Home Contact Us
Search :

India - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#3075, 26 March 2010
David Headley’s Plea Bargain and India-US Relations
M Shamsur Rabb Khan
email: samsur.khan@gmail.com

Now that 49-year-old Pakistani-American David Headley has pleaded guilty before a US court to all the 12 charges against him of conspiracy of 26/11, which includes killing 166 people and providing material support to LeT there is a test for India-US relations. While the initial reports suggested that the US would allow India’s security agency to investigate Headley on FBI’s conditions, there is still uncertainty in the US response. Ever since Headley’s name appeared as one of the prime accused in 26/11, India has been asking for his extradition but the US has denied any access to the terrorist. This is a bewildering situation, if not disappointing, for India since this puts a lot at stake in the US’ commitment to its principles on the “war on terror”. 

Past activities of David Headley, a.k.a. Daoud Gilani, a Pakistani-origin American, have been a serious concern for India, and ever since he became the focus of global terrorism, the role of the US has been far from satisfactory. From being convicted on drug charges and sent to prison in the US, Headley was subsequently released from jail early and handed over to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which sent him to Pakistan as an undercover agent. So, as a “double agent”, Headley worked for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT in Pakistan as well the US agencies.) The big question facing India is how an American agent turned into a terrorist. As per the Home Ministry’s statement, the more shocking fact is that Headley traveled to India many times, especially in March 2009, four months after 26/11, but the FBI did not alert or inform their Indian counterpart. And if Headley was working with the LeT, CIA must have known his plans about 26/11 but it did not inform India.

There is a strong point in believing that since the Indian intelligence agencies were close to assessing Headley’s role in 26/11, the FBI arrested him on 3 October 2009 in Chicago. It gives another lead that Headley might have been working with the LeT as the US agent, who turned rogue, and any revelation by him to the Indian investigating agencies would have created a strain in the India-US relationship. Now, if he is given lesser punishment by the US court, which seems very likely, it would only strengthen India’s suspicion that he was a “double agent.” Plea bargain is a clear indication that Headley would be given a light punishment. Not only is it going to weaken the global fight against terror, but it will also create a distance between India and the US, in case of a refusal to extradite or deny access to Headley. India might have to fight its war against terror all on its own, as the US seems to have different sets of rules for dealing with terrorists. 

As a nation that has suffered so many deaths and destructions due to terror attacks in the recent past, India would have appreciated the US move to extradite Headley. But it seems highly unlikely. If, for a while, we suppose that the Indian security agencies had arrested a terrorist who was involved in 9/11, or had prior knowledge of its plot, then what would have been the US reaction? We can be very sure the US would not have demanded anything less than his immediate extradition, as well as his trial in a US court. And what if, like the US, India had outright rejected any such demand for extradition or denied access, what course of action would the US have adopted? Do we believe that the US’ anger would have subsided if India had provided the same response that it has been sending to New Delhi for the last six months? The entire US machinery would have swung into action to extradite the terrorist from the Indian jail to Washington as soon as possible. Besides, there is the other worse possibility that India could have been accused of betraying the war on terror. 

Perhaps the US is unable to weigh the strong emotion in India about Headley. The US must know that just as 9/11 is the worst incident for the US, 26/11 carries the same significance for India. And it was the US that informed India about Headley’s several reconnaissance trips for 26/11. So, India has every right to investigate him through its agencies as well as try him in an Indian court, so that it can know the other terror targets that Headley and his cohorts in Pakistan were planning. But, if the US does not cooperate with India on such a crucial issue, then there is a big question mark over the US’ global war against terror.

In response to the US Ambassador Timothy J. Roemer's remark that no decision has been taken on giving New Delhi direct access to Headley, India can take a tough stand and ask for nothing less than his extradition since a plea bargain cannot be a substitute for the extradition treaty.

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary

D Suba Chandran
Across the Durand Line: Who is in Control Now? Will That Change?
Taliban Talks and the Four Horsemen: Between Peace and Apocalypse
Pakistan: Talks about Talks with the Taliban, Again
Dateline Islamabad

Salma Malik
Pakistan and TTP: Dialogue or Military Action?
The Musharraf Trial & Beyond

Dateline Kabul

Mariam Safi
Afghanistan, US and the Peace Process: A Deal with the Taliban in 2014?
Dhaka Discourse

Prof Delwar Hossain
Bangladesh: Domestic Politics and External Actors
Bangladesh Post Elections 2014: Redefining Domestic Politics?

