‘U.S. knows more about Headley’

February 08, 2016 11:40 pm | Updated November 17, 2021 05:00 am IST - NEW DELHI:

David Headley may have appeared before a Mumbai court via video conference to be cross-examined in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, but for many observers it is yet another episode in a scripted drama that is meshed with the larger strategic realities of south Asia and U.S. interests in the region.

A section of the security establishment believes that all the developments surrounding Headley until date is part of the many mysteries surrounding 26/11 Mumbai attacks, while others say that India is just making the best out of a bad situation.

The deposition of Headley via video link from the U.S. on Monday fits into the theories of those who have not been convinced by the U.S. claims on Headley and even the narrative of how 10 terrorists stormed Mumbai.

These sceptics believe Headley was not just an informant for the US Drug Enforcement Administration but played a bigger role in South Asia. They point out that there is reasonable evidence to believe that at least some of the inputs regarding a possible attack on Mumbai before the 2008 terror strike, especially in the run up to it, came from Headley. “After the attacks why did they not share information about his movements, especially his visit to India after the attacks?” he asks.

‘He’s a double agent’

Many officials in the past have gone on record to raise their doubts about the conduct of Headley, and even the U.S. agencies. Former Home Secretary G.K. Pillai has pointed out that the U.S. authorities knew more about Headley than they have said in public, arguing that he was a double agent.

Such lingering doubt about the conduct of the U.S. carried on to the way they hurriedly, and without letting India know, arranged the plea bargain of Headley. The bargain included conditions such as no capital punishment, no extradition and an agreement to depose in foreign courts if required but via video link. “That had effectively sealed any possibility of Headley ever facing trial in the land where he carried out the carnage,” one official argued.

However, many others say that it was understandable why the U.S did not disclose the identity of Headley. They point out the stringent provisions of America’s Intelligence Identities Protection Act, under which stringent punishment is meted out to anyone disclosing names of undercover agents. Headley, after all, was officially an informant of the drug enforcement administration.

Vappala Balachandran, a former special secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat who was a member of the official committee that probed police performance during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, says India should now see how best to make use of Headley’s testimony.

He pointed out that at least Indian prosecutors are getting to ask direct questions to Headley. “He could reveal something new,” he said.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.