ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has asked India to provide the eye witness account of Police Constable Arun Jadhav, who was the lone survivor of the attack on the car carrying Anti-Terror Squad Chief Hemant Karkare on the first day of Mumbai attack, saying its investigators probing the terror strike needed to examine it.

This demand was made in the 30 plus 2 questions handed over to India in the 9 page reply to its (Indian) dossier on 26/11 Mumbai attack.

Jadhav had survived the attack in which ATS Chief Hemant Karkare, encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar and Additional Commissioner of Police Ashok Kamte, all three traveling in the same car, had been killed by two assailants.

The three top police officials were on their way to a hospital when their vehicle was commandeered by the attackers hiding behind a tree.  

As the investigations progress, the investigators here say that they intend to closely study the possible linkage of the Mumbai incident to Samjohota Express incident and Malegoen blasts.

The investigations by India have so far focussed on piling pressure on Pakistan, overlooking serious internal problems.

Analysts say the arrested extremist Hindus in Malegoen blasts warranty broadening of the investigations.

Indian media and certain analysts had soon after the incident described Karkare’s death as a setback for Malegoen blasts.

‘His death is likely to affect the probe into the Malegaon blast,’ a journalist had said on that occasion.

Karkare while leading the investigation into the 2008 Malegoan blasts laid hands on some 11 persons linked to radical Hindu groups on suspicion of being behind the blasts.

Hindu organisations and opposition groups like Bharatiya Janta Party and Shiv Sena alleged that the arrests were meant to appease India’s Muslim population.

Karkare came under intense political pressure during the probe. His investigations had further uncovered that Lt Col Purohit arrested in connection with Malegoen blasts was also involved in Samjhota Express incident.

Jadhav’s eye witness account, investigators believe, could become crucial in coming days.

The constable after the incident gave a number of media interviews, however, he was silenced by India’s political and security establishment that barred him from speaking to the media.

Explaining the reason for seeking the eye witness account of the lone survivor, the reply to Indian dossier notes: ‘It is necessary as Mr Karkare was investigating the cases against militants in mass scale killings of Muslims in India including Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, reportedly involved in Samjhota Express incident.’

Furthermore, clarification has been sought from India about the contacts between Surat’s diamond merchant firm and some Hindus in Pakistan. The diamond firm is alleged to be the sponsor of the Malegoen blasts through Lt Col Purohit.

The information regarding Jadhav’s statement and Surat diamond firm has been asked separately from the main thirty questions and has been placed at Annexure B in Pakistan’s response.

Ostensibly, in a bid to explore the local assistance to the attackers, the thirty questions have asked for the details of interrogation of Counter Insurgency Officer Mukhtar Ahmed, another Indian national Tausif Rehman, both of whom had been arrested after the Mumbai attack on the charge of providing cell phone Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards to the terrorists.

A separate question requires an explanation about how the terrorists got the details of their targets. The question noted that finer details of targets like security systems, entry/exit points could be had only after physical reconnaissance and setting up of control centers within the targets.

Most of the remaining thirty questions seek general details about the assailants like the confessional statement of lone surviving attacker Ajmal Amir Kasab, his Pakistani National Identity Card, the cell phone numbers he had used in the past, detailed description of other killed terrorists, their DNA profiles, list of the possessions recovered from the killed attackers and their finger prints.

Some other queries pertain to the picture identified by Kasab as that of Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and the recording of voice identified by Kasab as that of Abu Hamza and Kahfa, who were allegedly the handlers.

The questions also point out certain ambiguities in the dossier that had been given to Pakistan and asks India to clarify them. In one instance it says: ‘If the terrorists started in a small boat from Karachi at approximately 0800 hours on 22nd Nov, then how come MOB waypoint is showing the boat’s position near Keti Bandar nearly one hour before this time?’
 
Moreover, it said, out of 17 waypoints, only three have date stamps and remaining is without the same, creating doubt whether these points are authentic or created through GPS.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi while emphasising on the need for India to respond to the questions given to it had over the weekend told media persons that Pakistan ‘will take the next step in the light of reply received from India’.

Meanwhile, Foreign Office Spokesman Mr Abdul Basit in a statement on Monday said: ‘The entire international community has praised Pakistan for its earnestness and cooperation in bringing the perpeterators of the Mumbai attacks to justice.  Pakistan will continue working towards this end.’