Former Home Minister and Congress leader P. Chidambaram, who is in the eye of storm for his role in the Ishrat Jahan case, might have admitted the role and influence of a Gujarat based Congress leader in the whole case.
Chidambaram, while quoting his interview that he gave to Hindu Business Line which appeared on 25, April,shared multiple tweets on his twitter account.
The content of three of these tweet reads , “Although I have no recollection of seeing the first affidavit, let us presume that I did. Then came the report of Magistrate SP Tamang. This report caused an uproar & there was demand mainly from Gujarat that Government of India should clarify or dispel misinterpretation being placed on the First affidavit. This is why a Second, short affidavit was filed!”.
The reference to a ‘demand, mainly from Gujarat’ to effectively change the first affidavit, has led to strong speculations that the former Home Minister has unknowingly admitted that there was a strong demand from certain Congress circles to change the content of the first affidavit, which in essence stated that Ishrat Jahan was a Lashkar module, and that demand had come from a Gujarat based leader.
On 21 February, I did a story for The Sunday Guardian “Manmohan ministers tried to implicate Modi in Ishrat case” http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/3423-manmohan-ministers-tried-implicate-modi-ishrat-case, in which I had written about how a top Congress leader from a western state, had written to the Prime Minister’s Office in the first week of September 2009, expressing dismay that because of the first affidavit the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi could not be framed in Ishrat’s encounter. The Congress leader was unhappy that the MHA’s affidavit had placed on record that Ishrat was a terrorist.
“Chidambaram, who is very articulate with his words and uses his every word very carefully, has clearly stated that the ‘demand’ to change the affidavit had come from Gujarat. Obviously it did not come from Modi or the BJP. Since he has used the word ‘demand’, it implies that it had come from someone who was very influential. Now, he might say that this ‘demand’ had come from the civil society or human right activists but we all know whom he is referring to”, an official who is familiar with the entire case, said.