseemanand, Sunil Joshi (now dead), Lokesh Sharma, Sandeep Dange alias Parmanand and Ramchandra Kalasangra alias Ramji alias Vishnu Patel with having conspired and committed the Samjhauta train blast.
- It is explicit from the NIA charge sheet Aseemananda’s retracted confession almost exclusively constitutes the backbone of the NIA case [Para 1]. A look at Assemananda’s confession shows in respect of Samjhauta blast shows that it is just hearsay in law.
- Yet according to the NIA sources Aseemananda’s confession has only ruled out the involvement of other Jihadi groups – that is, if Aseemanada’s confession is excluded, the focus of the probe will shift to Pakistan and terrorists like Arif Qasmani, David Headley, LeT, SIMI and their associates [Para 33]. So it is on the basis of Aseemananda’s alleged confession that the NIA had rejected or suppressed all other evidences marshaled in this Paper.
- The leak of Aseemananda’s alleged confession to the media, which is shocking and deliberate, is part of the design to politicize the case, conduct and conclude a media trial, and to create, at the global level, the notion of Hindu terror for political purposes of the ruling party [Paras 4-6].
- Neutral and credible evidence brought out in the Paper like -
(a) The resolution of the Committee on sanctions of the United Nations Security Council [
in June 2009] [Para 18] and the public declaration of the US Treasury Department [
in July 2009] [Para 19] to the effect that Arif Qasmani, the chief coordinator of LeT, had funded the Samjhauta blast with the Al Qaeda providing the staff for the blast;
(b) The admission of Pakistan’s interior minister [
in Janury 2010] that Pakistani terrorists were hired for the blast [Para 20];
(c) The confession of Faiza Outalha, the third of wife of David Coleman Headley [
in 2008, made public
in 2010] that Headley was involved in the Samjhauta blast and she was also innocently involved [Paras 21-26]; and
(d) The SIMI leaders’ testimony under narco effect [
in 2007 made public
in 2008] that they had provided support for the Pakistanis involved in attack [Para 10];
Destroys the case in NIA charge sheet and confirms the evil intent of the political establishment.
- The substance of the circumstantial and documentary evidence marshaled in the Paper is as under:
- Initial leads and evidence in the probe pointed to the involvement of Pakistan in Samjhauta blast [Para 7-9]
- Further evidence pointed to the involvement of SIMI operating from Indore and LeT from outside in the blast [Para 10]
- A factually incorrect, actually false and intriguing submission in Court by the Maharashtra ATS counsel 15.11.2008 that Col Purohit had supplied RDX for Samjhauta blast derailed the Samjhauta probe [Para 11]
- The Maharashtra ATS counsel’s statement bewildered the Samjhauta case investigators [Para 12]
- Within 48 hours Maharastra ATS counsel retracted the statement [Para 13]
- Earlier, in 2007 itself, Shivraj Patil, Home Minister of India had stated that RDX was not used in Samjhauta blast [Para 14]
- Later on January 20, 2009, Maharastra ATS officially denied that Col Purohit supplied RDX for Samjhauta [Para 15]
- But meanwhile the damage that was done in the 48 hours after the Maharashtra ATS statement couldn’t be undone. Pakistan began to campaign that Col Purohit and Indians were involved in Samjhauta. The Maharashtra ATS submission to the Court is intriguing [Para 16]
- But subsequent to the Maharastra ATS statement in November 2008 and retraction in 2009, torrent of solid evidence of Pakistani Jihadi involvement began coming out in the public domain. [Para 17]
- First, the US Treasury Department announced in July 2009 saying that Arif Qasmani, the chief coordinator of LeT worked with LeT to facilitate the Samjhauta attack [Para 18]
- Next, a month earlier in June 2009, the United Nations Security Council sub committee declared that Arif Qasmani has worked with Lashkar-e-Tayyiba to facilitate terrorist attacks including the bombing of February 2007 in the Samjhauta Express in Panipat (India). [Para 19]
- Third, in January 2010, Pakistan’s interior minister Rehman Mallik publicly admitted Pakistan’s involvement in Samjhauta saying that Col Purohit had hired Pakistani extremists to attack Samjhauta [Para 20]
- Fourth, in November 2010 The Washington Post carried investigative articles in which Faiza Outalha, the third wife of David Headley had admitted to to the US intelligence in 2008 itself about Headley’s role in Samjhauta blast and also confessed to her own role in the blast [Para 21&22]
