History Podcasts

Is 529 the largest simultanious death penalty verdict ever?

Is 529 the largest simultanious death penalty verdict ever?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Recently Egypt made headlines by sentencing 529 people to death in a single court verdict.

I've seen a lot of talk both in the media and online about this being the largest single death penalty sentence in "recent history". However, I haven't seen any reference to one larger. In fact, the only one of even comparable size I've seen mentioned was 152 sentenced in a single case in Bangladesh in 2009. However, even that was a bit different, in that it was a military trial of an entire military unit for mutiny.

This verdict seems kind of horrible to a lot of people, but I think it would be useful to put an actual bound on it.

So the question is, have there ever in fact been documented court cases that sentenced more than 529 civilians to death at once? If yes, what was the most recent?

Massacre of Verden in 782 may be seen as the execution 4,500 Saxons by Charlemagne for being in breach of Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, a law forbidding paganism. This was in the context of a revolt and the 4,500 were surrendered by the Saxons forces upon capitulation. It may not be what the questioner is after as they weren't given anything approximating to due process, but I thought it was an interesting example as so many were executed nominally for violation of a specific legal code not directly related to the act of rebelling.

The largest case of a nation using a proper legal system I can think of is following the Third Servile War, the famous slave revolt led by Spartacus, the Romans condemned and executed the remaining 6,000 rebel slaves that had not been slain in battle. The slaves involved were gladiators, so it was difficult to crush the revolt. Slaves are civilians, even if gladiators.

Due to the fact that slaves are not citizens and the timing of the revolt is in the late Republic, the slaves involved should be subject to the imperium. The justice system became more corrupt and the military more powerful as Rome became a dictatorship. This would mean that they would have been "tried" in a sense by a magistrate with the power to hand down military justice.

In the autumn, when the revolt was at its height and Spartacus had about 120,000 followers, the Senate voted to pass over the consuls and grant imperium to Marcus Licinius Crassus, who had been a praetor in 73 B.C. but currently held no office

There are many examples larger than this of nations using extrajudiciary justice or summary execution. The show trials during the Cultural Revolution probably would be the upper bound for largest ever death sentences. Hundreds of thousands of people were found guilty of being reactionary revolutionaries.

To place the number of 529 in a proper modern historical context, the largest simultaneous death penalty case in the Sudanese justice system during the brutal war in Darfur involved a little over 100 people found guilty of terrorist acts against the government in 2008. Following the genocide in Rwanda, the government considered executing thousands of people. Two thousand died in prison awaiting trial. The International Court of Justice stepped in and worked with Rwanda to bring to justice the worst offenders who were often hiding in other countries. The largest execution involved seven people. Considering these facts, the number seems very large.

Source: DOMAC case study 19 Sudan

Is 529 the largest simultanious death penalty verdict ever? - History

War Sovereign Soaring The Heavens

Chapter 3098 - Less Than 100 People

Chapter 3098: Less Than 100 People

Translator: EndlessFantasy Translation Editor: EndlessFantasy Translation

“Jiang Lan is going to gather blood energy and soul fire from fallen peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials with the Formation before he sends them into the embryos in one go.”

Duan Ling Tian looked at the translucent barrier of the Formation. The barrier was like a dome surrounding the tree of the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit, stopping it from absorbing blood energy and soul fire. At the same time, the tree did not stop trying to absorb them, therefore, the pulling force from the tree caused the blood energy and soul fire to plaster themselves against the barrier. Once the barrier was removed, all the accumulated blood energy and soul fire would be absorbed by the tree at once.

At this moment, there were blood energy and soul fire from three fallen peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials stuck on the barrier. It was not long before the blood energy and soul fire from another two fallen peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials joined them.

After a while, a person appeared in front of Duan Ling Tian. He had been waiting for quite some time before his new opponent appeared in front of him.

At the same time, Ling Jue Yun and Lin Fei Yang were also facing their opponents.

All this was deliberately arranged by Jiang Lan.

After the embryos of the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit appeared, Jiang Lan had grown desperate. It was as though he could no longer wait for the tree to bear fruits. Therefore, in order to speed things up, Duan Ling Tian, Ling Jue Yun, Lin Fei Yang, and the others were quickly assigned an opponent as soon as they were done with their battles.

Jiang Lan had deliberately arranged for Ling Jue Yun and Lin Fei Yang to fight peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials who had comprehended three profundities from a law. However, it was not his intention to sacrifice the duo. After all, the duo could help him kill the others at a faster pace.

Previously, when he had selected and invited the peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials here, he had calculated that there would be more than 100 people left when the embryos appeared. With this, there was more than enough blood energy and soul fire to nourish the embryos to make them bear the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruits. Therefore, he could afford to spare Ling Jue Yun and Lin Fei Yang’s lives if he so wished.

Swoosh! Swoosh! Swoosh! Swoosh! Swoosh!

Duan Ling Tian’s current opponent was a middle-aged man dressed in a long green robe.

The middle-aged man had comprehended three profundities from the law of wind and had begun to comprehend the fourth profundity. His face remained indifferent as wind blades spun around his body, creating noises somewhat similar to a swarm of buzzing bees.

𠇍ie!” The middle-aged man cried out as he glared at Duan Ling Tian. He brandished the three-foot-long blade in his hand, stirring up a violent gust of wind that had been boosted with the Wind Blade Profundity and two other profundities from the law of wind. The gust of wind swept toward Duan Ling Tian like an angry dragon.

Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh!

The ear-piercing and sharp howling of the wind rang in the air.

The sounds from the swords and the wind were incredibly loud.

People who comprehended the law of wind had a huge advantage over those who comprehended the law of earth in terms of speed and offense. Duan Ling Tian’s previous opponent had comprehended three profundities from the law of earth. Although his previous opponent had comprehended the only offensive profundity from the law of earth, the Shake Profundity, his previous opponent’s attacks were a far cry from this middle-aged man who had comprehended three profundities and in the process of comprehending the fourth profundity from the law of wind.

Nevertheless, Duan Ling Tian preferred his current opponent over the previous one. His previous opponent had used the Gravitational Space Profundity and confined him in a space before bombarding him with attacks from all directions. Although he did not suffer from the attacks, the suppression from the Gravitational Space Profundity made him extremely uncomfortable. Although his current opponent was stronger, the attacks were not as tricky to deal with compared to his previous opponent.

“Just in time!” As his opponent’s attack drew close, Duan Ling Tian’s Celestial Origin Energy that had been boosted with the Fire Elemental Profundity and the Pillaging Profundity surged out from his body. In just an instant, he was engulfed in flames.

Duan Ling Tian charged forward like a human torch. A burnt smell lingered in the air as he left a trail of fire in his wake like the tail of a phoenix.

Buzzing noises rang in the air,

At this moment, Duan Ling Tian’s opponent saw a ring flying out from the flames that engulfed Duan Ling Tian.

The ring was engulfed in red and green flames. Its formidable aura could cause people to tremble in fear.

Duan Ling Tian was fearless when faced with the menacing attack from his opponent who had comprehended the law of wind. He had already killed a peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestial who had comprehended three profundities from the law of earth, why would he be afraid of another peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestial who had comprehended three profundities from the law of wind? Although the latter had a basic comprehension of the law of wind’s fourth profundity, it made no difference to him at all.

Duan Ling Tian was not surprised when the attacks collided, and his attack quickly overwhelmed his opponent’s attack after a brief standstill. Just like divine power, the red and green flames morphed into a flaming sword before it killed his opponent.

