26/11 Mumbai attack: Delhi court allows NIA to record Tahawwur Rana's voice, handwriting samples
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has allowed the NIA to collect the voice and handwriting samples of 26/11 Mumbai attack accused Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a source said.
Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Judge Chander Jit Singh, who on April 28 extended Rana's custody for 12 days, passed the order on April 30 on an application moved by the agency.
Rana, a close associate of 26/11 main conspirator David Coleman Headley alias Daood Gilani, a US citizen, was brought to India after the US Supreme Court on April 4 dismissed his review plea against his extradition to India.
On November 26, 2008, a group of 10 Pakistani terrorists went on a rampage, carrying out a coordinated attack on a railway station, two luxury hotels and a Jewish centre, after they sneaked into India's financial capital using the sea route.
As many as 166 people were killed in the nearly 60-hour assault.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Israel's attack on Iran marks moment of truth for Netanyahu
Live Events Why attack Iran now? Will Netanyahu succeed? (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on the mission of his years, the veteran leader has made the destruction of Iran's nuclear programme his top priority, raising the issue in speech after speech in apocalyptic terms. Now Netanyahu's moment of truth has battling Iran's allies across the region following Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack, Netanyahu has turned his attention to what he describes as the "head of the octopus", with an unprecedented and open-ended military offensive against Iran and its nuclear is an aggressive gamble made possible by a confluence of factors, including the weakening of Iranian-backed militant groups in Gaza and Lebanon, and the reelection and support of US President Donald success is not guaranteed, and the outcome of the escalating conflict could determine the fate of Netanyahu's government and shape his a closer look:Netanyahu's history of warnings on IranNetanyahu began warning about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran in the 1990s -- even before his first term as prime minister at the end of the decade. He returned to office in 2009 and has served as prime minister almost continuously since then, rarely missing an opportunity to portray the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to Israel's existence and menace to the 2012, he famously displayed a crude cartoon illustrating what he said was Iran's march toward the bomb during a speech to the UN years later, he delivered a controversial speech to the US Congress arguing against then-President Barack Obama's emerging nuclear deal with Iran. The speech infuriated the White House and failed to block the deal. But it delighted Republicans and laid the groundwork for Trump to pull out of the agreement three years has frequently compared Iran's theocratic leadership to the Nazis, at times drawing the ire of Holocaust scholars and survivor groups. He turned to that familiar playbook this week as he announced the latest attacks on Iran."Eighty years ago, the Jewish people were the victims of a Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime," he said. "Today, the Jewish state refuses to be a victim of a nuclear Holocaust perpetrated by the Iranian regime."Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. But its enrichment of uranium to near-weapons grade levels and failure to cooperate with international inspectors have raised doubts about those head of the UN nuclear agency has warned that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make several bombs. The agency censured Iran this week for failing to comply with nonproliferation obligations, one day before the Israeli strikes for years has threatened to strike Iran, repeatedly saying that all options were "on the table".But never before has he pulled the trigger due to opposition by domestic rivals and security chiefs, questions about the feasibility of such a risky operation and the opposition of a string of US things have changed over the past two years, and Netanyahu now believes he has a chance to shape the region in his own Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack triggered the ongoing war in Gaza, Israel has systematically degraded a network of Iranian allies across the war in Gaza has decimated the Palestinian militant group Hamas, but at a devastating price for the territory's civilian population. Last year, Israel also inflicted heavy damage on Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, severely weakening the group and contributing to the downfall of Syrian President Bashar Assad, another key Iranian ally. And during a brief round of fighting with Iran last year, Israel knocked out much of its enemies' air-defence Iran's "Axis of Resistance" in tatters and Iran unable to defend itself against Israel's air force, there was little to deter Israel from taking action this provided the final piece of the puzzle. After surprising Israel earlier this year with his resumption of nuclear talks with Iran, Trump grew frustrated with the lack of progress in those about the Israeli plans, the US president appears to have put up little resistance, creating a rare window of opportunity for is too early to Israeli operation appears to have gotten off to a smooth start -- with Israel striking dozens of targets and killing senior Iranian military figures. But it remains unclear how much damage Israel has inflicted on Iran's nuclear now, the divisive and embattled Netanyahu appears to be riding a wave of support at home. Even the political opposition, which tried to topple Netanyahu in a parliamentary vote earlier in the week, has come out in support of the Iran things could change quickly. After an initial wave of support for Israel's war against Hamas, the country is now deeply divided. With the fighting now over 20 months old, many believe Netanyahu has unnecessarily dragged out the conflict in a self-serving campaign to remain in public support for the Iranian operation could quickly turn if Iran's missile attacks on Israel cause heavy casualties or continue to disrupt life in Israel for an extended period. A debacle on the battlefield -- such as the capture of an Israeli fighter pilot by Iran -- could also reverse Netanyahu's fortunes.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Israel's attack on Iran marks moment of truth for Netanyahu
