Pak Says Man Who Led Terrorists' Funeral "A Family Man". US Disagrees
The Pakistani armed forces have claimed that Hafiz Abdur Rauf, a US-designated global terrorist, who led the funeral of the terrorists killed in Indian airstrikes during Operation Sindoor is an ordinary citizen.
Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, Pakistan's Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations (DG ISPR), categorically denied that the man seen in the image was a terrorist. Instead, he was described as a religious leader and "a common family man."
The military spokesperson even presented what was claimed to be the individual's National Identity Card (CNIC), naming him as an official of the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League (PMML), specifically, its "Welfare Wing Incharge."
Who Is Hafiz Abrur Rauf
The man identified by Pakistan as a cleric is Hafiz Abdur Rauf, a senior leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and head of the now-banned Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF), both of which are designated terrorist entities under US and United Nations sanctions. The CNIC number (35202-5400413-9), name, and date of birth (March 25, 1973) released by the Pakistani military match exactly with details in the US Department of Treasury sanctions lists.
Pakistan's characterisation of Rauf as an innocent preacher is the latest instance in a long history of downplaying or denying links between state institutions and internationally designated terrorists. During the funeral, held in Muridke, near Lahore, several high-ranking officers of the Pakistan Army stood behind Rauf as he led the ceremony. Coffins wrapped in Pakistan's national flag were carried in military protocol, suggesting institutional backing.
In a press briefing in New Delhi recently, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri had held up the viral photograph and highlighted the contradictions between facts and what the Pakistani military leadership says.
The Funeral
The funeral, held on May 8 in Muridke, did not resemble a private religious affair. Images and video footage show military protocol, state security presence, and formal participation by Pakistani officials.
"They claim that only civilians were killed in the strikes on the 7th of May. We have made the point very clearly that all attacks on the morning of 7th May were against carefully selected terrorist infrastructure, terrorist targets?" Mr Misri had said at a press briefing.
According to news agency IANS, the photograph shows Rauf surrounded by uniformed military officers, among them Lt Gen Fayyaz Hussain Shah (Corps Commander, IV Corps, Lahore), Maj Gen Rao Imran Sartaj (GOC, 11 Infantry Division), Brig Mohammad Furqan Shabbir (Commander, 15 Hybrid Mechanised Brigade), Punjab's Inspector General of Police Dr Usman Anwar, and provincial MLA Malik Sohaib Ahmed Bherth.
In an apparent attempt to deflect criticism, Pakistani officials appeared to conflate Hafiz Abdur Rauf with Abdul Rauf Azhar, brother of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar.
Terror History
Rauf Azhar, also Masood Azhar's brother, has a well-documented record of terrorism planning, including orchestrating the 1999 IC-814 hijacking, the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, and the 2016 Pathankot and 2019 Pulwama strikes. In contrast, Hafiz Abdur Rauf has been integral to the financial and propaganda operations of LeT since at least the early 2000s.
According to the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), Rauf has served in several key roles within LeT. These include Director of Public Service in 2003, Director of Humanitarian Relief in 2008, and operational head of LeT's charity fronts, initially Idara Khidmat-e-Khalq (IKK), later renamed Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF).
As early as 2003, Rauf was involved in publicly defending the work of LeT-affiliated organisations, despite a formal ban imposed by Pakistan's own government. In interviews given to Pakistani news outlets and on LeT's official website, he claimed responsibility for managing fundraising and disaster relief under the guise of welfare operations. These activities, according to the US, were designed to provide cover for LeT's terrorist activities and evade international scrutiny.
In 2009, Rauf led a fundraising delegation under the FIF alias to Bajaur, Pakistan, where LeT was active in both relief and recruitment.
On November 24, 2010, the United States imposed sanctions on Rauf and FIF. The sanctions were the result of detailed dossiers shared by Indian intelligence, particularly after the 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed over 170 people. The UN Sanctions Committee also lists both FIF and LeT, as well as Rauf's close associate and LeT founder Hafiz Muhammad Saeed.
