The news reports that the CBI has been interrogating senior officers of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) assumes significance in this regard. The case in which the Intelligence Bureau officials have been investigated relates to the alleged encounter of Ishrat Jahan. Media reports and court documents available with regard to this case reveal that the IB through its intelligence gathering network, including electronic surveillance, received information that a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) module was active in western India in the year 2004 with the object of wanting to assassinate Gujarat Chief Minister, Narender Modi. In accordance with its own practice, the IB alerted the Gujarat police. It can be safely presumed that the central intelligence agency was also a part of the operation in which the four activists of the module were intercepted, and killed in an encounter with the police and security agencies. The Lashkar in its Lahore-based mouth-piece Ghazwa Times admitted to her being an LeT activist, paid homage to her martyrdom and took umbrage in removing her veil by the Indian police.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Gujarat High Court by the mother of the deceased Ishrat. The Union of India was also arrayed as a respondent in the said petition. The government of India's affidavit in the said case strongly contested the contentions of the petition. It asserted that its agencies received intelligence inputs which were shared with the state government. All available evidence with the central government established that this was an LeT module which was active with the devious purpose of wanting to liquidate a prominent political leader in India. The national investigative agency was given an opportunity to interrogate the Pakistani- American David Hedley who was amongst the masterminds behind the 26/11 carnage at Mumbai. Hedley is believed to have told his interrogators that Ishrat was recruited by top Lashkar commander, Muzammil, and was a key Lashkar operative.
The political regime in Delhi saw an opportunity in the alleged encounter in which this LeT module was liquidated. The government of India decided to change its affidavit before the Gujarat High Court. The new affidavit almost disowned the intelligence inputs. The deponent of the affidavit states: "I say that it should be clear to all that such inputs do not constitute conclusive proof and it is for the government and the state police to act on such inputs. The central government is in no way concerned with such action nor does it condone or endorse any unjustified or excessive action". This assertion of the central government was politically motivated. It smelt an opportunity in the PIL in the Ishrat case. The volte face of the central government damages the consistent stand of the government of India that whereas "public order" and 'law and order' are a state subject, the battle against terrorism deals with the security of India and national sovereignty. It is therefore a shared responsibility of the centre and the state.
Acting in tandem with government of India, the then banned Lashkar-e-Taiba, in its fresh incarnation as Jamaat-ud-Dawa, disowned its earlier owning up of this module and issued an apology to Ishrat's family for having called her an LeT cadre. The investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI. Over the years, the political strategy of the Congress party in Gujarat is hardly guided by its state leadership. It has been guided by a few disgruntled police officials who have been accused of indiscipline by the state government There is reason to believe that having shed all its professionalism, the CBI in most Gujarat cases is being guided by this disgruntled group of state policemen.