Meanwhile, Jiang Lan who was watching Duan Ling Tian was not surprised by the outcome as well. “Just as I thought… Although he has only comprehended two profundities from the law of fire, with the combination of the two Royal Grade Celestial Weapons, even Ling Jue Yun and Lin Fei Yang won’t be a match for him!”

Jiang Lan could tell the opponent whom Duan Ling Tian had just killed was as strong as Lin Fei Yang and slightly weaker than Ling Jue Yun. If Ling Jue Yun were to fight Duan Ling Tian’s opponent, it might take Ling Jue Yun a few days and nights to defeat the opponent. On the other hand, Duan Ling Tian had defeated that opponent effortlessly.

At this time, Ling Jue Yun and Lin Fei Yang continued to successfully kill their opponents one after another. Seconds later, a new opponent would quickly appear before them. This was due to Jiang Lan’s desperation to speed up the fruit-bearing process of the tree of the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit. He wanted to gather as much blood energy and soul fire as possible before sending it all into the embryos of the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit in one go.

After a while, the few hundred survivors dwindled to only less than 100 hundred survivors.

At this moment, the Mystical Yin and Yang Nine Water Chestnut Ring in Duan Ling Tian’s hands flew out before the green and red flames shot toward another of his opponents. Just like that, he effortlessly killed a peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestial who had comprehended three profundities from the law of metal.

After killing his opponent, Duan Ling Tian noticed that the barrier surrounding the tree of the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit trembled slightly when his opponent’s blood energy and soul fire landed on it. It was as though the barrier was finally feeling the pressure from all the blood energy and soul fire. The barrier trembled even more when the blood energy and soul fire from an opponent Ling Jue Yun had just killed landed on it.

Duan Ling Tian sent a Voice Transmission to Ling Jue Yun to inform him of his discovery. “Looks like the Formation he prepared in his past life is about to cave under the impact of so much blood energy and soul fire. Or perhaps, it can’t withstand the pulling force from the tree of the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit.”

Ling Jue Yun furtively glanced at the barrier before he said, “It does seem like it… My guess is the translucent barrier is only capable of withstanding another dozen peak Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials’ blood energy and soul fire before it shatters!” His eyes glinted as he continued to say, 𠇊t that time, Jiang Lan would probably kill the remaining survivors before the embryos grow and bear fruits. After all, I’m sure he’s also worried that someone might steal the fruits from him. From now onward, we have to pay closer attention to the barrier. When it’s about to shatter, we must be prepared and be on full alert.”

While Duan Ling Tian and Ling Jue Yun were conversing through Voice Transmission, Jiang Lan had also noticed the problem. “It seems like I’ve underestimated the pulling power of the tree of the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit… When the barrier shatters, the blood energy and soul fire accumulated on the barrier would be instantly pulled into the embryos of the Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit… However, there are still so many survivors left…”

At this moment, Jiang Lan looked at Duan Ling Tian and the others as killing intent slowly rose from the depths of his eyes.

*356 III

The majority's decision is also predicated on its conclusion that there is "no evidence that Congress intended to abrogate the traditional common-law witness immunity in § 1983 actions." Ante, at 337. In fact, there is considerable evidence in the legislative history that Congress did intend to abrogate the immunity of participants in state judicial proceedings.

At petitioners' urging, [16] the Court has extensively examined the legislative history of § 2 of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, 17 Stat. 13, now codified as 42 U.S. C . § 1985(3) (1976 ed., Supp. V). However, the forerunner of § 1983 was § 1 of the 1871 Act, not § 2. As the majority points out, ante, at 337, 340-341, the two sections differ significantly in their language and purpose. It is thus hardly surprising that the debates over § 2 shed little light on § 1. In my view the inquiry should focus on the history of § 1. Only by examining the *357 genesis of that provision can it be determined whether Congress intended to abrogate certain common-law immunities.

The origin of § 1 is not open to serious question. The language and concept of the provision were derived in large part from § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. [17] The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:

Because the two provisions are so intimately connected, a full examination of the history of § 1 of the 1871 Act must begin with § 2 of the 1866 Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first federal statute to provide broad protection in the field of civil rights. Its primary purpose was to guarantee the newly emancipated Negro equality with whites before the law. Section 2 of the Act provided criminal liability for any person who, acting under color of law, deprived another of his rights because of race. This provision was extensively debated. Controversy centered in large part over its intended application to state officials integral to the judicial process.

The liability of state judicial officials and all official participants in state judicial proceedings under § 2 was explicitly and repeatedly affirmed. [18] The notion of immunity for such officials was thoroughly discredited. The Senate sponsor of *359 the Act deemed the idea "akin to the maxim of the English law that the King can do no wrong. It places officials above the law. It is the very doctrine out of which the rebellion [the Civil War] was hatched." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1758 (1866) (Sen. Trumbull). Thus, § 2 was "aimed directly at the State judiciary." Id., at 1155 (Rep. Eldridge). See also id., at 1778 (Sen. Johnson, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee) (§ 2 of the 1866 Act "strikes at the judicial department of the governments of the States").

Two unsuccessful efforts were made to amend § 2. First, Representative Miller introduced an amendment to exempt state judges from criminal liability. Id., at 1156. Second, and of particular significance, Representative Bingham introduced an amendment to substitute a civil action for the criminal sanctions contained in the proposal. Id., at 1266, 1271-1272. The sponsor of the 1866 Act, Representative Wilson, opposed the amendment largely on the ground that it would place the financial burden of protecting civil rights on poor individuals instead of on the government. Id., at 1295. At the same time he stressed that there was "no difference in the principle involved" between a civil remedy and a criminal sanction. Ibid.

After the 1866 bill passed the Senate and House, President Andrew Johnson vetoed it. His opposition was based in part on the fact that § 2 of the bill "invades the judicial power of the State." Veto Message, in id., at 1680. The President warned that "judges of the State courts . . . [and] marshals and sheriffs, who should, as ministerial officers, execute processes, sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges, in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment for the performance of the duties which such state laws might impose." Ibid. Within two weeks, both the Senate and the House overrode the veto. Various Congressmen responded to the President's criticisms and freely admitted that § 2 of the legislation was aimed at state judicial systems. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative *360 Lawrence, declared: "I answer it is better to invade the judicial power of the State than permit it to invade, strike down, and destroy the civil rights of citizens. A judicial power perverted to such uses should be speedily invaded. The grievance would be insignificant." Id., at 1837. See also id., at 1758 (response of Sen. Trumbull to President's veto message) id., at 1838 (statement of Rep. Clarke). The bill became law on April 9, 1866.

This Court has from time to time read § 1983 against the "background" of common-law tort liability. [19] Far more pertinent to this case, however, is the background provided by the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Representative Bingham, who had introduced the amendment to substitute civil liability for criminal liability in the 1866 Act, had become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee by the time of the 42d Congress. Senator Trumbull, the Senate sponsor of the 1866 Act, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1871. Representative Shellabarger, who had participated in the debates on the 1866 legislation, [20] drafted the 1871 Act.

Congress was well aware that the "model" for § 1 of the 1871 law could be found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871) (Rep. Shellabarger). The manager of the bill in the Senate, George Edmunds, stressed that § 1 was merely "carrying out the principles of the civil rights bill" that had been passed in 1866. Id., at 568. Representative Coburn stated that § 1 "gives a civil remedy parallel to the penal provision" in the Civil Rights Act. "If this penal section is valid, and no one dares controvert it, the civil remedy is legal and unquestionable." Id., at 461. See also id., at 429 (Rep. McHenry in opposition) *361 ("The first section of the bill is intended as an amendment of the civil rights act") id., at 365 (Rep. Arthur in opposition) (§ 1 is "cumulative, as far as it goes, with certain provisions in the civil rights bill").

