Indian Airlines Plane Hijacked
Chowk P Room December 24, 1999
#44 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
NUCLEAR-ARMED RIVALS
Hijacking raises S. Asia tensions
With tongue-lashing and shadow boxing, India and Pakistan try to score diplomatic points.
Robert Marquand
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW DELHI
Arrests, diplomatic gymnastics, threats and counterthreats, maneuvering and posturing, the occasional land-mine blast - and an eye to President Clinton`s upcoming trip to South Asia: In other words, the daily stuff of India-Pakistan relations.
Yet in the wake of an eight-day hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft by militants that immobilized New Delhi, tensions between India and Pakistan - already bad - have risen another notch. How much tension between these nuclear powers is fire, however, and how much is the usual smoke - remains unclear.
Partly the new bad vibes come from the Delhi government trying to shore up its image at home and abroad, after trading arrested militant leaders for the 155 hostages - an approach the party in power had long eschewed. India also is pushing the international community to declare Pakistan a rogue, terrorist-exporting state, a bold effort that dramatizes how distant the two nations are from the brief glow of the Lahore ``bus diplomacy`` of less than a year ago.
Tensions also are due in part to uncertainty and continued strife over old wounds. The Kashmir dispute, the cause of last spring`s small war between the two countries, is an issue that continues to anger Islamic militants that operate freely in Kashmir, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Cross-border rhetoric in recent days has been predictably loud, at times approaching a schoolyard-style exchange of threats. In response to a question by a CNN reporter, Pakistan`s chief executive Gen. Pervez Musharraf stated he would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if his country was attacked. Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes responded immediately, challenging Pakistan to fight a war, ``anytime, anywhere.``
Since the release of the hostages on New Year`s Eve, maneuvers on both sides of the India-Pakistan border have sought to exploit the hijacking drama. Last week, Maulana Masood Azhar, the militant leader demanded as ransom by the hijackers and released by India, showed up in Karachi, Pakistan. He vowed at a rally in an Islamic seminary to continue the fight to liberate the Indian-controlled and Muslim-majority Kashmir valley, shouting ``Death to India, Death to the United States.``
The next day, India arrested four Muslims in Bombay who allegedly aided the five hijackers who took over the Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu, Nepal, to New Delhi on Christmas Eve. The fresh arrests were seen as a move by Delhi to compensate for the militants it earlier released.
For much of the 1990s, India has attempted to sunder the US doctrine of ``symmetry`` in South Asia - the equal diplomatic treatment of long-time ally Pakistan, and the larger and more powerful, former Soviet-leaning India.
Last week, partly in pursuit of that goal, experts say, and in an attempt to bond more closely to the US, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee stated that ``India strongly urges major nations of the world to declare Pakistan a terrorist state.``
Mr. Vajpayee last February co-sponsored the first peace agreement between India and Pakistan in many years - a process that ended during the ``Kargil war`` last May, when Islamic militants occupied positions on the Indian side of the line of control in Kashmir.
General Musharraf responded by saying the Indian prime minister`s diplomatic initiative was part of a conspiracy to malign Pakistan abroad.
Washington has not obliged India`s request. James Rubin, US State Department spokesman, states that India has not provided enough of the evidence it claims to have for such a threshold decision to be made.
(In light of Mr. Masood`s threats to Americans, Mr. Rubin held Pakistan responsible for Masood`s activities, and said, ``Pakistan must assure the safety of Americans, Indians, and all foreigners in Pakistan.`` Masood`s group, the Harkat ul Mujahideen, kidnapped five Western hikers in Kashmir in the mid-1990s; one was beheaded, and the others are still missing.)
For the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Hindu nationalists in power in Delhi, handling the hijacking has been characterized as a series of blunders and missteps. Negotiations conducted in Kandahar, Afghanistan, by Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh were the one bright spot. The government delayed responding to the crisis for 12 hours. At one point, as the plane was refused a landing in Lahore, Pakistan, it landed in Amritsar on Indian soil - but the government could not decide how to respond.
Nor has Delhi accounted for many seeming misstatements during and since. While Indian officials stated for a week that the hijackers came on a Pakistani plane from Karachi to Nepal, Indian Airlines officials say no Pakistani planes were scheduled in the manner described. While the four Bombay Muslims arrested last week are charged with involvement in the hijacking, the Bombay police chief told reporters that the men were wanted for questioning in a bank robbery, and he knew nothing about other activities. And so on.
As for tensions, most experts feel that Pakistan and India have such a close understanding of each other`s psychology, that it is doubtful either side would escalate to an all-out war. However, Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution argues that rhetorical posturing and shadow boxing by two nations can lead to ``unintended consequences.``
``The hijacking is like acts that happen every day in Kashmir,`` states K. Subramanyam, a leading Indian defense analyst in New Delhi. ``For 53 years India and Pakistan relations have remained like this, and as long as Pakistan adheres to a two-state theory of India, it will remain so.``
Hijacking raises S. Asia tensions
With tongue-lashing and shadow boxing, India and Pakistan try to score diplomatic points.
Robert Marquand
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW DELHI
Arrests, diplomatic gymnastics, threats and counterthreats, maneuvering and posturing, the occasional land-mine blast - and an eye to President Clinton`s upcoming trip to South Asia: In other words, the daily stuff of India-Pakistan relations.
Yet in the wake of an eight-day hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft by militants that immobilized New Delhi, tensions between India and Pakistan - already bad - have risen another notch. How much tension between these nuclear powers is fire, however, and how much is the usual smoke - remains unclear.
Partly the new bad vibes come from the Delhi government trying to shore up its image at home and abroad, after trading arrested militant leaders for the 155 hostages - an approach the party in power had long eschewed. India also is pushing the international community to declare Pakistan a rogue, terrorist-exporting state, a bold effort that dramatizes how distant the two nations are from the brief glow of the Lahore ``bus diplomacy`` of less than a year ago.
Tensions also are due in part to uncertainty and continued strife over old wounds. The Kashmir dispute, the cause of last spring`s small war between the two countries, is an issue that continues to anger Islamic militants that operate freely in Kashmir, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Cross-border rhetoric in recent days has been predictably loud, at times approaching a schoolyard-style exchange of threats. In response to a question by a CNN reporter, Pakistan`s chief executive Gen. Pervez Musharraf stated he would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if his country was attacked. Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes responded immediately, challenging Pakistan to fight a war, ``anytime, anywhere.``
Since the release of the hostages on New Year`s Eve, maneuvers on both sides of the India-Pakistan border have sought to exploit the hijacking drama. Last week, Maulana Masood Azhar, the militant leader demanded as ransom by the hijackers and released by India, showed up in Karachi, Pakistan. He vowed at a rally in an Islamic seminary to continue the fight to liberate the Indian-controlled and Muslim-majority Kashmir valley, shouting ``Death to India, Death to the United States.``
The next day, India arrested four Muslims in Bombay who allegedly aided the five hijackers who took over the Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu, Nepal, to New Delhi on Christmas Eve. The fresh arrests were seen as a move by Delhi to compensate for the militants it earlier released.
For much of the 1990s, India has attempted to sunder the US doctrine of ``symmetry`` in South Asia - the equal diplomatic treatment of long-time ally Pakistan, and the larger and more powerful, former Soviet-leaning India.
Last week, partly in pursuit of that goal, experts say, and in an attempt to bond more closely to the US, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee stated that ``India strongly urges major nations of the world to declare Pakistan a terrorist state.``
Mr. Vajpayee last February co-sponsored the first peace agreement between India and Pakistan in many years - a process that ended during the ``Kargil war`` last May, when Islamic militants occupied positions on the Indian side of the line of control in Kashmir.
General Musharraf responded by saying the Indian prime minister`s diplomatic initiative was part of a conspiracy to malign Pakistan abroad.
Washington has not obliged India`s request. James Rubin, US State Department spokesman, states that India has not provided enough of the evidence it claims to have for such a threshold decision to be made.
(In light of Mr. Masood`s threats to Americans, Mr. Rubin held Pakistan responsible for Masood`s activities, and said, ``Pakistan must assure the safety of Americans, Indians, and all foreigners in Pakistan.`` Masood`s group, the Harkat ul Mujahideen, kidnapped five Western hikers in Kashmir in the mid-1990s; one was beheaded, and the others are still missing.)
For the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Hindu nationalists in power in Delhi, handling the hijacking has been characterized as a series of blunders and missteps. Negotiations conducted in Kandahar, Afghanistan, by Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh were the one bright spot. The government delayed responding to the crisis for 12 hours. At one point, as the plane was refused a landing in Lahore, Pakistan, it landed in Amritsar on Indian soil - but the government could not decide how to respond.
