NIA’s Interrogation Report of David Coleman Headley.

David Coleman Headley has been used (by US security agencies at will) or rather his Interrogation Report (IR) prepared by National Investigating Agency, when it was given access to him between 3-9 June 2010, has been used in India’s mainstream media to serve many hidden purposes. One chief use it has been put to is to prove that Ishrat Jahan, who was killed with three others in an encounter on the outskirts of Ahmedabad on 15 June 2004, was a terrorist. Very recently, on 16 July, in First Post article, Leaked NIA document indicates cover up in Ishrat Jahan case, it was stated that the “leaked document proved” as per the testimony of Headley that Ishrat Jahan was a terrorist. Period.
Today I managed to obtain from the Investigative Projects website the full IR of Headley prepared by NIA. Though authenticity of such documents obtained from third parties may always be doubted, there are reasons to trust this one. It is from a site “devoted” to fighting “Jihadist Terrorism” (not exactly sympathetic to Muslims) and it would take some effort to forge 119 pages. From these 119 pages, page 114 is of particular interest because it carries para 168 and para 169 of the IR that is purportedly quoted in the leaked document. However, these two paras (168 and 169) content something totally different if the copy of full IR obtained is to be believed. 
This casts a serious doubt about the authenticity of NIA’s document leaked by First Post. For those who want to study the full IR of David Coleman Headley  it is given below. I found no mention of Ishrat Jahan in any of its 119 pages. If anybody finds such a reference, then please share.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 Responses to “NIA’s Interrogation Report of David Coleman Headley.”

  1. Sadanand Patwardhan Says:

    On Indian First Yahoo group I had quoted a link to this post while intervening in a debate that involved lot of name calling. That invoked a reply from one Anil K Sharma and an exchange took place. I am sharing it below.quoteWhat Shinde cannot disclose can be read right here. Indeed the deal is that "information contained in this document (NIA's IR) is secret, confidential, and privileged. It may not be used in any legal proceedings nor disseminated to any other agency without prior authorization of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) HQ New Delhi India". unquote

  2. A K Sharma Says:

    Patwardhan JiSushil Kumar Shinde's refusal to disclose the information about LeT fidayeen,Ishrat Jehan,by ducking behind the alleged 'treaty' itself proves that Ishrat Jehan was in deed LeT fidayeen.If she had been 'innocent', as claimed by the mourners of Ishrat Jehan,Shinde and the entire Congress and its secularist gang would have been howling on top of their voices. A.K.SHARMA

  3. Sadanand Patwardhan Says:

    Shri Anil Sharma Ji. 1. Crass politics trumped statecraft when Narendra Modi led Gujarat government began to triumphantly crow and justify Ishrat Jahan+3 “encounter killings” on the basis of first affidavit submitted on 6 August 2009 by R V S Mani in Gujarat High Court regarding “intelligence inputs” from central “intelligence Bureau”. UPA government showed it is no less crafty by submitting second “uncalled” for affidavit in GHC on 30 September 2009. The first MHA affidavit of UPA government at centre was supportive of the “encounter actions” of BJP Government in Gujarat. That was “statecraft”, read “हम सब चोर है”. The second affidavit was poor politics of one-up-man-ship further catalysed by S P Tamang report of Magister Enquiry ordered under section 176 of CrPC that came out on 7 September 2009 almost in the middle of two affidavits.For more see: 2. Successive US administrations have been the biggest liars to their own people and world at large. David Headley was a compromised agent of DEA caught for smuggling drugs and later became agent of FBI and CIA too. He would lie through his teeth and tell whatever his US handlers ask him to tell. His testimony is most unreliable. For more on Headley, read matter under Oracle of Terror: I find funny is that those who find Islam violent, Muslim untrustworthy are in the forefront of vouching for Daood Gilani’s, whose father was a Pakistani and religion Islam and had two wives, testimony to prove Ishrat Jahan’s LeT links. After all Daood Gilani is the man who is more famous as David Coleman Headley. BJP, Congress, other Politicians, are all in the same boat. Yet, like the touching faith in un-provable and unproven “GOD”, there are people who have faith that one side is better than the other.