The fact that § 2 of the Civil Rights Act was the model for § 1 of the 1871 Act explains why the debates in the 42d Congress on § 1 were so perfunctory. [21] Of all the measures in the Ku Klux Klan Act, § 1 generated the least controversy since it merely provided a civil counterpart to the far more controversial criminal provision in the 1866 Act. See id., at 568 (Sen. Edmunds) ("The first section is one that I believe nobody objects to") id., at App. 313 (Rep. Burchard) ("To the first section, giving an injured party redress by suit at law in the United States courts in the cases enumerated, I can see no objections") Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S., at 665 (debate on § 1 was limited and the section passed without amendment) Developments in the Law — Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1133, 1155 (1977).

Opponents of § 1 of the 1871 Act repeated the same arguments that had been made against § 2 of the 1866 Act. They warned of the liability for judicial officers that would result from enactment of § 1. [22] Indeed, in portraying the inevitable consequences of the 1871 Act, Senator Thurman pointed to criminal prosecutions of state judicial officers that had already taken place under the 1866 Act. [23] These statements can hardly be dismissed as exaggerated rhetoric from opponents of the 1871 Act. Instead, they simply reflect the fact that the battle over liability for those integral to the judicial process had already been fought in 1866 when Congress *362 adopted the far more serious criminal sanction aimed at state judicial systems. Section 1, in contrast, provided for "the mild remedy of a civil action." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 482 (1871) (Rep. Wilson, member of the House Judiciary Committee). So it was not surprising that the arguments of the opponents to the 1871 Act would fall on deaf ears. It is also noteworthy that Representative Shellabarger, who was hardly reluctant to interrupt speakers who were misconstruing his proposal, [24] never disputed the opponents' characterizations with regard to the liability of state judicial officers. [25]

To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [27] Sheriffs and marshals, while performing a quintessentially judicial function such as serving process, were clearly liable under the 1866 Act, notwithstanding President Johnson's objections. Because, *363 as Representative Shellabarger stated, § 1 of the 1871 Act provided a civil remedy "in identically the same case" or "on the same state of facts" as § 2 of the 1866 Act, it obviously overrode whatever immunity may have existed at common law for these participants in the judicial process in 1871.

The lack of historical support for witness immunity sharply contrasts with the substantial historical support for legislative immunity which this Court recognized in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951), a case on which the majority relies. Ante, at 330, 334. Legislative immunity enjoyed a unique historical position since it had been conceived in the Parliamentary struggles of the 17th century and enshrined in the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. The vast majority of States had adopted constitutional provisions providing a parallel protection against civil and criminal liability. See 341 U.S. , at 372-375 .

Moreover, the history of § 1 supports incorporation of legislative immunity. For example, when the specter of holding state legislators liable under § 2 of the 1866 Act was raised by President Johnson's veto message, [28] the Senate sponsor of the Act was quick to disavow any such intention. Senator Trumbull argued at some length that legislators did not fall within the scope of the Act because they "enact" laws rather than act "under color of" state law. [29] Whatever the validity of this distinction, it no doubt reflected the reluctance of Congress to impinge on the immunity of state legislators. But while the Radical Republican Congress was a "staunch advocate of legislative freedom," 341 U.S. , at 376 , it displayed no solicitude for state courts. [30] The debates over the 1871 Act are replete with hostile comments directed at state judicial *364 systems. [31] It is entirely reasonable to conclude that Congress intended to make state legislators immune from civil liability under § 1 of the 1871 Act. No similar evidence exists to support an immunity for police officers testifying as witnesses. [32]

The majority also bases its decision on considerations of public policy, which purportedly mandate absolute immunity for police officers sued under § 1983 for their testimony as witnesses. Ante, at 341-345. This Court has recognized absolute immunity only in "exceptional situations" where public policy makes it "essential." Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 507 (1978). [33] In my view, the case for official-witness immunity falls far short of this standard.

*365 Police officers and other government officials differ significantly from private citizens, around whom common-law doctrines of witness immunity developed. A police officer comes to the witness stand clothed with the authority of the State. His official status gives him credibility and creates a far greater potential for harm than exists when the average citizen testifies. [34] The situation is aggravated when the official draws on special expertise. A policeman testifying about a fingerprint identification or a medical examiner testifying as to the cause of a death can have a critical impact on a defendant's trial. [35] At the same time, the threat of a criminal perjury prosecution, which serves as an important constraint on the average witness' testimony, is virtually nonexistent in the police-witness context. Despite the apparent prevalence of police perjury, [36] prosecutors exhibit extreme *366 reluctance in charging police officials with criminal conduct because of their need to maintain close working relationships with law enforcement agencies. [37] The majority thus forecloses a civil sanction in precisely those situations where the need is most pressing.

Moreover, the danger that official witnesses would be inhibited in testifying by the fear of a damages action is much more remote than would be the case with private witnesses. Policemen normally have a duty to testify about matters involving their official conduct. The notion that officials with a professional interest in securing criminal convictions would shade their testimony in favor of a defendant to avoid the risk of a civil suit can only be viewed with skepticism. In addition, police officials are usually insulated from any economic hardship associated with lawsuits based on conduct within the scope of their authority. [38] In any event, if the Court truly desires to give police officers " `every encouragement to make a full disclosure of all pertinent information within their knowledge,' " ante, at 335 (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S., at 439 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment)), then at the very least it should permit § 1983 suits which allege that officials withheld key information while testifying. [39]

*367 The majority's primary concern appears to be that § 1983 suits against police witnesses would impose "significant burdens on the judicial system and on law enforcement resources." Ante, at 343. As an empirical matter, this contention is unfounded. Both the Sixth Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit have permitted such suits for over five years, see ante, at 328-329, n. 4, but there is no perceptible drain on legal resources in those Circuits compared to other Circuits that bar such lawsuits. Moreover, a comprehensive study of § 1983 suits filed in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, indicates that only about 30 actions for false arrest were filed annually in that District. [40] Police officers arrest much more frequently than they testify, and an arrest will undoubtedly make many individuals disgruntled. Yet, lawsuits based on such allegations constituted only 0.5% of all cases filed in the Central District, [41] or an average of only one for every 243 full-time police *368 officers in the city of Los Angeles. [42] This does not appear to be a "significant burden." [43] The simple fact is that practical obstacles alone are enough to deter most individuals from suing the police for official misconduct. [44]

In considering the competing interests at stake in this area, the majority strikes a very one-sided balance. It eschews any qualified immunity in favor of an absolute one. Thus, the mere inquiry into good faith is deemed so undesirable that we must simply acquiesce in the possibility that government officials will maliciously deprive citizens of their rights. [45] For my part, I cannot conceive in this case how patent violations of individual rights can be tolerated in the name of the public good. "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protections of the laws, whenever he receives an injury." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803).