Despite this, Rauf has continued to operate within Pakistan with apparent impunity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
29 minutes ago
- The Print
Opposition flags Trump's remarks, SIR in session eve meet; govt says all issues to be discussed
The government sought coordination with the opposition in the smooth running of the month-long session. At the customary meeting ahead of the session beginning Monday, the opposition raised various issues, including voter roll revision in Bihar, the Pahalgam terror attack and Trump's 'ceasefire' claims. New Delhi, Jul 20 (PTI) The government on Sunday told an all-party meeting that it is ready to discuss all issues raised by the opposition in the Monsoon session of Parliament, and asserted that it will respond appropriately to demands for a response on US President Donald Trump's claims on Operation Sindoor. There should be govt-opposition coordination in running Parliament smoothly, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju told reporters after the meeting. He said the government will respond appropriately in Parliament on opposition raising the issue of Trump's claims on Operation Sindoor. The government, he emphasised, is open to discussing all issues in Parliament in line with rules and traditions and asserted that the government was very much open to discussing important issues like Operation Sindoor. Talking to reporters after the meeting, Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi said his party sought Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement on Trump's claims, 'lapses' which led to the Pahalgam attack and Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of poll rolls in Bihar. He said it was incumbent on PM Modi to give a statement in Parliament on key issues raised by his party. Sanjay Singh of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) said he raised the alleged 'poll scam' of SIR in Bihar and Trump's claim that he brokered 'ceasefire' between India and Pakistan, at the meet. Responding to a question, he said INDIA bloc is only for Lok Sabha polls and AAP is contesting assembly polls on its own. BJD's Sasmit Patra said the Centre can't escape responsibility from the 'failing' law and order in states and Parliament should debate it. He was referring to an incident of self-immolation by a college student and another case of a 15-year-old being set on fire by a group of men in Odisha. Patra said there was a 'complete collapse' of law and order in Odisha and the BJP government there was 'helpless' and has 'failed'. CPI(M)'s John Brittas said Prime Minister Modi should speak in Parliament on Trump's claims on Operation Sindoor and Pahalgam terror attack. Leaders of various political parties attended the meeting chaired by Union minister and Leader of the House in Rajya Sabha J P Nadda. Rijiju and his junior minister Arjun Ram Meghwal also represented the government at the meeting. Gogoi and Jairam Ramesh of the Congress, Supriya Sule of NCP-Sharad Pawar, DMK's T R Baalu and RPI (A) leader and Union minister Ramdas Athawale were amongst those who are attending the meeting. INDIA bloc parties have resolved to raise during Parliament's Monsoon session the issues of Pahalgam attack terrorists not being brought to justice, Trump's repeated claims of brokering a 'ceasefire' during India-Pakistan hostilities and the SIR in Bihar that the opposition alleges 'threatens people's voting rights'. PTI KR/PK/SKC NAB DV DV This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Economic Times
29 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Monsoon session: Govt open to discussing important issues like Op Sindoor, Trump's claims in Parliament, says Rijiju after all-party meeting
ANI Union Ministers and BJP MPs JP Nadda, Kiren Rijiju, Arjun Ram Meghwal, L Murgan and chair the all-party meeting ahead of the Monsoon session of Parliament that begins on, 21st July, at Parliament House Annexe in New Delhi on Sunday The government affirmed that it is open to discuss important issues like Operation Sindoor and Trump's ceasefire claims in the monsoon session of Parliament. We are very much open to discussing important issues like Operation Sindoor in Parliament, said Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju after the all-party meeting held on Sunday. "There are several issues on which the parties have opened that they should be discussed in the Parliament. We are ready for discussions with an open heart. We work as per rules and tradition and hold these in great value. So, we will discuss every issue but as per rules and tradition," said Rijiju. On opposition raising issue of US President Trump's claims on Op Sindoor, he said that the government will respond appropriately in Parliament.
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
From the Opinions Editor: NCERT textbook revisions — a point-to-point counter isn't enough
Dear Readers, Revision of social science textbooks, especially history readers, has become par for the course. Most times, this exercise is not guided by the scholarly imperative to mirror developments in knowledge. Instead, it seems to bear the ideological hallmarks of those in power. Textbooks have borne this burden for long. However, there's still a difference in today's restructuring of reading material compared to schoolbook rewriting exercises of the past. In the last five years, parts of history textbooks have been either excised or modified and the changes have been ascribed to a variety of factors – from rationalising content to reducing the burden on students. These exercises claim to be motivated by a desire to ensure student 'well-being', but carry imprints of the ruling regime's anxiety to flatten social complexities. Introduced last week, the latest changes, dotted with references to the 'brutality' of medieval Muslim kings, carry a disclaimer, 'Notes on Some Darker Periods of History' : 'No one no one should be held responsible today for events of the past. The emphasis is on an honest approach to history with a view to drawing important lessons for a better future.' Historians have rightly underlined that the account is not as 'honest' as it claims to be. The selective references to destruction of places of worship by Muslim kings has not gone unnoticed. Scholars have rightly pointed out that such violence was not uncommon across a variety of ruling dispensations in ancient and medieval times. These are significant interventions. Yet, there is a broader challenge for historians: To underline the fundamental differences between the social and moral universe of pre-modern times with today's norms. Kings and sultans were not accountable for their actions, statecraft had very different objectives and wars were often critical to empire-building. All this is historical common sense. However, it's yet to become a general common sense. Narratives of the pre-modern era continue to be framed around heroes and villains. The search for a protonationalist in Ashoka, Akbar or Shivaji – depending on ideological inclination –and describing a Mahmud of Ghazni or Allaudin Khalji or Aurangzeb as evil might seem somewhat different endeavours. But both approaches obscure an understanding of epochs, much removed in time – Mahmud of Ghazini lived in the 10th-11th centuries, the Khaljis in the 13th and 14th century and the last great Mughal ruled from 1658-1707. That the latest revisions in textbooks bracket a more than 500-year period under the shibboleth of 'Dark Age' shows that even a section of historians – affiliated to the ruling regime – carry such blinkers. The challenge, in large measure, has to do with a historiographical deficit, plugging which remains a work in progress. Indian historians have produced groundbreaking studies on the extractive nature of medieval kingdoms, the ebbs and flows of commerce, the caste system and rise of kingdoms far away from sultanates in Delhi. Yet, an understanding of violence in pre-modern times is a relatively recent historiographical pursuit. Charges of destruction of places of worship continue to be countered by narratives which stress the political impulses behind such violence – as opposed to religious motives. The standard response also is that instances of destruction of places of worship by sultans and badshahs were far fewer, compared to the grants they gave to temples and monasteries. A historian should, of course, be judged by her fealty to facts. Viewed from that perspective, there is nothing wrong in how most professional historians have responded to allegations of 'brutality' levied on Islamic kings. However, today the challenge in classrooms – and beyond – is not just to provide a point-to-point counter. The internet, political propaganda, social media, films and TV make lives information heavy. Whatsapp chats have precipitated the collapse of some of the traditional filters on information. How can narratives that place violence in medieval times in their historical context help? Why do people need to understand the complexities of times when rulers could destroy some temples and give grants to many others? What purpose would it serve to depict Mughal, and several other, rulers as complex personalities who had the blood of their kin on their hand and yet presided over great cultural refinement? Why tell the stories of Shivaji's successors who struck terror in people in Bengal? Studies placing personalities in their times are, of course, needed for purely epistemological purposes. History is at its most vigorous, when it not only celebrates the resilience of societies but also tries to understand fault lines. The search for syncretism in medieval times was driven by a young nation's desire to place a salve on the wounds of Partition as well as the imperative to counter the colonial historian's charge that Indian history, before the arrival of Britishers, was nothing but an account of communal feuding. Histories of pre-modern violence, not prejudiced by colonial blinkers and innocent of sectarian agendas, have been few and they have not gone beyond academia. But why disturb the student's 'well-being' by introducing such complexities in textbooks? The latest changes have been introduced in Class VIII textbooks – a time when youngsters step into their teens. They are introduced to complicated concepts in mathematics and science – cell division, for instance. Why not in the social sciences? A textbook is perhaps the only text of history that a large majority of people, who do not engage with the discipline for professional purposes, will encounter in their lives – while they would be inundated with myriad accounts of the past. Critics of the revisions are, therefore, right in underlining the importance of rigour in reading materials. The task also is to find ways to communicate the complexity that informs their scholarship outside select circles – a difficult yet necessary imperative for the historian, inside and outside academia. Till next time, Kaushik