  4. A K Sharma Says:

    Patwardhan Ji,Even if we concede that your analysis is correct but the vital question arises that howcome an unknown girl,Ishrat Jehan becomes so important for USA and David Headley that they conspire, as per your theory,to brand her an LeT fidayeen? More over kindly do not ignore the hard fact that LeT in Pakistan had hailed Ishrat as SHAHEED soon after she was shot alongwith her Jihadi gang.Why would LeT in Pakistan like to help Gujarat police by hailing Ishrat as their fidayeen and coferring status of SHAHEED on her? A.K.SHARMA

  5. Sadanand Patwardhan Says:

    Shri Anil Sharmaji, 1. I have no clue whether you have gone through the links I provided. I have provided many known facts as per published sources. It is quite clear that neither USA administration nor its intelligence agencies, especially CIA and since 9/11 equally FBI, have any respect for truth. Therefore, any intelligence from them should be looked with great suspicion. 2. But you have raised an interesting and intelligent question: “the vital question arises that how come an unknown girl, Ishrat Jehan becomes so important for USA and David Headley that they conspire, as per your theory,to brand her an LeT fidayeen?”. This question is based on the premise that (a) Headley/ USA are telling the truth, (b) they did in fact mention “an unknown girl, Ishrat Jehan”. 3. For one minute I join you into “suspended disbelief”, and accept that USA and Headley did in fact mention Ishrat Jahan. How did this come about? I am assuming that the Headley’s interrogation report prepared by NIA that I obtained from Terrorism Project website is true. I base my trust on the fact that the website is against Terrorism, specifically “Islamic terrorism”, and therefore as a result is not exactly fond of Muslims. It has no interest to hide Ishrat Jahan link to LeT by also the same TOKEN of your QUESTION. Now let us see how this assumption plays out.Headley IR not only makes no mention of Ishrat Jahan, But doesn’t also mention Javed Gulam Sheikh, Amjad Ali Rana or Zeeshan Johar . Only Javed mentioned is Nasar Javed, and only Rana mentioned is Dr. Rana. Wouldn’t you take it amiss that Muzammil Bhat’s accomplishment of getting two alleged Pakistanis (Amjad and Zeeshan) to successfully reach Gujarat to assassinate Modi wouldn’t find mention in introduction of Bhat to Headley (else where in the report there is also a mention that even earlier Bhat was Headley’s handler and therefore in no requirement of “alleged introduction”).NIA team had gone to interrogate Headley regarding 26/11/2008 Mumbai attacks, when USA declared his involvement in the plot. You may remember several USA citizens too were killed in the attack and US administration was under pressure to account for them. Is it possible they “framed” Headley as the fall guy to shore up their covert plans? He was already their agent and they could have put him behind bar for a long time in any case for his earlier criminal activities, eg. Heroin smuggling. Since FBI reached an “understanding” with Headley, he is not available for proper Court questioning anywhere.Lastly, NIA visit in June 2010 to USA came after the Ishrat Jahan controversy had blown sky high because of 7 September 2009 S P Tamang report of Magistrate enquiry and the Two affidavits (06 August and 30 September 2009) of MHA. Otherwise it is inconceivable that “Ishrat Jahan Encounter” of 2004, a “miniscule” event would have come on the radar of NIA at all in the face of the enormity of 26/11 massacre and colossal failure of Intelligence agencies and security forces that allowed it to take place. The huge controversy over what is held as FAKE Encounter is what prompted somebody somewhere to have “Headley speak about Ishrat Jahan” when entire IR is about 26/11. Why didn’t the Train Blasts of Mumbai 2006 did not figure, a much bigger terrorist operations, in Headley’s IR? He would have been the “most knowledgeable, competent and able” informer to tell if and how ISI or LeT or any other Pakistani agency was involved in train blasts. Only Ishrat Jahan encounter should figure in what was essentially a testimony about 26/11 is the most suspicious give away.These points should at least stop and make you consider if Headley is a plant and mention of Ishrat Jahan is a deliberate lie.