Nor has Delhi accounted for many seeming misstatements during and since. While Indian officials stated for a week that the hijackers came on a Pakistani plane from Karachi to Nepal, Indian Airlines officials say no Pakistani planes were scheduled in the manner described. While the four Bombay Muslims arrested last week are charged with involvement in the hijacking, the Bombay police chief told reporters that the men were wanted for questioning in a bank robbery, and he knew nothing about other activities. And so on.
As for tensions, most experts feel that Pakistan and India have such a close understanding of each other`s psychology, that it is doubtful either side would escalate to an all-out war. However, Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution argues that rhetorical posturing and shadow boxing by two nations can lead to ``unintended consequences.``
``The hijacking is like acts that happen every day in Kashmir,`` states K. Subramanyam, a leading Indian defense analyst in New Delhi. ``For 53 years India and Pakistan relations have remained like this, and as long as Pakistan adheres to a two-state theory of India, it will remain so.``
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#43 Posted by concerned on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
one of the very first posts on this thread was the one by ras siddiqui in which he recalled the 1971 hijacking of `ganga` as a `RAW` act.
today`s hindustam times carries a summary of several IA hijackings since 1971. i reproduce below some excerpts related to `ganga`.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/110100/detOPI02.htm
Since 1971, six hijacked IA planes have been taken to Lahore by either the so-called Kashmiri militants or pro-Khalistan activists. The first was a Fokker Friendship which was hijacked from Srinagar to Lahore on January 30, 1971 by Hashim Qureshi and Ashraf Qureshi of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). The hijackers demanded the release of 36 members of the Front and political asylum in Pakistan. India rejected the demand and expressed shock at the Pakistani decision to grant asylum to the hijackers.
This was the first hijacking in South Asia and it exposed Pakistan’s attitude towards this kind of terrorism. The hijackers were treated as heroes and given asylum in that country, the Fokker Friendship plane was destroyed and the Pakistani authorities refused permission to an Indian plane to take back the released passengers. The passengers had to return by road.
When India banned Pakistani flights over India, Pakistani intelligence agencies came up with a fantastic theory that the hijackers were Indian agents. A special tribunal set up to try them declared them as Indian agents and gave them long jail terms. In May 1980 the Pakistan Supreme Court declared them as freedom fighters and released them.
From his exile in Holland, Qureshi has written a number of articles and books, recalling that the hijackers were trained in Rawalpindi and, after the hijacking, Pakistani intelligence agents forced them to destroy the plane.
today`s hindustam times carries a summary of several IA hijackings since 1971. i reproduce below some excerpts related to `ganga`.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/110100/detOPI02.htm
Since 1971, six hijacked IA planes have been taken to Lahore by either the so-called Kashmiri militants or pro-Khalistan activists. The first was a Fokker Friendship which was hijacked from Srinagar to Lahore on January 30, 1971 by Hashim Qureshi and Ashraf Qureshi of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). The hijackers demanded the release of 36 members of the Front and political asylum in Pakistan. India rejected the demand and expressed shock at the Pakistani decision to grant asylum to the hijackers.
This was the first hijacking in South Asia and it exposed Pakistan’s attitude towards this kind of terrorism. The hijackers were treated as heroes and given asylum in that country, the Fokker Friendship plane was destroyed and the Pakistani authorities refused permission to an Indian plane to take back the released passengers. The passengers had to return by road.
When India banned Pakistani flights over India, Pakistani intelligence agencies came up with a fantastic theory that the hijackers were Indian agents. A special tribunal set up to try them declared them as Indian agents and gave them long jail terms. In May 1980 the Pakistan Supreme Court declared them as freedom fighters and released them.
From his exile in Holland, Qureshi has written a number of articles and books, recalling that the hijackers were trained in Rawalpindi and, after the hijacking, Pakistani intelligence agents forced them to destroy the plane.
#42 Posted by sadna on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_597000/597315.stm
Excerpt:
``A Pakistani cleric who was freed by Delhi in exchange for hostages on board a hijacked airliner has vowed to continue fighting Indian forces in Kashmir.
Maulana Masood Azhar told a rally at his home town
of Bhawalpur in Pakistan that he would recruit half a million men to fight in Indian administered Kashmir.
``We are going to organise a 500,000 mujahideen [holy fighters]force to fight against the Indians,`` Mr Azhar said.
He said the force would be recruited from Pakistan but did not give any details.
Mr Azhar was one of three men released from Indian
prison after a deal between the Indian government and the hijackers of an Indian Airlines aircraft in Afghanistan.
...``
A Foreign Minister who represented the foreign policy of the sixth? most populous country in the world just 3 months ago is missing with neither any formal enquiry nor rally nor any curiosity about his fate. There are seemingly more popular spokesmen now.
Its a tragic realisation that in Pakistan, seemingly, while the rule of law is a stick to beat others with, it is considered useless currency(`khota sikka`) among yourselves.
Sadhana
#41 Posted by concerned on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
pwahid #171:
rohan`s article doesn`t seem well researched because -
Two of them were charged as follows ...
1.MAULANA MASOOD AZHAR Harkat-ul-Ansar Ideologue and orator known for his motivational skills. Arrested in Anantnag in 1994. Booked under Public Safety Act and TADA. Also charged with a jailbreak attempt in 1999 in which friend Sajjad Afghani was killed. Harkat was worried Azhar would die similarly.
2.MUSHTAK AHMED ZARGAR Al Umar Among the first five Kashmiri militants trained in Pakistan and chief of the Al Umar. Had a price of Rs 4 lakh on his head when arrested in 1992. Charged with killing BSF men. Ruthless, known to detonate bodies of his victims. His arrest was celebrated by security forces.
futher, it would have been worth pointing out that
1.Masood Azhar was traveling with a fake Portugease passport.
2.Ahmad Omar Sayed Sheikh, if he goes to UK will likely be sued/protested by the mother of the lady whom he kidnapped.
3.Mushtaq Zargar, a Pakistani from PoK did not have any Passport etc. He was caught during a terrorist raid.
judged by rohan`s previous writings on india, it seems that he wants attention via sensationalism rather than by objective research.
rohan`s article doesn`t seem well researched because -
Two of them were charged as follows ...
1.MAULANA MASOOD AZHAR Harkat-ul-Ansar Ideologue and orator known for his motivational skills. Arrested in Anantnag in 1994. Booked under Public Safety Act and TADA. Also charged with a jailbreak attempt in 1999 in which friend Sajjad Afghani was killed. Harkat was worried Azhar would die similarly.
2.MUSHTAK AHMED ZARGAR Al Umar Among the first five Kashmiri militants trained in Pakistan and chief of the Al Umar. Had a price of Rs 4 lakh on his head when arrested in 1992. Charged with killing BSF men. Ruthless, known to detonate bodies of his victims. His arrest was celebrated by security forces.
futher, it would have been worth pointing out that
1.Masood Azhar was traveling with a fake Portugease passport.
2.Ahmad Omar Sayed Sheikh, if he goes to UK will likely be sued/protested by the mother of the lady whom he kidnapped.
3.Mushtaq Zargar, a Pakistani from PoK did not have any Passport etc. He was caught during a terrorist raid.
judged by rohan`s previous writings on india, it seems that he wants attention via sensationalism rather than by objective research.
#40 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Hostage confirms photographs of hijackers
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BOMBAY, India, Jan. 10 A former hostage said today that she recognized the faces of the men who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane in photographs distributed by the Indian government.
Anita Joshi, a physician who treated the wounded passengers, was one of the few hostages to see the hijackers without their masks.
``Yes, they are the same people,`` Joshi told reporters, saying the hijackers had removed their balaclava headgear at night.
India last week published the photographs and what it said were the identities of the five hijackers and their home addresses in Pakistan. India has blamed Pakistan for the hijacking and called for the hijackers` arrest. Pakistan has denied the accusations and said the hijackers are in Indian-held Kashmir.
One passenger was stabbed to death and a second man was wounded on the first day of the eight-day hijack drama that ended New Year`s Eve. India released three imprisoned activists for Kashmir`s independence and the hijackers escaped.
In her first public appearance since the hijacking, the Bombay pathologist added new details to the hijacking saga.
She said the hijackers, who spoke in Hindi and the Afghan dialect of Pushtu, said they had planned the operation for two years. ``They said they saw Hollywood movies and read books on hijacking. They were perfectly trained and seemed to understand human psychology very well,`` Joshi said.
The doctor said the hijackers told her they were happy to see foreigners on the plane when they boarded it Christmas Eve in Katmandu, Nepal, on a flight to New Delhi.
``They said, `If one of you (Indians) die, nothing will happen, but if one of the foreigners dies, your government will be shaken, other governments will put pressure on your government,``` said.