There had been many terrorist attacks in Mumbai since the 13 coordinated bomb explosions that killed 257 people and injured 700 on 12 March 1993. [36] The 1993 attacks were carried out in revenge for earlier religious riots that killed many Muslims. [37]

On 6 December 2002, a blast in a BEST bus near Ghatkopar station killed two people and injured 28. [38] The bombing occurred on the 10th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya. [39] A bicycle bomb exploded near the Vile Parle station in Mumbai, killing one person and injuring 25 on 27 January 2003, a day before the visit of the Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee to the city. [40] On 13 March 2003, a day after the 10th anniversary of the 1993 Bombay bombings, a bomb exploded in a train compartment near the Mulund station, killing 10 people and injuring 70. [41] On 28 July 2003, a blast in a BEST bus in Ghatkopar killed 4 people and injured 32. [42] On 25 August 2003, two bombs exploded in South Mumbai, one near the Gateway of India and the other at Zaveri Bazaar in Kalbadevi. At least 44 people were killed and 150 injured. [43] On 11 July 2006, seven bombs exploded within 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai, [44] killing 209 people, including 22 foreigners [45] [46] [47] and more than 700 injured. [48] [49] According to the Mumbai Police, the bombings were carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba and Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). [50] [51]

A group of men, sometimes stated as 24 and at other times 26, [52] received training in marine warfare at a remote camp in mountainous Muzaffarabad in Pakistan. Part of the training was reported to have taken place on the Mangla Dam reservoir in Pakistan. [53]

The recruits went through the following stages of training, according to Indian and US media reports:

  • Psychological: Indoctrination to Islamist Jihadi ideas, including imagery of atrocities suffered by Muslims in India, [54]Chechnya, Palestine and across the globe.
  • Basic Combat: Lashkar's basic combat training and methodology course, the Daura Aam.
  • Advanced Training: Selected to undergo advanced combat training at a camp near Mansehra, a course the organisation calls the Daura Khaas. [54] According to an unnamed source at the US Defense Department this includes advanced weapons and explosives training supervised by former members of the Pakistan Army, [29] along with survival training and further indoctrination.
  • Commando Training: Finally, an even smaller group selected for specialised commando tactics training and marine navigation training given to the Fedayeen unit selected in order to target Mumbai. [55]

From the recruits, ten were handpicked for the Mumbai mission. [56] They also received training in swimming and sailing, besides the use of high-end weapons and explosives under the supervision of LeT commanders. According to a media report citing an unnamed former Defence Department Official of the US, the intelligence agencies of the US had determined that former officers from Pakistan's Army and Inter-Services Intelligence agency assisted actively and continuously in training. [29] They were given blueprints of all the four targets – The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Oberoi Trident, Nariman House and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus.

The first events were detailed around 20:00 Indian Standard Time (IST) on 26 November, when 10 men in inflatable speedboats came ashore at two locations in Colaba. They reportedly told local Marathi-speaking fishermen who asked them who they were to "mind their own business" before they split up and headed two different ways. The fishermen's subsequent report to the police department received little response and local police were helpless. [57]

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus Edit

The Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT) was attacked by two gunmen, Ismail Khan and Ajmal Kasab. [58] Kasab was later caught alive by the police and identified by eyewitnesses. The attacks began around 21:30 when the two men entered the passenger hall and opened fire [59] using AK-47 rifles. [60] The attackers killed 58 people and injured 104 others, [60] their assault ending at about 22:45. [59] Security forces and emergency services arrived shortly afterwards. Announcements by a railway announcer, Vishnu Dattaram Zende, alerted passengers to leave the station and saved many lives. [61] [62] The two gunmen fled the scene and fired at pedestrians and police officers in the streets, killing eight police officers. The attackers passed a police station. Knowing that they were outgunned against the heavily armed terrorists, the police officers at the station, instead of confronting the terrorists, decided to switch off the lights and secure the gates.

The attackers then headed towards Cama Hospital with intent to kill patients, [63] but the hospital staff locked all of the patient wards. A team of the Mumbai Anti-Terrorist Squad led by police chief Hemant Karkare searched the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and then left in pursuit of Kasab and Khan. Kasab and Khan opened fire on the vehicle in a lane next to the hospital, and received return fire in response. Karkare, Vijay Salaskar, Ashok Kamte and one of their officers were killed. The only survivor, Constable Arun Jadhav, was severely wounded. [64] Kasab and Khan seized the police vehicle but later abandoned it and seized a passenger car instead. They then ran into a police roadblock, which had been set up after Jadhav radioed for help. [65] A gun battle then ensued in which Khan was killed and Kasab was wounded. After a physical struggle, Kasab was arrested. [66] A police officer, Tukaram Omble, was also killed when he tried to disarm Kasab by wrestling his weapon away from him.

Leopold Cafe Edit

The Leopold Cafe, a popular restaurant and bar on Colaba Causeway in South Mumbai, was one of the first sites to be attacked. [67] Two attackers, Shoaib alias Soheb and Nazir alias Abu Umer, [58] opened fire on the cafe on the evening of 26 November between 21:30 and 21:48, killing 10 people (including some foreigners) and injuring many more. [68]

Bomb blasts in taxis Edit

There were two explosions in taxis caused by timer bombs. The first one occurred at 22:40 at Vile Parle, killing the driver and a passenger. The second explosion took place at Wadi Bunder between 22:20 and 22:25. Three people, including the driver of the taxi were killed, and about 15 others were injured. [22] [69]

Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and Oberoi Trident Edit

Two hotels, The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and the Oberoi Trident, were among the four locations targeted. Six explosions were reported at the Taj Hotel – one in the lobby, two in the elevators, three in the restaurant – and one at the Oberoi Trident. [70] [71] At the Taj, firefighters rescued 200 hostages from windows using ladders during the first night.

CNN initially reported on the morning of 27 November 2008 that the hostage situation at the Taj Hotel had been resolved and quoted the police chief of Maharashtra stating that all hostages were freed [46] however, it was learned later that day that there were still two attackers holding hostages, including foreigners, in the Taj Hotel. [72]

A number of European Parliament Committee on International Trade delegates were staying in the Taj Hotel when it was attacked, [73] but none of them were injured. [74] British Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Sajjad Karim (who was in the lobby when attackers initially opened fire there) and German Social Democrat MEP Erika Mann were hiding in different parts of the building. [73] Also reported present was Spanish MEP Ignasi Guardans, who was barricaded in a hotel room. [75] [76] Another British Conservative MEP, Syed Kamall, reported that he along with several other MEPs left the hotel and went to a nearby restaurant shortly before the attack. [73] Kamall also reported that Polish MEP Jan Masiel was thought to have been sleeping in his hotel room when the attacks started, but eventually left the hotel safely. [77] Kamall and Guardans reported that a Hungarian MEP's assistant was shot. [73] [78] Also caught up in the shooting were the President of Madrid, Esperanza Aguirre, while checking in at the Oberoi Trident, [78] and Indian MP N. N. Krishnadas of Kerala and Gulam Noon while having dinner at a restaurant in the Taj Hotel. [79] [80]

Nariman House Edit

Nariman House, a Chabad Lubavitch Jewish centre in Colaba known as the Mumbai Chabad House, was taken over by two attackers and several residents were held hostage. [81] Police evacuated adjacent buildings and exchanged fire with the attackers, wounding one. Local residents were told to stay inside. The attackers threw a grenade into a nearby lane, causing no casualties. NSG commandos arrived from Delhi, and a naval helicopter took an aerial survey. During the first day, 9 hostages were rescued from the first floor. The following day, the house was stormed by NSG commandos fast-roping from helicopters onto the roof, covered by snipers positioned in nearby buildings. After a long battle, one NSG commando, Sergeant Gajender Singh Bisht, and both perpetrators were killed. [82] [83] Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka Holtzberg, who was six months pregnant, were murdered with four other hostages inside the house by the attackers. [84]

According to radio transmissions picked up by Indian intelligence, the attackers "would be told by their handlers in Pakistan that the lives of Jews were worth 50 times those of non-Jews". Injuries on some of the bodies indicated that they may have been tortured. [85] [86]