- Sixth, the US media investigation again confirmed in January 2011 that Faiza Outalha had made the extra judicial confession of her involvement to the US Intelligence in April 2008 itself [Paras 23-25]
- Seventh, George Mapp, who was examined by the NIA, has exposed in his columns how Faiza Outalha was given special permission by Pakistan to enter India on foot and exit through the Wagah border. [Para 26]
- Eighth, George Mapp says that the NIA did not properly examine Headley to obtain truth and says that the US has closed further examination of Headley by NIA [Para 27]
- In the background of the evidence in the public domain in th form of SIMI cadre’s narcotic statements, US Treasury departments declaration, the UNSC resolution, Faiza Outalha’s extra judicial confession, the NIA charge sheet in negation of all these has created confusion in the public mind, which is evident from media discourse in India. [Para 28-32]
- Even according to the NIA sources Aseemananda’s confession only ruled out the involvement of other Jihadi groups – meaning that if Aseemanada’s confession is excluded, the focus will shift to Pakistan and terrorists like Arif Qasmani, David Headley, LeT, SIMI and their associates[Para 33]
- The way the Samjhauta case has been fabricated to substitute the present accused for the real ones resembles the fabricated investigation into the LN Mishra case in which, in the place of the real accused like Yashpal Kapur, Ananda Margis were substituted, resulting in the trial still dragging even after 35 years. The only difference is that in LN Mishra case the intent was to save the real accused, and in the present case the intent is to fix the present accused[Para 34]
- The statement of the Home Minister that the BJP was attacking him because he was expediting the investigation into the Hindu extremists in terror cases [Para 35]
The conclusion flowing from the counter investigation is that the charge sheet based on the investigation carried out by the NIA, which on the face of it lacks bona fides and seems to be motivated by political propensities, ought to be rejected and the case has to be reinvestigated by an independent agency under the supervision of the Court.
The detailed counter investigation paper follows.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Samjhauta Blast Case:
Counter investigation to NIA investigation
NIA suppresses evidence against LeT, Arif Qasmani, David Headley and Pakistan
And
Fabricates Charge Sheet to fix Indians
To create notion of Hindu Terror
Even NIA sources admit that Aseemananda’s retracted confession almost exclusively constitutes the backbone of the NIA case; Even that confession is just hearsay in law [Para 1]
- The confession statement of Aseemananda constitutes the very foundation of the NIA charge sheet in the Samjhauta case. Even according to the NIA sources Aseemananda’s confession only ruled out the involvement of other Jihadi groups – that is, if Aseemanada’s confession is excluded, the focus will shift to Pakistan and terrorists like Arif Qasmani, David Headley, LeT, SIMI and their associates [Para 32]. The confession is confidential document. Yet, it was leaked out by the NIA to the Tehelka magazine, which had published it in its issue dated 15.1.2011. The relevant part of the statement as published is as under:
“In February 2007, “Riteshwar and Joshi came on a motorbike to a Lord Shiva temple in a place called Balpur. As we had fixed this place for our meeting, I was already there, waiting for the two. Joshi told me in the next two days there would be a piece of good news and I should keep a tab on the newspapers. After the meeting I came back to Shabri Dham and Joshi and Riteshwar went their way. After a couple of days I went to meet Riteshwar at his Valsad residence. Joshi and Pragya were already present there. The Samjhauta Express blasts had happened. I asked Joshi how he was present there while Samjhauta had already happened in Haryana. Joshi replied that the blasts were done by his men.”
It is self evident from the statement that the only evidence of the link between the Aseemananda and the Samjhauta blast is what Sunil Joshi, one of the accused [absconding] persons, is alleged to have told Aseemanand, namely that “the blasts were done by our men.” Even Joshi did not do it. What Joshi had told itself is hearsay. Joshi did not say he saw it. Aseemananda has already retracted from the confession statement extracted from him by fraud, coercion and duress.