Four days into the hijacking, Joshi said, she had a nervous breakdown. ``I started yelling and told them to shoot me since, anyway, all of us were mentally prepared to die.``
``It was like slow poison when every hour they`d shout and tell us to put our heads down or they would kill us,`` said Joshi.
She said the hijackers had asked her to treat the two passengers whom they had stabbed when the plane landed at Amritsar airport, the first of several stops before it was taken to a desert airstrip at Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Rupin Katyal, returning with his bride from his honeymoon, died of his wounds.
``(The hijackers) said there was a problem with refueling and so they had to do this. They asked me, `He won`t die, will he?` I told them he needed to be hospitalized immediately. But when I bandaged him the second time I knew Rupin was in the last stages.``
Katyal`s body was taken off the plane in Dubai, along with 27 passengers. His wife, who had been separated in another compartment, was not told what had happened to him
``I couldn`t tell her that her husband was dead,`` said Joshi. News spread that the hijackers had cut the throats of two people. ``But when the others asked me if the two were alive, I always said yes.``
Also in related news Indian police have arrested a tour operator and two of his employees in the western city of Bombay for allegedly providing forged Indian passports to two Pakistanis who hijacked an Indian plane late December, a police official said.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BOMBAY, India, Jan. 10 A former hostage said today that she recognized the faces of the men who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane in photographs distributed by the Indian government.
Anita Joshi, a physician who treated the wounded passengers, was one of the few hostages to see the hijackers without their masks.
``Yes, they are the same people,`` Joshi told reporters, saying the hijackers had removed their balaclava headgear at night.
India last week published the photographs and what it said were the identities of the five hijackers and their home addresses in Pakistan. India has blamed Pakistan for the hijacking and called for the hijackers` arrest. Pakistan has denied the accusations and said the hijackers are in Indian-held Kashmir.
One passenger was stabbed to death and a second man was wounded on the first day of the eight-day hijack drama that ended New Year`s Eve. India released three imprisoned activists for Kashmir`s independence and the hijackers escaped.
In her first public appearance since the hijacking, the Bombay pathologist added new details to the hijacking saga.
She said the hijackers, who spoke in Hindi and the Afghan dialect of Pushtu, said they had planned the operation for two years. ``They said they saw Hollywood movies and read books on hijacking. They were perfectly trained and seemed to understand human psychology very well,`` Joshi said.
The doctor said the hijackers told her they were happy to see foreigners on the plane when they boarded it Christmas Eve in Katmandu, Nepal, on a flight to New Delhi.
``They said, `If one of you (Indians) die, nothing will happen, but if one of the foreigners dies, your government will be shaken, other governments will put pressure on your government,``` said.
Four days into the hijacking, Joshi said, she had a nervous breakdown. ``I started yelling and told them to shoot me since, anyway, all of us were mentally prepared to die.``
``It was like slow poison when every hour they`d shout and tell us to put our heads down or they would kill us,`` said Joshi.
She said the hijackers had asked her to treat the two passengers whom they had stabbed when the plane landed at Amritsar airport, the first of several stops before it was taken to a desert airstrip at Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Rupin Katyal, returning with his bride from his honeymoon, died of his wounds.
``(The hijackers) said there was a problem with refueling and so they had to do this. They asked me, `He won`t die, will he?` I told them he needed to be hospitalized immediately. But when I bandaged him the second time I knew Rupin was in the last stages.``
Katyal`s body was taken off the plane in Dubai, along with 27 passengers. His wife, who had been separated in another compartment, was not told what had happened to him
``I couldn`t tell her that her husband was dead,`` said Joshi. News spread that the hijackers had cut the throats of two people. ``But when the others asked me if the two were alive, I always said yes.``
Also in related news Indian police have arrested a tour operator and two of his employees in the western city of Bombay for allegedly providing forged Indian passports to two Pakistanis who hijacked an Indian plane late December, a police official said.
#39 Posted by Pardesi on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Concerned # 169
Umairr had earlier posted an article (by Kuldip Nayar) from the Nation on Kashmir that was maliciously edited by the paper. Now this Bombay story. These newspapers are insulting their readers’ intelligence.
No one can control the newspapers in any country. However, knowing the credibility of their content, can we resist the temptation to propagate this stuff simply because we liked what we read?
Umairr had earlier posted an article (by Kuldip Nayar) from the Nation on Kashmir that was maliciously edited by the paper. Now this Bombay story. These newspapers are insulting their readers’ intelligence.
No one can control the newspapers in any country. However, knowing the credibility of their content, can we resist the temptation to propagate this stuff simply because we liked what we read?
#38 Posted by concerned on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
umairr #164:
well, i was curious about the partial indian express article as posted by you (courtesy pakistani newspapers) so i had to dig it out. here it is, in its entirety, for you and others to reflect upon. needless to say, the glorious tradition of blatently modifying and `spinning` original articles and statements continues in the pakistani newspapers -
The Mumbai mystery -- From a robbery to hijack plot
J DEY
MUMBAI, Jan 6: Two of the four `ISI operatives` whose interrogation apparently forms a key part of the Home Ministry`s evidence were arrested in Mumbai ostensibly in connection with a bank robbery. Even today, a senior police officer said that these men had nothing to do with the hijacking.
On December 30, 1999, a team of the special branch of Mumbai police arrested these two men out to rob a bank. The police recovered two AK-56 assault rifles, nine pistols, five hand-grenades, and four TNT anti-tank shells. No doubt, rather excessive ammunition for a bank robbery. But Mumbai police commissioner Ronnie Mendonca was categorical in saying that the men had been arrested in connection with a bank robbery.
Then word leaked out that two other men had been arrested and that the group was actually acting on behalf of a Taliban militant, an alleged associate of Osama bin Laden. The Taliban militant was identified as a certain Abu Ahmed.When higher-ups in the police realised that the media had got wind of this there were calls to editors to `please hold the story.` Most newspapers, including The Indian Express, went ahead with the story. Sources said a senior police official was pulled by his superiors for `leaking` this story. Why were the police being so secretive? In response, the only thing that Mendonca had to say at the Mumbai police`s Crime Review `99 was that the agents, who were being interrogated under judicial custody, were ISI men. To all other queries, he had a stock answer: `These are operational details which cannot be divulged.`
Even today when Advani was talking about the arrested men`s links with hijackers, Mumbai police stuck to their old line.
Mendonca declined to comment. Another senior police officer denied the arrested men`s involvement in the hijacking but said they had come here to set up a base for the Harkat-ul-Ansar. `Mr Advani must have access to intelligence that we are not aware of`, said the officer.
Copyright © 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
well, i was curious about the partial indian express article as posted by you (courtesy pakistani newspapers) so i had to dig it out. here it is, in its entirety, for you and others to reflect upon. needless to say, the glorious tradition of blatently modifying and `spinning` original articles and statements continues in the pakistani newspapers -
The Mumbai mystery -- From a robbery to hijack plot
J DEY
MUMBAI, Jan 6: Two of the four `ISI operatives` whose interrogation apparently forms a key part of the Home Ministry`s evidence were arrested in Mumbai ostensibly in connection with a bank robbery. Even today, a senior police officer said that these men had nothing to do with the hijacking.
On December 30, 1999, a team of the special branch of Mumbai police arrested these two men out to rob a bank. The police recovered two AK-56 assault rifles, nine pistols, five hand-grenades, and four TNT anti-tank shells. No doubt, rather excessive ammunition for a bank robbery. But Mumbai police commissioner Ronnie Mendonca was categorical in saying that the men had been arrested in connection with a bank robbery.
Then word leaked out that two other men had been arrested and that the group was actually acting on behalf of a Taliban militant, an alleged associate of Osama bin Laden. The Taliban militant was identified as a certain Abu Ahmed.When higher-ups in the police realised that the media had got wind of this there were calls to editors to `please hold the story.` Most newspapers, including The Indian Express, went ahead with the story. Sources said a senior police official was pulled by his superiors for `leaking` this story. Why were the police being so secretive? In response, the only thing that Mendonca had to say at the Mumbai police`s Crime Review `99 was that the agents, who were being interrogated under judicial custody, were ISI men. To all other queries, he had a stock answer: `These are operational details which cannot be divulged.`
Even today when Advani was talking about the arrested men`s links with hijackers, Mumbai police stuck to their old line.
Mendonca declined to comment. Another senior police officer denied the arrested men`s involvement in the hijacking but said they had come here to set up a base for the Harkat-ul-Ansar. `Mr Advani must have access to intelligence that we are not aware of`, said the officer.