NSG raid Edit

During the attacks, both hotels were surrounded by Rapid Action Force personnel and Marine Commandos (MARCOS) and National Security Guards (NSG) commandos. [87] [88] When reports emerged that attackers were receiving television broadcasts, feeds to the hotels were blocked. [89] Security forces stormed both hotels, and all nine attackers were killed by the morning of 29 November. [90] [91] Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan of the NSG was martyred during the rescue of Commando Sunil Yadav, who was hit in the leg by a bullet during the rescue operations at Taj. [92] [93] 32 hostages were killed at the Oberoi Trident. [94]

NSG commandos then took on the Nariman house, and a Naval helicopter took an aerial survey. During the first day, 9 hostages were rescued from the first floor. The following day, the house was stormed by NSG commandos fast-roping from helicopters onto the roof, covered by snipers positioned in nearby buildings. NSG Commando Sergeant Gajender Singh Bisht, who was part of the team that fast-roped onto Nariman House, died after a long battle in which both perpetrators were also killed. [82] [83] By the morning of 28 November, the NSG had secured the Jewish outreach centre at Nariman House as well as the Oberoi Trident hotel. They also incorrectly believed that the Taj Palace and Towers had been cleared of attackers, and soldiers were leading hostages and holed-up guests to safety, and removing bodies of those killed in the attacks. [95] [96] [97] However, later news reports indicated that there were still two or three attackers in the Taj, with explosions heard and gunfire exchanged. [97] Fires were also reported at the ground floor of the Taj with plumes of smoke arising from the first floor. [97] The final operation at the Taj Palace hotel was completed by the NSG commandos at 08:00 on 29 November, killing three attackers and resulting in the conclusion of the attacks. [98] The NSG rescued 250 people from the Oberoi, 300 from the Taj and 60 people (members of 12 different families) from Nariman House. [99] In addition, police seized a boat filled with arms and explosives anchored at Mazgaon dock off Mumbai harbour. [100]

The Mumbai attacks were planned and directed by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants inside Pakistan, and carried out by 10 young armed men trained and sent to Mumbai and directed from inside Pakistan via mobile phones and VoIP. [28] [29] [101]

In July 2009 Pakistani authorities confirmed that LeT plotted and financed the attacks from LeT camps in Karachi and Thatta. [102] In November 2009, Pakistani authorities charged seven men they had arrested earlier, of planning and executing the assault. [16]

Mumbai police department originally identified 37 suspects—including two Pakistani army officers—for their alleged involvement in the plot. All but two of the suspects, many of whom are identified only through aliases, are Pakistani. [103] Two more suspects arrested in the United States in October 2009 for other attacks were also found to have been involved in planning the Mumbai attacks. [104] [105] One of these men, Pakistani American David Headley (born Daood Sayed Gilani), was found to have made several trips to India before the attacks and gathered video and GPS information on behalf of the plotters.

In April 2011, the United States issued arrest warrants for four Pakistani men as suspects in the attack. The men, Sajid Mir, Abu Qahafa, Mazhar Iqbal alias "Major Iqbal", are believed to be members of Lashkar-e-Taiba and helped plan and train the attackers. [106]

Negotiations with Pakistan Edit

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and President Asif Ali Zardari condemned the attacks. [24] [25] Pakistan promised to assist in the investigation and President Zardari vowed "strong action against any Pakistani elements found involved in the attack". [107]

Pakistan initially denied that Pakistanis were responsible for the attacks, blaming plotters in Bangladesh and Indian criminals, [108] a claim refuted by India, [109] and saying they needed information from India on other bombings first. [110]

Pakistani authorities finally agreed that Ajmal Kasab was a Pakistani on 7 January 2009, [31] [111] [112] and registered a case against three other Pakistani nationals. [113]

The Indian government supplied evidence to Pakistan and other governments, in the form of interrogations, weapons, and call records of conversations during the attacks. [114] [115] In addition, Indian government officials said that the attacks were so sophisticated that they must have had official backing from Pakistani "agencies", an accusation denied by Pakistan. [29] [111]

Under US and UN pressure, Pakistan arrested a few members of Jamaat ud-Dawa and briefly put its founder under house arrest, but he was found to be free a few days later. [116] A year after the attacks, Mumbai police continued to complain that Pakistani authorities were not co-operating by providing information for their investigation. [117] Meanwhile, journalists in Pakistan said security agencies were preventing them from interviewing people from Kasab's village. [118] [119] The then Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the Pakistani authorities had not shared any information about American suspects Headley and Rana, but that the FBI had been more forthcoming. [120]

An Indian report, summarising intelligence gained from India's interrogation of David Headley, [121] was released in October 2010. It alleged that Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI) had provided support for the attacks by providing funding for reconnaissance missions in Mumbai. [122] The report included Headley's claim that Lashkar-e-Taiba's chief military commander, Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi, had close ties to the ISI. [121] He alleged that "every big action of LeT is done in close coordination with [the] ISI." [122]

In 2018, during an interview with newspaper Dawn, [123] Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reportedly indirectly accepted Pakistan's involvement in not preventing the Mumbai attacks. [124] [125]

Investigation Edit

According to investigations, the attackers travelled by sea from Karachi, Pakistan, across the Arabian Sea, hijacked the Indian fishing trawler 'Kuber', killed the crew of four, then forced the captain to sail to Mumbai. After murdering the captain, the attackers entered Mumbai on a rubber dinghy. The captain of 'Kuber', Amar Singh Solanki, had earlier been imprisoned for six months in a Pakistani jail for illegally fishing in Pakistani waters. [126] The attackers stayed and were trained by the Lashkar-e-Taiba in a safehouse at Azizabad in Karachi before boarding a small boat for Mumbai. [127]

David Headley was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, and between 2002 and 2009 Headley travelled extensively as part of his work for LeT. Headley received training in small arms and countersurveillance from LeT, built a network of connections for the group, and was chief scout in scoping out targets for Mumbai attack [128] [129] having allegedly been given $25,000 in cash in 2006 by an ISI officer known as Major Iqbal, The officer also helped him arrange a communications system for the attack, and oversaw a model of the Taj Hotel so that gunmen could know their way inside the target, according to Headley's testimony to Indian authorities. Headley also helped ISI recruit Indian agents to monitor Indian troop levels and movements, according to a US official. At the same time, Headley was also an informant for the US Drug Enforcement Administration, and Headley's wives warned American officials of Headley's involvement with LeT and his plotting attacks, warning specifically that the Taj Hotel may be their target. [128]

US officials believed that the Inter-Services Intelligence (I.S.I.) officers provided support to Lashkar-e-Taiba militants who carried out the attacks. [130] Disclosures made by former American intelligence contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had intercepted communications between the Lashkar boat and the LeT headquarters in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and passed the alert on to RAW on 18 November, eight days before the terrorists actually struck Mumbai. [131] In the hours after the attack, the New York City Police Department sent Brandon del Pozo, an official from their Intelligence Division, to investigate the incident in order to understand what vulnerabilities its methods posed for New York City. [132]

The arrest of Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Hamza in June 2012 provided further clarity on how the plot was hatched. According to Abu Hamza, the attacks were previously scheduled for 2006, using Indian youth for the job. However, a huge cache of AK-47's and RDX, which were to be used for the attacks, was recovered from Aurangabad in 2006, thus leading to the dismantling of the original plot. Subsequently, Abu Hamza fled to Pakistan and along with Lashkar commanders, scouted for Pakistani youth to be used for the attacks. In September 2007, 10 people were selected for the mission. In September 2008, these people tried sailing to Mumbai from Karachi, but couldn't complete their mission due to choppy waters. These men made a second attempt in November 2008, and successfully managed to execute the final attacks. David Headley's disclosures, that three Pakistani army officers were associated with the planning and execution of the attack were substantiated by Ansari's revelations during his interrogation. [133] [134]

