Accusing the erstwhile UPA government of hatching a “deep conspiracy” to frame former Chief Minister of Gujarat and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Thursday alleged that the previous regime had done a ‘flip-flop’ on Ishrat Jahan’s links with terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Without naming P Chidambaram, he charged the then Home Minister with giving “colour” to terrorism by coining the term ‘saffron terror’.
Responding to a calling attention motion on “alleged alteration of affidavit relating to Ishrat Jahan case” in the Lok Sabha, the Home Minister said “unfortunately, I have to say this that there was a flip-flop by the UPA government in the Ishrat Jahan case.”
“Colour, creed and religion should not be associated with terrorism. Terror has no colour... The seculars gave colour to terrorism. Selective secularism cannot be accepted by the country,” he said.
He said the recent statement made by Pakistani-American terrorist David Headley before a Mumbai court only reaffirmed the first affidavit filed by the UPA government on August 6, 2009 before the Gujarat High Court that Ishrat had links with LeT.
“It [Headley’s statement] was the second clear indication that she was a terrorist,” he said.
The Minister said the second affidavit filed by the Government before the High Court on September 29, 2009 “weakened” the fact that she was an LeT operative.
He said the effort seemed to be to “defame the then Gujarat Chief Minister (Narendra Modi), State Government, some leaders and those associated with the case. There was a deep conspiracy to frame them,” he said.
The Home Minister said a few key documents, including two letters written by the then Home Secretary (G K Pillai) to then Attorney General late GE Vahanvati, and the copy of the draft affidavit have so far been untraceable.
“We have ordered an internal enquiry in the Home Ministry in this regard and necessary action will be taken accordingly,” he said.
In his written response to the Calling Attention Motion, Mr. Singh said, “It has been mentioned in the affidavit that the further affidavit was being made in view of subsequent developments in relation to the issues connected with the petition and to clarify apprehensions expressed in regard to the [first] affidavit filed by Union of India as well as to refute attempts to misinterpret portions of the affidavit.”
He said the second affidavit stated that all intelligence inputs "do not constitute conclusive proof" and it is for the State Government and the State police to act on such inputs.