Copyright © 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
#37 Posted by Pardesi on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
SameerJB # 166
One more thought .. Assuming that ISI planned the operation, the planners must have known that the world sympathy will go with Indian passengers. The ISI decision-makers, I believe, are at least as smart as any of us occasional chit-chatters on this board are. Why would then they go for it? The only rational explanation I can think of is their risk reward calculation showed that diverting Pakistan public attention from NS trial to external enemy would be worth the gamble. During last three weeks, there have been very few comments on this board about NS trial, his brother/family or new sales tax. Attention has shifted to the hijackers, passengers and freed militants. Back home, pay off is even more.
Not bad planning, if truly they did it.
One more thought .. Assuming that ISI planned the operation, the planners must have known that the world sympathy will go with Indian passengers. The ISI decision-makers, I believe, are at least as smart as any of us occasional chit-chatters on this board are. Why would then they go for it? The only rational explanation I can think of is their risk reward calculation showed that diverting Pakistan public attention from NS trial to external enemy would be worth the gamble. During last three weeks, there have been very few comments on this board about NS trial, his brother/family or new sales tax. Attention has shifted to the hijackers, passengers and freed militants. Back home, pay off is even more.
Not bad planning, if truly they did it.
#36 Posted by Pardesi on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
SameerJB # 166
As usual, excellent objective analysis.
Indians on the surface look like losers since they come across as bumbling incompetents with no execution abilities. They also would fail to get Pakistan declared as terrorist state. However, they have been able to elicit world sympathy as the victims. That to me is the trophy, as in kargil, handed over by whosoever plotted it. On the world scene, media victory is the foundation for the ultimate win especially for poorer countries dependent upon the western world for one reason or another.
Real losers, in addition to Katyals, are the masses on both sides.
Eid Mubarak to all Muslim friends.
As usual, excellent objective analysis.
Indians on the surface look like losers since they come across as bumbling incompetents with no execution abilities. They also would fail to get Pakistan declared as terrorist state. However, they have been able to elicit world sympathy as the victims. That to me is the trophy, as in kargil, handed over by whosoever plotted it. On the world scene, media victory is the foundation for the ultimate win especially for poorer countries dependent upon the western world for one reason or another.
Real losers, in addition to Katyals, are the masses on both sides.
Eid Mubarak to all Muslim friends.
#35 Posted by SameerJB on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Hijacking - A Rational Analysis
1. The hijacking of IC-814 was masterminded by ISI of Pakistan to bring Kashmir issue to world attention. In order to avoid world condemnation and other serious implications, ISI kept their hands clean by using some semi-independent jihadi group based in Afghanistan for the execution of the plan.
2. The plan was, as usual, leaked to U.S. who promptly informed Indian government about a possible hijacking during millennial celebrations.
3. The Indian government calculated it to be more beneficial to allow the hijacking to go through so that it can be used to malign Pakistan in the international community, with the ultimate aim of U.S. declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. Moreover, considering the ultimate demand of the hijackers to release three millitants of no significance was not considered a strategically detrimental from Indian point of view regarding Kashmir.
4. Indian government miscalculated about the ultimate destination of Kandhahar instead of some Pakistani city, alongwith the murder of a passenger as well as the pressure from the hostages` families. The hijacking drama ended with the release of three insignificant millitants.
In the final analysis, both Pakistani and Indian governments came out losers with the terrible loss to the family of the murdered hostage. So far Pakistan has failed to bring Kashmir issue on the hot burner and India is going nowhere with their desire for a wide spread condemnation of Pakistan or terrorist state declaration from any major western player. I wish both the governments were more concerned about improving the living standards and prosperity of their people instead of playing mindless ego games. A peaceful South Asia is an absolute necessity for any meaningful uplifting of the living standards and prosperity for the masses.
1. The hijacking of IC-814 was masterminded by ISI of Pakistan to bring Kashmir issue to world attention. In order to avoid world condemnation and other serious implications, ISI kept their hands clean by using some semi-independent jihadi group based in Afghanistan for the execution of the plan.
2. The plan was, as usual, leaked to U.S. who promptly informed Indian government about a possible hijacking during millennial celebrations.
3. The Indian government calculated it to be more beneficial to allow the hijacking to go through so that it can be used to malign Pakistan in the international community, with the ultimate aim of U.S. declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. Moreover, considering the ultimate demand of the hijackers to release three millitants of no significance was not considered a strategically detrimental from Indian point of view regarding Kashmir.
4. Indian government miscalculated about the ultimate destination of Kandhahar instead of some Pakistani city, alongwith the murder of a passenger as well as the pressure from the hostages` families. The hijacking drama ended with the release of three insignificant millitants.
In the final analysis, both Pakistani and Indian governments came out losers with the terrible loss to the family of the murdered hostage. So far Pakistan has failed to bring Kashmir issue on the hot burner and India is going nowhere with their desire for a wide spread condemnation of Pakistan or terrorist state declaration from any major western player. I wish both the governments were more concerned about improving the living standards and prosperity of their people instead of playing mindless ego games. A peaceful South Asia is an absolute necessity for any meaningful uplifting of the living standards and prosperity for the masses.
#34 Posted by Umairr on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
The view of an outsider:
``Put up or shut up
Brian Cloughley
In a statement uttered in what must have been one of his more ludicrous moments of bombastic crassness, the defence minister of India has said that ``India can beat Pakistan, anywhere, anytime.`` This is an amazing comment from a cabinet minister in a democratic country that repeatedly says it wants to live in peace. But it is not only an arrogant and belligerent claim: it is, as he would discover quite quickly, entirely wrong.
It is time India faced up to the fact that the Indian army did not win a victory at Kargil. The soldiers were brave enough, God knows, but they were poorly-equipped and ill-prepared for combat in such terrible conditions, and were hit very hard. The only reason the Indian army regained the 120 or so pickets that were occupied by invaders from Pakistan was that Mr Nawaz Sharif was ordered by the president of the US to withdraw his troops.
The Pakistan army fought the Indian army in Kashmir last year and in the course of operations killed over 500 Indian soldiers and caused some 1,100 casualties, according to Indian official figures. The true figures are probably higher, with one western estimate being over 700 dead, which is apparently based on inclusion of non-battle fatalities caused by altitude-related illness and accidents. Pakistani troops withdrew with great reluctance, and suffered few casualties in breaking contact. Foreign defence and intelligence services and independent defence commentators know this, and it is time that the Indian public was told the truth. Perhaps Mr Fernandes believes what he has been told by the experts in his ministry. If so, he had better get someone in a foreign intelligence agency to give him a briefing. There might be some point in trying to mislead the Indian public, if only to deflect criticism of the government from its appalling handling of both the Kargil disaster and the Amritsar hijack shambles, but Mr Fernandes should be mindful of his bombastic predecessor, Mr Krishna Menon, who made similar comments about the Indian army in 1962.
The Indian army is not capable of defeating the Pakistan army on the battlefield. A conventional war would be inconclusive, with both sides taking and losing territory and suffering enormous casualties, but while there would be no winner, there would be two certain losers. (A nuclear exchange would be utter disaster for the entire region.) If India is swayed by the rhetoric of such as Fernandes, and if the media join in the `teach Pakistan a lesson` movement to the extent that public opinion forces the BJP coalition to rattle its sabres even more fiercely, then carnage and devastation lie ahead.
It appears that India is in an extremely warlike mood, and several countries are concerned enough about the state of affairs to have unofficially warned New Delhi that the rhetoric has gone far enough. It is most regrettable that people in responsible appointments should make such wild claims concerning Pakistan`s alleged role in India`s Amritsar debacle.
Mr Vajpayee has claimed that India has ``enough damning evidence to establish Pakistan`s involvement`` in the hijack. This is a very serious allegation indeed. He does not imply that Pakistan is guilty; he does not hint that there might be Pakistani involvement; he does not insinuate that Pakistan has connived with criminals who committed murder. There is no shilly-shallying by Mr Vajpayee. He states plainly, bluntly and unequivocally that Pakistan is guilty of an international criminal act of enormous significance for the whole world. This is not just a little disagreement between India and Pakistan, if what Mr Vajpayee says is true, for it affects the entire spectrum of international affairs. And of course it must be true, because Mr Vajpayee is prime minister of a most important country. He could not possibly make the claims he has made if he did not have absolutely clear, hard, incontrovertible evidence that the government of Pakistan deliberately and with malice aforethought planned and conducted an aerial hijack. There can be no equivocation about his allegation; there can be no back-tracking or requirement for spin-doctor `clarification,` for it is probably the most serious outright accusation ever made by an Indian prime minister concerning a neighbouring country, and it is essential that the evidence be provided, fully and transparently.