  6. Sadanand Patwardhan Says:

    Part-IDear Shri Anil Sharma Ji, Further to my reply yesterday below, I thought it would educative to elaborate on the last point of my last mail. The study of terror attacks that took place between 15 June 2004, when Ishrat Jahan+ 3 were “encountered and killed” by Gujarat Police, and 31 October 2009, the month of David Coleman Headley’s supposed arrest by FBI at Chicago’s O’ Hara airport while he was supposedly on his way to Pakistan shows that there were 12 major terror events. One of them, Mumbai Train blasts, took more toll than even much discussed 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Latter’s extraordinary attention happened because a bunch of terrorists attacked, killed at will, and in some cases held major landmarks for length of time at places in Mumbai like CST, Taj Mahal, The Oberoi, Cama Hospital, etc. for more than a day with our security forces struggling to cope. It was an intelligence failure disaster, and showed colossal failure also on the part of security agencies to respond quickly and effectively (Read account of Sebastian D'Souza:, he was a key witness who gave photo evidence in Kasab’s trial). All these 12 terror blasts/attacks were blamed soon after on Pakistan based terror outfits like LeT, on their local collaborators like IM or SIMI, and all this happening with the connivance and/or active direction of Pakistan’s ISI. When in every terror attack our Police and Intelligence agencies seem to know immediately the source of terror, then how come they have not been able to develop effective mechanism to counter it? Especially, since the source of terror is the same almost in every case! Of the 12 attacks enumerated below in the list, 3 marked in red were later blamed on Hindu Terrorist. This is the background to the famous visit to USA made by NIA in June 2010. NIA was granted only limited access to Headley (no Video/ Audio taping, and FBI/DOJ agents supervised the interrogation). NIA also knew it may not get a second chance, and US agencies have indicated that revisit is unlikely. Wouldn’t a National Investigating Agency worth its salt be desperate to make the most of this opportunity to interrogate such a “PRIZED INTELLIGENCE ASSET” for getting maximum information about the Sources of Terror, their Modus Operandi, Local Recruitment modalities, Major Terrorists persons in various outfits, and how the 26/11 attack (the main purpose of their visit) was planned and executed??? More over, if any balance precious time to interrogate Headley was available, ought not it have been profitably employed to know what Headley could tell about balance 12 terrorist blasts/attacks??continued….

  7. Sadanand Patwardhan Says:

    Part – IIInstead, are we to believe that NIA asked Headley or Headley volunteered to tell NIA that “an unknown girl, Ishrat Jehan ” was the “prized recruit” of Muzammil Bhat? Didn’t NIA go to interrogate Headley for terrorist attacks? Was Ishrat Jahan encounter a terrorist attack??? Neither you, Sharma Ji, nor I, and probably no one on this forum has evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt what transpired between NIA and Headley. But what available information we have suggests conclusively on the balance of probability that Ishrat Jahan did not and should not have figured in NIA’s interrogation of Headley. If she did figure and that too on the initiative of NIA, then the NIA team should be charged with dereliction of duty to have failed the nation by not making proper use of the opportunity it got to interrogate the “MOST PRIZED ASSET” of CIA/FBI. Ought not NIA had used the opportunity to unravel terror attacks that did succeed rather than waste it on “alleged terror attack” that did not succeed?? List of major terror attacks other than 26/11********************29 September 2008: 29 September 2008 western India bombings: 10 killed and 80 injured in bombings in Maharashtra (including Malegaon) and Gujarat bomb blasts.13 September 2008: Serial blasts in Delhi killed at least 24 people and injured more than 100.26 July 2008: Serial blasts in Ahmedabad killing at least 30 people and injuring more than 100.13 May 2008: Eight serial blasts rock Jaipur in a span of 12 minutes leaving 65 dead and over 150 injured.24 Nov 2007 A series of near-simultaneous explosions at courthouse complexes in the cities of Lucknow, Varanasi, and Faizabad kills 16.25 August 2007: 30 dead, 60 hurt in Hyderabad 'terror' strike.18 May 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing: At least 13 people were killed, including 4 killed by the Indian police in the rioting that followed.19 February 2007: Two bombs explode aboard a train bound from India to Pakistan, burning to death at least 66 passengers, most of them Pakistanis.8 September 2006: 30 dead and 100 hurt in twin blasts at a mosque in Malegaon.11 July 2006: Seven bombs on Mumbai's trains kill over 200 and injure 700 others.7 March 2006: Twin bombings at a train station and a temple in Varanasi kill 20 people.29 October 2005: Three bombs placed in busy New Delhi markets a day before Diwali kill 62 people and injure hundreds. ********************

  8. Rahul. Says:

    Well said Patwardhanji,The agenda is single, and the party who is most suited to carry out itsvarious aspects at any given time is the one which will come to power,through the illusion of democratic vote.