After Ansari's arrest, Pakistan's Foreign Office claimed they had received information that up to 40 Indian nationals were involved in the attacks. [135]

Method Edit

The attackers had planned the attack several months ahead of time and knew some areas well enough to vanish and reappear after security forces had left. Several sources have quoted Kasab telling the police that the group received help from Mumbai residents. [136] [137] The attackers used at least three SIM cards purchased on the Indian side of the border with Bangladesh. [138] There were also reports of a SIM card purchased in the US state of New Jersey. [139] Police had also mentioned that Faheem Ansari, an Indian Lashkar operative who had been arrested in February 2008, had scouted the Mumbai targets for the November attacks. [140] Later, the police arrested two Indian suspects, Mikhtar Ahmad, who is from Srinagar in Kashmir, and Tausif Rehman, a resident of Kolkata. They supplied the SIM cards, one in Calcutta, and the other in New Delhi. [141]

The attackers used a satellite phone and cell phones to talk to each other as well as their handlers that were based in Pakistan. In transcripts intercepted by Indian authorities between the attackers and their handlers, the handlers provided the attackers with encouragement, tactical advice, and information gained from media coverage. The attackers used both personal cell phones and those obtained from their victims to communicate with each other and the news media. Although the attackers were encouraged to murder hostages, the attackers were in communication with the news media via cell phones to make demands in return for the release of hostages. This was believed to be done in order to further confuse Indian authorities that they were dealing with primarily a hostage situation. [142]

Type 86 Grenades made by China's state-owned Norinco were used in the attacks. [143]

There were also indications that the attackers had been taking steroids. [144] The gunman who survived said that the attackers had used Google Earth to familiarise themselves with the locations of buildings used in the attacks. [145]

There were 10 gunmen, nine of whom were subsequently shot dead and one captured by security forces. [146] [147] Witnesses reported that they seemed to be in their early twenties, wore black T-shirts and jeans, and that they smiled and looked happy as they shot their victims. [148]

It was initially reported that some of the attackers were British citizens, [149] [150] but the Indian government later stated that there was no evidence to confirm this. [151] Similarly, early reports of 12 gunmen [152] were also later shown to be incorrect. [114]

On 9 December, the 10 attackers were identified by Mumbai police, along with their home towns in Pakistan: Ajmal Amir from Faridkot, Abu Ismail Dera Ismail Khan from Dera Ismail Khan, Hafiz Arshad and Babr Imran from Multan, Javed from Okara, Shoaib from Sialkot, Nazir Ahmed and Nasir from Faisalabad, Abdul Rahman from Arifwalla, and Fahadullah from Dipalpur Taluka. Dera Ismail Khan is in the North-West Frontier Province the rest of the towns are in Pakistani Punjab. [153]

On 6 April 2010, the Home Minister of Maharashtra State, which includes Mumbai, informed the Assembly that the bodies of the nine killed Pakistani gunmen from the 2008 attack on Mumbai were buried in a secret location in January 2010. The bodies had been in the mortuary of a Mumbai hospital after Muslim clerics in the city refused to let them be buried on their grounds. [154]

Attackers Edit

Only one of the 10 attackers, Ajmal Kasab, survived the attack. He was hanged in Yerwada jail in 2012. [155] The other nine attackers killed during the onslaught were Hafiz Arshad alias Abdul Rehman Bada, Abdul Rahman Chhota, Javed alias Abu Ali, Fahadullah alias Abu Fahad, Ismail Khan alias Abu Ismail, Babar Imran alias Abu Akasha, Nasir alias Abu Umar, Nazir alias Abu Umer and Shoaib alias Abu Soheb.

Arrests Edit

Ajmal Kasab was the only attacker arrested alive by police. At first, he deposed to police inspector Ramesh Mahale that he had come to India "to see Amitabh Bachchan's bungalow", and that he was apprehended by the Mumbai Police outside the bungalow. [54] [156] Much of the information about the attackers' preparation, travel, and movements comes from his subsequent confessions to the Mumbai police. [157]

On 12 February 2009 Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that Pakistani national Javed Iqbal, who acquired VoIP phones in Spain for the Mumbai attackers, and Hamad Ameen Sadiq, who had facilitated money transfer for the attack, had been arrested. [113] Two other men known as Khan and Riaz, but whose full names were not given, were also arrested. [5] Two Pakistanis were arrested in Brescia, Italy (east of Milan) on 21 November 2009, after being accused of providing logistical support to the attacks and transferring more than US$200 to Internet accounts using a false ID. [158] [159] They had Red Corner Notices issued against them by Interpol for their suspected involvement and it was issued after the last year's strikes. [160]

In October 2009, two Chicago men were arrested and charged by the FBI for involvement in "terrorism" abroad, David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana. Headley, a Pakistani-American, was charged in November 2009 with scouting locations for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. [161] [162] Headley is reported to have posed as an American Jew and is believed to have links with militant Islamist groups based in Bangladesh. [163] On 18 March 2010, Headley pleaded guilty to a dozen charges against him thereby avoiding going to trial.

In December 2009, the FBI charged Abdur Rehman Hashim Syed, a retired major in the Pakistani army, for planning the attacks in association with Headley. [164]

On 15 January 2010, in a successful snatch operation R&AW agents nabbed Sheikh Abdul Khwaja, one of the handlers of the 26/11 attacks, chief of HuJI India operations and a most wanted suspect in India, from Colombo, Sri Lanka, and brought him over to Hyderabad, India for formal arrest. [165]

On 25 June 2012, the Delhi Police Department arrested Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Hamza, one of the key suspects in the attack at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi. His arrest was touted as the most significant development in the case since Kasab's arrest. [166] Security agencies had been chasing him for three years in Delhi. Ansari is a Lashker-e-Taiba ultra and the Hindi tutor of the 10 attackers who were responsible for the Mumbai attacks in 2008. [167] [168] He was apprehended, after he was arrested and deported to India by Saudi Intelligence officials as per official request by Indian authorities. [169] After Ansari's arrest, investigations revealed that in 2009 he allegedly stayed for a day in a room in Old Legislators's Hostel, belonging to Fauzia Khan, a former MLA and minister in Maharashtra Government. The minister, however, denied having any links with him. Home Minister P. Chidambaram asserted that Ansari was provided a safe place in Pakistan and was present in the control room, which could not have been established without active State support. Ansari's interrogation further revealed that Sajid Mir and a Pakistani Army major visited India under fake names as cricket spectators to survey targets in Delhi and Mumbai for about a fortnight. [170] [171] [172]

A number of suspects were also arrested on false charges. At least two of them spent nearly eight years in prison and were not paid any compensation by the Indian government. [173]

Nationality Deaths Injured
India 141 256
United States 6 [b] [174] [175] 2 [175]
Israel 4 [176]
Germany 3 [150] 3
Australia 2 [177] 2
Canada 2 [178] 2
France 2 [179]
Italy 1 [180]
United Kingdom 1 [c] [181] 7
Netherlands 1 [182] 1 [183]
Japan 1 [184] 1
Jordan 1 1
Malaysia 1 [185]
Mauritius 1 [186] [187]
Mexico 1 [188]
Singapore 1 [189]
Thailand 1 [190]
Austria 1 [191]
Spain 2 [150] [192] [193]
China 1 [150]
Oman 2 [150]
Philippines 1 [194]
Finland 1 [150]
Norway 1 [195]
Total 166 293