But Mr Vajpayee says that he ``will disclose [the evidence] at an appropriate time.`` He cannot get away with that sort of dodging. It won`t wash. He has made a terrible allegation concerning the government of another country. He has accused an entire nation of being comprehensively involved in terrorism. The ``appropriate time`` to disclose the unimpeachable, irrefutable, indisputable evidence is right now.
Mr Vajpayee says he has `` damning evidence.`` Very well. Let the rest of the world know about it. Let the rest of the world stand in impartial judgement concerning the evidence placed before it. The world has a right to be made aware of the evidence, because a member of the United Nations stands accused by another member of committing an act of international terrorism. Let there be a special meeting of the Security Council at which the evidence can be presented by India`s representative to the UN. The evidence must exist, otherwise Mr Vajpayee would not have told the world that it exists. There can be no need to polish it up or package it or tie it in pretty bows: the evidence, he says, is there. If it is so damning, then there can be no question of hiding it.
Mr Advani went further and said on Wednesday that there are ``six tell-tale pointers`` that involve Pakistan in the hijack. Since when are ``pointers`` factual evidence in a case of terrorism, or anything else for that matter? He says that interrogation of four men, arrested in Bombay ``on suspicion of providing support for the hijack plan two months before it was hatched``, ``confirmed that all five [hijackers] are Pakistanis, that it [was] a Pakistani operation, executed with the assistance of Harkat-ul-Ansar.`` Where is the evidence? What did these people say? What are the names of the hijackers? None of this can be secret, so there can be no problem in releasing the testimony. What was it? What are the details? What were their links with the hijackers and the government of Pakistan? Are we to believe that the government of Pakistan is involved in a major international criminal conspiracy on the basis of an Indian police interrogation of which there is no transcript and at which there was no legal representation of the accused?
The shrill and hysterical threats from New Delhi are reminiscent of 1930s Germany and one almost expects to hear ``my patience is exhausted`` at any moment. But before the politicians become too belligerent, the Indian defence establishment had better have a word in the ears of Messrs Vajpayee and Fernandes. The Indian army is not in good shape, and the Indian air force can barely keep its planes flying. (The rather sick quip going round international defence circles is: `How do you acquire an IAF MiG?--Answer: buy a few acres of ground and wait.`) Tank serviceability is at an all-time low, and strike elements of the army are being denied equipment and are starved of operating costs because of the enormous expense of the winter occupation of the Siachen Glacier and the Kargil region, estimated at $1.5 million a day. Troop morale, especially in the northeast and in Indian-and-ministered Kashmir has been badly affected by terrorist excesses--and successes. There would be no-win for India if the politicians decided to raise the stakes to the height of war, as they appear to be prepared to do.
The threats and the war drumming cannot go on for ever. Nor can the wait by the rest of the world for evidence of terrorism on the part of Pakistan. The US and the UK have politely refused to denounce Pakistan for terrorism, as demanded by India, and we can be assured that if either of these countries had a shred of evidence to link General Musharraf`s government with illegal acts, there would be instant and very noisy condemnation by Washington and London. The US administration is somewhat intense about terrorism, and Britain is embarrassed that one of the freed prisoners is a British citizen. (It is even more embarrassed by the fact that this British citizen was being held indefinitely, along with hundreds of other people all over India, without charge or trial; a small matter of blatant violation of human rights that is being ignored by everyone.)
There is a rather vulgar Australian saying that is apposite to the present situation as regards Mr Vajpayee and his allegation that the government of Pakistan has committed a terrorist act of aerial piracy: Put up or shut up.``
``Put up or shut up
Brian Cloughley
In a statement uttered in what must have been one of his more ludicrous moments of bombastic crassness, the defence minister of India has said that ``India can beat Pakistan, anywhere, anytime.`` This is an amazing comment from a cabinet minister in a democratic country that repeatedly says it wants to live in peace. But it is not only an arrogant and belligerent claim: it is, as he would discover quite quickly, entirely wrong.
It is time India faced up to the fact that the Indian army did not win a victory at Kargil. The soldiers were brave enough, God knows, but they were poorly-equipped and ill-prepared for combat in such terrible conditions, and were hit very hard. The only reason the Indian army regained the 120 or so pickets that were occupied by invaders from Pakistan was that Mr Nawaz Sharif was ordered by the president of the US to withdraw his troops.
The Pakistan army fought the Indian army in Kashmir last year and in the course of operations killed over 500 Indian soldiers and caused some 1,100 casualties, according to Indian official figures. The true figures are probably higher, with one western estimate being over 700 dead, which is apparently based on inclusion of non-battle fatalities caused by altitude-related illness and accidents. Pakistani troops withdrew with great reluctance, and suffered few casualties in breaking contact. Foreign defence and intelligence services and independent defence commentators know this, and it is time that the Indian public was told the truth. Perhaps Mr Fernandes believes what he has been told by the experts in his ministry. If so, he had better get someone in a foreign intelligence agency to give him a briefing. There might be some point in trying to mislead the Indian public, if only to deflect criticism of the government from its appalling handling of both the Kargil disaster and the Amritsar hijack shambles, but Mr Fernandes should be mindful of his bombastic predecessor, Mr Krishna Menon, who made similar comments about the Indian army in 1962.
The Indian army is not capable of defeating the Pakistan army on the battlefield. A conventional war would be inconclusive, with both sides taking and losing territory and suffering enormous casualties, but while there would be no winner, there would be two certain losers. (A nuclear exchange would be utter disaster for the entire region.) If India is swayed by the rhetoric of such as Fernandes, and if the media join in the `teach Pakistan a lesson` movement to the extent that public opinion forces the BJP coalition to rattle its sabres even more fiercely, then carnage and devastation lie ahead.
It appears that India is in an extremely warlike mood, and several countries are concerned enough about the state of affairs to have unofficially warned New Delhi that the rhetoric has gone far enough. It is most regrettable that people in responsible appointments should make such wild claims concerning Pakistan`s alleged role in India`s Amritsar debacle.
Mr Vajpayee has claimed that India has ``enough damning evidence to establish Pakistan`s involvement`` in the hijack. This is a very serious allegation indeed. He does not imply that Pakistan is guilty; he does not hint that there might be Pakistani involvement; he does not insinuate that Pakistan has connived with criminals who committed murder. There is no shilly-shallying by Mr Vajpayee. He states plainly, bluntly and unequivocally that Pakistan is guilty of an international criminal act of enormous significance for the whole world. This is not just a little disagreement between India and Pakistan, if what Mr Vajpayee says is true, for it affects the entire spectrum of international affairs. And of course it must be true, because Mr Vajpayee is prime minister of a most important country. He could not possibly make the claims he has made if he did not have absolutely clear, hard, incontrovertible evidence that the government of Pakistan deliberately and with malice aforethought planned and conducted an aerial hijack. There can be no equivocation about his allegation; there can be no back-tracking or requirement for spin-doctor `clarification,` for it is probably the most serious outright accusation ever made by an Indian prime minister concerning a neighbouring country, and it is essential that the evidence be provided, fully and transparently.
But Mr Vajpayee says that he ``will disclose [the evidence] at an appropriate time.`` He cannot get away with that sort of dodging. It won`t wash. He has made a terrible allegation concerning the government of another country. He has accused an entire nation of being comprehensively involved in terrorism. The ``appropriate time`` to disclose the unimpeachable, irrefutable, indisputable evidence is right now.
Mr Vajpayee says he has `` damning evidence.`` Very well. Let the rest of the world know about it. Let the rest of the world stand in impartial judgement concerning the evidence placed before it. The world has a right to be made aware of the evidence, because a member of the United Nations stands accused by another member of committing an act of international terrorism. Let there be a special meeting of the Security Council at which the evidence can be presented by India`s representative to the UN. The evidence must exist, otherwise Mr Vajpayee would not have told the world that it exists. There can be no need to polish it up or package it or tie it in pretty bows: the evidence, he says, is there. If it is so damning, then there can be no question of hiding it.
Mr Advani went further and said on Wednesday that there are ``six tell-tale pointers`` that involve Pakistan in the hijack. Since when are ``pointers`` factual evidence in a case of terrorism, or anything else for that matter? He says that interrogation of four men, arrested in Bombay ``on suspicion of providing support for the hijack plan two months before it was hatched``, ``confirmed that all five [hijackers] are Pakistanis, that it [was] a Pakistani operation, executed with the assistance of Harkat-ul-Ansar.`` Where is the evidence? What did these people say? What are the names of the hijackers? None of this can be secret, so there can be no problem in releasing the testimony. What was it? What are the details? What were their links with the hijackers and the government of Pakistan? Are we to believe that the government of Pakistan is involved in a major international criminal conspiracy on the basis of an Indian police interrogation of which there is no transcript and at which there was no legal representation of the accused?
