Kanishka bombing: Canada police finally know who 'Mr X' was but name withheld citing privacy laws
On 23 June 1985, a mid-air bomb explosion on Air India Flight 182 off the coast of Ireland left all 329 people on board dead. En route from Montreal to Mumbai via London, the aircraft had Canadian citizens of Indian origin as the majority of its passengers.
On Saturday, RCMP Assistant Commissioner David Teboul, while not identifying 'Mr X', confirmed his death during an event marking 40 years since the bombing, with dozens of relatives of the victims attending the memorial.
New Delhi: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has finally uncovered the identity of 'Mr X', a man involved in testing a bomb in Vancouver Island only weeks before the Kanishka bombing, but has not revealed it, citing Canadian privacy laws.
For the longest time during the Kanishka bombing probe, investigators kept identifying one of the men behind the testing of the bomb as 'Mr X' because they could not pin down who he was. He reportedly died not very long ago without facing any charges, according to Canadian police.
The revelation comes at a time when diplomatic relations between Canada and India have shown signs of recovery. Prime Minister Narendra Modi met his Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Canada earlier this month.
During the summit, India and Canada 'agreed to take calibrated and constructive steps to restore stability' in their relationship, starting with the 'early return of High Commissioners' to the each other's capitals.
Bilateral ties had been under strain since former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused India of killing Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia last year.
India had rejected the accusation, calling it 'absurd'. However, soon, there was a pullback in diplomatic ties between the two countries. India then suspended visas for Canadians, and both countries expelled each other's diplomats in a tit-for-tat move.
In his address at the memorial Saturday, David Teboul said that after the acquittals of key Kanishka bombing suspects in 2005, investigators had continued to work the case in the hopes of resolving 'loose ends', eventually finding out the identity of the man, who helped test the type of bomb that brought down the AI flight 40 years ago.
According to the RCMP, 'Mr X' travelled to Duncan, Vancouver Island, with the Kanishka bombing mastermind, Talwinder Singh Parmar, on 4 June, 1985. The two men joined Inderjit Singh Reyat, an electrician by profession, and went deep into a wooded area to test an improvised explosive device (IED).
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) agents reportedly surveilled the trio after they heard an explosion in the area but mistakenly believed the sound to be coming from a gunshot and could not accuse the three of any wrongdoing.
Inderjit Singh Reyat, the only person ever convicted in the bombing, pleaded guilty to aiding in the construction of the bomb that exploded on AI-182 but claimed that he did not know the identity of 'Mr X'. During the trial, Reyat committed perjury, which led to a longer sentence. Reyat has since served his time in prison and is now out of jail.
Talwinder Singh Parmar, the alleged mastermind of the bombing and founder of the banned Babbar Khalsa separatist group, was killed in a shootout with Punjab police in 1992.
During the memorial, David Teboul noted that while the investigation had continued, 'there was very little realistic chance of seeing the matter go to another trial'. He added that the Kanishka bombing had been the 'largest act of terrorism' in the history of Canada.
'So we, RCMP, have an obligation to memorialise it and pay respect every year,' Teboul told the assembled gathering.
A bomb in a suitcase set off mid-air in Air India Flight 182, killing 329 people, 307 passengers and 22 crew members. On board were 268 Canadian citizens, 27 British citizens, and 4 Indian citizens. The majority were of Indian ancestry.
Soon after, a second bomb on another Air India flight exploded prematurely at Tokyo's Narita airport, killing two baggage handlers.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: 'Air India ki flight mat lo' — how Canadian neglect led up to Kanishka bombing 38 yrs ago
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
Israel-Iran war: What version of ‘peace' does Trump want from Iran? A surrender, nuclear deal or...
After the United States (US) attacked three Iranian nuclear sites, President Donald Trump said late Saturday (local time), "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace". He warned, "If they do not, the future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier." But what exactly did he mean by Iran "making peace"? The US president didn't elaborate on this or explain what Iran must do to attain that peace. But it may mean three things: After abruptly abandoning a G7 summit in Canada on Tuesday, Donald Trump said he is not seeking a ceasefire in Israel's war on Iran but instead wants a "real end" to the conflict. "...or giving up entirely OK too," he said. Later in the day, Trump took an even stronger stance, posting two words on Truth Social in all caps: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' Trump wants a deal over Iran's nuclear programme. He doesn't want Iran to build a nuclear weapons. "Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON," Trump has said multiple times. Trump's negotiating position before the Israeli attack (on June 13) was that Iran should stop uranium enrichment entirely. He had blamed Tehran for not accepting that proposal. On Tuesday, he had said an end to the conflict meant Iran 'giving up entirely' on uranium enrichment, according to the Guardian. "In April, Trump had said he may "willingly" enter a war between Israel and Iran if there's no deal over Tehran's nuclear programme. Four days ago, Trump denied reaching out to Iran for 'Peace Talks'. He rather said if Iran wants to have peace talks, 'they know how to reach me. They should have taken the deal that was on the table - Would have saved a lot of lives!!!' However, Iran has said no negotiations with the US are possible if Israel continues to strike Iran. The Islamic Republic has also accused the US of supporting Israeli strikes. Trump had announced a self-imposed two-week deadline on Thursday to decide whether or not to strike Iran because he believed there was a "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Trump had said. Those comments were widely seen as opening a two-week window for negotiations to end the war between Israel and Iran. Earlier, Trump contended that Iran and Israel should make a deal 'just like I got India and Pakistan to make, in that case by using TRADE with the United States...' On Saturday evening (local time), the US struck Iran, targeting three key nuclear sites and officially entering US forces into another conflict in the Middle East. 'Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror,' Trump said in an address to the nation after the US attacked Iran. He said the 'strikes were a spectacular military success', adding that 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." The US President also warned that: 'There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.' '…if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes,' he added. It's not clear what version of 'peace' Trump now means this time: a nuclear deal; further negotiations with Tehran; or a full 'unconditional surrender," CNN rpeorted.
