India is naturally disappointed that Tahawwur Rana, who assisted David Headley’s enterprise of surveying targets for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, has not been convicted by a Chicago court for providing material help to make that attack possible. But Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian who lives in Chicago and is a boyhood friend of Headley, has been sentenced on two other counts — for assisting Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, the Pakistani terrorist outfit which is by now as good as a conjoined twin of the ISI from an ideological standpoint, and for rendering material help to the failed plot of beheading the staff of the Danish newspaper that had published the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. For these crimes he could be in jail for 30 years. Of course, he plans to appeal. So, we don’t know where the whole thing will end up, although in India we should be satisfied if he serves some time in jail for he did help the LeT execute the Mumbai attacks.
In the US, the trial in criminal cases is by jury which must give a unanimous verdict. So, the smallest objection by any member will stop the group from going in a particular direction in deciding a case. In this particular instance, the judge offered members of the jury the opportunity to answer questions from the assembled media, but they declined. They have also requested that their identities be not disclosed. So, we shall never know the reasons why the jury didn’t think Rana guilty in the Mumbai case when they deemed him guilty of associating with the LeT (through Headley). It is noteworthy that Headley’s LeT link was in respect of the Mumbai case, and not the Danish plot. In the latter, the Al Qaeda (through Ilyas Kashmiri) was involved, not LeT. So, the jury’s verdict does beg an explanation. A
member of the US legal fraternity has been quoted as saying that the prosecution might have failed to convince the jury that
Rana knew of the plan for the Mumbai attacks before these occurred. On a common sense basis, this appears unlikely, considering that Rana was providing Headley an alibi by letting the latter pose as a representative of his company in Mumbai before 26/11.
It should be kept in view, however, that Rana was a relatively minor player in the 26/11 plot, although he is said to be anti-India and is believed to have exulted when Mumbai was attacked and said to Headley that those involved deserved the highest Pakistani honour. It is unlikely he would agree to face trial in an Indian court. Even so, for the sake of record, the National Investigation Agency, would do well to register a case against him and the other 26/11 accused in India. Also, the feasibility of registering a case against Rana in the Canadian jurisdiction can be explored since he is now a Canadian national. The larger picture is that none of the 26/11 accused is likely to ever be in India to face trial unless the Indians capture any of them. Headley has pleaded guilty before American law, but is helping with the investigations and prosecutions on condition that he wouldn’t face the death sentence, and wouldn’t be extradited to Pakistan, India or Denmark. The rest of the cast — belonging to the ISI and LeT — are in Pakistan. It is unlikely even the Americans would be permitted by Islamabad to lay hands on them. Remember, the US hasn’t turned the screws on Pakistan even after Osama bin Laden was found there. The real plus from Rana’s trial is that so much corroborated material has become available on the ISI and its integral links with terrorism. This would go a long way in reinforcing international opinion, and has significant political value.