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on the mission of his lifetime. For years, the veteran leader has made the destruction of Iran's nuclear programme his top priority, raising the issue in speech after speech in apocalyptic terms. Now Netanyahu's moment of truth has arrived. After battling Iran's allies across the region following Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack, Netanyahu has turned his attention to what he describes as the "head of the octopus", with an unprecedented and open-ended military offensive against Iran and its nuclear programme. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Elegant New Scooters For Seniors In 2024: The Prices May Surprise You Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Learn More Undo It is an aggressive gamble made possible by a confluence of factors, including the weakening of Iranian-backed militant groups in Gaza and Lebanon, and the reelection and support of US President Donald Trump. But success is not guaranteed, and the outcome of the escalating conflict could determine the fate of Netanyahu's government and shape his legacy. Live Events Here's a closer look: Netanyahu's history of warnings on Iran Netanyahu began warning about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran in the 1990s -- even before his first term as prime minister at the end of the decade. He returned to office in 2009 and has served as prime minister almost continuously since then, rarely missing an opportunity to portray the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to Israel's existence and menace to the world. In 2012, he famously displayed a crude cartoon illustrating what he said was Iran's march toward the bomb during a speech to the UN assembly. Three years later, he delivered a controversial speech to the US Congress arguing against then-President Barack Obama's emerging nuclear deal with Iran. The speech infuriated the White House and failed to block the deal. But it delighted Republicans and laid the groundwork for Trump to pull out of the agreement three years later. Netanyahu has frequently compared Iran's theocratic leadership to the Nazis, at times drawing the ire of Holocaust scholars and survivor groups. He turned to that familiar playbook this week as he announced the latest attacks on Iran. "Eighty years ago, the Jewish people were the victims of a Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime," he said. "Today, the Jewish state refuses to be a victim of a nuclear Holocaust perpetrated by the Iranian regime." Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. But its enrichment of uranium to near-weapons grade levels and failure to cooperate with international inspectors have raised doubts about those claims. The head of the UN nuclear agency has warned that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make several bombs. The agency censured Iran this week for failing to comply with nonproliferation obligations, one day before the Israeli strikes began. Why attack Iran now? Netanyahu for years has threatened to strike Iran, repeatedly saying that all options were "on the table". But never before has he pulled the trigger due to opposition by domestic rivals and security chiefs, questions about the feasibility of such a risky operation and the opposition of a string of US presidents. But things have changed over the past two years, and Netanyahu now believes he has a chance to shape the region in his own image. Since Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack triggered the ongoing war in Gaza, Israel has systematically degraded a network of Iranian allies across the region. The war in Gaza has decimated the Palestinian militant group Hamas, but at a devastating price for the territory's civilian population. Last year, Israel also inflicted heavy damage on Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, severely weakening the group and contributing to the downfall of Syrian President Bashar Assad, another key Iranian ally. And during a brief round of fighting with Iran last year, Israel knocked out much of its enemies' air-defence systems. With Iran's "Axis of Resistance" in tatters and Iran unable to defend itself against Israel's air force, there was little to deter Israel from taking action this week. Trump provided the final piece of the puzzle. After surprising Israel earlier this year with his resumption of nuclear talks with Iran, Trump grew frustrated with the lack of progress in those talks. Notified about the Israeli plans, the US president appears to have put up little resistance, creating a rare window of opportunity for Israel. Will Netanyahu succeed? It is too early to say. The Israeli operation appears to have gotten off to a smooth start -- with Israel striking dozens of targets and killing senior Iranian military figures. But it remains unclear how much damage Israel has inflicted on Iran's nuclear programme. For now, the divisive and embattled Netanyahu appears to be riding a wave of support at home. Even the political opposition, which tried to topple Netanyahu in a parliamentary vote earlier in the week, has come out in support of the Iran operation. But things could change quickly. After an initial wave of support for Israel's war against Hamas, the country is now deeply divided. With the fighting now over 20 months old, many believe Netanyahu has unnecessarily dragged out the conflict in a self-serving campaign to remain in office. Likewise, public support for the Iranian operation could quickly turn if Iran's missile attacks on Israel cause heavy casualties or continue to disrupt life in Israel for an extended period. A debacle on the battlefield -- such as the capture of an Israeli fighter pilot by Iran -- could also reverse Netanyahu's fortunes.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid
In the aftermath of their recent military clash, rival delegations from Delhi and Islamabad converged on various global capitals, each aiming to shape elite opinion, win sympathy, and control the post-crisis narrative. Having witnessed some of the exchanges in London firsthand, the diplomatic duel across briefing rooms, think tanks, and diaspora events was as revealing for what was unsaid as for what was spoken. Messaging starts with messengers The difference in delegation profiles was notable. India's all-party parliamentary mission carried symbolic weight and cross-party legitimacy, including senior figures like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Pankaj Saran. Pakistan's team leaned more on technocrats and veteran advocates of global engagement, such as Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. India's group projected cohesion and resolve; Pakistan's aimed to influence narratives and broaden appeal. India's cautious case India's delegation framed Operation Sindoor as part of a broader shift: limited cross-border retaliation to terrorist acts as policy, not aberration. They emphasized terrorism as a global threat whose response merits international understanding—not moral equivalence. The delegation linked India's counterterrorism struggle to challenges faced by Western democracies, with Pakistan as a common denominator. In my observation, Indian representatives appeared quietly frustrated that while many countries expressed sympathy after Pahalgam and tacitly accepted India's right to act, few explicitly condemned Pakistan. Though confident in their message, their delivery often felt restrained. In think tanks, the tone was formal, even stiff; diaspora engagements were reportedly more fiery. Though most accepted the delegation's basic premise, some observers noted the irony in Delhi resisting calls to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a shared threat but now seeking solidarity on Pakistani-based terrorism. Crucially, the delegation faltered when pressed on domestic radicalization. Two of the Pahalgam suspects were reportedly Indian nationals. Asked how New Delhi planned to prevent disillusionment turning to violence, the only response was that 'things today are better than in the 1990s.' This was a missed chance to demonstrate nuanced understanding of the challenge. Other inconsistencies emerged. India's representatives rejected 're-hyphenation' with Pakistan, yet much of their messaging focused on Islamabad. While stressing the quarrel was with Pakistan's military, not its people, questions about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty complicated that briefings took place inside the High Commission, with diaspora members complaining to me that they thought too much political outreach was aimed at UK politicians of Indian heritage. Playing it safe has a certain logic, but may have limited engagement with new or skeptical audiences. Pak's polished—but problematic—pitch If India played it safe, Pakistan opted for smooth. Their delegation turned up at major think tanks eager to engage and keen to appear misunderstood. With assistance from lobbying professionals, their narrative was tightly crafted for European audiences: Pakistan sought peace through dialogue, emphasising Kashmir as the 'unfinished legacy of Partition,' terrorism, and water. Pakistan said it wanted talks, a neutral investigation into Pahalgam, and accused India of refusing cooperation or prove culpability. This narrative of peace sat uneasily beside claims of military success and personal attacks on Indian leaders. Critique of Indian media spin might have bolstered believability had it not been accompanied by other factual distortions: legal sleight-of-hand over Kashmir, misreadings of UN resolutions, and claims that India admitted culpability for terrorism in most convincing moment came on the Indus Waters Treaty, where the stark picture painted of the consequences struck a chord, even if significant action has yet to follow. A key question remains: what was the objective? If persuasion abroad was the objective, the reliance on longstanding misrepresentations made it a difficult sell to informed audiences. If the goal was domestic signaling, that focus likely came at the expense of deeper foreign engagement. Simpler sell, harder ask Ultimately, the Indian delegation framed all terrorism as emanating from Pakistan; Pakistan framed it as emerging from Kashmir. The narratives didn't just clash—they barely shared the same terms of reference. As performative exercises providing content for domestic media, both probably succeeded on their own terms. In the battle to move international opinion, outcomes were uneven. India may have achieved more, but it also had the easier task — framing terrorism as a universal threat aligns with European security narratives. Pakistan, by contrast, asked outside actors to invest political capital in corralling New Delhi back to the negotiating table — a much harder sell. Yet neither side escaped contradiction. India's claim to strategic clarity was weakened by deflection on domestic aspects of terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan's message of peace was blunted by triumphalism and tired tropes. In diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. In London last week, the most telling signals were what each side omitted, ignored, or performed for the audience they believed mattered most. Ladwig III is a senior lecturer at the department of War Studies, King's College London