At least 174 people, including civilians, security personnel and nine of the attackers, were killed in the attacks. Among the dead were 29 foreign nationals. [3] [46] [196] [197] [198] One attacker was captured. [199] The bodies of many of the dead hostages showed signs of torture or disfigurement. [200] A number of those killed were notable figures in business, media, and security services. [201] [202] [203]

The Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Vilasrao Deshmukh, stated that 15 policemen and two NSG commandos were killed, including the following officers: [196] [203]

  • Assistant Police Sub-Inspector Tukaram Omble, [204] who succeeded in capturing a terrorist alive, with his bare hands.
  • Joint Commissioner of Police Hemant Karkare, the Chief of the Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad[202]
  • Additional Commissioner of Police: Ashok Kamte[202]
  • Encounter specialist Senior Inspector Vijay Salaskar[202]
  • Senior Inspector Shashank Shinde[202]
  • NSG Commando, Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan
  • NSG Commando, Hawaldar Gajender Singh Bisht

Three railway officials of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus were also killed. [205]

The casualties occurred in the following locations:

The government of Maharashtra announced about ₹ 500,000 (US$7,000) as compensation to the kin of each of those killed in the terror attacks and about ₹ 50,000 (US$700) to the seriously injured. [216] In August 2009, the Indian Hotels Company and the Oberoi Group received about US$28 million as part-payment of the insurance claims, on account of the attacks on Taj and Trident, from General Insurance Corporation of India. [217]

The attacks are sometimes referred to in India as "26/11", after the date in 2008 that the attacks began. The Pradhan Inquiry Commission, appointed by the Maharashtra government, produced a report that was tabled before the legislative assembly more than a year after the events. The report said the "war-like" attack was beyond the capacity to respond of any police force, but also found fault with the Mumbai Police Commissioner Hasan Gafoor's lack of leadership during the crisis. [218]

The Maharashtra government planned to buy 36 speed boats to patrol the coastal areas and several helicopters for the same purpose. It also planned to create an anti-terror force called "Force One" and upgrade all the weapons that Mumbai police currently have. [219] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on an all-party conference declared that legal framework would be strengthened in the battle against "terrorism" and a federal anti-terrorist intelligence and investigation agency, like the FBI, will be set up soon to co-ordinate action against "terrorism". [220] The government strengthened anti-terror laws with UAPA 2008, and the federal National Investigation Agency was formed.

The attacks further strained India's slowly recovering relationship with Pakistan. India's then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee declared that India may indulge in military strikes against terror camps in Pakistan to protect its territorial integrity. There were also after-effects on the United States's relationships with both countries, [221] the US-led NATO war in Afghanistan, [222] and on the Global War on Terror. [223] FBI chief Robert Mueller praised the "unprecedented cooperation" between American and Indian intelligence agencies over the Mumbai terror attack probe. [224] However, Interpol secretary general Ronald Noble said that Indian intelligence agencies did not share any information with Interpol. [225]

A new National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) was proposed to be set up by the then-Home Minister P. Chidambaram as an office to collect, collate, summarise, integrate, analyse, co-ordinate and report all information and inputs received from various intelligence agencies, state police departments, and other ministries and their departments.

Movement of troops Edit

Pakistan moved troops towards the border with India voicing concerns about the Indian government's possible plans to launch attacks on Pakistani soil if it did not co-operate. After days of talks, the Pakistan government, however, decided to start moving troops away from the border. [226]

Indians criticised their political leaders after the attacks, saying that their ineptness was partly responsible. The Times of India commented on its front page that "Our politicians fiddle as innocents die." [227] Political reactions in Mumbai and India included a range of resignations and political changes, including the resignations of Minister for Home Affairs Shivraj Patil, [23] Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh [228] and deputy chief minister R. R. Patil [229] for controversial reactions to the attack including taking the former's son and Bollywood director Ram Gopal Verma to tour the damaged Taj Hotel and the latters remarks that the attacks were not a big deal in such a large city. Indian Muslims condemned the attacks and refused to bury the attackers. Groups of Muslims marched against the attacks [230] and mosques observed silence. Prominent Muslim personalities such as Bollywood actor Aamir Khan appealed to their community members in the country to observe Eid al-Adha as a day of mourning on 9 December. [231] The business establishment also reacted, with changes to transport, and requests for an increase in self-defence capabilities. [232] The attacks also triggered a chain of citizens' movements across India such as the India Today Group's "War Against Terror" campaign. There were vigils held across all of India with candles and placards commemorating the victims of the attacks. [233] The NSG commandos based in Delhi also met criticism for taking ten hours to reach the three sites under attack. [234] [235]

International reaction for the attacks was widespread, with many countries and international organisations condemning the attacks and expressing their condolences to the civilian victims. Many important personalities around the world also condemned the attacks. [236]

Media coverage highlighted the use of social media and social networking tools, including Twitter and Flickr, in spreading information about the attacks. In addition, many Indian bloggers offered live textual coverage of the attacks. [237] A map of the attacks was set up by a web journalist using Google Maps. [238] [239] The New York Times, in July 2009, described the event as "what may be the most well-documented terrorist attack anywhere". [240]

In November 2010, families of American victims of the attacks filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn, New York, naming Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, chief of the ISI, as being complicit in the Mumbai attacks. On 22 September 2011, the attack on the American Embassy in Afghanistan was attributed to Pakistan via cell phone records identical to the attacks in Mumbai, also linked to Pakistan.

Kasab's trial Edit

Kasab's trial was delayed due to legal issues, as many Indian lawyers were unwilling to represent him. A Mumbai Bar Association passed a resolution proclaiming that none of its members would represent Kasab. However, the Chief Justice of India stated that Kasab needed a lawyer for a fair trial. A lawyer for Kasab was eventually found, but was replaced due to a conflict of interest. [241] On 25 February 2009, Indian investigators filed an 11,000-page chargesheet, formally charging Kasab with murder, conspiracy, and waging war against India among other charges. [ citation needed ]

Kasab's trial began on 6 May 2009. He initially pleaded not guilty, but later admitted his guilt on 20 July 2009. He initially apologised for the attacks and claimed that he deserved the death penalty for his crimes, but later retracted these claims, saying that he had been tortured by police to force his confession, and that he had been arrested while roaming the beach. The court had accepted his plea, but due to the lack of completeness within his admittance, the judge had deemed that many of the 86 charges were not addressed and therefore the trial continued.

