Indore: Hindutva hardliners' haven

By Adnan Alavi,




The arrest of right-wing militants in connection with the blast in Ajmer Dargah isn't surprising and is just another in the series of arrests of members of organisations ranging from Abhinav Bharat to Sanatan Sanstha who have committed a series of bombings in India from Malegaon to Goa.



Headlines in prominent newspapers and leading English channels read like 'Abhinav Bharat man caught', 'Ajmer blast suspects linked to Hindu groups' or 'Ajmer blast: Hindu group responsible'.





There is no mention of 'terrorism' and suddenly words like suspects and 'organisation member' are back in journalistic lingo. Just a recent example because public memory is short:



Bettig mafia respsosible for blast in Bagalore stadium during IPL!



During the Indian Premier League (IPL), bombs exploded in the stadium in Bangalore. Soon after, journalists who crave for breakthroughs and first page bylines, were mouthing names of persons involved in the blasts. There were reports that security agencies don't deny the role of particular persons.



A few days passed and the everybody has forgotten it. Now it seems that it was local betting mafia that was involved in planting bombs in the stadium, and we no longer read any follow-ups or any sort of news. So did it make it less serious if underworld or betting mafia is involved?



The classic case was in Assam where major bomb strikes in which dozens died were ignored when ULFA was involved but once minor blasts occurred and a news agency suspected 'Islamists' angle', it was suddenly prime time news and got repeatedly termed as terrorist attacks.



Just a day ago the Bangladesh government has handed DR Nabla alias Ranjan Daimary, the chief of the militant NDFB, that was involved in serial bombings in Assam in 2008 that caused over a 100 deaths. But the arrest didn't make big news despite the fact that a terrorist mastermind was caught.



Ironically media perceptions force police and investigative agencies to hurry up in investigations and they throw up names to evade intrusive journos by saying that such group's involvement is not ruled out. The casualty is truth.



Apart from inefficiency and political reasons, often the cases are not cracked because of these reasons. It's a fact that had there been a BJP government in Maharashtra, Goa or Rajasthan, the activists of Sanatan Sanstha or Abhinav Bharat may never have been arrested.



Upright officers, political will needed



Though Himanshu Panse's role in blasts in Marathwada had alerted security agencies, the investigation was closed. Firstly, some officers were soft on the group while others apparently didn't want to get into controversy. It took an officer of the calibre of Hemant Karkare to unravel this network.



Even in cases of blasts where there was a clear stamp of right-wing radicals, Muslim youths were arrested and put for months in illegal detentions. In Hyderabad, those protesting police action were fired at and many were killed.



The fact is that whether it is Hindutva-inspired fanatic or the Islamist militant, they are equally dangerous for the country. Terrorism and crime should be seen purely as a threat to the nation and not from the prism of religion.



Sadly, this doesn't happen. When some youths from Azamgarh were arrested, the entire district was demonised. When youths from a particular Muslims-dominated town were arrested, the name of the town 'Bhatkal' was added to their names though it was not their surname.



The aim was to defame the town. It was part of a strategy. Shouldn't Indore be also termed haven of Hindutva-wadis in India. This peaceful town in Central India has been linked to almost all the major cases of bomb blasts.



Should towns be defamed: Is Indore Hindutva-wadi's Azamgarh?



Either its Malegaon blast, Mecca Masjid or Ajmer terror strike, the accused are being arrested from Indore. The planning was done here. Even investigation trail in Samjhauta Express case has reached Indore. And the most wanted man, Ramji Kalsangra, whose arrest can unravel the entire group, also hails from here.



It is not that MP police were not aware of Sunil Joshi's shadowy organisation that was based in Indore. It was also aware of Samir Kulkarni's Abhinav Bharat that was functioning from MP. But the state police didn't act then even though local Hindi papers printed tonnes of material.



Kulkarni's role in planting bombs at Bhopal's major Islamic gathering of tablighi jamaat that attracts 1 million Muslims was also known but police under BJP rule didn't act. It is only when CBI and central investigative agencies reached Indore that the activity began.



The unfortunate aspect is that everything in India either gets politicised or communalised.



--

Adnan Alavi blogs at http://www.anindianmuslim.com

Malaysia's first nuclear power plant expected to be operational by 2010

By NNN-Bernama,




Kuala Lumpur : Malaysia's first nuclear power plant is expected to start operations in 2021, says Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Peter Chin Fah Kui.



His ministry has been given approval by the National Economic Council to start identifying suitable sites for the plant, he said here Tuesday, adding that the countdown for nuclear power began three weeks ago.



"Once the site is identified, we will roll out stakeholders' consultation," he told reporters after attending the Sustainable Buildings South-East Asia 2010 conference.



Declining to reveal the possible sites and the total power deliverable, Chin said the nuclear power plant needed to be built in an area with high power demand.



He said the lifespan of a nuclear power plant was between 50 years and 70 years.



"Building the first plant needs a lead time of at least 10 years. We need to look at the safety aspects, human resources and the location," he added.



The final decision on whether the plant would be built was up to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Chin said, adding that technology providers could come from South Korea, China, France or Japan.



Chin said a nuclear power plant was needed to meet the country's increasing demand for energy as a result of industrialisation and to ensure energy security.



"We have to look at energy security. No country can grow without energy, no gross domestic product can progress without energy," he added.



"Nuclear energy is the only viable option towards our long-term energy needs. Our energy generation mix is rather unhealthy at the moment because we are using too much gas and coal," he said.



As for the cost for a nuclear power plant, Chin said: "It is a costly exercise but we have no choice, rather than building many coal-fired power plants or gas-fired plants, which is going to cost even more going into the future."



The country must have 20 per cent power reserves, Chin said, adding that the current power usage was 14,000 megawatts (MW) while the country had a capacity of 23,000 MW.

Time to question politics of terror bombings: Civil groups

By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net,




New Delhi: What is the motive of terror bombings in India in the last one decade and who has benefited, politically, from these anti-national activities, asked civil and some political groups today here at a symposium and asserted that it’s time for citizens to ask the government on security lapses and why no punishment to officials for these lapses.



At the symposium titled “Politics of Terror” various speakers – civil rights activists, community leaders and politicians – said the citizens should gather courage and ask the government for all terror bombings and security lapses behind them and why no official has been punished for security lapses whether it is Mumbai terror attacks or Parliament attacks.









Firoz Mithiborewal (extreme right in blue shirt) and others taking part in a symposium on "Politics of Terror" in New Delhi





Dr Qasim Rasool Ilyas, executive committee member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board referred to statements of some top political leaders after Parliament attacks and Ahmedabad serial bombings. The politicians had indicated toward political angle behind such attacks as the ruling parties were in crisis when these incidents took place and successfully bailed out them by diverting nation’s attention. “When Muslim youths are being acquitted in terror cases one after another, it’s time to ask the government as to who actually is responsible for these attacks,” Ilyas said.



Mujtaba Farooq, political affairs secretary, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind while expressing relief over a little decline in hostility for the Muslim community following exposure of Hindu hands in Malegaon bombing said the civil groups should come out to demand the government for a thorough probe into all terror attacks in the country.



Abdul Khaliq, Secretary, Lok Janshakti Party, said it’s time to talk about which political party has got benefits from terrorist attacks in the country.

Noted documentary maker Shubhradeep Chakrabarty said terror attacks and bombings in India are new avatar of communal riots. The perpetrators know they can’t do Gujarat riots again and again. Like communal riots, terror bombings are being executed with planning and purpose. He also pointed out political and economic angle behind such terror attacks.



The symposium was organized by Awami Bharat and Bharat Bachao groups.


http://twocircles.net/2010may04/time_question_politics_terror_bombings_civil_groups.html

Media has soft approach towards Hindutva terrorism: CPI (M) Kerala state secretary

By TwoCircles.net Staff Correspondent,




Thrissur: The media which should consider all types of terrorism in the same way have a soft approach towards the Hindutva terrorism, opined Pinarayi Vijayan, state secretary of the CPI (M). He was inaugurating the seminar on the topic ‘Religious extremism and the trial by media’ organized by the All India Lawyers’ Union at Kodungallore in Kerala’s Thrissur district.



Bin Laden, who is the icon of global terrorism, is the product of the American imperialism and the CIA. The US is protecting Headley, without even letting the Indian officials question him, out of fear that many secrets might come to light. All terrorist groups are getting very good financial aid. He also criticized those among the national media which describe the bloody hands of Narendra Modi as the hands of development.













N Madhavan Kutty (journalist), Dr MK Muneer (Muslim League state secretary), KT Jaleel (MLA), P Jayarajan and Baby John also spoke.



http://twocircles.net/2010may04/media_has_soft_approach_towards_hindutva_terrorism_cpi_m_kerala_state_secretary.html

IDB offers interest-free loan to Muslims for medical, engg courses

By TCN News,




Patna: Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Jeddah has invited applications for scholarship cum interest-free education loan from meritorious but financially needy Indian Muslim students to help them to pursue professional courses such as Medical and Engineering.



This loan is for those students who have taken admission or intend to in academic year 2010-2011 in the first year of any degree courses of Medicine and Engineering including Homeopathy, Unani, Ayurvedic, Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, Food Technology, Microbiology, Biotechnology, Bachelor of Business Administration and Bachelor of Law.



To get this loan it is necessary that aspirants should have obtained 60% marks in English, Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Mathematics in 10th class examination.



The applicants will be interviewed by a selection committee and selected ones will be provided with the cost of living, clothing, books, tuition fees and medical expenses during the courses.



It is to be noted here that as it is an interest-free loan, recipients, therefore, will have to refund the amounts in easy installments after they settle down in profession. So that others can get benefit to enjoy the same educational opportunity.