Eagle Eye

Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
US in Asia: A 'Non-Alignment' Strategy?
Indo-US Strategic Partnership Post Khobragade: The Long Shadow
East Asia Compass

Dr Sandip Mishra
North Korean Peace Gestures and Inter-Korea Relations
Japan: Implications of Indiscriminate Assertiveness
China, Japan, Korea and the US: Region at Crossroads

Himalayan Frontier

Pramod Jaiswal
Chinese Inroads to Nepal
Constituent Assembly-II: Rifts Emerging
Nepal: The Crisis over Proportional Representation and the RPP Divide
Maritime Matters

Vijay Sakhuja
Increasing Maritime Competition: IORA, IONS, Milan and the Indian Ocean Networks
China in the Indian Ocean: Deep Sea Forays
Iran Navy: Developing Long Sea Legs

Middle Kingdom

DS Rajan
China in the Indian Ocean: Competing Priorities
China-Japan Friction: How can India Respond?
Nuke Street

Amb Sheelkant Sharma
Nuclear Security Summit 2014 and the NTI Index
Nuclear Power: An Annual Report Card

Red Affairs

Bibhu Prasad
Maoists in the Northeast: Reality and Myth-Making
Surrender of Gudsa Usendi: Ominous beginning for the Naxals?
South Asian Dialectic

PR Chari
Federalism: Centre as Coordinator and Adjudicator
Limits of Federalism

Spotlight West Asia

Amb Ranjit Gupta
Saudi Arabia-US Estrangement: Implications for the Indian Subcontinent
Syria Today: Is Regime Change the Answer?
The Arab World: Trying Times Ahead
Strategic Space

Manpreet Sethi
US, China and the South Asian Nuclear Construct
Responding to Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: A Strategy for India

The Strategist

Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Strategic Non-Nuclear Weapons: An Essential Consort to a Doctrine of No First Use

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee

Related Articles
Ruhee Neog,
"‘Nuclear Weapons, Costs and Myths’: In Response," 16 September 2013
Teshu Singh,
"Xi-Obama Summit," 21 June 2013
J Jeganaathan,
"Pakistan's Trespass at LOC: Is 'Kargil Plan 2.0' Underway?," 28 February 2013
Prof. V. Suryanarayan,
"Review: India-Sri Lanka Track-II Initiative," 27 February 2013
Dil Bahadur Rahut & Medha Bisht,
"Special Commentary: India and Bhutan," 28 January 2013
Aryaman Bhatnagar,
"The US-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement: Nothing More Than Symbolic," 8 May 2012
Ali Ahmed,
"India-Pakistan: Winds of Change?," 23 April 2012
D Suba Chandran,
"‘Balochistan’ as a Strategic Issue vs the ‘Baloch’ as a Political Problem," 9 April 2012
Ali Ahmed,
"NCBMs: Scaremongering, But with a Purpose," 15 February 2012
D Suba Chandran,
"Indo-Pak Nuclear CBMs: The Road to Nowhere," 7 February 2012

Browse by Publications

Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Naxalite Violence 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
The Killing of Shahzad: Links between the al Qaeda and the Pakistan Navy in the Open?

India's Contentious 50 Most Wanted Terrorists List

WikiWrecks: 26/11 and US Intent

Sino-Pak N-deal: a Setback to India-China Ties?

Two Summits; Conflicting Messages

Tackling Maoist Terror

The Strategic Significance of Arihant

Enhancing the Credibility of CRPF

Role of Private Sector in Preventing Terror Attacks

Change Has Come to J&K

Aerial Security Against Terror Attacks

Hindu Terror: A More Serious Threat

Tackling Terror: Reforms, Not Stringent Laws, Necessary

NSG Waiver: What does it mean for India?

Will the Nuclear Deal Hurt India's Foreign Policy?

Elections in the Himalayan Kingdom: New Dawn of India-Bhutan Relations

Sagarika: A Feather in India's Defense Hat

Securing India's Coastline

Time to Revive India-Iran Relations

Indo-Israel Defence Cooperation: A Step in the Right Direction

Poor Policing and Weak Intelligence Gathering

Y! MyWeb
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2014
 January  February  March  April  May  June  July  August  September
 2013  2012  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007  2006
 2005  2004  2003  2002  2001  2000  1999  1998

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map | IPCS Email
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
© Copyright 2014, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
        Web Design by http://www.indiainternets.com