Kasab was convicted of all 86 charges on 3 May 2010. He was found guilty of murder for directly killing seven people, conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of the 164 people killed in the three-day terror siege, waging war against India, causing terror, and of conspiracy to murder two high-ranking police officers. On 6 May 2010, he was sentenced to death by hanging. [242] [243] [244] [245] However, he appealed his sentence at high court. On 21 February 2011, the Bombay High Court upheld the death sentence of Kasab, dismissing his appeal. [246]

On 29 August 2012, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for Kasab. The court stated, "We are left with no option but to award death penalty. The primary and foremost offence committed by Kasab is waging war against the Government of India". [247] The verdict followed 10 weeks of appeal hearings, and was decided by a two-judge Supreme Court panel, which was led by Judge Aftab Alam. The panel rejected arguments that Kasab was denied a free and fair trial. [248]

Kasab filed a mercy petition with the President of India, which was rejected on 5 November. Kasab was hanged in Pune's Yerwada jail in secret on 21 November 2012 at 7:30 am named as operation 'X'. The Indian mission in Islamabad informed the Pakistan government about Kasab's hanging through a letter. Pakistan refused to take the letter, which was then faxed to them. His family in Pakistan was sent news of his hanging via a courier. [249]

In Pakistan Edit

Indian and Pakistani police exchanged DNA evidence, photographs and items found with the attackers to piece together a detailed portrait of the Mumbai plot. Police in Pakistan arrested seven people, including Hammad Amin Sadiq, a homoeopathic pharmacist, who arranged bank accounts and secured supplies. Sadiq and six others began their formal trial on 3 October 2009 in Pakistan. Indian authorities said the prosecution stopped well short of top Lashkar leaders. [250] In November 2009, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that Pakistan had not done enough to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice. [251]

An eight-member commission comprising defence lawyers, prosecutors and a court official was allowed to travel to India on 15 March 2013 to gather evidence for the prosecution of seven suspects linked to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. However, the defence lawyers were barred from cross-examining the four prosecution witnesses in the case including Ajmal Kasab. [252] [253] On the eve of the first anniversary of 26/11, a Pakistani anti-terror court formally charged seven accused, including LeT operations commander Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi. However, the actual trial started on 5 May 2012. The Pakistani court conducting trial of Mumbai attacks accused, reserved its judgement on the application filed by Lakhvi, challenging the report of the judicial panel, to 17 July 2012. [254] On 17 July 2012, the court refused to take the findings of the Pakistani judicial commission as part of the evidence. However, it ruled that if a new agreement, which allows the panel's examination of witnesses, is reached, the prosecution may make an application for sending the panel to Mumbai. [255] The Indian Government, upset over the court ruling, however, contended that evidence collected by the Pakistani judicial panel has evidential value to punish all those involved in the attack. [256] On 21 September 2013, a Pakistani judicial commission arrived in India to carry out the investigation and to cross examine the witnesses. This is the second such visit: the one in March 2012 was not a success [257] as its report was rejected by an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan due to lack of evidence.

In the United States Edit

The LeT operative David Headley (born Daood Sayed Gilani) in his testimony before a Chicago federal court during co-accused Tahawwur Rana's trial revealed that Mumbai Chabad House was added to the list of targets for surveillance given by his Inter Services Intelligence handler Major Iqbal, though the Oberoi Hotel, one of the sites attacked, was not originally on the list. [258] On 10 June 2011, Tahawwur Rana was acquitted of plotting the 2008 Mumbai attacks, but was held guilty on two other charges. [259] He was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison on 17 January 2013. [260]

David Headley pleaded guilty to 12 counts related to the attacks, including conspiracy to commit murder in India and aiding and abetting in the murder of six Americans. On 23 January 2013, he was sentenced to 35 years in federal prison. His plea that he not be extradited to India, Pakistan or Denmark was accepted. [261]

On the first anniversary of the event, the state paid homage to the victims of the attack. Force One—a new security force created by the Maharashtra government—staged a parade from Nariman Point to Chowpatty. Other memorials and candlelight vigils were also organised at the various locations where the attacks occurred. [262]

On the second anniversary of the event, homage was again paid to the victims. [263]

On the 10th anniversary of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Nariman House, one of the several establishments that were targeted by the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists, were to be declared a memorial and renamed as Nariman Light House. [264]

The Indian Express group hosts an annual memorial event, 26/11 - Stories of Strength, in Mumbai to pay homage to those killed in the ghastly terror attacks in the city in 2008. [265] [266] The memorial event started in 2016, is now organised at the Gateway of India and brings forth the inspiring stories of courage and strength of more than 100 survivors that the Indian Express has interviewed over the past decade. Actor Amitabh Bachchan has been the brand ambassador for the event over the years. [267]

Documentaries Edit

Operation Black Tornado (2018) is a TV documentary which premiered on Veer by Discovery Channel series, Battle Ops. [268] [269]

Films/Movies Edit

  1. Hotel Mumbai (2019) is an American-Australian action thriller film directed by Anthony Maras and written by John Collee and Maras. It has come under criticism for omitting any reference to the role of Pakistan in the terror strikes. [270]
  2. The Attacks of 26/11 (2013) is an Indian action thriller film directed by Ram Gopal Varma, based on the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
  3. Taj Mahal (2015) is a French-Belgian thriller-drama film directed and written by Nicolas Saada. It was screened in the Horizons section at the 72nd Venice International Film Festival. This film is about an actual 18-year-old French girl who was alone in her hotel room when the terrorists attacked the hotel.
  4. Terror in Mumbai (2009) The inside story of the November 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai, India. It features exclusive never-before-heard audio tapes of the intercepted phone calls between the young gunmen and their controllers in Pakistan, and testimony from the sole surviving gunman. [271]
  5. Mumbai Siege: 4 Days of Terror (aka One Less God) (2017) features the situation of some foreigners inside Taj Hotel. [272]
  6. State of Siege: 26/11 (2020) ZEE5 Original crime thriller Web Series features When Mumbai was under siege in 2008, it was the NSG commandos that came to its rescue. Witness the untold stories of the brave heroes and the lesser-known facts of the horrid Mumbai attacks that shook the whole world. [273]

Books Edit

The Siege: The Attack on the Taj is a non-fiction book by Cathy Scott-Clerk and Adrian Levy. It is an account of the 2008 attacks on The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, India, during the night of 26 November 2008. The book was first published by Penguin Books in 2013. [274]

In 2017, Elias Davidsson published The Betrayal of India: Revisting the 26/11 Evidence, claiming powerful institutions in India and the US had been the beneficiaries and the attacks had been organized by Indian prime Intelligence Agency, RAW and her surrogates. [275]

Aziz Burney wrote a book titled 26/11: RSS ki Saazish? ("26/11: An RSS conspiracy?") hinting that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was somehow linked to the attack and launched the book in presence of Congress leader Digvijaya Singh. [276] Later as RSS filed a case against him, he had to apologise for it. [277] [278]

Former National Security Advisor of India, Shivshankar Menon wrote Choices: Inside the Making of India's Foreign Policy. In his book Menon mentioned that the reason why India did not immediately attacked Pakistan was, after the examination of the options by the leadership of the government, it was concluded by the decision makers that, "more was to be gained from not attacking Pakistan than from attacking it". [279]

In his 2020 memoirs, Let Me Say It Now, former IPS officer Rakesh Maria, who was given the responsibility of investigating the attacks and personally interrogated Ajmal Kasab, revealed the extent to which terrorists had gone to ensure their bodies would be mis-identified as Hindus, to lend credence to the narrative that the attack was the handiwork of Hindu extremists, and thus provide the Pakistani authorities with plausible deniability. According to Maria, Lashkar-e-Taiba wanted Kasab to be killed as a Bengaluru resident named ‘Samir Dinesh Chaudhari’, with a "red (sacred) thread" tied around his wrist to portray the attack as a case of ‘Hindu terror’, but their plan apparently did not succeed and the police nabbed Kasab. LeT had even given each terrorist a fake identity card listing an Indian address, to further strengthen the circumstantial narrative. If everything went according to plan, Kasab would have died as Chaudhari and the media would have blamed 'Hindu terrorists' for the attack. Kasab, in his confessional account, acknowledged this plot, as did David Coleman Headley, who corroborated this account by confirming that the sacred threads to be worn around the terrorists' wrists to identify them as Hindus, were procured from Mumbai's Siddhivinayak Temple. [280] [281]