Hindu Terror

by RVS Mani

  Immediately after, within a few days, a ‘Hindu Terror’ case came on records. One Sameer Kulkarni of Nanded was allegedly storing explosives in his workshop, which exploded on 20.4.2006. Later, the case was handed over to the CBI. In the investigation, it was found that Kulkarni was actually running some small business in his workshop and as is generally prevalent, when there is lull in business in small towns, some people set fire to their workshops to make a false insurance claim. As per reports, Kulkarni used to also visit the Bajrang Dal office in Nanded.

  The supervisory officer and senior management of CBI, however, refused to change their findings. An officer, who was tipped to be the next Director of the CBI, was penalised and not made the Director. There was no charge framed in this case by the CBI and the case was brought to an abrupt end. However, the facts can be verified from the media reports of the time.

  The Sabarmati Express narrative

  It may look out of place, but this is also a rebuttal to Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS, who said that he was attending a meeting in the Chief Minister’s chamber on 28.2.2002. Often Bhatt has falsely claimed to have been present in a meeting chaired by the then Chief Minister of Gujarat (now Prime Minister Narendra Modi) on the day after the unfortunate incident of burning of some sleeper coaches of the Sabarmati Express at the Godhra Railway Station.

  Bhatt has alleged that this meeting was attended by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Principal Chief Secretaries, Commissioners, Inspectors General, DIGs etc. Sanjiv Bhatt has alleged that the Chief Minister had directed the officers to ‘let the Hindus vent their anger’. I can aver that Bhatt is blatantly lying.

  In case such a meeting was ever held and he was in attendance, in the meeting obviously the front rows would have been occupied by the Additional Chief Secretaries, Principal Secretaries, Director General of Police, Additional Directors General of Police, and in any space still unoccupied by higherranking officials, there may be seated one or two Secretaries/ Commissioners/ Inspectors General etc.

  Anyone who is conversant with hierarchical protocols and conventions of bureaucracy can visualise the location of Bhatt in the meeting room and his distance from the Chairman of the meeting. Also, despite conference microphones being available, the audibility of the Chair’s observations would have been extremely weak to a person sitting in Bhatt’s purported hierarchical location, given the general vice in government conference rooms where the previous speaker almost always forgets to switch off the mike, making the observation of succeeding speakers almost inaudible. It is on the basis of my long experience as a government official that I am questioning Bhatt’s statement that the then CM had said what Bhatt alleges, he did.

  Furthermore, my long innings in civil service has also taught me that every meeting is minuted. The said meeting would also have been minuted and the minutes would have contained the list of persons attending the meeting. This list is captured through an attendance sheet circulated in every such meeting. This sheet is also circulated in the first row first, and in that serial order. Hence, the order of the names of attendees in the list also, in a broad sense, reflects the distance from the Chairman of the meeting. People may rest assured that in case any civil servant is found throwing about any proximity to any Minister, he is surely lying. We have a lot of them in Delhi known as ‘powerbrokers’ with a common refrain that ‘so-and-so was drinking in my flat’.

  The rights of Dakini-Chakini

  Was Nanded the first such story planted in the pliant media? Manifestly yes. Throwing direct accusations, I believe yes. However, the majority community has been indirectly tarnished for long.

  At the time he was the Chief Minister of the combined State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, Digvijay Singh was no innocent. One part of the State of Chhattisgarh to date continues to be ravaged by Naxal violence as an aftermath of his policies.

  Great hermit and seer Agastya, in his southern quest, had come across two rivers which were revered as Mother Goddess. They were as much revered as mother Ganga. These two rivers are called Chakini and Dakini. In his famous work Lalitha Sahasranamam (1000 praises to the Goddess), the Goddess mother is referred to as Chakiniamba swaroopini (she who adopts the form of Chakini) and also Dakiniswari (she who is the Goddess form of Dakini). They flow in Chhattisgarh. These two rivers were vital source of supply of not just water to the community there. A lot of livelihood issues of the local community were linked to these two rivers.

  A central public sector undertaking, the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC), had started its mining activities in the region. These are known as the Bailadila Iron Ore Mines, Bacheli, Kirandul and Donimalai Mines. Effluent from these mines were dumped in these rivers over a period of time. Digvijay Singh, who was Chief Minister in 2000-2001, was reportedly flagged on this. No redeeming action was taken on the part of this political leader as Chief Minister. The waters in these rivers became poisonous over a period of time due to unabated dumping of toxins.5 The local community protested and when their grievances were not mitigated, the attendant unrest was violent, the aftereffects of which are still being felt in the region.

  5 Maureen Nandini Mitra, Downtoearth, Center for Science and Environment Sunday 31 December 2006 reported:

  Rivers Shankhini and Dankini in Chhattisgarh run dirty. There have been some attempts to address the situation, but none have been followed through to the end. In 1990, the Union government’s science and technology cell reported that reckless exploitation of the mines and release of effluent into the rivers had damaged not just the rivers but also 35,000 hectares of agricultural and forest land around Bailadila. People from about 100 villages used the polluted Shankhini and Dankini waters for their daily needs. Four years later, the then Madhya Pradesh government declared that 65 villages along the Shankhini and Dankini were affected by the polluted waters and ordered NMDC to dig some 200 wells to provide safe drinking water for these villages. The wells were dug all right but were too shallow, not one of them is functional today. NMDC officials, of course, don’t have to worry about their drinking water.

  No Medha Patkars, Arundhatis, Aruna Roys, Priya Pillais, Harsh Manders and other human rights advocates ever took up the issues of the local people here as there was no funding for any protests here. Surely livelihoods could be lost. ‘Bhaar mein jaaye livelihood. Bhaar mein jaaye human rights. Apne ko roti sekni hai, woh bhi secular roti.’

  The bulldozing of this particular project was surely a force multiplier, aggravating the Naxal problem in the region. One of the human rights activists active in the Naxal region and who is an academic, Bela Bhatia, is known for her tirade against the local government as well as the present union government (both under BJP rule). One of her premise is, human exploitation is the reason for problems plaguing the State of Chhattisgarh. Her husband, Jean Drèze, has been a member of the powerful National Advisory Council during the UPA regime. He did nothing in this regard. Was this just omission or was this by design to give Naxals an excuse?

  These cases are not closed yet

  THE LACK OF involvement of the top brass in security issues can be gauged from the fact that the scourge of fake currency being circulated through many ATMs all over the country were being reported since 2006. MHA had many inputs on this. But the first concrete standard operating procedure (SOP) was devised after a new Home Secretary, Madhukar Gupta, took over in June-July 2007.

  It took another six months of elaborate work by MHA on his initiative and only in January 2008 were the State governments finally ordered to take concrete steps to control this menace. The irony of the times was such that in 2006-7, both, the Union Home Minister and Union Home Secretary, appeared unconcerned with security matters. Their involvement did not appear total. We had a committed L C Goyal as Joint Secretary in the Internal Security Division and G S Rajagopal as an excellent Special Secretary (Internal Security), positions always earmarked for two of the most senior IPS officers in the country. I do not know whether they were delegated the authority to t
ake decisive action or they were also struggling to really be heard by the Home Minister and the Home Secretary. But the Special Secretary shortly seized his opportunity to get a posting as Director of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, a position befitting his erudition. We always imagined him more as a professor than as a police officer.

  I, therefore, had to learn my first steps on the ‘reactive action to be taken’ in the event of a terror attack in a real time situation. I cut my teeth with the 11 July incidents. But the 11.7.2006 Mumbai train attacks were only the beginning.

  Mumbai 11/7/2006 and aftermath

  Ill exposed as I may have been to handling the documentation and gazetting of any terror attack at the time of Varanasi in March 2006, I was to meet these challenges very soon.

  On 11 July 2006, seven serial blasts occurred in First Class compartments of Mumbai suburban trains causing death of 187 people (including one Pakistani who had planted the bomb) and injuries to about 872 people.

  The Mumbai police Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) chargesheeted 13 Indian nationals on 30 November 2006 for these serial blasts. All these 13 accused have been arrested by the police. Subsequently, on 1 December 2006, 15 wanted accused (10 Pakistanis and 5 Indians) were chargesheeted. The MCOCA designated court, Mumbai has issued Non Bailable Warrants against these 15 absconders. Out of these 15, Red Corner Notices have been issued against Rahil Sheikh and Rizwan Mohammad Dawrey. One Pakistani who was involved in the case was killed in a police encounter in Mumbai.

  These are facts available in the police records, court records and public domain. But what is salient here and needs to be noted is that it took nearly five months for the ATS, which was directly mandated to investigate and identify the perpetrators, to do their jobs. This particular time line is revisited while I detail the performance of the same ATS in the Malegaon (2008) case.

  I had left the office at the time the 11.7.2006 train attack reports came in. Joint Secretary Goyal, who was in office when the reports came in, had gone over to Mumbai that night itself and returned to Delhi in the morning. He had reported directly to the office. I was not very sure of my exact role in the aftermath. When I reached office on 12.7.2006 morning, he called me into the office and briefed me in detail on the action to be taken. In fact, since he had not slept in the night, when he told me that the survivor information could be had from the K B Bhabha Hospital, I misheard the name and he was irritated due to lack of sleep.

  The Director (IS), P K Mishra, had gone to Japan for a workshop on biological terrorism and was expected to be in Delhi not before 14.7.2006. Knowing our excellent relationships, the Joint Secretary tersely told me to get the job done as quickly as possible. More than being reported to my Director, it was my esteem at stake. I collected and collated every information regarding the train attacks, the casualties, the survivor information, the possible evidences left behind, the progress reported by the State police (ATS etc) as first respondents to the event, the details of documentation they had etc. and also internally looked at whether any input had been received from our sister agencies, any sharing of the inputs through general or specific advisories etc. I collected all these detailed information and put them together in a report for the Joint Secretary as he had desired.

  After thorough examination and two or three returns for correction, confirmation and modification, this report was sent to the office of Special Secretary (IS), Rajagopal, the Union Home Secretary and the then Home Minister.

  Malegaon after Mumbai

  In the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai train attacks came the Malegaon incidents in September of the same year.

  Original information received from the State police was that it was the handiwork of an extremely orthodox Islamic group known as Ahl-e-Hadith (known in India as the Ahl-e-Hadees). This was the first time I had heard of such a sub group within Islamic society. This group is said to live by the edicts of Islam and by the shariat law. They are committed to the establishment of Islamic order and Islamic state in India and the world over. I do not know whether the present ISIS is an extension of this Ahl-e-Hadith. The preliminary inquiry by the local police had concluded that Malegaon was the work of Ahl-e-Hadith.

  If I remember correctly, on 8.9.2006, our full team was present in the department. By this time, I too had become familiar with the procedures of acquiring information. On this occasion, I directly obtained all the information from the SP (Rural), Nashik, Maharashtra. According to information obtained from the Police Department of Maharashtra, as per the confessions of those arrested, the accused persons belonged to the Students Islamic Movement of India, SIMI, a banned organisation.

  Initial information received:

  On 8.9.2006, four bomb explosions occurred in Malegaon which resulted in the killing of 31 persons and injuries to 312 persons. 9 persons have been arrested in this case and 4 others are absconding. A chargesheet was filed on 21.12.2006 by the ATS Mumbai against the accused persons. According to the confessions, the accused persons belong to SIMI, a banned organisation. There were riots in Malegaon in 2001-02 in which the Muslim community suffered and police allegedly acted against them, as per their confessions. The accused, therefore, conspired to take revenge from the police, Government and the other community and decided to get weapons from abroad. After the Mumbai blasts of 2006, RDX and other implements for making bombs were brought from Mumbai to Malegaon. The occasion for these blasts was carefully chosen so as to incite communal riots in Malegaon. The two arrested accused namely, Shabir Masiullah and Sheikh Mohd Ali Alam Sheikh, had been to Pakistan for weapons training in 2006. The case is now being investigated by CBI. The investigating agency has one eye-witness to the case and one of the accused has turned approver. CBI is seeking the sanction of the competent authority under MCOCA and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as amended in 2004 (UAPA) for the special court to take cognizance of the case.

  The information above are also available in the police records, court records and public domain. In addition, now and then, different bits of evidences/records of these have been displayed/quoted in various national news channels like Times Now, Republic TV, Newsx etc. The famous Nagori (of SIMI) tapes which were telecast reinforces this.

  Samjhauta Express blast

  This was followed by the Samjautha Express blast. This was internationally noticed as this particular train service was started as a symbol of amity between the two feuding neighbours. In this case, I obtained the first-level information from SP (Railways and Crime) Panipat, Haryana.

  The initial revelations :

  On the intervening night of 18/19-2-2007 at about 11.40 pm there was a blast in train No. 4001 Samjhauta Express (Delhi to Attari) in which two bogies were burnt near Diwana, (Panipat) in Haryana. As a result of which 68 passengers died and 12 others were injured. Only 48 bodies could be identified out of which 39 were Pak nationals and 9 Indians. A case FIR No.28 dated 19-02-2007 u/s 302/307/124-A/438/446 IPC and u/s 3/4/6 Explosives Act 150/151/152 Railway Act u/s 3 and 4 of Prevention and damage of public property Act has been registered in Police Station GRP, Karnal. During checking, two live time bombs were recovered in two different suitcases along with bottles of kerosene oil, which were disposed off by the Bomb Disposal Team. A special investigation team was constituted. The evidence from the blasts site of Samjhauta Express led the Police to Indore, M.P., from where they also detained two persons from whom the terrorists had purchased the bags/ covers in which the bombs were placed. However, no further lead could be given by these two detained persons, hence they were released.

  A Karachi-based terrorist outfit claimed responsibility for the attack at that time. A special investigation team was constituted. In June 2016, in NewsX, the first responder to the event, Bharti Arora, IPS, then SP (Police and Railways) of Panipat, confirmed the finds. Recently, the Inspector who is the investigating officer in the case has also reaffirmed this on television. These are the confirmations available in the public domain. The Nagori narco tapes, which wer
e also telecast by Times Now, reaffirms this position.

  Interestingly, there is a reference to the Samjhauta blast case included in the series of dossiers shared with Pakistan on every bilateral mechanism. Isn’t this an official acknowledgement of Pakistani involvement? Basically, the dossier is entitled, ‘Dossier on fugitives from Indian law living in Pakistan’.

  The then official position (in 2007) was that this attack was carried out by an Indian group and some Indians had to stand trial for it (Sameer Kulkarni, Pragya Bharati, Purohit, Aseemananda and others). If that was the position, then why did this incident get included in the Pak dossier? The box of paradox explodes in the face of the then government when answers are sought to my questions. This would perhaps accord a clear opportunity to Pakistanis to grandstand. Or was it an escape route being offered to Pakistan to get away with the charge of fermenting terror in India, because anyone can ask these questions.

  Mecca Masjid blasts

  Initial information obtained:

  On May 18, 2007 a bomb blast took place in Mecca Masjid near Charminar in Hyderabad wherein 9 persons were killed and 58 others injured. The case is now being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. CBI has reported that the inquiry in respect of the SIM Card found in the mobile phone used in the unexploded device has revealed that it was issued in West Bengal. The person in whose name the SIM Card was issued and the address given at the time of application of the SIM Card were found to be non-existent. The driving licence given as a proof of identity was also found to be forged. The investigation has also revealed that other SIM Cards have also been purchased using similar forged ID proofs. Enquiry has also revealed that the mobile phone instrument was purchased from Faridabad and further enquiry in this regard is being made. A reward of Rs 2 lakh has been declared for information on the blast. It is further informed that a number of SIM Cards were procured by those involved in the case on the basis of fake ID proofs from Jharkhand and West Bengal. It has been gathered that Mohd. Shahid @ Bilal, a resident of Hydrabad and LeT/JeM activist was behind this incident and that the explosive was placed by one Hamza @ Kanchan @ Sharifuddin, a Bangladeshi who is also wanted in a case by Delhi police.6