Islamic Development Bank started this program in 1983 to promote professional education among Muslim community in various countries including India. In India this program is operated and monitored through Delhi based NGO Students Islamic Trust (SIT). So far 1163 students completed their courses and settled down in their professions with the help IDB loan. At present there are 645 students who are getting benefits from it and pursuing professional studies.



Talking to TwoCircles.net from Delhi, Mohammad Saifullah Rizwan, Executive Secretary of SIT, said: “It is a golden opportunity for the talented Muslim students who are unable to do professional courses due to financial problem. The students who passed matriculation with minimum 60% marks and have desire to go in professional fields should get benefit from this program.”



On number of students who will be selected this year he said: “We will select 250 students through interview. The Selection committee formed for this purpose will interview the applicants in almost all the states, then we will issue the list of selected students.”



Asked about amount that will be given to the selected students he told: “Each student of Medical is given Rs.45000/ and student of Engineering is given Rs. 40000/ per month till they complete the courses.



“They will have to return the amounts they receive from IDB after the completion of courses or after they get settlement in their profession so that it can pave the way for other students belonging to the same category and who want to do similar courses” he added.



The last date for submission of application is 25th August 2010. Application forms can be downloaded from SIT website http://www.sit-india.org/scholarship.html or it can be obtained from SIT office.



Address:



Mohammad Saifullah Rizwan



Executive Secretary



The Student Islamic Trust



Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar



New Delhi-110025



Contact: 91-9990630127, 91-11-26941028

When division means multiplication and small stands for ugly

By Soroor Ahmed, TwoCircles.net,




Sometimes when one divides something one actually multiplies it.

So when the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance government, in November 2000, divided Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh to create Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, it actually multiplied the number from three to six. And the number of states in India jumped from 25 to 28.



What is strange is that this decision, taken in one go, was made without any recommendations of the States’ Reorganization Commission––as in mid-1950s. As politically it suited the BJP, the party went for it soon after coming to power in New Delhi. The party bigwigs and their supporters in the media put up fantastic arguments. They were not prepared to listen to the counter-points nor were they willing to accept that small states are more prone to political instability––Goa, North-East etc. In fact the credit for introducing Aya Ram Gaya Ram––horse-trading––politics goes to Haryana, a relatively small state with 90-MLA Assembly.













The BJP in fact wanted to nip in the bud the original demand of the JMM to have a Greater Jharkhand, a big tribal state spread over Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. That would have been detrimental for the Sangh Parivar politics.



But the whole move to divide tribal heartland backfired. In no time Chhattisgarh became a Maoist bastion and Jharkhand witnessed many high-profile attacks by the Red army. A couple of years into its existence the state with the highest mineral deposit became a national caricature. All sorts of experiments were made with this young state. Once even small party and Independent MLAs were abducted and taken hostage in Jaipur by the BJP as their poaching was going on in a big way. An Independent MLA, Madhu Koda, got the opportunity to rule it for 23 months. But all out of sudden those who were backing him––Congress prominently––deemed it fit to see him behind bars.



However, after December last assembly election it was thought that everything was now sailing smoothly. But the four month young Shibu Soren government landed up in hell lot of trouble––all of its own making. Guruji, as Soren is loving addressed, flew to New Delhi at the request of, none else but the BJP, to vote in favour of the Cut Motions. Since he is still the member of the Lok Sabha and not elected to the Jharkhand Assembly he was eligible to vote. On April 27 instead of voting in favour of the Cut Motions he did just the opposite.



As all this was happening another small state, Meghalaya, was having a change of guard. People now do not keep a count of the number of chief ministers who come and go in the states with very small strength of Assemblies.



What prompted Soren to switch side––or different button in Parliament––was beyond anybody’s comprehension. However, it was a bonus for the UPA. Moments later the media was rife with stories of a deal with the Congress. It was speculated that he is likely to be inducted into the Manmohan Singh cabinet and his JMM, with 18 MLAs, would be supporting the 14-legislator strong Congress and other secular parties to form the government. Media reports also suggested that Shibu’s son Hemant Soren would become new deputy chief minister in the new arrangement. The very next day the BJP announced the decision to withdraw support from Soren government.



However, the strangest development was to follow. Shibu announced that he mistakenly voted in favour of the UPA. He even apologized for this act. As an atonement he offered to support the BJP in forming government in the state.



The move flummoxed the BJP. The JMM too got divided as there were many leaders who were strongly opposed to giving support to the BJP. Taking support from it is all right, but not giving, they argued.



Is Soren so prone to commit such a blunder while pushing button in Parliament? After all 17 years back its six MPs did bail out the then Narasimha Rao government during a no-confidence motion. The JMM MPs bribery case is still fresh in the mind.



It is really difficult to read Soren’s mind. But one thing is clear: by creating states with smaller strength of the Assembly we have committed a big blunder––at least it seems. As it is easy to indulge in horse-trading in states with smaller number of legislators political uncertainty is very much inherent in them.



The Anti-Defection Law, which initially required one-third MLAs to formalize split in the legislature party failed to check the horse-trading. Then it was amended and now two-thirds MLAs are required. Even that did not prove much difficult.



Take the case of the 81-member Jharkhand Assembly where big parties like JMM and BJP got 18 seats each. Breaking two-thirds MLAs from them is not a big deal in the present political scenario. So far smaller parties are concerned they get split at the drop of a hat.



It is not that the bigger states are epitome of virtue. But since the strength of the Assemblies are much bigger causing split in the legislature parties is not so easy a job. Even in fractured verdict big parties do not end up getting 15-20 seats, but many times more. Thus the smaller states, even if it is developed one like Goa, witnesses the change of government almost every year. Now that there are so many small states in the country––and Telengana and Gorkhaland may soon follow––the likely solution to the political stability is the increase in the number of Assembly seats in them so that horse-trading can at least be minimised, if not totally ruled out.

http://twocircles.net/2010may02/when_division_means_multiplication_and_small_stands_ugly.html

Swami and Friends

By Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association,




We are greatly surprised and also, one may add, a little amused at this display of victimhood on the part of Praveen Swami and his friends. It appears that we are to forget that Swami churns out one column after another in a national daily, week after week, giving detailed expositions of the guilt of those who are still awaiting trials. Ms Annie Zaidi in her letter to the editor of countercurrents, the website where our statement first appeared, seems so exercised by our accusations against Mr. Swami, but it does not concern her when her friend and ex-boss writes, to give just one example, about Abu Bashar, a poor maulana from Azamgarh, as a jihadist. (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu) Does she not realize that Bashar’s trial could be vitiated and prejudiced by Swami’s public indictments?





Our humble email campaign is being pitted as a grave injustice to Swami’s journalistic integrity, but the inequality between JTSA and the might of the Hindu group (and Swami’s clout within it) is apparent to anyone not ‘blinded by faith’. We may add here that Swami is an absolute non-entity for us. JTSA was formed in the aftermath of the Batla House ‘encounter’; when a group of teachers at Jamia Millia Islamia felt that the police story about the ‘encounter; was riddled with holes, and we came together to campaign for truth and justice. Our fight is against the State and its agencies, and the fact that it refused any free and fair enquiry into the ‘encounter’ strengthens our conviction that the State does not wish the truth to be revealed. Our limited interest in Swami is only because he appears to be an apologist for the State. We have no personal interest in Swami, we assure his friends and well wishers. However it is entirely reasonable and justified for anyone to issue public statements against someone’s politics—and Swami’s politics is clearly Statist and strangely unquestioning for an investigative journalist. It is no crime to raise doubts about a certain kind of reportage which merely parrots the investigators’ claims; surely Swami is not alone in pushing the Home Ministry’s agenda, but he certainly is the undisputed king of this. To fear that one’s writings would be ‘challenged by those who don’t agree’ is intellectual dishonesty and crass arrogance at the least.



As for the Swami’s defence, we would like to submit the following:





I



Swami says that it’s no one’s business who the source of his story is; fair enough, though he shouldn’t baulk when he is criticized for consistent reliance on investigators and their dossiers alone. It is the accuracy of information, he says, which should be the issue. Very good! Except how do you measure the accuracy of statements such as these?



a) “Bored by the religious polemic, though, Bashar’s students [alleged IM bombers] turned instead to Anurag Kashyap’s movie Black Friday…” (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu)



b) “Early in the summer of 2004, investigators say, the core members of the network that was later to call itself the Indian Mujahideen met at Bhatkal’s beachfront to discuss their plans. Iqbal Shahbandri and Bhatkal-based cleric Shabbir Gangoli are alleged to have held ideological classes; the group also took time out to practice shooting with airguns. Bawa had overall charge of arrangements — a task that illustrated his status as the Bhatkal brothers’ most trusted lieutenant.” (The Rebirth of the Indian Mujahideen”, 19th April 2010, The Hindu)



One could provide an endless list of such assertions that Swami makes. The only source of this supposedly accurate information can be chargesheets (which to repeat what we said in the last post, are only chargesheets, not proven guilt) or custodial confessions.



On the question of the new footage, why does the Pune Police continue to be unimpressed with ATS’s naming of Bhatkal? Why do they say that the ATS is after “usual suspects’? (see http://epaper.mailtoday.in/Details.aspx?boxid=2310463&id=35313&issuedate...)





II



On the Batla House ‘encounter’, Swami responds thus:



The National Human Rights Commission studied the same evidence I did—and more which was not available when I wrote. It says: “…swabs which were taken from the right hands of Mohd Atif Ameen and Modh Sajid by the doctors at the time of post mortem in AIIMS were sent in sealed bottles to CFSL for dermal nitrate tests in the laboratory. The same were found to contain gun shot residue. This conclusively establishes that Mohd Atif Ameen and Mohd Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident”.[5] Unless it believes that the NHRC is an intelligence agency, the allegation made by the JTSA is untrue.



We have maintained and reiterate it even more strongly now, after the publication of the post mortem reports, that the National Human Rights Commission studied the evidence placed before it selectively, and willfully ignored all contrary evidence. The only so-called clinching evidence against the two slain boys is the presence of gun shot residue on their right hands, which in NHRC’s words quoted by Swami, “conclusively establishes that Atif and Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident.” However the presence of Gun shot residue (GSR) is hardly ‘conclusive’ evidence. For several years now, forensic scientists have cautioned against the enthusiasm of prosecutors to push for GSR as crucial evidence, for these reasons:

1) GSR is like a cloud of invisible particles, which can be inadvertently shaken off by the shooter with the shake of a hand, even a single swift movement or rubbing of hands etc. It easily transfers to clothes or car seats etc.

2) It is entirely possible for non-shooters to be contaminated by GSR. Police vehicles are particularly prone to GSR contamination and non shooters can likely acquire GSR traveling in vehicles ferrying shooters, or in which shooters have previously travelled. Indeed, experiments conducted by forensic scientists have revealed that even those non-shooters who entered a room a few minutes after there had been firing acquired GSR.



3) Particles that are ostensibly peculiar to GSR can be produced in ways other than fire shots, for example particles similar to GSR can be found in brake linings.



(Among others, see New Scientist, 23 November 2005, magazine issue 2527/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825274.300-why-we-cannot-rely-on-firearm-forensics.html?full=true)













So really, GSR is hardly the kind of clinching evidence that the NHRC, and following it, Swami would have us believe. Indeed, as the post mortem reports clearly demonstrate, the two boys were shot from a close range, making it that much easier for GSR to be deposited on their on their bodies.



Second, he responds to our charge of refusing to comment on the Batla House ‘encounter’ in light of the post-mortem reports:



I didn’t. I still don’t. Having studied the available evidence, the NHRC concluded: “In such circumstances, the action taken by the police party in which Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid received fatal injuries and died is fully protected by law”. [6] Parenthetically, I note that members of the Facebook group I believe the 2008 Batla House encounter was FAKE insist that “not only the JTSA report, but also NHRC (a statutory body of GOI) says that the encounter is fake”. [7] Either these people have not read the NHRC report—or are lying.



At the cost of repeating ourselves, we would like to place the following facts:



The NHRC’s ‘available evidence’ consisted of the statements of senior police officers:



1) R.R. Upadhayay, Additional Commissioner of Police, Vigilance;



2) Satish Chandra, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi;



3) Neeraj Thakur, DCP (Crime & Rly.), Delhi;



4) Karnail Singh, Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi.



These are the very same people who were being supposedly investigated. Not a single neighbour from Batla House or family member of the deceased was called for deposition to verify or cross check the police version despite them having filed applications wishing to testify before the Commission; the NHRC did not even bother to visit the site of the ‘encounter’. Mr. Swami may not find it of interest that the NHRC did not deem it necessary to investigate the presence of non-firearm ante-mortem injuries; neither did it exercise the NHRC that the two boys did not receive a single bullet injury in the frontal region of their bodies—or that such evidence does not square with the statements made by the senior police officers’ descriptions of the sequence of events in their notes to the NHRC.





III



On our raising of Swami’s linking of Bhatkal and IM to the Bangalore stadium blasts, Swami says:



Leaving aside the minor irony here—the JTSA’s great faith in an embarrassed BJP politician—there are two facts that need to be recorded. In pursuit of the government’s “betting mafia” story, the Karnataka Police arrested five Uttar Pradesh suspects. Those suspects were cleared of any involvement in the attacks by the Uttar Pradesh Police. [8] Second, I clearly identified that suspicions directed at Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa, a.k.a. Yasin Bhatkal, were based on what investigators were telling me. Similarity in bomb design is quite evidently reasonable ground for suspicion—though it is not of course proof. Since I have no independent expertise in bomb forensics, the information was clearly attributed to investigators. Its up to readers whether they want to believe them or not.



No body expects Swami to have independent expertise in bomb forensics, but independent reporting certainly. There were other journalists who were not buying the investigators’ story that the presence of easily available samay clocks could be proof alone of the omnipresent IM’s hand.



“But as far as the suspects are concerned, it is turning out to be an old game for the Karnataka police. They have zeroed in on Riyaz Bhatkal and Bilal—who have been blamed for any terror attack on any part of the state for the past four years.



The police do not have any evidence to link Bhatkal to the Bangalore blasts. The only premise on which their argument is based is the “similarity in planning the attacks”. Karnataka police's inability to make a breakthrough in the case has drawn flak.



“It is highly intriguing that the police have not made any major breakthrough. They are trying to find scapegoats and hence naming the usual suspects," said Rakesh Para, a former intelligence officer of the Karnataka police.”



( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/93651/India/IPL+betting+mafia+behind+twin+blasts:+K'taka+HM.html)



There were also others who were willing to cite alternate theories:



“Sources in Bangalore said the Indian Mujahideen is being linked to the April 17 bomb episode outside the cricket stadium largely on account of the presence of the clocks. “But as these clocks are easily available all over the country it is not easy to corroborate only on this basis or the usage of ammonium nitrate gel as the explosive,” said the sources.



Karnataka DGP Ajai Kumar Singh said: ‘We are looking at the similarities between these blasts and blasts in other parts of the country. There are however a lot of dissimilarities between these blasts and the July 25 serial blasts in Bangalore’.”



( http://www.indianexpress.com/news/clock-in-stadium-bombs-points-at-im/60...)



It is of course up to the readers to decide whether to believe the investigators or not, but surely by obfuscating other view points, Swami is telling his readers that the investigators information is the sole authoritative version of affairs.



On the link between SIMI and IM and terrorism, he further writes:



I’m a little uncertain here about precisely what the allegation is here—but think the JTSA has some problem with my suggesting that SIMI and the Indian Mujahideen are linked to terrorism. I’m in good company, I think, in this belief. Javed Anand had a must-read article on the issue some time back.[9] Yoginder Sikand had some good background earlier. [10] If you’re willing to fork out a few bucks for more detail, do read C. Christine Fair on the subject. [11] This is just a tiny part of a mass of literature—not including charge-sheets, trial records and so on—on the subject. You don’t need access to the Intelligence Services to access it—just a few hours in a good library.



Yes indeed, we have a problem with Swami’s linking of SIMI and IM’s connection with terrorism, but in particular with his linking of these groups to the stadium blasts. And we are not in bad company either. In August 2008, Justice Geeta Mittal, who headed the High Court Tribunal on the ban on SIMI asked the Centre to produce any “fresh material” to “connect” the organisation to “bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities”. She said: “You say that SIMI is connected to bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities. Place specific material before me, you (Centre) cannot presume their involvement.” JTSA finds SIMI’s ideology abhorrent, particularly its views on women, but that does not mean that we are willing to let them be hanged on charges of terror when there is no evidence to prove it.



Second, the IM’s links with SIMI are tenuous. The DGP of Gujarat, P.C. Pande provided a semantic link between SIMI and IM: “You remove S and I from ‘SIMI’ and you get IM, for Indian Mujahideen.” (Ahmedabad, Aug 16 2008, IANS) Well, it could as easily be argued that if you remove ‘B’ from IB and supplant it with ‘M’, you get IM.



The only proof of this shadowy organisation’s existence are the dubious emails sent in the aftermath of the blasts claiming responsibility, and the lengthy chargesheets filed by the various police departments.



We did not see any link between the life story about a supposed IM operative and the stadium blast, neither did Swami provide any in his rejoinder. As for trial records, Tehelka has done a series on SIMI which can be cited and which prove Swami’s confident assertions utterly wrong. These are also easily accessible on the Internet. Moreover, none of the IM trials have even begun for Swami to cite. As for forking out a few bucks for detail, don’t bother, because Christine Fair approvingly cites among others, Praveen Swami himself! Talk about friends in need, friends indeed!



We cannot speak for either the Facebook Page I Believe the 2008 Batla House Encounter was fake or the page, Shut up Praveen Swami as none of us are members of either of the pages, but cannot help noticing that the ‘Shut Up Praveen Swami’ page was hacked into and destroyed on 28th April 2010. When its creator, re-started the page on the same night, it was again hacked into on 30th April 2010.



PS: a member of the JTSA did indeed email the release to the Hindu on this email idopenpage@hindu.co.in on 27th April 2010. We would be grateful to the editors of the Hindu were they to publish the entire text of the exchange, including our rejoinder to Swami’s response. It is a little unfair to askus to circulate Swami’s email, as the Chief of Bureau asks us to in the name of ‘fairness’, when they have a newspaper and a weekly magazine at their disposal, which has always given Swami a free run.



Released by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (www.teacherssolidarity.org)

By Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association,




We are greatly surprised and also, one may add, a little amused at this display of victimhood on the part of Praveen Swami and his friends. It appears that we are to forget that Swami churns out one column after another in a national daily, week after week, giving detailed expositions of the guilt of those who are still awaiting trials. Ms Annie Zaidi in her letter to the editor of countercurrents, the website where our statement first appeared, seems so exercised by our accusations against Mr. Swami, but it does not concern her when her friend and ex-boss writes, to give just one example, about Abu Bashar, a poor maulana from Azamgarh, as a jihadist. (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu) Does she not realize that Bashar’s trial could be vitiated and prejudiced by Swami’s public indictments?





Our humble email campaign is being pitted as a grave injustice to Swami’s journalistic integrity, but the inequality between JTSA and the might of the Hindu group (and Swami’s clout within it) is apparent to anyone not ‘blinded by faith’. We may add here that Swami is an absolute non-entity for us. JTSA was formed in the aftermath of the Batla House ‘encounter’; when a group of teachers at Jamia Millia Islamia felt that the police story about the ‘encounter; was riddled with holes, and we came together to campaign for truth and justice. Our fight is against the State and its agencies, and the fact that it refused any free and fair enquiry into the ‘encounter’ strengthens our conviction that the State does not wish the truth to be revealed. Our limited interest in Swami is only because he appears to be an apologist for the State. We have no personal interest in Swami, we assure his friends and well wishers. However it is entirely reasonable and justified for anyone to issue public statements against someone’s politics—and Swami’s politics is clearly Statist and strangely unquestioning for an investigative journalist. It is no crime to raise doubts about a certain kind of reportage which merely parrots the investigators’ claims; surely Swami is not alone in pushing the Home Ministry’s agenda, but he certainly is the undisputed king of this. To fear that one’s writings would be ‘challenged by those who don’t agree’ is intellectual dishonesty and crass arrogance at the least.



As for the Swami’s defence, we would like to submit the following:





I



Swami says that it’s no one’s business who the source of his story is; fair enough, though he shouldn’t baulk when he is criticized for consistent reliance on investigators and their dossiers alone. It is the accuracy of information, he says, which should be the issue. Very good! Except how do you measure the accuracy of statements such as these?



a) “Bored by the religious polemic, though, Bashar’s students [alleged IM bombers] turned instead to Anurag Kashyap’s movie Black Friday…” (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu)



b) “Early in the summer of 2004, investigators say, the core members of the network that was later to call itself the Indian Mujahideen met at Bhatkal’s beachfront to discuss their plans. Iqbal Shahbandri and Bhatkal-based cleric Shabbir Gangoli are alleged to have held ideological classes; the group also took time out to practice shooting with airguns. Bawa had overall charge of arrangements — a task that illustrated his status as the Bhatkal brothers’ most trusted lieutenant.” (The Rebirth of the Indian Mujahideen”, 19th April 2010, The Hindu)



One could provide an endless list of such assertions that Swami makes. The only source of this supposedly accurate information can be chargesheets (which to repeat what we said in the last post, are only chargesheets, not proven guilt) or custodial confessions.



On the question of the new footage, why does the Pune Police continue to be unimpressed with ATS’s naming of Bhatkal? Why do they say that the ATS is after “usual suspects’? (see http://epaper.mailtoday.in/Details.aspx?boxid=2310463&id=35313&issuedate...)





II



On the Batla House ‘encounter’, Swami responds thus:



The National Human Rights Commission studied the same evidence I did—and more which was not available when I wrote. It says: “…swabs which were taken from the right hands of Mohd Atif Ameen and Modh Sajid by the doctors at the time of post mortem in AIIMS were sent in sealed bottles to CFSL for dermal nitrate tests in the laboratory. The same were found to contain gun shot residue. This conclusively establishes that Mohd Atif Ameen and Mohd Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident”.[5] Unless it believes that the NHRC is an intelligence agency, the allegation made by the JTSA is untrue.



We have maintained and reiterate it even more strongly now, after the publication of the post mortem reports, that the National Human Rights Commission studied the evidence placed before it selectively, and willfully ignored all contrary evidence. The only so-called clinching evidence against the two slain boys is the presence of gun shot residue on their right hands, which in NHRC’s words quoted by Swami, “conclusively establishes that Atif and Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident.” However the presence of Gun shot residue (GSR) is hardly ‘conclusive’ evidence. For several years now, forensic scientists have cautioned against the enthusiasm of prosecutors to push for GSR as crucial evidence, for these reasons:

1) GSR is like a cloud of invisible particles, which can be inadvertently shaken off by the shooter with the shake of a hand, even a single swift movement or rubbing of hands etc. It easily transfers to clothes or car seats etc.

2) It is entirely possible for non-shooters to be contaminated by GSR. Police vehicles are particularly prone to GSR contamination and non shooters can likely acquire GSR traveling in vehicles ferrying shooters, or in which shooters have previously travelled. Indeed, experiments conducted by forensic scientists have revealed that even those non-shooters who entered a room a few minutes after there had been firing acquired GSR.



3) Particles that are ostensibly peculiar to GSR can be produced in ways other than fire shots, for example particles similar to GSR can be found in brake linings.



(Among others, see New Scientist, 23 November 2005, magazine issue 2527/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825274.300-why-we-cannot-rely-on-firearm-forensics.html?full=true)













So really, GSR is hardly the kind of clinching evidence that the NHRC, and following it, Swami would have us believe. Indeed, as the post mortem reports clearly demonstrate, the two boys were shot from a close range, making it that much easier for GSR to be deposited on their on their bodies.



Second, he responds to our charge of refusing to comment on the Batla House ‘encounter’ in light of the post-mortem reports:



I didn’t. I still don’t. Having studied the available evidence, the NHRC concluded: “In such circumstances, the action taken by the police party in which Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid received fatal injuries and died is fully protected by law”. [6] Parenthetically, I note that members of the Facebook group I believe the 2008 Batla House encounter was FAKE insist that “not only the JTSA report, but also NHRC (a statutory body of GOI) says that the encounter is fake”. [7] Either these people have not read the NHRC report—or are lying.



At the cost of repeating ourselves, we would like to place the following facts:



The NHRC’s ‘available evidence’ consisted of the statements of senior police officers:



1) R.R. Upadhayay, Additional Commissioner of Police, Vigilance;



2) Satish Chandra, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi;



3) Neeraj Thakur, DCP (Crime & Rly.), Delhi;



4) Karnail Singh, Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi.



These are the very same people who were being supposedly investigated. Not a single neighbour from Batla House or family member of the deceased was called for deposition to verify or cross check the police version despite them having filed applications wishing to testify before the Commission; the NHRC did not even bother to visit the site of the ‘encounter’. Mr. Swami may not find it of interest that the NHRC did not deem it necessary to investigate the presence of non-firearm ante-mortem injuries; neither did it exercise the NHRC that the two boys did not receive a single bullet injury in the frontal region of their bodies—or that such evidence does not square with the statements made by the senior police officers’ descriptions of the sequence of events in their notes to the NHRC.





III



On our raising of Swami’s linking of Bhatkal and IM to the Bangalore stadium blasts, Swami says:



Leaving aside the minor irony here—the JTSA’s great faith in an embarrassed BJP politician—there are two facts that need to be recorded. In pursuit of the government’s “betting mafia” story, the Karnataka Police arrested five Uttar Pradesh suspects. Those suspects were cleared of any involvement in the attacks by the Uttar Pradesh Police. [8] Second, I clearly identified that suspicions directed at Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa, a.k.a. Yasin Bhatkal, were based on what investigators were telling me. Similarity in bomb design is quite evidently reasonable ground for suspicion—though it is not of course proof. Since I have no independent expertise in bomb forensics, the information was clearly attributed to investigators. Its up to readers whether they want to believe them or not.



No body expects Swami to have independent expertise in bomb forensics, but independent reporting certainly. There were other journalists who were not buying the investigators’ story that the presence of easily available samay clocks could be proof alone of the omnipresent IM’s hand.



“But as far as the suspects are concerned, it is turning out to be an old game for the Karnataka police. They have zeroed in on Riyaz Bhatkal and Bilal—who have been blamed for any terror attack on any part of the state for the past four years.



The police do not have any evidence to link Bhatkal to the Bangalore blasts. The only premise on which their argument is based is the “similarity in planning the attacks”. Karnataka police's inability to make a breakthrough in the case has drawn flak.



“It is highly intriguing that the police have not made any major breakthrough. They are trying to find scapegoats and hence naming the usual suspects," said Rakesh Para, a former intelligence officer of the Karnataka police.”



( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/93651/India/IPL+betting+mafia+behind+twin+blasts:+K'taka+HM.html)



There were also others who were willing to cite alternate theories:



“Sources in Bangalore said the Indian Mujahideen is being linked to the April 17 bomb episode outside the cricket stadium largely on account of the presence of the clocks. “But as these clocks are easily available all over the country it is not easy to corroborate only on this basis or the usage of ammonium nitrate gel as the explosive,” said the sources.



Karnataka DGP Ajai Kumar Singh said: ‘We are looking at the similarities between these blasts and blasts in other parts of the country. There are however a lot of dissimilarities between these blasts and the July 25 serial blasts in Bangalore’.”



( http://www.indianexpress.com/news/clock-in-stadium-bombs-points-at-im/60...)



It is of course up to the readers to decide whether to believe the investigators or not, but surely by obfuscating other view points, Swami is telling his readers that the investigators information is the sole authoritative version of affairs.



On the link between SIMI and IM and terrorism, he further writes:



I’m a little uncertain here about precisely what the allegation is here—but think the JTSA has some problem with my suggesting that SIMI and the Indian Mujahideen are linked to terrorism. I’m in good company, I think, in this belief. Javed Anand had a must-read article on the issue some time back.[9] Yoginder Sikand had some good background earlier. [10] If you’re willing to fork out a few bucks for more detail, do read C. Christine Fair on the subject. [11] This is just a tiny part of a mass of literature—not including charge-sheets, trial records and so on—on the subject. You don’t need access to the Intelligence Services to access it—just a few hours in a good library.



Yes indeed, we have a problem with Swami’s linking of SIMI and IM’s connection with terrorism, but in particular with his linking of these groups to the stadium blasts. And we are not in bad company either. In August 2008, Justice Geeta Mittal, who headed the High Court Tribunal on the ban on SIMI asked the Centre to produce any “fresh material” to “connect” the organisation to “bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities”. She said: “You say that SIMI is connected to bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities. Place specific material before me, you (Centre) cannot presume their involvement.” JTSA finds SIMI’s ideology abhorrent, particularly its views on women, but that does not mean that we are willing to let them be hanged on charges of terror when there is no evidence to prove it.



Second, the IM’s links with SIMI are tenuous. The DGP of Gujarat, P.C. Pande provided a semantic link between SIMI and IM: “You remove S and I from ‘SIMI’ and you get IM, for Indian Mujahideen.” (Ahmedabad, Aug 16 2008, IANS) Well, it could as easily be argued that if you remove ‘B’ from IB and supplant it with ‘M’, you get IM.



The only proof of this shadowy organisation’s existence are the dubious emails sent in the aftermath of the blasts claiming responsibility, and the lengthy chargesheets filed by the various police departments.



We did not see any link between the life story about a supposed IM operative and the stadium blast, neither did Swami provide any in his rejoinder. As for trial records, Tehelka has done a series on SIMI which can be cited and which prove Swami’s confident assertions utterly wrong. These are also easily accessible on the Internet. Moreover, none of the IM trials have even begun for Swami to cite. As for forking out a few bucks for detail, don’t bother, because Christine Fair approvingly cites among others, Praveen Swami himself! Talk about friends in need, friends indeed!



We cannot speak for either the Facebook Page I Believe the 2008 Batla House Encounter was fake or the page, Shut up Praveen Swami as none of us are members of either of the pages, but cannot help noticing that the ‘Shut Up Praveen Swami’ page was hacked into and destroyed on 28th April 2010. When its creator, re-started the page on the same night, it was again hacked into on 30th April 2010.



PS: a member of the JTSA did indeed email the release to the Hindu on this email idopenpage@hindu.co.in on 27th April 2010. We would be grateful to the editors of the Hindu were they to publish the entire text of the exchange, including our rejoinder to Swami’s response. It is a little unfair to askus to circulate Swami’s email, as the Chief of Bureau asks us to in the name of ‘fairness’, when they have a newspaper and a weekly magazine at their disposal, which has always given Swami a free run.



Released by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (www.teacherssolidarity.org)

By Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association,




We are greatly surprised and also, one may add, a little amused at this display of victimhood on the part of Praveen Swami and his friends. It appears that we are to forget that Swami churns out one column after another in a national daily, week after week, giving detailed expositions of the guilt of those who are still awaiting trials. Ms Annie Zaidi in her letter to the editor of countercurrents, the website where our statement first appeared, seems so exercised by our accusations against Mr. Swami, but it does not concern her when her friend and ex-boss writes, to give just one example, about Abu Bashar, a poor maulana from Azamgarh, as a jihadist. (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu) Does she not realize that Bashar’s trial could be vitiated and prejudiced by Swami’s public indictments?





Our humble email campaign is being pitted as a grave injustice to Swami’s journalistic integrity, but the inequality between JTSA and the might of the Hindu group (and Swami’s clout within it) is apparent to anyone not ‘blinded by faith’. We may add here that Swami is an absolute non-entity for us. JTSA was formed in the aftermath of the Batla House ‘encounter’; when a group of teachers at Jamia Millia Islamia felt that the police story about the ‘encounter; was riddled with holes, and we came together to campaign for truth and justice. Our fight is against the State and its agencies, and the fact that it refused any free and fair enquiry into the ‘encounter’ strengthens our conviction that the State does not wish the truth to be revealed. Our limited interest in Swami is only because he appears to be an apologist for the State. We have no personal interest in Swami, we assure his friends and well wishers. However it is entirely reasonable and justified for anyone to issue public statements against someone’s politics—and Swami’s politics is clearly Statist and strangely unquestioning for an investigative journalist. It is no crime to raise doubts about a certain kind of reportage which merely parrots the investigators’ claims; surely Swami is not alone in pushing the Home Ministry’s agenda, but he certainly is the undisputed king of this. To fear that one’s writings would be ‘challenged by those who don’t agree’ is intellectual dishonesty and crass arrogance at the least.



As for the Swami’s defence, we would like to submit the following:





I



Swami says that it’s no one’s business who the source of his story is; fair enough, though he shouldn’t baulk when he is criticized for consistent reliance on investigators and their dossiers alone. It is the accuracy of information, he says, which should be the issue. Very good! Except how do you measure the accuracy of statements such as these?



a) “Bored by the religious polemic, though, Bashar’s students [alleged IM bombers] turned instead to Anurag Kashyap’s movie Black Friday…” (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu)



b) “Early in the summer of 2004, investigators say, the core members of the network that was later to call itself the Indian Mujahideen met at Bhatkal’s beachfront to discuss their plans. Iqbal Shahbandri and Bhatkal-based cleric Shabbir Gangoli are alleged to have held ideological classes; the group also took time out to practice shooting with airguns. Bawa had overall charge of arrangements — a task that illustrated his status as the Bhatkal brothers’ most trusted lieutenant.” (The Rebirth of the Indian Mujahideen”, 19th April 2010, The Hindu)



One could provide an endless list of such assertions that Swami makes. The only source of this supposedly accurate information can be chargesheets (which to repeat what we said in the last post, are only chargesheets, not proven guilt) or custodial confessions.



On the question of the new footage, why does the Pune Police continue to be unimpressed with ATS’s naming of Bhatkal? Why do they say that the ATS is after “usual suspects’? (see http://epaper.mailtoday.in/Details.aspx?boxid=2310463&id=35313&issuedate...)





II



On the Batla House ‘encounter’, Swami responds thus:



The National Human Rights Commission studied the same evidence I did—and more which was not available when I wrote. It says: “…swabs which were taken from the right hands of Mohd Atif Ameen and Modh Sajid by the doctors at the time of post mortem in AIIMS were sent in sealed bottles to CFSL for dermal nitrate tests in the laboratory. The same were found to contain gun shot residue. This conclusively establishes that Mohd Atif Ameen and Mohd Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident”.[5] Unless it believes that the NHRC is an intelligence agency, the allegation made by the JTSA is untrue.



We have maintained and reiterate it even more strongly now, after the publication of the post mortem reports, that the National Human Rights Commission studied the evidence placed before it selectively, and willfully ignored all contrary evidence. The only so-called clinching evidence against the two slain boys is the presence of gun shot residue on their right hands, which in NHRC’s words quoted by Swami, “conclusively establishes that Atif and Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident.” However the presence of Gun shot residue (GSR) is hardly ‘conclusive’ evidence. For several years now, forensic scientists have cautioned against the enthusiasm of prosecutors to push for GSR as crucial evidence, for these reasons:

1) GSR is like a cloud of invisible particles, which can be inadvertently shaken off by the shooter with the shake of a hand, even a single swift movement or rubbing of hands etc. It easily transfers to clothes or car seats etc.

2) It is entirely possible for non-shooters to be contaminated by GSR. Police vehicles are particularly prone to GSR contamination and non shooters can likely acquire GSR traveling in vehicles ferrying shooters, or in which shooters have previously travelled. Indeed, experiments conducted by forensic scientists have revealed that even those non-shooters who entered a room a few minutes after there had been firing acquired GSR.



3) Particles that are ostensibly peculiar to GSR can be produced in ways other than fire shots, for example particles similar to GSR can be found in brake linings.



(Among others, see New Scientist, 23 November 2005, magazine issue 2527/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825274.300-why-we-cannot-rely-on-firearm-forensics.html?full=true)













So really, GSR is hardly the kind of clinching evidence that the NHRC, and following it, Swami would have us believe. Indeed, as the post mortem reports clearly demonstrate, the two boys were shot from a close range, making it that much easier for GSR to be deposited on their on their bodies.



Second, he responds to our charge of refusing to comment on the Batla House ‘encounter’ in light of the post-mortem reports:



I didn’t. I still don’t. Having studied the available evidence, the NHRC concluded: “In such circumstances, the action taken by the police party in which Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid received fatal injuries and died is fully protected by law”. [6] Parenthetically, I note that members of the Facebook group I believe the 2008 Batla House encounter was FAKE insist that “not only the JTSA report, but also NHRC (a statutory body of GOI) says that the encounter is fake”. [7] Either these people have not read the NHRC report—or are lying.



At the cost of repeating ourselves, we would like to place the following facts:



The NHRC’s ‘available evidence’ consisted of the statements of senior police officers:



1) R.R. Upadhayay, Additional Commissioner of Police, Vigilance;



2) Satish Chandra, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi;



3) Neeraj Thakur, DCP (Crime & Rly.), Delhi;



4) Karnail Singh, Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi.



These are the very same people who were being supposedly investigated. Not a single neighbour from Batla House or family member of the deceased was called for deposition to verify or cross check the police version despite them having filed applications wishing to testify before the Commission; the NHRC did not even bother to visit the site of the ‘encounter’. Mr. Swami may not find it of interest that the NHRC did not deem it necessary to investigate the presence of non-firearm ante-mortem injuries; neither did it exercise the NHRC that the two boys did not receive a single bullet injury in the frontal region of their bodies—or that such evidence does not square with the statements made by the senior police officers’ descriptions of the sequence of events in their notes to the NHRC.





III



On our raising of Swami’s linking of Bhatkal and IM to the Bangalore stadium blasts, Swami says:



Leaving aside the minor irony here—the JTSA’s great faith in an embarrassed BJP politician—there are two facts that need to be recorded. In pursuit of the government’s “betting mafia” story, the Karnataka Police arrested five Uttar Pradesh suspects. Those suspects were cleared of any involvement in the attacks by the Uttar Pradesh Police. [8] Second, I clearly identified that suspicions directed at Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa, a.k.a. Yasin Bhatkal, were based on what investigators were telling me. Similarity in bomb design is quite evidently reasonable ground for suspicion—though it is not of course proof. Since I have no independent expertise in bomb forensics, the information was clearly attributed to investigators. Its up to readers whether they want to believe them or not.



No body expects Swami to have independent expertise in bomb forensics, but independent reporting certainly. There were other journalists who were not buying the investigators’ story that the presence of easily available samay clocks could be proof alone of the omnipresent IM’s hand.



“But as far as the suspects are concerned, it is turning out to be an old game for the Karnataka police. They have zeroed in on Riyaz Bhatkal and Bilal—who have been blamed for any terror attack on any part of the state for the past four years.



The police do not have any evidence to link Bhatkal to the Bangalore blasts. The only premise on which their argument is based is the “similarity in planning the attacks”. Karnataka police's inability to make a breakthrough in the case has drawn flak.



“It is highly intriguing that the police have not made any major breakthrough. They are trying to find scapegoats and hence naming the usual suspects," said Rakesh Para, a former intelligence officer of the Karnataka police.”



( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/93651/India/IPL+betting+mafia+behind+twin+blasts:+K'taka+HM.html)



There were also others who were willing to cite alternate theories:



“Sources in Bangalore said the Indian Mujahideen is being linked to the April 17 bomb episode outside the cricket stadium largely on account of the presence of the clocks. “But as these clocks are easily available all over the country it is not easy to corroborate only on this basis or the usage of ammonium nitrate gel as the explosive,” said the sources.



Karnataka DGP Ajai Kumar Singh said: ‘We are looking at the similarities between these blasts and blasts in other parts of the country. There are however a lot of dissimilarities between these blasts and the July 25 serial blasts in Bangalore’.”



( http://www.indianexpress.com/news/clock-in-stadium-bombs-points-at-im/60...)



It is of course up to the readers to decide whether to believe the investigators or not, but surely by obfuscating other view points, Swami is telling his readers that the investigators information is the sole authoritative version of affairs.



On the link between SIMI and IM and terrorism, he further writes:



I’m a little uncertain here about precisely what the allegation is here—but think the JTSA has some problem with my suggesting that SIMI and the Indian Mujahideen are linked to terrorism. I’m in good company, I think, in this belief. Javed Anand had a must-read article on the issue some time back.[9] Yoginder Sikand had some good background earlier. [10] If you’re willing to fork out a few bucks for more detail, do read C. Christine Fair on the subject. [11] This is just a tiny part of a mass of literature—not including charge-sheets, trial records and so on—on the subject. You don’t need access to the Intelligence Services to access it—just a few hours in a good library.



Yes indeed, we have a problem with Swami’s linking of SIMI and IM’s connection with terrorism, but in particular with his linking of these groups to the stadium blasts. And we are not in bad company either. In August 2008, Justice Geeta Mittal, who headed the High Court Tribunal on the ban on SIMI asked the Centre to produce any “fresh material” to “connect” the organisation to “bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities”. She said: “You say that SIMI is connected to bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities. Place specific material before me, you (Centre) cannot presume their involvement.” JTSA finds SIMI’s ideology abhorrent, particularly its views on women, but that does not mean that we are willing to let them be hanged on charges of terror when there is no evidence to prove it.



Second, the IM’s links with SIMI are tenuous. The DGP of Gujarat, P.C. Pande provided a semantic link between SIMI and IM: “You remove S and I from ‘SIMI’ and you get IM, for Indian Mujahideen.” (Ahmedabad, Aug 16 2008, IANS) Well, it could as easily be argued that if you remove ‘B’ from IB and supplant it with ‘M’, you get IM.



The only proof of this shadowy organisation’s existence are the dubious emails sent in the aftermath of the blasts claiming responsibility, and the lengthy chargesheets filed by the various police departments.



We did not see any link between the life story about a supposed IM operative and the stadium blast, neither did Swami provide any in his rejoinder. As for trial records, Tehelka has done a series on SIMI which can be cited and which prove Swami’s confident assertions utterly wrong. These are also easily accessible on the Internet. Moreover, none of the IM trials have even begun for Swami to cite. As for forking out a few bucks for detail, don’t bother, because Christine Fair approvingly cites among others, Praveen Swami himself! Talk about friends in need, friends indeed!



We cannot speak for either the Facebook Page I Believe the 2008 Batla House Encounter was fake or the page, Shut up Praveen Swami as none of us are members of either of the pages, but cannot help noticing that the ‘Shut Up Praveen Swami’ page was hacked into and destroyed on 28th April 2010. When its creator, re-started the page on the same night, it was again hacked into on 30th April 2010.



PS: a member of the JTSA did indeed email the release to the Hindu on this email idopenpage@hindu.co.in on 27th April 2010. We would be grateful to the editors of the Hindu were they to publish the entire text of the exchange, including our rejoinder to Swami’s response. It is a little unfair to askus to circulate Swami’s email, as the Chief of Bureau asks us to in the name of ‘fairness’, when they have a newspaper and a weekly magazine at their disposal, which has always given Swami a free run.



Released by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (www.teacherssolidarity.org)

By Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association,




We are greatly surprised and also, one may add, a little amused at this display of victimhood on the part of Praveen Swami and his friends. It appears that we are to forget that Swami churns out one column after another in a national daily, week after week, giving detailed expositions of the guilt of those who are still awaiting trials. Ms Annie Zaidi in her letter to the editor of countercurrents, the website where our statement first appeared, seems so exercised by our accusations against Mr. Swami, but it does not concern her when her friend and ex-boss writes, to give just one example, about Abu Bashar, a poor maulana from Azamgarh, as a jihadist. (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu) Does she not realize that Bashar’s trial could be vitiated and prejudiced by Swami’s public indictments?





Our humble email campaign is being pitted as a grave injustice to Swami’s journalistic integrity, but the inequality between JTSA and the might of the Hindu group (and Swami’s clout within it) is apparent to anyone not ‘blinded by faith’. We may add here that Swami is an absolute non-entity for us. JTSA was formed in the aftermath of the Batla House ‘encounter’; when a group of teachers at Jamia Millia Islamia felt that the police story about the ‘encounter; was riddled with holes, and we came together to campaign for truth and justice. Our fight is against the State and its agencies, and the fact that it refused any free and fair enquiry into the ‘encounter’ strengthens our conviction that the State does not wish the truth to be revealed. Our limited interest in Swami is only because he appears to be an apologist for the State. We have no personal interest in Swami, we assure his friends and well wishers. However it is entirely reasonable and justified for anyone to issue public statements against someone’s politics—and Swami’s politics is clearly Statist and strangely unquestioning for an investigative journalist. It is no crime to raise doubts about a certain kind of reportage which merely parrots the investigators’ claims; surely Swami is not alone in pushing the Home Ministry’s agenda, but he certainly is the undisputed king of this. To fear that one’s writings would be ‘challenged by those who don’t agree’ is intellectual dishonesty and crass arrogance at the least.



As for the Swami’s defence, we would like to submit the following:





I



Swami says that it’s no one’s business who the source of his story is; fair enough, though he shouldn’t baulk when he is criticized for consistent reliance on investigators and their dossiers alone. It is the accuracy of information, he says, which should be the issue. Very good! Except how do you measure the accuracy of statements such as these?



a) “Bored by the religious polemic, though, Bashar’s students [alleged IM bombers] turned instead to Anurag Kashyap’s movie Black Friday…” (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu)



b) “Early in the summer of 2004, investigators say, the core members of the network that was later to call itself the Indian Mujahideen met at Bhatkal’s beachfront to discuss their plans. Iqbal Shahbandri and Bhatkal-based cleric Shabbir Gangoli are alleged to have held ideological classes; the group also took time out to practice shooting with airguns. Bawa had overall charge of arrangements — a task that illustrated his status as the Bhatkal brothers’ most trusted lieutenant.” (The Rebirth of the Indian Mujahideen”, 19th April 2010, The Hindu)



One could provide an endless list of such assertions that Swami makes. The only source of this supposedly accurate information can be chargesheets (which to repeat what we said in the last post, are only chargesheets, not proven guilt) or custodial confessions.



On the question of the new footage, why does the Pune Police continue to be unimpressed with ATS’s naming of Bhatkal? Why do they say that the ATS is after “usual suspects’? (see http://epaper.mailtoday.in/Details.aspx?boxid=2310463&id=35313&issuedate...)





II



On the Batla House ‘encounter’, Swami responds thus:



The National Human Rights Commission studied the same evidence I did—and more which was not available when I wrote. It says: “…swabs which were taken from the right hands of Mohd Atif Ameen and Modh Sajid by the doctors at the time of post mortem in AIIMS were sent in sealed bottles to CFSL for dermal nitrate tests in the laboratory. The same were found to contain gun shot residue. This conclusively establishes that Mohd Atif Ameen and Mohd Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident”.[5] Unless it believes that the NHRC is an intelligence agency, the allegation made by the JTSA is untrue.



We have maintained and reiterate it even more strongly now, after the publication of the post mortem reports, that the National Human Rights Commission studied the evidence placed before it selectively, and willfully ignored all contrary evidence. The only so-called clinching evidence against the two slain boys is the presence of gun shot residue on their right hands, which in NHRC’s words quoted by Swami, “conclusively establishes that Atif and Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident.” However the presence of Gun shot residue (GSR) is hardly ‘conclusive’ evidence. For several years now, forensic scientists have cautioned against the enthusiasm of prosecutors to push for GSR as crucial evidence, for these reasons:

1) GSR is like a cloud of invisible particles, which can be inadvertently shaken off by the shooter with the shake of a hand, even a single swift movement or rubbing of hands etc. It easily transfers to clothes or car seats etc.

2) It is entirely possible for non-shooters to be contaminated by GSR. Police vehicles are particularly prone to GSR contamination and non shooters can likely acquire GSR traveling in vehicles ferrying shooters, or in which shooters have previously travelled. Indeed, experiments conducted by forensic scientists have revealed that even those non-shooters who entered a room a few minutes after there had been firing acquired GSR.



3) Particles that are ostensibly peculiar to GSR can be produced in ways other than fire shots, for example particles similar to GSR can be found in brake linings.



(Among others, see New Scientist, 23 November 2005, magazine issue 2527/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825274.300-why-we-cannot-rely-on-firearm-forensics.html?full=true)













So really, GSR is hardly the kind of clinching evidence that the NHRC, and following it, Swami would have us believe. Indeed, as the post mortem reports clearly demonstrate, the two boys were shot from a close range, making it that much easier for GSR to be deposited on their on their bodies.



Second, he responds to our charge of refusing to comment on the Batla House ‘encounter’ in light of the post-mortem reports:



I didn’t. I still don’t. Having studied the available evidence, the NHRC concluded: “In such circumstances, the action taken by the police party in which Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid received fatal injuries and died is fully protected by law”. [6] Parenthetically, I note that members of the Facebook group I believe the 2008 Batla House encounter was FAKE insist that “not only the JTSA report, but also NHRC (a statutory body of GOI) says that the encounter is fake”. [7] Either these people have not read the NHRC report—or are lying.



At the cost of repeating ourselves, we would like to place the following facts:



The NHRC’s ‘available evidence’ consisted of the statements of senior police officers:



1) R.R. Upadhayay, Additional Commissioner of Police, Vigilance;



2) Satish Chandra, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi;



3) Neeraj Thakur, DCP (Crime & Rly.), Delhi;



4) Karnail Singh, Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi.



These are the very same people who were being supposedly investigated. Not a single neighbour from Batla House or family member of the deceased was called for deposition to verify or cross check the police version despite them having filed applications wishing to testify before the Commission; the NHRC did not even bother to visit the site of the ‘encounter’. Mr. Swami may not find it of interest that the NHRC did not deem it necessary to investigate the presence of non-firearm ante-mortem injuries; neither did it exercise the NHRC that the two boys did not receive a single bullet injury in the frontal region of their bodies—or that such evidence does not square with the statements made by the senior police officers’ descriptions of the sequence of events in their notes to the NHRC.





III



On our raising of Swami’s linking of Bhatkal and IM to the Bangalore stadium blasts, Swami says:



Leaving aside the minor irony here—the JTSA’s great faith in an embarrassed BJP politician—there are two facts that need to be recorded. In pursuit of the government’s “betting mafia” story, the Karnataka Police arrested five Uttar Pradesh suspects. Those suspects were cleared of any involvement in the attacks by the Uttar Pradesh Police. [8] Second, I clearly identified that suspicions directed at Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa, a.k.a. Yasin Bhatkal, were based on what investigators were telling me. Similarity in bomb design is quite evidently reasonable ground for suspicion—though it is not of course proof. Since I have no independent expertise in bomb forensics, the information was clearly attributed to investigators. Its up to readers whether they want to believe them or not.



No body expects Swami to have independent expertise in bomb forensics, but independent reporting certainly. There were other journalists who were not buying the investigators’ story that the presence of easily available samay clocks could be proof alone of the omnipresent IM’s hand.



“But as far as the suspects are concerned, it is turning out to be an old game for the Karnataka police. They have zeroed in on Riyaz Bhatkal and Bilal—who have been blamed for any terror attack on any part of the state for the past four years.



The police do not have any evidence to link Bhatkal to the Bangalore blasts. The only premise on which their argument is based is the “similarity in planning the attacks”. Karnataka police's inability to make a breakthrough in the case has drawn flak.



“It is highly intriguing that the police have not made any major breakthrough. They are trying to find scapegoats and hence naming the usual suspects," said Rakesh Para, a former intelligence officer of the Karnataka police.”



( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/93651/India/IPL+betting+mafia+behind+twin+blasts:+K'taka+HM.html)



There were also others who were willing to cite alternate theories:



“Sources in Bangalore said the Indian Mujahideen is being linked to the April 17 bomb episode outside the cricket stadium largely on account of the presence of the clocks. “But as these clocks are easily available all over the country it is not easy to corroborate only on this basis or the usage of ammonium nitrate gel as the explosive,” said the sources.



Karnataka DGP Ajai Kumar Singh said: ‘We are looking at the similarities between these blasts and blasts in other parts of the country. There are however a lot of dissimilarities between these blasts and the July 25 serial blasts in Bangalore’.”



( http://www.indianexpress.com/news/clock-in-stadium-bombs-points-at-im/60...)



It is of course up to the readers to decide whether to believe the investigators or not, but surely by obfuscating other view points, Swami is telling his readers that the investigators information is the sole authoritative version of affairs.



On the link between SIMI and IM and terrorism, he further writes:



I’m a little uncertain here about precisely what the allegation is here—but think the JTSA has some problem with my suggesting that SIMI and the Indian Mujahideen are linked to terrorism. I’m in good company, I think, in this belief. Javed Anand had a must-read article on the issue some time back.[9] Yoginder Sikand had some good background earlier. [10] If you’re willing to fork out a few bucks for more detail, do read C. Christine Fair on the subject. [11] This is just a tiny part of a mass of literature—not including charge-sheets, trial records and so on—on the subject. You don’t need access to the Intelligence Services to access it—just a few hours in a good library.



Yes indeed, we have a problem with Swami’s linking of SIMI and IM’s connection with terrorism, but in particular with his linking of these groups to the stadium blasts. And we are not in bad company either. In August 2008, Justice Geeta Mittal, who headed the High Court Tribunal on the ban on SIMI asked the Centre to produce any “fresh material” to “connect” the organisation to “bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities”. She said: “You say that SIMI is connected to bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities. Place specific material before me, you (Centre) cannot presume their involvement.” JTSA finds SIMI’s ideology abhorrent, particularly its views on women, but that does not mean that we are willing to let them be hanged on charges of terror when there is no evidence to prove it.



Second, the IM’s links with SIMI are tenuous. The DGP of Gujarat, P.C. Pande provided a semantic link between SIMI and IM: “You remove S and I from ‘SIMI’ and you get IM, for Indian Mujahideen.” (Ahmedabad, Aug 16 2008, IANS) Well, it could as easily be argued that if you remove ‘B’ from IB and supplant it with ‘M’, you get IM.



The only proof of this shadowy organisation’s existence are the dubious emails sent in the aftermath of the blasts claiming responsibility, and the lengthy chargesheets filed by the various police departments.



We did not see any link between the life story about a supposed IM operative and the stadium blast, neither did Swami provide any in his rejoinder. As for trial records, Tehelka has done a series on SIMI which can be cited and which prove Swami’s confident assertions utterly wrong. These are also easily accessible on the Internet. Moreover, none of the IM trials have even begun for Swami to cite. As for forking out a few bucks for detail, don’t bother, because Christine Fair approvingly cites among others, Praveen Swami himself! Talk about friends in need, friends indeed!



We cannot speak for either the Facebook Page I Believe the 2008 Batla House Encounter was fake or the page, Shut up Praveen Swami as none of us are members of either of the pages, but cannot help noticing that the ‘Shut Up Praveen Swami’ page was hacked into and destroyed on 28th April 2010. When its creator, re-started the page on the same night, it was again hacked into on 30th April 2010.



PS: a member of the JTSA did indeed email the release to the Hindu on this email idopenpage@hindu.co.in on 27th April 2010. We would be grateful to the editors of the Hindu were they to publish the entire text of the exchange, including our rejoinder to Swami’s response. It is a little unfair to askus to circulate Swami’s email, as the Chief of Bureau asks us to in the name of ‘fairness’, when they have a newspaper and a weekly magazine at their disposal, which has always given Swami a free run.



Released by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (www.teacherssolidarity.org)

By Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association,




We are greatly surprised and also, one may add, a little amused at this display of victimhood on the part of Praveen Swami and his friends. It appears that we are to forget that Swami churns out one column after another in a national daily, week after week, giving detailed expositions of the guilt of those who are still awaiting trials. Ms Annie Zaidi in her letter to the editor of countercurrents, the website where our statement first appeared, seems so exercised by our accusations against Mr. Swami, but it does not concern her when her friend and ex-boss writes, to give just one example, about Abu Bashar, a poor maulana from Azamgarh, as a jihadist. (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu) Does she not realize that Bashar’s trial could be vitiated and prejudiced by Swami’s public indictments?





Our humble email campaign is being pitted as a grave injustice to Swami’s journalistic integrity, but the inequality between JTSA and the might of the Hindu group (and Swami’s clout within it) is apparent to anyone not ‘blinded by faith’. We may add here that Swami is an absolute non-entity for us. JTSA was formed in the aftermath of the Batla House ‘encounter’; when a group of teachers at Jamia Millia Islamia felt that the police story about the ‘encounter; was riddled with holes, and we came together to campaign for truth and justice. Our fight is against the State and its agencies, and the fact that it refused any free and fair enquiry into the ‘encounter’ strengthens our conviction that the State does not wish the truth to be revealed. Our limited interest in Swami is only because he appears to be an apologist for the State. We have no personal interest in Swami, we assure his friends and well wishers. However it is entirely reasonable and justified for anyone to issue public statements against someone’s politics—and Swami’s politics is clearly Statist and strangely unquestioning for an investigative journalist. It is no crime to raise doubts about a certain kind of reportage which merely parrots the investigators’ claims; surely Swami is not alone in pushing the Home Ministry’s agenda, but he certainly is the undisputed king of this. To fear that one’s writings would be ‘challenged by those who don’t agree’ is intellectual dishonesty and crass arrogance at the least.



As for the Swami’s defence, we would like to submit the following:





I



Swami says that it’s no one’s business who the source of his story is; fair enough, though he shouldn’t baulk when he is criticized for consistent reliance on investigators and their dossiers alone. It is the accuracy of information, he says, which should be the issue. Very good! Except how do you measure the accuracy of statements such as these?



a) “Bored by the religious polemic, though, Bashar’s students [alleged IM bombers] turned instead to Anurag Kashyap’s movie Black Friday…” (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 23, 2010, The Hindu)



b) “Early in the summer of 2004, investigators say, the core members of the network that was later to call itself the Indian Mujahideen met at Bhatkal’s beachfront to discuss their plans. Iqbal Shahbandri and Bhatkal-based cleric Shabbir Gangoli are alleged to have held ideological classes; the group also took time out to practice shooting with airguns. Bawa had overall charge of arrangements — a task that illustrated his status as the Bhatkal brothers’ most trusted lieutenant.” (The Rebirth of the Indian Mujahideen”, 19th April 2010, The Hindu)



One could provide an endless list of such assertions that Swami makes. The only source of this supposedly accurate information can be chargesheets (which to repeat what we said in the last post, are only chargesheets, not proven guilt) or custodial confessions.



On the question of the new footage, why does the Pune Police continue to be unimpressed with ATS’s naming of Bhatkal? Why do they say that the ATS is after “usual suspects’? (see http://epaper.mailtoday.in/Details.aspx?boxid=2310463&id=35313&issuedate...)





II



On the Batla House ‘encounter’, Swami responds thus:



The National Human Rights Commission studied the same evidence I did—and more which was not available when I wrote. It says: “…swabs which were taken from the right hands of Mohd Atif Ameen and Modh Sajid by the doctors at the time of post mortem in AIIMS were sent in sealed bottles to CFSL for dermal nitrate tests in the laboratory. The same were found to contain gun shot residue. This conclusively establishes that Mohd Atif Ameen and Mohd Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident”.[5] Unless it believes that the NHRC is an intelligence agency, the allegation made by the JTSA is untrue.



We have maintained and reiterate it even more strongly now, after the publication of the post mortem reports, that the National Human Rights Commission studied the evidence placed before it selectively, and willfully ignored all contrary evidence. The only so-called clinching evidence against the two slain boys is the presence of gun shot residue on their right hands, which in NHRC’s words quoted by Swami, “conclusively establishes that Atif and Sajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident.” However the presence of Gun shot residue (GSR) is hardly ‘conclusive’ evidence. For several years now, forensic scientists have cautioned against the enthusiasm of prosecutors to push for GSR as crucial evidence, for these reasons:

1) GSR is like a cloud of invisible particles, which can be inadvertently shaken off by the shooter with the shake of a hand, even a single swift movement or rubbing of hands etc. It easily transfers to clothes or car seats etc.

2) It is entirely possible for non-shooters to be contaminated by GSR. Police vehicles are particularly prone to GSR contamination and non shooters can likely acquire GSR traveling in vehicles ferrying shooters, or in which shooters have previously travelled. Indeed, experiments conducted by forensic scientists have revealed that even those non-shooters who entered a room a few minutes after there had been firing acquired GSR.



3) Particles that are ostensibly peculiar to GSR can be produced in ways other than fire shots, for example particles similar to GSR can be found in brake linings.



(Among others, see New Scientist, 23 November 2005, magazine issue 2527/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825274.300-why-we-cannot-rely-on-firearm-forensics.html?full=true)













So really, GSR is hardly the kind of clinching evidence that the NHRC, and following it, Swami would have us believe. Indeed, as the post mortem reports clearly demonstrate, the two boys were shot from a close range, making it that much easier for GSR to be deposited on their on their bodies.



Second, he responds to our charge of refusing to comment on the Batla House ‘encounter’ in light of the post-mortem reports:



I didn’t. I still don’t. Having studied the available evidence, the NHRC concluded: “In such circumstances, the action taken by the police party in which Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid received fatal injuries and died is fully protected by law”. [6] Parenthetically, I note that members of the Facebook group I believe the 2008 Batla House encounter was FAKE insist that “not only the JTSA report, but also NHRC (a statutory body of GOI) says that the encounter is fake”. [7] Either these people have not read the NHRC report—or are lying.



At the cost of repeating ourselves, we would like to place the following facts:



The NHRC’s ‘available evidence’ consisted of the statements of senior police officers:



1) R.R. Upadhayay, Additional Commissioner of Police, Vigilance;



2) Satish Chandra, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi;



3) Neeraj Thakur, DCP (Crime & Rly.), Delhi;



4) Karnail Singh, Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi.



These are the very same people who were being supposedly investigated. Not a single neighbour from Batla House or family member of the deceased was called for deposition to verify or cross check the police version despite them having filed applications wishing to testify before the Commission; the NHRC did not even bother to visit the site of the ‘encounter’. Mr. Swami may not find it of interest that the NHRC did not deem it necessary to investigate the presence of non-firearm ante-mortem injuries; neither did it exercise the NHRC that the two boys did not receive a single bullet injury in the frontal region of their bodies—or that such evidence does not square with the statements made by the senior police officers’ descriptions of the sequence of events in their notes to the NHRC.





III



On our raising of Swami’s linking of Bhatkal and IM to the Bangalore stadium blasts, Swami says:



Leaving aside the minor irony here—the JTSA’s great faith in an embarrassed BJP politician—there are two facts that need to be recorded. In pursuit of the government’s “betting mafia” story, the Karnataka Police arrested five Uttar Pradesh suspects. Those suspects were cleared of any involvement in the attacks by the Uttar Pradesh Police. [8] Second, I clearly identified that suspicions directed at Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa, a.k.a. Yasin Bhatkal, were based on what investigators were telling me. Similarity in bomb design is quite evidently reasonable ground for suspicion—though it is not of course proof. Since I have no independent expertise in bomb forensics, the information was clearly attributed to investigators. Its up to readers whether they want to believe them or not.



No body expects Swami to have independent expertise in bomb forensics, but independent reporting certainly. There were other journalists who were not buying the investigators’ story that the presence of easily available samay clocks could be proof alone of the omnipresent IM’s hand.



“But as far as the suspects are concerned, it is turning out to be an old game for the Karnataka police. They have zeroed in on Riyaz Bhatkal and Bilal—who have been blamed for any terror attack on any part of the state for the past four years.



The police do not have any evidence to link Bhatkal to the Bangalore blasts. The only premise on which their argument is based is the “similarity in planning the attacks”. Karnataka police's inability to make a breakthrough in the case has drawn flak.



“It is highly intriguing that the police have not made any major breakthrough. They are trying to find scapegoats and hence naming the usual suspects," said Rakesh Para, a former intelligence officer of the Karnataka police.”



( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/93651/India/IPL+betting+mafia+behind+twin+blasts:+K'taka+HM.html)



There were also others who were willing to cite alternate theories:



“Sources in Bangalore said the Indian Mujahideen is being linked to the April 17 bomb episode outside the cricket stadium largely on account of the presence of the clocks. “But as these clocks are easily available all over the country it is not easy to corroborate only on this basis or the usage of ammonium nitrate gel as the explosive,” said the sources.



Karnataka DGP Ajai Kumar Singh said: ‘We are looking at the similarities between these blasts and blasts in other parts of the country. There are however a lot of dissimilarities between these blasts and the July 25 serial blasts in Bangalore’.”



( http://www.indianexpress.com/news/clock-in-stadium-bombs-points-at-im/60...)



It is of course up to the readers to decide whether to believe the investigators or not, but surely by obfuscating other view points, Swami is telling his readers that the investigators information is the sole authoritative version of affairs.



On the link between SIMI and IM and terrorism, he further writes:



I’m a little uncertain here about precisely what the allegation is here—but think the JTSA has some problem with my suggesting that SIMI and the Indian Mujahideen are linked to terrorism. I’m in good company, I think, in this belief. Javed Anand had a must-read article on the issue some time back.[9] Yoginder Sikand had some good background earlier. [10] If you’re willing to fork out a few bucks for more detail, do read C. Christine Fair on the subject. [11] This is just a tiny part of a mass of literature—not including charge-sheets, trial records and so on—on the subject. You don’t need access to the Intelligence Services to access it—just a few hours in a good library.



Yes indeed, we have a problem with Swami’s linking of SIMI and IM’s connection with terrorism, but in particular with his linking of these groups to the stadium blasts. And we are not in bad company either. In August 2008, Justice Geeta Mittal, who headed the High Court Tribunal on the ban on SIMI asked the Centre to produce any “fresh material” to “connect” the organisation to “bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities”. She said: “You say that SIMI is connected to bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities. Place specific material before me, you (Centre) cannot presume their involvement.” JTSA finds SIMI’s ideology abhorrent, particularly its views on women, but that does not mean that we are willing to let them be hanged on charges of terror when there is no evidence to prove it.



Second, the IM’s links with SIMI are tenuous. The DGP of Gujarat, P.C. Pande provided a semantic link between SIMI and IM: “You remove S and I from ‘SIMI’ and you get IM, for Indian Mujahideen.” (Ahmedabad, Aug 16 2008, IANS) Well, it could as easily be argued that if you remove ‘B’ from IB and supplant it with ‘M’, you get IM.



The only proof of this shadowy organisation’s existence are the dubious emails sent in the aftermath of the blasts claiming responsibility, and the lengthy chargesheets filed by the various police departments.



We did not see any link between the life story about a supposed IM operative and the stadium blast, neither did Swami provide any in his rejoinder. As for trial records, Tehelka has done a series on SIMI which can be cited and which prove Swami’s confident assertions utterly wrong. These are also easily accessible on the Internet. Moreover, none of the IM trials have even begun for Swami to cite. As for forking out a few bucks for detail, don’t bother, because Christine Fair approvingly cites among others, Praveen Swami himself! Talk about friends in need, friends indeed!



We cannot speak for either the Facebook Page I Believe the 2008 Batla House Encounter was fake or the page, Shut up Praveen Swami as none of us are members of either of the pages, but cannot help noticing that the ‘Shut Up Praveen Swami’ page was hacked into and destroyed on 28th April 2010. When its creator, re-started the page on the same night, it was again hacked into on 30th April 2010.



PS: a member of the JTSA did indeed email the release to the Hindu on this email idopenpage@hindu.co.in on 27th April 2010. We would be grateful to the editors of the Hindu were they to publish the entire text of the exchange, including our rejoinder to Swami’s response. It is a little unfair to askus to circulate Swami’s email, as the Chief of Bureau asks us to in the name of ‘fairness’, when they have a newspaper and a weekly magazine at their disposal, which has always given Swami a free run.



Released by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (www.teacherssolidarity.org)