The shrill and hysterical threats from New Delhi are reminiscent of 1930s Germany and one almost expects to hear ``my patience is exhausted`` at any moment. But before the politicians become too belligerent, the Indian defence establishment had better have a word in the ears of Messrs Vajpayee and Fernandes. The Indian army is not in good shape, and the Indian air force can barely keep its planes flying. (The rather sick quip going round international defence circles is: `How do you acquire an IAF MiG?--Answer: buy a few acres of ground and wait.`) Tank serviceability is at an all-time low, and strike elements of the army are being denied equipment and are starved of operating costs because of the enormous expense of the winter occupation of the Siachen Glacier and the Kargil region, estimated at $1.5 million a day. Troop morale, especially in the northeast and in Indian-and-ministered Kashmir has been badly affected by terrorist excesses--and successes. There would be no-win for India if the politicians decided to raise the stakes to the height of war, as they appear to be prepared to do.
The threats and the war drumming cannot go on for ever. Nor can the wait by the rest of the world for evidence of terrorism on the part of Pakistan. The US and the UK have politely refused to denounce Pakistan for terrorism, as demanded by India, and we can be assured that if either of these countries had a shred of evidence to link General Musharraf`s government with illegal acts, there would be instant and very noisy condemnation by Washington and London. The US administration is somewhat intense about terrorism, and Britain is embarrassed that one of the freed prisoners is a British citizen. (It is even more embarrassed by the fact that this British citizen was being held indefinitely, along with hundreds of other people all over India, without charge or trial; a small matter of blatant violation of human rights that is being ignored by everyone.)
There is a rather vulgar Australian saying that is apposite to the present situation as regards Mr Vajpayee and his allegation that the government of Pakistan has committed a terrorist act of aerial piracy: Put up or shut up.``
#33 Posted by Umairr on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
``A foreign ministry spokesman traced contradictions in Indian Home Minister LK Advani`s claims on Thursday that Pakistan was behind the hijacking episode and noted: ``The list of events, which Mr. Advani has provided to prove Pakistan`s complicity is totally hollow and frivolous with obvious inconsistencies.``
In a formal statement, the spokesman said it was apparent that India was desperate to prove to the international community that Pakistan was behind the hijacking in pursuit of India`s own political agenda to malign the Kashmir freedom struggle.
Also, he said, the other Indian aim was to get Pakistan declared as a terrorist state. But the spokesman, who argued and contradicted Advani`s claims, said: ``Unfortunately for India, such a false and malicious charge is not easy to prove. Fabrications and circumstantial evidence only further expose India.``
He reiterated Pakistan`s stance that it condemned all acts of terrorism, particularly hijacking and was intent on punishing hijackers under international law, if they could be arrested. The spokesman ridiculed Advani`s press briefing and his announcement of a breakthrough, and supported his arguments with clippings of the Indian press, ``which clearly deny the very claims of the Indian home minister.``
The official statement said that while Advani was making the announcement, Mumbai Police chief Ronnie Mandonca was categorically denying that those four persons (who Advani said were Pakistanis involved in hijacking) had anything to do with the hijacking. The spokesman said they were arrested in a bank robbery case one day before the hijacking ended on December 31 and he quoted the Indian Express of January 7 as carrying this story under the banner headline ``Mumbai mystery: how bank robbery turned into a hijack conspiracy``.
(THE NEWS, Pakistan)
In a formal statement, the spokesman said it was apparent that India was desperate to prove to the international community that Pakistan was behind the hijacking in pursuit of India`s own political agenda to malign the Kashmir freedom struggle.
Also, he said, the other Indian aim was to get Pakistan declared as a terrorist state. But the spokesman, who argued and contradicted Advani`s claims, said: ``Unfortunately for India, such a false and malicious charge is not easy to prove. Fabrications and circumstantial evidence only further expose India.``
He reiterated Pakistan`s stance that it condemned all acts of terrorism, particularly hijacking and was intent on punishing hijackers under international law, if they could be arrested. The spokesman ridiculed Advani`s press briefing and his announcement of a breakthrough, and supported his arguments with clippings of the Indian press, ``which clearly deny the very claims of the Indian home minister.``
The official statement said that while Advani was making the announcement, Mumbai Police chief Ronnie Mandonca was categorically denying that those four persons (who Advani said were Pakistanis involved in hijacking) had anything to do with the hijacking. The spokesman said they were arrested in a bank robbery case one day before the hijacking ended on December 31 and he quoted the Indian Express of January 7 as carrying this story under the banner headline ``Mumbai mystery: how bank robbery turned into a hijack conspiracy``.
(THE NEWS, Pakistan)
#32 Posted by alireza on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
The latest from The Times of India:
``NEW DELHI: The Vajpayee government may be convinced of Pakistan`s hand in the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane and has promised to launch a diplomatic campaign to isolate it as a terrorist state. Yet, in a strange oversight, New Delhi has not sent a formal protest to Islamabad. Nor has it confronted Pakistan with the evidence that was made public by home minister Advani on Thursday.``
``NEW DELHI: The Vajpayee government may be convinced of Pakistan`s hand in the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane and has promised to launch a diplomatic campaign to isolate it as a terrorist state. Yet, in a strange oversight, New Delhi has not sent a formal protest to Islamabad. Nor has it confronted Pakistan with the evidence that was made public by home minister Advani on Thursday.``
#31 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
From Nepali media http://www.nepalnews.com
The Hijackers Could Have Killed Me’ Gajendra Tamrakar
Among the 178 passengers who remained hostages in the hijacked Indian Airlines flight 1C 814 for eight days, one name became prominent. And it was because he was accused as one of the five hijackers of the Indian Airliner by the Indian media, mainly the Zee news channel. But when the hijack ordeal was over, the truth came out: Gajendra Tamrakar was one of the hostages, and not a hijacker, to walk out of the plane. He spoke to SPOTLIGHT about his experience onboard IC 814. Excerpts:
Did you know you were labeled as one of the hijackers while you were still onboard?
As long as we remained hostages, I knew nothing about it. After being freed, an official of Nepalese Embassy in Islamabad told me about the accusation.
How did the hijacking begin?
Few of the passengers including me had finished our meal. All of a sudden, two of the hijackers kicked the food and beverages trolley being used by airhostesses. Both of them were masked and were shouting ``Heads down! Move, move!``
What was your reaction?
At first, I could not believe that such a thin person could be a hijacker. But, a passenger next to me who had already bowed his head explained to me the situation. By that time I could see one of the hijackers scaring passengers with a small knife.
How long were you kept blindfolded?
At first they made the air hostesses tie the seat cover of our seats around our eyes. There were fixed times when we had to remain blindfolded. At other times, if we continued keeping the piece of cloth around our eyes, the hijackers in our compartment would tease us saying that we looked like dacoits.
So friendly were the hijackers?
In the beginning, I did not get that impression since one of them grabbed me by collar and asked who I was. I think he did so looking at my big size. I don`t know what he might have done to me if I had not shown my identity card. They could have killed me.
How hard was it to pass the time?
In the first few days, it was very hard. We had to keep our heads down, at times blindfolded. We were not even allowed to talk with each other. Sometimes, passengers would pass out urine on their seat. As a result, we could see urine flowing below our seats. The real hard time was when we did not know where we were and what the hijackers were going to do to us.
How did they look?
We could never see their faces since they were masked all the time. But what we noticed was that they kept on exchanging their dresses they wore. The one who was in command among the five hijackers initially had put on a red cap and was wearing a simple shirt. He was carrying a grenade in one hand while a small pistol in the other. Almost all of them loved children and gave them chocolates. They respected ladies.
You were hostage for eight days. Did the passengers not get along with one another?
We did. In the last few days, we were allowed to crack jokes, and do acting over mike. I was one of those to share jokes quite frequently. While cracking one of the jokes, I made the passengers laugh so heartily that one of the hijckaers came and hit me with his pistol saying ``Do you think it`s a joke?``
There were 178 passengers and only five hijackers. As hostages did you all not feel like taking on the hijackers?
You must understand that there is a big difference between real life and movies. It was not as easy as in movies that show heroes easily tackling with hijackers. We knew we were held hostages by armed hijackers. Any false move on our part would mean death.
‘Hijackers Said It Was The Millennium Flight’ Rojina Pathak
Rojina Pathak, who was one of the hostages in the IC 814 flight, had an extra reason to be nervous when the aircraft was hijacked in the Indian airspace almost 40 minutes after it took off from Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmanmdu. It was her first ever flight. The freshly married Pathak told SPOTLIGHT how did she feel as a hostage:
How afraid were you?
I was so terrorized. I have no words to explain how I felt when the aircraft was under the hijackers` control. Moreover, as a newly married person, I was more nervous. I could see fear in my husband`s face. The hijackers were saying it was the last flight of the millennium and that made me feel more insecure. It was my first flight.
When do you think the terrorism inside the aircraft reached the climax?
It was one day before we all were released. That day the hijackers said that the dialogue between them and the Indian government had failed to reach into an agreement. And so, they had decided to kill us one by one. They even asked us to pray for the last time.
How hard was it for you physically?
It was very hard to remain seated in one seat for eight days. But more than the physical hardship, it was the mental torture we had to undergo that caused the pain.
Any particular event you would remember most when you think about the hijack?
Once I washed my face and found that I had wiped out my tika. As a newly married girl, I wanted to put the tika once again. When I asked my husband, who was sitting beside me, to put the tika, I could see tears in his face. I was really touched by the sight. With the help of my lipstick, he did put tika on my forehead. That was the moment I really will alsways remember.
Did you hear the hijackers talking?
We used to hear them speaking Hindi. They used to say they were form Kashmir and they also sometimes used to explain why they were hijacking the plane. But since I was least bothered about their mission, I never tried to understand what they were trying to say.
How was their behavior?
They were very kind. They were quite respectful to ladies. They could have done anything if they wanted to.
And how were the airhostesses?
I have no words for their courage. Even during such terrorized condition, they were all the time smiling and serving us.
http://www.nepalnews.com
Is Nepal becoming a play-ground of terrorists?
The first hijacking of a plane on international flight from Nepal has laid bare the negligence and carelessness of the security system at the Tribhuvan International Airport. When even Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai has accepted the laxity of the security at the TIA, Home Minister Purna Bahadur Khadka is trying to cover up the shame of the security agencies.
But as soon as Premier Bhattarai has accept the shortcoming about security at the airport, the responsibility of security at the airport has been taken up by the army. Apart from the 300 police, detectives of the National Investigation Department are also involved in security. Apart from that passengers are now made to through metal detector and even hand held metal detectors are also employed.
However, how the hijackers could pass through the custom, revenue investigation and immigration, which are always teeming with crowd, has wracked the brain of everybody.
Although it is now almost clear that the 6 armed hijackers could pass through the airport, the Home Minister and police IGP are trying to cover up their weaknesses by saying that everything was all right.
According to the Indian Airlines office in Kathmandu, of the 178 passengers of the hijacked Indian Airline plane there were four passengers with Muslim names emdash Kazi S.A., Saiyad S.A., Mo. Mustaq Ahmad and S
Sheikh A.M. and two other hijackers may have been travelling under some Hindu names. The Indian Zee television on Saturday even said that one of the hijackers could be a Nepali.
Meanwhile, the US intelligence agency CIA has three months before had notified India about the possibility of plane hijacking and had cautioned to take precaution. According to a Home Ministry source, Nepal was also notified by the CIA.
Involvement of Indian Airlines officials!
Any foreign airlines after landing at the Kathmandu airport spend at least 40 to 50 minutes before taking off again. But last Friday, the Indian Airlines plane had taken off after only 25 minutes later. According to airport sources, there was no record of the Indian Airlines taking off within 40 minutes. The plane which had come three hours later, but had taken off so quickly is also being seen with suspicion. It has even raised question of whether any person lined with the Indian Airlines itself is involved with the hijacking.
How the arms might have entered the plane?
The trend of hijacking shows that no hijacker wants take the risk of trying to enter the plane with the arms. This shows either the arms were already there when it came to Kathmandu or the arms were smuggled into the plane in Kathmandu. This clearly shows
that if the arms were taken into the plane in Kathmandu, the hijackers must have got into the confidence catering or the security personnel. It is even rumoured that someone in the security are involved in the conspiracy.
Meanwhile, the government has taken prompt action. The cabinet has already held two meetings and an investigation commission has also been formed. The government has also suspended the duty office at the custom, immigration, intelligence, revenue investigation, police and airport staff who were at their duties when the Indian plane has flown. Similarly, four other staff have been taken into custody.
Among the hijackers, the tickets of three - Mustaq Kazi, Saiyad and Sheikh - were re-confirmed by the World Tours and Travel owned by Makbul Lari, who also owns the Everest Hotel. One source even doubted that they might be given shelter by Lari in Kathmandu.
However, this incidence as given more ground to the Indian accusation that the ISI agents are making Nepal their playground for anti-India activities.
The Hijackers Could Have Killed Me’ Gajendra Tamrakar
Among the 178 passengers who remained hostages in the hijacked Indian Airlines flight 1C 814 for eight days, one name became prominent. And it was because he was accused as one of the five hijackers of the Indian Airliner by the Indian media, mainly the Zee news channel. But when the hijack ordeal was over, the truth came out: Gajendra Tamrakar was one of the hostages, and not a hijacker, to walk out of the plane. He spoke to SPOTLIGHT about his experience onboard IC 814. Excerpts:
Did you know you were labeled as one of the hijackers while you were still onboard?
As long as we remained hostages, I knew nothing about it. After being freed, an official of Nepalese Embassy in Islamabad told me about the accusation.
How did the hijacking begin?
Few of the passengers including me had finished our meal. All of a sudden, two of the hijackers kicked the food and beverages trolley being used by airhostesses. Both of them were masked and were shouting ``Heads down! Move, move!``
What was your reaction?
At first, I could not believe that such a thin person could be a hijacker. But, a passenger next to me who had already bowed his head explained to me the situation. By that time I could see one of the hijackers scaring passengers with a small knife.
How long were you kept blindfolded?
At first they made the air hostesses tie the seat cover of our seats around our eyes. There were fixed times when we had to remain blindfolded. At other times, if we continued keeping the piece of cloth around our eyes, the hijackers in our compartment would tease us saying that we looked like dacoits.
So friendly were the hijackers?
In the beginning, I did not get that impression since one of them grabbed me by collar and asked who I was. I think he did so looking at my big size. I don`t know what he might have done to me if I had not shown my identity card. They could have killed me.
How hard was it to pass the time?
In the first few days, it was very hard. We had to keep our heads down, at times blindfolded. We were not even allowed to talk with each other. Sometimes, passengers would pass out urine on their seat. As a result, we could see urine flowing below our seats. The real hard time was when we did not know where we were and what the hijackers were going to do to us.
How did they look?
We could never see their faces since they were masked all the time. But what we noticed was that they kept on exchanging their dresses they wore. The one who was in command among the five hijackers initially had put on a red cap and was wearing a simple shirt. He was carrying a grenade in one hand while a small pistol in the other. Almost all of them loved children and gave them chocolates. They respected ladies.
You were hostage for eight days. Did the passengers not get along with one another?
We did. In the last few days, we were allowed to crack jokes, and do acting over mike. I was one of those to share jokes quite frequently. While cracking one of the jokes, I made the passengers laugh so heartily that one of the hijckaers came and hit me with his pistol saying ``Do you think it`s a joke?``
There were 178 passengers and only five hijackers. As hostages did you all not feel like taking on the hijackers?
You must understand that there is a big difference between real life and movies. It was not as easy as in movies that show heroes easily tackling with hijackers. We knew we were held hostages by armed hijackers. Any false move on our part would mean death.
‘Hijackers Said It Was The Millennium Flight’ Rojina Pathak
Rojina Pathak, who was one of the hostages in the IC 814 flight, had an extra reason to be nervous when the aircraft was hijacked in the Indian airspace almost 40 minutes after it took off from Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmanmdu. It was her first ever flight. The freshly married Pathak told SPOTLIGHT how did she feel as a hostage:
How afraid were you?
I was so terrorized. I have no words to explain how I felt when the aircraft was under the hijackers` control. Moreover, as a newly married person, I was more nervous. I could see fear in my husband`s face. The hijackers were saying it was the last flight of the millennium and that made me feel more insecure. It was my first flight.
When do you think the terrorism inside the aircraft reached the climax?
It was one day before we all were released. That day the hijackers said that the dialogue between them and the Indian government had failed to reach into an agreement. And so, they had decided to kill us one by one. They even asked us to pray for the last time.
How hard was it for you physically?
It was very hard to remain seated in one seat for eight days. But more than the physical hardship, it was the mental torture we had to undergo that caused the pain.
Any particular event you would remember most when you think about the hijack?
Once I washed my face and found that I had wiped out my tika. As a newly married girl, I wanted to put the tika once again. When I asked my husband, who was sitting beside me, to put the tika, I could see tears in his face. I was really touched by the sight. With the help of my lipstick, he did put tika on my forehead. That was the moment I really will alsways remember.
Did you hear the hijackers talking?
We used to hear them speaking Hindi. They used to say they were form Kashmir and they also sometimes used to explain why they were hijacking the plane. But since I was least bothered about their mission, I never tried to understand what they were trying to say.
How was their behavior?
They were very kind. They were quite respectful to ladies. They could have done anything if they wanted to.
And how were the airhostesses?
I have no words for their courage. Even during such terrorized condition, they were all the time smiling and serving us.
http://www.nepalnews.com
Is Nepal becoming a play-ground of terrorists?
The first hijacking of a plane on international flight from Nepal has laid bare the negligence and carelessness of the security system at the Tribhuvan International Airport. When even Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai has accepted the laxity of the security at the TIA, Home Minister Purna Bahadur Khadka is trying to cover up the shame of the security agencies.
But as soon as Premier Bhattarai has accept the shortcoming about security at the airport, the responsibility of security at the airport has been taken up by the army. Apart from the 300 police, detectives of the National Investigation Department are also involved in security. Apart from that passengers are now made to through metal detector and even hand held metal detectors are also employed.
However, how the hijackers could pass through the custom, revenue investigation and immigration, which are always teeming with crowd, has wracked the brain of everybody.
Although it is now almost clear that the 6 armed hijackers could pass through the airport, the Home Minister and police IGP are trying to cover up their weaknesses by saying that everything was all right.
According to the Indian Airlines office in Kathmandu, of the 178 passengers of the hijacked Indian Airline plane there were four passengers with Muslim names emdash Kazi S.A., Saiyad S.A., Mo. Mustaq Ahmad and S
Sheikh A.M. and two other hijackers may have been travelling under some Hindu names. The Indian Zee television on Saturday even said that one of the hijackers could be a Nepali.
Meanwhile, the US intelligence agency CIA has three months before had notified India about the possibility of plane hijacking and had cautioned to take precaution. According to a Home Ministry source, Nepal was also notified by the CIA.
Involvement of Indian Airlines officials!
Any foreign airlines after landing at the Kathmandu airport spend at least 40 to 50 minutes before taking off again. But last Friday, the Indian Airlines plane had taken off after only 25 minutes later. According to airport sources, there was no record of the Indian Airlines taking off within 40 minutes. The plane which had come three hours later, but had taken off so quickly is also being seen with suspicion. It has even raised question of whether any person lined with the Indian Airlines itself is involved with the hijacking.
How the arms might have entered the plane?
The trend of hijacking shows that no hijacker wants take the risk of trying to enter the plane with the arms. This shows either the arms were already there when it came to Kathmandu or the arms were smuggled into the plane in Kathmandu. This clearly shows
that if the arms were taken into the plane in Kathmandu, the hijackers must have got into the confidence catering or the security personnel. It is even rumoured that someone in the security are involved in the conspiracy.
Meanwhile, the government has taken prompt action. The cabinet has already held two meetings and an investigation commission has also been formed. The government has also suspended the duty office at the custom, immigration, intelligence, revenue investigation, police and airport staff who were at their duties when the Indian plane has flown. Similarly, four other staff have been taken into custody.
Among the hijackers, the tickets of three - Mustaq Kazi, Saiyad and Sheikh - were re-confirmed by the World Tours and Travel owned by Makbul Lari, who also owns the Everest Hotel. One source even doubted that they might be given shelter by Lari in Kathmandu.
However, this incidence as given more ground to the Indian accusation that the ISI agents are making Nepal their playground for anti-India activities.
#30 Posted by concerned on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
najam sethi`s article:
the only thing mr sethi forgot to say was `the hijacking was planned by the hindu-fundamentalist saffron brigade in india`
what a disappointing, party-line article, from a guy who was expected to show more maturity.
the only thing mr sethi forgot to say was `the hijacking was planned by the hindu-fundamentalist saffron brigade in india`
what a disappointing, party-line article, from a guy who was expected to show more maturity.
#29 Posted by mohajir on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
The Hand of Pakistan?
India arrests four charged with helping the Indian Airlines hijackers
By YISHANE LEE
India arrested two Pakistanis, a Nepali and an Indian on charges that they aided the Dec. 24 hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet in Kathmandu. According to the Times of India, Home Minister L.K. Advani declared that the arrests point to Islamabad`s ``neck-deep involvement`` in the eight-day hijacking, in which three jailed Muslim militants were exchanged for the plane`s 154 hostages.
New Delhi released details of the five hijackers` movements before they took over the jetliner, starting from as far back as Nov. 1, as well as photos of the five that were procured from the accomplices.
Indian papers splashed the photos across front pages. One hijacker, Ibrahim Athar, is the brother of Maulana Masood Azhar, the Muslim cleric who was released and who has since been in Pakistan calling
for a holy war against India. (See yesterday`s DB.)
The Hindu said Indian intelligence managed to track down the accomplices when the hijackers contacted the Indian accomplice Dec. 29, asking him to tell a TV correspondent in London that the plane would be blown up if their demands were not met.
Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) recruited Abdul Latif when he was working in the Gulf region and trained him in Afghanistan and Pakistan camps. The paper said the four accomplices were ISI agents and members of Harkat-ul Ansar (renamed Harkat-ul-Mujahideen after the U.S. declared it a terrorist organization).
Unlike the Hindu and the Times of India, the Asian Age included Islamabad`s reaction to the arrests. ``One suspects that there will be manipulation and fabrication of evidence,`` said Chief Executive Gen. Pervez Musharraf`s adviser Javed Jabbar. ``There was no involvement whatsoever of the government of Pakistan in any aspect of the incident. Absolutely not.``
The Asian Wall Street Journal`s lead news brief, along with The New York Times, said Pakistan accused India of fabricating the allegations to stem public anger over its bungling of the hijacking.
The NYT`s headline said, ``India presses claim that Pakistan backed hijacking.`` It noted that Advani, in making his case, ``glossed over`` the fact that Lahore airport initially would not allow the hijacked plane to land and only did so after the pilot ``nearly crashed it onto a road crowded with people.``
Advani had presented the hijackers` first demand that the plane be flown to the Pakistani city as evidence of Islamabad`s complicity.
India arrests four charged with helping the Indian Airlines hijackers
By YISHANE LEE
India arrested two Pakistanis, a Nepali and an Indian on charges that they aided the Dec. 24 hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet in Kathmandu. According to the Times of India, Home Minister L.K. Advani declared that the arrests point to Islamabad`s ``neck-deep involvement`` in the eight-day hijacking, in which three jailed Muslim militants were exchanged for the plane`s 154 hostages.
New Delhi released details of the five hijackers` movements before they took over the jetliner, starting from as far back as Nov. 1, as well as photos of the five that were procured from the accomplices.
Indian papers splashed the photos across front pages. One hijacker, Ibrahim Athar, is the brother of Maulana Masood Azhar, the Muslim cleric who was released and who has since been in Pakistan calling
for a holy war against India. (See yesterday`s DB.)
The Hindu said Indian intelligence managed to track down the accomplices when the hijackers contacted the Indian accomplice Dec. 29, asking him to tell a TV correspondent in London that the plane would be blown up if their demands were not met.
Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) recruited Abdul Latif when he was working in the Gulf region and trained him in Afghanistan and Pakistan camps. The paper said the four accomplices were ISI agents and members of Harkat-ul Ansar (renamed Harkat-ul-Mujahideen after the U.S. declared it a terrorist organization).
Unlike the Hindu and the Times of India, the Asian Age included Islamabad`s reaction to the arrests. ``One suspects that there will be manipulation and fabrication of evidence,`` said Chief Executive Gen. Pervez Musharraf`s adviser Javed Jabbar. ``There was no involvement whatsoever of the government of Pakistan in any aspect of the incident. Absolutely not.``
The Asian Wall Street Journal`s lead news brief, along with The New York Times, said Pakistan accused India of fabricating the allegations to stem public anger over its bungling of the hijacking.
The NYT`s headline said, ``India presses claim that Pakistan backed hijacking.`` It noted that Advani, in making his case, ``glossed over`` the fact that Lahore airport initially would not allow the hijacked plane to land and only did so after the pilot ``nearly crashed it onto a road crowded with people.``
Advani had presented the hijackers` first demand that the plane be flown to the Pakistani city as evidence of Islamabad`s complicity.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nkg: VRV... Bellary district was Congress... How real is your
- VRV: The emergence of regional... How real is your
- VRV: #97 Posted by nkg... How real is your
- nkg: Re: # 96 VRV... Within dramatism,... How real is your
- VRV: 72, Anil, Democracy has arrived... How real is your
- shandana: oops, multiple posts my... How real is your
- shandana: HP, the move from (relative)... How real is your
- shandana: HP, the move from (relative)... How real is your