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Afghan national held for illegally staying in Odisha by forging documents
Bhubaneswar, Odisha Police with the help of immigration officials have arrested an Afghanistan national on charge of staying in India illegally since 2018 by forging documents and doing business in Cuttack city. Afghan national held for illegally staying in Odisha by forging documents The man was identified as Mohammad Yousaf alias Yaha Khan, aged about 54 years, son of Mohammad Nasim Khan of Kabul in Afghanistan was arrested on Saturday, police said. However, he forged his name and identified himself as Yaha Khan, son of Moti Khan, at Peyton Sahi, under Badambadi police station in Cuttack city, police said. "Md Yousaf was nabbed based on the written complainant by Samapika Pattnaik, DSP, Immigration at Biju Patnaik International Airport. A case was registered and an investigation was initiated. He was arrested and forwarded to court," the Commisionerate of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack, said. It said that the accused had arrived at Biju Patnaik International Airport, Bhubaneswar from Dubai on June 20 and presented a forged Indian passport. During immigration clearance, on suspicion, the staff conducted detailed verification and found that a discreet LOC was issued from Kolkata Airport against him. Subsequent system verification confirmed that the person was Mohammad Yousaf, an Afghan national, who had illegally entered India in 2018 and assumed a fake Indian identity, police said. During the investigation, it was also revealed that the accused had fraudulently procured Indian identity documents including Aadhaar, PAN card, Voter ID, driving license and passport using forged details, and had been residing in Cuttack, Odisha while concealing his true identity. He also misused the forged passport for travelling beyond the state, the police said. The police also said that the accused has confessed to his real identity as Mohammad Yousaf @ Yaha Khan of Kabul, Afghanistan and admitted to forging and using false identity documents to reside and conduct business in India. Based on his disclosure, multiple fake Indian documents and personal belongings were seized from his possession and house. The investigation also led to the seizure of various Indian and foreign currencies, forged identity cards, a mobile phone, two gold earrings, and ₹ 30,000 in cash from his possession, police said. A house search led to the seizure of bank documents in the name of Yaha Khan for which he could not provide satisfactory explanation, the police said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Economic Times
36 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Remembering Emergency: When India banned Coke and brewed nationalism in a bottle called Double Seven
Reuters A Coca Cola logo is pictured in Brussels, Belgium March 4, 2024. In the summer of 1977, just after the 21-month Emergency ended and India turned the page on nearly three decades of uninterrupted Congress rule, a new political force was not the only thing bubbling to the newly elected Janata Party government had shown the door to Coca-Cola and unveiled its own fizzy response -- Double Seven. The country's first "sarkari cola" was launched as a symbol of economic self-reliance and political after the landmark year that brought the Morarji Desai-led Janata coalition to power, Double Seven was more than a beverage; it was a political statement in a bottle. The indigenous cola had an elaborate launch at the annual trade fair at Pragati Maidan. The Double Seven cola, popularly known as "Satattar" (77 in Hindi) was manufactured and marketed by the makers of Modern breads - Modern Food Industries - a government-owned company. Interestingly, then MP H V Kamath was also awarded a cash prize for coming up with the name "77". Although "77" was not ready for sale until 1978, the name was chosen because 1977 was the year of big changes in India -- such as the end of the Indira Gandhi government and the helm of affairs in the cola episode was then Industry Minister George Fernandes, who decided to throw Coke as well as IBM out of India over their refusal to follow the provisions of what was then the Foreign Exchange Regulation Ramagundam wrote in Fernandes' biography "Life and Times of George Fernandes" that the provision stipulated that foreign companies should dilute their equity stake in their Indian associates to 60 per wanted Coca-Cola Company to not just transfer 60 per cent of the shares of its Indian firm but also the formula for its concentrate to Indian shareholders. The company said it was agreeable to transferring a majority of the shares but not the formula, which it contended was a trade company exited the Indian market as the government denied a licence to import the Coke concentrate. Fernandes then introduced the indigenous drink "77".The government asked the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) in Mysuru to develop the with the tagline "The Taste that Tingles", the cola did not strike the same chord with the public as Coca-Cola, amid tough competition from brands like Campa Cola, Thums Up, and Duke."I remember the launch of Double Seven at the annual trade fair at Pragati Maidan, a proud gift from the Janata Party, an indigenous drink supposedly superior than Coca-Cola and a stark reminder of Indira Gandhi's humiliating defeat in the recent general elections," author Sunil Lala says in his book "American Khichdi", published in McGraw Hill's book "Advertising Management: Concepts and Cases" also mentions Double Seven as an example of government branding and "swadeshi" marketing gone cited the launch of Double Seven as a business school case study in government-backed branding, highlighting the campaign's missteps and beverage-market context of the late end of Double Seven, not so surprisingly, coincided with Indira Gandhi reclaiming power in made a comeback in October 1993, post-liberalisation of the Indian market by the P V Narasimha Rao government and has maintained a strong presence ever leader Shashi Tharoor has also referred to the episode in his book "India: From Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond"."Heedless to the signal these exits sent to the world - whose brief hopes that a change of government might have led to a more welcoming investment climate were poured down the same drain as the Coke - the Janata ministers chose to celebrate the departures of these multinationals as a further triumph for socialism and anti-imperialistic self-reliance," Tharoor wrote in the Emergency was imposed 50 years ago on June 25, 1975, by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi. Triggered by political unrest and a court verdict invalidating Gandhi's election, the Emergency suspended civil liberties, censored the press and saw mass arrests of opposition leaders.