Samjhauta case deliberately fabricated to like the LN Mishra murder case
- The Samjhauta investigation is not simply misdirected; it is the case of an investigation deliberately directed and fabricated to fix the wrong persons and leave out the right person, by retaining the events, but, substituting different actors as accused persons in the place of the real accused as it happened in the case of the LN Mishra murder case in which instead of the real accused, Anandamargis were allegedly fixed by extracting confession from some of the Anandamargis. [See para 34]
NIA fabricated case to suit the design of the ruling party to create, at the global level, notion of Hindu terror, for its own political purposes.
- As stated in details here with irrefutable evidence, the NIA has conducted a dishonest and fraudulent investigation to suit the political designs of the ruling party, which has been trying to create the notion of Hindu Terror. The NIA knew or ought to have known that the real perpetrators of the crime could be very different persons, but still deliberately suppressed and kept suppressed till the end of the investigation and in the charge sheet and therefore from the hon’ble Court, the evidence about them and also their identity.
Leak of Aseemananda’s alleged confession part of the design to politicize the case and to conduct conclude a media trial.
- The leak of Aseemananda’s statement itself makes it self evident that the NIA and its political masters have decided to make the case political. The idea is clearly to internalize the case, and make Pakistan take interest in the Samjhauta case so that the Congress party can through international effort establish the fact of Hindu terror and also target the RSS and indirectly the BJP politically.
Vital leads and evidences pointing to involvement of SIMI, LeT, Al Qaeda and Pakistan ignored or not followed up
- As stated in detail here, such evidence contrary to the NIA version in the charge sheet now, has been available in the public domain from 2007, definitely since 2009, and new evidence has tumbled out in 2010 and 2011 to the effect that the Samjhauta blast has been the handiwork of Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and their operatives including one Arif Qasani, David Headley besides his ex-wife Faiza Outalha. The NIA which had had access to this information has deliberately suppressed such credible and reliable evidence available in the public domain through credible sources like the US Treasury Department and United Nations Security Council, besides extra judicial confessions of SIMI leaders and Faisa Outalha, the news about which also has been published in the public domain before the filing of the charge sheet.
- The Haryana ATS and the NIA have had abundant leads and evidence in the public domain pointing to the involvement of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba [LeT] assisted by the Students Islamic Movement of India [SIMI] in the Samjhauta blast. Later, the US Treasury Department in a press release in June 2009 in which it had said that Arif Qasmani, an LeT operative, was involved in the Samjhauta blast for which it had named and targeted one of the four terrorists named in the press release. A month later, in July, the United Nations Security Council committee on sanctions had said precisely the same thing, namely that Arif Qasmani was involved in Samjhauta blast. Later, in November 2010. Recently in November 2010 in US and January 2011 in India and well before the filing of the present charge sheet by NIA it was reported in media citing credible sources that Faiza Outalha, the Morrocan wife of David Coleman Headley said that she herself was innocently involved in the Samjhauta attack. But shockingly neither the Haryana ATS nor the NIA has pursued these leads or credible information based on confessions or US government input. This critical aspect, which totally destroys the case of the NIA and raises questions over its motives and also demolishes the validity of the present prosecution and reduces it to a farce, is explained in detail here.
Initial leads and evidence in the probe pointed to the involvement of Pakistan in Samjhauta blast [Para 7-9]
- The initial media reports on the blast are important in the context of the subsequent investigation by the probe agencies. A summary of the media reports are given as under:
- The day after the bombings, Indian police stated that the suitcase bomb attack was the work of at least four or five people with a possible militant connection.
- The police also released sketches of two suspects who the police Inspector General said had left the train just fifteen minutes before the explosions.
- The police say that one of the men was around 35 or 36 years old, "plumpish" and dark, with a moustache, and the second was around 26 or 27, wearing a scarf wrapped around his head. The police also stated that both men were speaking Hindi.
Reference: Denyer, Simon (2007-02-20). "Police release sketches of bomb suspects". Reuters. Retrieved on 26.9.2011 –
See below.
Quote:
Indian police release sketches of bomb suspects
By
Simon Denyer
NEW DELHI | Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:14pm EST (Reuters) –
India released sketches on Tuesday of two suspects in the bombing of a train to Pakistan that killed 68 people and both countries vowed not to let the attack disrupt a slow-moving peace process.
Police said the suitcase bombs were the work of at least four or five people and a militant outfit must have been responsible for Sunday night's attack.
--------
--------
"Around 11:30 (p.m.), these people got down, and the blasts happened 15 minutes later," police Inspector-General Sharad Kumar told a televised news conference in Panipat town, close to the site of the blasts about 80 km (50 miles) outside New Delhi.
One of the suspects was around 35 or 36 years old, "plumpish" and dark, with a mustache. The second was around 26 or 27, wearing a scarf wrapped around his head. Both were speaking the local Hindi language.
PAKISTANI QUESTIONED
The men had an argument with railway police earlier in the journey and had said they had wanted to go to the western city of Ahmedabad, police said. They were told the train did not go there and were asked to get off.
"After the argument, when the train slowed down, they walked off," said Bharti Arora, a senior railway police officer.
While the train attack occurred in India, the majority of the victims on the Samjhauta Express were Pakistanis.
The suitcases were packed with plastic bottles of kerosene and petrol, and mixed with strips of cloth to prolong the blaze. Two other bombs were planted but failed to explode.
Police are still questioning Pakistani national Usman Mohammed, who said he threw one of the suitcases off the train.
"The suitcase was thrown on the track," Kumar said. "Usman was there and said he had thrown it. We are verifying it. We are not giving a clean chit. He was drunk."
Another man, a Pakistani national who was drunk at the time, was being questioned because he said he threw one of the bomb-containing suitcases off the train. A senior Haryana state railway police official said that the man's "account has been inconsistent and we have no definite conclusions yet."
- Later, the Inspector General said "the suitcase was thrown on the track" and that the Pakistani national "was there and said he had thrown it."
- Two persons, whose identities are not known, had boarded the train when it left New Delhi on Sunday and soon began arguing with the conductor, saying they were on the wrong train. They were allowed to jump off when the train slowed down about 15 minutes to 20 minutes before the crude bombs detonated, said Sharad Kumar, a senior police official.
Reference: Indian police release sketches of 2 suspects in bombing of India-Pakistan train - USATODAY.com See below
Quote:
DEWANA, India (AP) — Indian police released sketches Tuesday of two men suspected of planting a pair of bombs that sparked a fire on a train barreling through northern India for Pakistan, killing 68 people in an attack officials said was intended to disrupt relations between the two countries.
The two, whose identities are not known, boarded the train when it left New Delhi on Sunday and soon began arguing with the conductor, saying they were on the wrong train. They were allowed to jump off when the train slowed down about 15 minutes to 20 minutes before the crude bombs detonated, said Sharad Kumar, a senior police official.
----------
----------
Meanwhile, a Pakistani passenger on the train was detained Tuesday for questioning, Indian officials said.
"He was found in a drunken state and he's being questioned. But his account has been inconsistent and we have no definite conclusions yet," said Bharti Arora, a senior Haryana state railway police official. The man is a resident of Karachi, Pakistan, she said, declining to provide further details.
--------
--------
A Home Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the investigation, said no suspects had been ruled out — from Kashmiri separatists to Hindu extremists.
"The people who are involved in carrying out this attack appear to be well trained. The method used to carry out this attack — low intensity explosives along with incendiary material — is the best possible way to attack a train," R.K. Kaushik, the Haryana state government's expert on ballistic and explosive materials, told The Associated Press.
He said it was too early to determine who was responsible for the attacks. Kaushik and his team of forensic experts were examining the burned coaches for clues.
---------
---------
Authorities say two suitcases packed with crude unexploded bombs and bottles of gasoline were found in undamaged train cars, indicating the fire had been sparked by similar devices.
- In early March, Haryana police arrested two people from the city of Indore who allegedly sold the suitcases used in the bombings. – See below.
Quote:
The two were picked up from central city of Indore. Police believe they sold the suitcases used to make the bombs that were set off on the train.
The blasts and blaze on the cross-border train killed 68 people.
It is not clear who was behind the attack on the Friendship Express and no group has admitted carrying it out.
Senior police official RC Mishra said the authorities believe the bombers purchased suitcases in Indore that were stuffed with explosives and petrol.
India has said it would share with Pakistan the results of its inquiry into the 18 February bombing.
-----
-----
Indians have also given Pakistani authorities the sketch of a man said to be from Pakistan who was allegedly involved in the bombing
Unquote
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Two held over Indian train blast
Samjhauta Blast Case: Counter Investigation To NIA Investigation -The New Indian Express
p
