It has been over a decade and a half since the Mumbai 26/11 attacks took place. It feels like the attack took place just yesterday, and that sad day remains etched in the minds of every Indian.
Ten terrorists from Pakistan belonging to the Lashkar-e-Tayiba carried out a series of attacks in which over 150 people were killed, and a city that never sleeps came to a standstill for over 48 hours. There is a lot in the public domain about the case and the manner in which it was investigated. However, the more one looks at the attack and its aftermath, the more mysteries and lies remain hidden and probably were deliberately not investigated.
The local link
The investigating agencies only stuck to the Pakistan angle and never spoke anything about the local link to the attack. Several questions come to mind, and that is, could ten terrorists just land in such a massive city like Mumbai and carry out such an audacious attack just by looking at maps? It is highly impossible for them to do that.
This brings us to the question as to whether there was a local link. The fact that a man called Basheer had received David Headley at the Mumbai airport was not mentioned in any of the investigations. Headley, who carried out the reconnaissance of the targets, confessed that he had been helped by a person called Basheer. This was, however, not investigated by the agencies for reasons best known to them.
Mysterious burqa clad lady
Another secret that was never revealed was about a burqa-clad lady who accompanied the terrorists who stormed Lady Camp’s hospital. Questions were raised as to who this woman was. It was later found that she controlled the diesel smuggling business, which she ran from the Machimar nagar area of Mumbai, which is close to the Taj Hotel.
Following the attack, a committee was formed to investigate the lapses by the police and also to suggest reforms for better policing. The Ram Pradhan Committee, which was tasked with the job, was told about a local link. Former Research and Analysis Wing official V Balachandran, who was part of that committee, said that there was a complaint made to them about a lady being involved in the attack.
It was told that the terrorists had not arrived on that fateful night as what the investigators told us. In fact, they had come several days back and visited the targets. The committee was told that it was this lady who had housed the terrorists in a hut before the attack.
Even when the attack began, the lady was said to have guided them to the Camp Hospital. The committee informed the central agencies at that time, but it was never considered. The crime branch which investigated the case never took this issue up and concluded that the terrorists had acted on their own and had landed in Mumbai on the night of the attack.
Why did the NSG arrive late
When the attack began, questions were raised as to why the National Security Guards based in Delhi had arrived late. Had they come on time, the attack would not have dragged on since this agency is specialised in carrying out such operations. The Mumbai police were clearly not equipped to handle an attack of this magnitude, and hence, having the NSG there on time would have helped.
There were reasons given by the Union Government that an aircraft was not available and hence there was a delay in sending the force to Mumbai. When the NSG was launched, there was a standing instruction that a contingent ought to be ready with an aircraft 365 days a year.
Why was the Hindu angle brought up
Headley had said during his confession that he had purchased saffron threads for the terrorists. He felt that seeing the thread on these persons, they could have passed it off as an attack carried by Hindus.
It would have been better had Ajmal Kasab not been caught alive. This was the same time that the UPA had launched a fake narrative called Hindu terror, and hence, blaming the Hindus for this attack would not have come as any surprise. Moreover, when Kasab was first caught, his identification card had the name Samir Choudhary on it. Adding fuel to the fire were the likes of Digvijaya Singh and a former cop S M Mushrif. Singh was present at an event where a book called Rss ki Saazish:26/11 was launched. Another book by Mushrif said while the entire attack was carried out by the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the killing of then-ATS chief Hemant Karkare was carried out by Hindus. Karkare is the same officer who helped the government of the day with their Hindu terror bogey. All cases, such as the Malegaon blasts or the Samjautha Express incident, were concluded to have been carried out by the Indian Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Even a US report mentioned this, but under Karkare, everything changed. Later on, the lead investigator in the case, Rakesh Maria, said that there was a deliberate attempt made to manufacture a Hindu terror plot.
The lie about striking Pakistan
In the aftermath of the attack, there was a solid build-up or narrative which claimed that India would attack Pakistan to avenge this strike. The government said that the Indian Air Force was kept on standby and was all set to launch an attack on Pakistan.
At that time, Fali Homi Major was the Air Chief Marshal. He said that the IAF was battle-ready and would have struck if there were instructions. However, the fact of the matter is that the government of the day never made up its mind to carry out an attack on Pakistan. He said that there was a lot of anger and disgust among the people. The Indian Air Force was ready to strike. We had our contingency ready and were ready. The government, however, did not make up its mind, he said. Further on, being asked if there was any plan to strike Jihadi bases along the border, he said that there was. However, the government was not in favour of air strikes as it felt that it would escalate into a full-fledged war.
When the Americans lied
The revelation regarding David Headley was one of the most embarrassing situations that India could have been in. He visited India on multiple occasions and befriended locals and bigwigs such as Rahul Bhat, who is the son of Mahesh Bhat. He used these contacts to go about his business without being detected.
Headley had made multiple visits to India, but none of the agencies were aware of this. In fact, his role in the attacks only came to light when he was arrested by the FBI. Before that, he visited Mumbai in September 2006, February and September 2007, and April and July 2008.
The US manipulated the government of the day on this issue. First and foremost, the news of his arrest was not made known immediately. The US waited so that Headley could enter into a plea bargain deal with the FBI. This barred him from being extradited to India. Even when the Indian agencies finally landed in the US to question him, he only stuck to the script. Moreover, his questioning took place in the presence of the FBI officials, who were probably present to prevent Headley from blurting out something that they would not have wanted him to.
He never said that he was a double agent of the US. He never told the agencies that he was assigned to work in Afghanistan by the CIA, which led to his turning rogue. After he turned rogue, it is not clear if he was working for the CIA. However, the manner in which the US decided to keep a lot away from public demand only indicates that they knew what he was up to while he continued to visit India on numerous occasions.