  9. A K Sharma Says:

    Dear Shri Patwardhan Ji,I must appreciate your painstaking efforts to defend your point of view,which is overshadowed by your anti-American views.But ultimately these are also hypothetical analysis only.But I wonder why you very conveniently ignored the third vital clue-Why the LeT in Pakistan helped the Gujarat police by hailing Ishrat as a SHAHEED soon after she was killed with her Jihadi gang?By the way you mentioned that three of the Jihadi terror attacks were later on attributed to so-called Hindu terror or Saffron terror inspite of the fact that it had been proved that these were also handiworks of the Islamic terrorists.In fact there is no such thing as Hindu or Saffron terror.These terms were coined by the Congress and other secularist outfits to counter balance the term Islamic terrorism to appease the Muslims.That is why even after all these years, using all sorts of tactics available in the books, the government agencies have not been able to prove anything. Regards A.K.SHARMA

  10. Sadanand Patwardhan Says:

    Part-IDear Shri Anil Sharma Ji, 1. I don’t hold anti-American views. In fact I am careful not to use word “America” in my writings unless context demands it. USA may be a huge country and greatest military power world has ever seen, but it is still only 1 country among many in America. Secondly, I never speak even of USA as a whole, but only of US administrations. I have found that average US citizens, a silent majority, are good people like anywhere else and more concerned with their individual existential struggles, and would judge correctly and humanely if they had all information at their command. But they too are victims of “information” fed to them by their administration and Corporate controlled mainstream media. In fact I have learnt a lot from real great US human beings such as Howard Zinn, Norman Solomon, Norman Finklestein, Gerda Lenner, and white Caucasians like John Pilger, David Graeber, or Semites like Gilad Atmazon, Schlomo Sand. Their scholarship and writings have disabused me of believing naively in the lies and propaganda told by all Empires and Governments and mainstream media and school textbooks to their own citizens and others.2. I, therefore, take this, your painstaking efforts to defend your point of view,which is overshadowed by your anti-American views, as mere opinion, which you have every right to hold, but you cannot take facts hostage.3. The vital clue you have talked of, Why the LeT in Pakistan helped the Gujarat police by hailing Ishrat as a SHAHEED soon after she was killed with her Jihadi gang?, I have no knowledge of. If you can provide actual links (original), may be I can take a look. I do not know if you have heard of “Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE)”. If not, look up this link: May be you would then appreciate not to trust every news and what are told to be its sources.continued…..

  11. Sadanand Patwardhan Says:

    part-II4. The “three Jihadi” attacks you opine were “also handiworks of the Islamic terrorists”. When I had referred to them I had said they were “LATER BLAMED” on Hindu Terror, or as you have identified “Saffron Terror”. I have not seen any reports that support your claim that it was the “handiworks of the Islamic terrorists”; all I know is JURY is STILL OUT. You seem to indulge yourself with the freedom of uncritical certainty to say anything you wish, since I have fearful of facts and I care to know the truth, I fear to tread nonchalantly. BTW, we have only “hunches” and “leaks” about who perpetrated the so many terrorist attacks in India, but very few convictions. Not only our police and security forces are affected by communal virus, but even BJP and Congress are also two sides of the same coin, where machinations of each suits the other. Read what Ashish Khetan has to say about German Bakery Blast conviction, which was one of the rare convictions in “Islamic terror” cases. (point 14 of He says that the convict, Himayat Baig, was framed by ATS Maharashtra. He has done real painstaking work to get hold of interrogation reports from different state police agencies, at times of same accused persons, that contradict each others’ versions completely. He has submitted a PILon this in Bombay High Court.5. If despite such shoddy investigations and the state of abominable prosecutions -where trial courts had to acquit the accused, often admonish police for framing innocent persons and allow years of incarceration and torture of framed persons go unaccounted for- still we talk comfortably of “ISLAMIC TERROR”, then I don’t see what holds us from talking equally comfortably about “HINDU TERROR”. I see no bar regardless of who coined which term. One cannot hold a dialogue with opinions, at best it would be two monologues talking at each other. Only when someone makes a cogent case supported by facts, and someone else joins in with different interpretations or more facts; then a process of learning begins. Your last question about “an unknown girl, Ishrat Jehan” did set me thinking and I believe it was answered in a wholesome fashion. Regards,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: