---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: manisha sethi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Group
Some Questions for the Delhi Police and Embedded 'Journalists'
The last few days have seen the Delhi Police "returning fire" at the critics
of the Jamia Nagar encounter. Pressured by the mounting skepticism about
police claims, the Delhi Police have now responded with a new round of
theories and stories, which nevertheless remain as riddled with holes, as
their earlier version(s). *Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Group *responds to the
latest Police claims.
*1) The police was caught by surprise. Or was it?*
In its response to the questions being raised by the civil society, the
police say, "the presence of armed terrorists took them by surprise." "The
police did not expect an encounter at L-
18." *(Indian Express *October 9)
However, Praveen Swami in his "Alice in wonderland" article in *The
Hindu *(October
10) writes that "the investigators learned that top commander 'Bashir' and
his assault armed squad left Ahmedabad on July 26 for a safe house at Jamia
Nagar." Further he says, "the investigators came to believe that Atif Amin
either provided Bashir shelter or the two were one and the same person."
*Surely, there can be only one truth:*
a) The police knew that a "top commander" and his "armed assault team "was
residing in L-
18 (as claimed confidently by Swami). In which case, the Special Cell's
almost cavalier
approach is inexplicable — unless we accept Swami's contention that
Inspector Sharma's
team did as well as it could "given their resources and training".
While Swami and his ilk may rue the lack of "state of the art surveillance
equipment" that can be found in United States or Europe, surely, even Third
World police can use, upon knowledge that "dreaded terrorists" are holed up
in a house, methods such as sealing the building, and making public
announcements asking them to surrender.
b) The Police went to L-18 merely for investigation and was ambushed. In
which case, isn't
it surprising that it took them only a few hours to crack nearly all cases
of bomb blasts that
have occurred across the country? It was of course inconvenient for UP,
Gujarat, Rajasthan
and Maharashtra state police, who had been claiming their own successes in
uncovering their
'masterminds'.
The Police commissioner Y.S. Dadwal announced at a news conference the same
day that "Atif was the mastermind behind all the recent serial blasts," and
that he had plotted the Saturday blasts... was also involved in the
Ahmedabad blasts on July 26, Jaipur blasts on May 13, and one of the August
25 blasts last year in Hyderabad. Sajid was described as bomb-maker.
"Explosives made by him and his team bore their signature — two detonators,
wooden frame, ammonium nitrate and analog quartz clocks," Dadwal said
*(HindustanTimes,
*20 September). The question is that, the Police which did not even expect
an 'encounter' in the
morning, was able to say with confidence that the bombs used in Delhi
blasts bore the 'signature' of the slain Sajid by evening.
*The Police must pick one of these 'truths'. It cannot claim both to be true
**simultaneously.*
*2) The puzzle of the Bullet Proof Jacket*
Again, the Delhi Police has not made up its mind on this one. JCP, Karnail
Singh and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Cell) Alok Kumar have
reiterated that the Special Cell team members were not wearing BPVs.
["Entering a crowded locality would alert the suspects and give them time to
escape" *{Indian Express *Oct 9); "To maintain secrecy in a cramped area
like Batla House." (*Tehelka *Oct 4)]*.*
*However, now we are also told that some police men were wearing Bullet
proof vests.*
This new version has appeared following the outcry after the publication of
pictures of Sajid's body, which clearly show that he had been shot
repeatedly in the head. Such bullet injuries suggest that he could have been
killed from extreme close range while he was crouching or kneeling. This it
self raises a huge question mark over the 'encounter'. "Senior police
sources" now claim that Sajid was "lying on the floor when he opened fire at
a cop. The cop, unlike Inspector Sharma, was wearing a bulletproof vest. He
retaliated by firing a burst from his AK-47, which hit Sajid on his
head." *(Times
of India, *Oct 8).
Neat. It explains why and how Sajid was killed. And also, why the cop in
question was not as much as injured when Sajid was supposedly firing at him.
But it doesn't square with the line the Delhi Police have been pushing up
till now, that Inspector Sharma's men did *not *deliberately wear bullet
proof vests. Nor with the claim that the Special team was "armed only with
small arms". (The Hindu, October *1*0)
*Nonetheless, the Delhi Police must clearly make up its mind if the cops
that day were wearing Bullet proof vests or not?*
*3) Corroborative evidence?*
Believe it or not, the evidence in support of their claim that the boys
living in L-18 were terrorists, the police presents a *bucket, adhesive tape
and a bag! **(Indian Express, *Oct 9). The bucket was used to keep bombs
(but was presumably empty at the time of'seizure'); the adhesive tape was
used to seal the explosives (!!!); and finally the bag was used to carry the
bombs (but again presumably empty when the police 'recovered' it).
Let it be noted that legal requirements were flouted with regard to
seizures. The police is required to prepare a seizure list of all items
recovered from the site and it should be attested by two public witnesses
unconnected with the police. Given that a huge crowd had gathered at the
site, surely, the police could have sought the assistance of members of the
public. And why does L-18 continue to remain sealed?
4) *Injuries and Bullets:*
Photographs of the bodies of Atif and Sajid, taken during the ritual bathing
before burial clearly indicate injury marks on the bodies. These marks could
definitely not have been caused by bullets. The skin on Atif s back is
ripped off. What caused these injury marks? Were they captured before they
were eliminated? The Police is now citing the elusive post mortem report,
saying that the two did not have any injuries on them apart from those caused
by bullets, in order to buttress their claim of the "shootout being
genuine". *(TOI, *Oct 9). The documentary proof of the existence of such
marks on the bodies however belies their claims.
Rattled by the photographs of an injured Inspector Sharma being escorted
from the L-18 building, where no blood stain is visible on the front, the
Police have stated that he was hit from the front as "one bullet hit him in
the left shoulder and exited through the left arm; the other hit the right
side of the abdomen, exiting through the hip." *(The Hindu, *October 10) For
this reason, they argue, the bleeding was from the back—the points of exit.
However, according to a senior doctor who conducted the postmortem on
Inspector MC Sharma at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, "It was
difficult to establish the entry and exit points of the bullet because
conclusive evidence had been wiped out by the interventions of the doctors
at Holy Family [where Sharma was rushed to]." *(Tehelka, *October 4).
But at least one enthusiastic journalist doesn't stop here. He tells us that
the "abdomen wound was inflicted with Amin's weapon and the shoulder hit, by
Mohammad Sajid". And how does he know? "The investigators believe that." *(The
Hindu, *October 10)And he believes the investigators. Has he seen a copy of
the post mortem? Or the videography of the post mortem? What bullets were
fired upon Inspector Sharma? What was the weapon that killed Sajid and Atif?
*Why are the post mortem reports of Inspector Sharma and Atif and Sajid not
being **made public?*
*5 "Over confident terrorists":*
In response to why these supposed 'terrorists' left a trail of
identification marks which would have made them sitting ducks, the police
have a simple answer. They were over confident.
*(Indian Express, *October 9)
These boys (aged 17 years — 24 years) were so confident that they had their
tenant verifications done in which they provided their genuine addresses;
Atif had his driving license made by providing his genuine details; carried
out blasts and returned home coolly to watch their exploits on television;
felt no need to flee or change residences frequently; bought sim cards in
their own names; registered as students in schools and institutions; sat for
examinations midway through planning and executing blasts. And yet, these
masterminds had no inkling of the special cell surveillance, and indeed
helpfully stored material such as photographs of blast sites on their
laptops and cell phones, so that their guilt could be proved promptly by the
police whenever they were caught.
Mr. Praveen Swami writes that that "the allegations leveled over the
encounter tell us more about the critics than the event itself." Sure, we
are skeptics, unwilling to lap up everything that comes forth from "police
sources", senior or otherwise; but what does taking dictations from the
Special Cell tell us about you, Mr. 'journalist'?
Our doubts remain. Our questions unanswered. Only a time bound, independent
inquiry under the sitting judge of the Supreme Court can illumine the truth.
What does the Delhi Police and the Government have to fear if the truth is
on their side?
**
* Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Group*
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
