Senior intelligence officer (RAW), the late B Raman, expressed deep concern over some aspects of the charges made by investigating agencies against some Hindus accused of acts of terrorism against Muslims.
Writing on August 7, 2010, Raman noted (Arrest of some Hindus as Terrorists: Curiouser & Curiouser) that in July 2009, the US Department of Treasury revealed details of four persons (a Pashtun born in Afghanistan, two Punjabis and Arif Qasmani from Karachi) associated with the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). The Department under Executive Order 13224 said these men had provided “direct support to Al Qaeda and the LeT” and facilitated terrorist attacks, including the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai.
The US explicitly said that Arif Qasmani was involved in the Mumbai 2006 train blasts and Samjhauta Express blast of February 2007 at Panipat, India. It said Qasmani was the chief coordinator for LeT’s dealings with outside organizations, and raised funds for it in 2005. Money received from Dawood Ibrahim was used for the July 2006 train bombing.
Since 2001, the US Treasury Department said, Arif Qasmani provided financial and other help to al Qaida, including facilitating movement of al Qaida leaders and personnel in and out of Afghanistan; the return of foreign fighters to their respective countries; and provision of supplies and weapons. In return, al Qaida provided Qasmani operatives for the July 2006 Mumbai train bombing and Samjhauta Express bombing.
Regarding Hindus arrested for suspected involvement in the Ajmer Sharif and Mecca Masjid blasts, Raman observed that the US State Department on August 6, 2010, issued public notifications designating the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI) of Pakistan as a foreign terrorist organisation and its operative Ilyas Kashmiri as an international terrorist. On US advice, similar action was taken the same day by the anti-terrorism sanctions committee of the UN Security Council.
American journalist Peter Fowler observed that, in March 2006, HuJI was responsible for the suicide bombing of the US Consulate in Karachi, which killed four people and injured 48 others. It was responsible for terrorist attacks in India including the May 2007 Hyderabad mosque attack, which killed 16 and injured 40, and the March 2007 Varanasi attack, which killed 25 and injured 100.
Raman observes that according to American investigators, who have better sources in Pakistan, the LeT and Al Qaeda were responsible for the Samjhauta Express blast, and HuJI for the Mecca Masjid blast. So how can Indian investigators claim that some Hindus were responsible for these incidents? Raman called for a thorough investigation into the two versions emanating from Indian and American investigators, as both cannot be correct.
In November 2011, Raman lamented that politicization and communalization of probes in terrorism-related cases since 2006 had paralysed the investigative machinery at State and Central levels (Malegaon: Politicisation & Communalisation of Investigation). He regretted that barring the successful investigation and prosecution of the November 2008 Mumbai terror attack, Indian agencies had failed to detect any subsequent terror strikes in any city and could not successfully prosecute any of the major terrorist incidents before 26/11. This has helped the terrorists involved in these strikes to remain at large and possibly plan more strikes.
The worst confusion pertains to the September 8, 2006 blasts in Malegaon where 31 persons, mostly Muslims, died. The Maharashtra ATS completed the investigation in record time and on December 20, 2006, filed a charge sheet against nine Muslims with alleged links with the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT).
But the State Government handed over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after complaints from minority representatives and political parties. The CBI and later, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) claimed that the Malegaon blasts of 2006 as also terrorist strikes in Hyderabad, Malegaon (2008), Ajmer Sharif and on board the Samjhauta Express were the handiwork of Hindus seeking reprisal against Muslims for jihadi terrorism.
The original charges of the ATS against the arrested Muslims and the subsequent charges of the CBI and NIA against arrested Hindus relied mainly on uncorroborated confessions. There was no scientific investigation with painstaking collection of circumstantial and forensic evidence either by the State Police or by the central agencies, Raman rued.
Naturally, those who ‘confessed’ subsequently retracted. This has left the Malegaon 2006 case “hanging in mid-air”, with the investigation failing to move ahead against either the arrested Muslims or Hindus. Neither the State Police nor the NIA have the moral courage to admit that the investigations against the arrested Muslims by the State Police and against the arrested Hindus by the Central agencies have been “very badly botched up” and that there is now no possibility of the truth being found out.
The investigation by both agencies is only a series of allegations, insinuations and conjectures, but no legal evidence that can stand scrutiny in a court of law. This has led to the “intriguing spectacle” of the NIA not opposing bail applications from the nine Muslims originally arrested by the Maharashtra ATS, yet refraining from ordering closure of the investigation against them by submitting a Final Report in the case. This would help the Muslims released on bail to be “deemed innocent” – neither accused nor suspects. But NIA has put them under the status of “no longer accused, but still suspects”, denying them honour in the eyes of society.
This is equally true of the Hindus arrested for ‘reprisal terrorism’. Apart from the retracted confession of Swami Aseemanand, there is hardly any circumstantial and forensic evidence against them. And yet they are treated as suspects as well as accused. The mitigatory yardstick followed for Muslims has not been applied to Hindu suspects, one of whom is a religious lady. The Government of India seems to feel it is all right to be harsh with Hindus, but not with Muslims. This deplorable double standard in the application of the same laws of criminal procedure could promote mutual anger amongst the communities and thus play into the hands of jihadi terrorists and their Pakistani sponsors.
Raman accused the Government of eying the Muslim votebank in the then forthcoming assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh. That is why Muslims were released while Hindus against whom no case could be made continue to languish in custody.
Finally, on June 30, 2012, (Malegaon blast of 2008: Need for an independent enquiry), Raman expressed dismay at the manner in which the investigation into the Malegaon 2008 blast was getting murkier and murkier.
From information available in the public domain, two things are clear. One that the blast was not carried out by any jihadi organisation (i.e. crude bombs were used, not RDX as later insinuated in several press reports). Two, the act seemed to be a retaliation for terrorist acts in different parts of India by suspected Hindus from an organisation called Abhinav Bharat (not the registered charity trust).
What is most dubious, however, is the role of Lt Col Prasad Purohit, a serving officer of Military Intelligence. It is not clear if at the time of arrest he was serving in the Directorate-General of Military Intelligence (DGMI), which comes under the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), or in the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which comes under the chief of the Integrated Defence Staff.
Purohit was arrested by the Maharashtra ATS as a fellow-conspirator and accomplice of the arrested Hindus of Abhinav Bharat. The NIA has taken over the investigation, and there is a separate in-house enquiry by the Army into the role of Purohit.
According to a report by NDTV on June 29, 2012, Purohit denied before the in-house enquiry that he was a fellow-conspirator or accomplice. He instead claimed that he was trying to penetrate Abhinav Bharat to collect intelligence about its activities in his capacity as a military intelligence officer and with the knowledge of his bosses. The NDTV website carried a detailed report on this subject by its correspondent Nitin Gokhale.
In this report, Gokhale said that during the in-house probe, over 50 Army personnel testified that Purohit was an infiltrator and not a conspirator, who had been assigned to collect evidence about right-wing terror groups. They said the Army had wrongly handed him over to the ATS without conducting its own probe. “From the very beginning, Lt Col Purohit has claimed that he had kept his bosses informed of his activities which included attending meetings of the Abhinav Bharat. But if the officer was operating on behalf of the military, the Army has to figure out why his tip-offs on rising right-wing extremism in areas like Nashik, Malegaon were not shared with other agencies.”
The reason, notes Raman, is that military intelligence (DGMI or DIA) has been collecting intelligence about the activities of Indian citizens from certain organisations in areas not affected by insurgency of any kind, by penetrating their organisations. While military intelligence is authorised to collect tactical intelligence through human and technical means in areas where the Army has a counter-insurgency role as in Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East, it is not permissible for military intelligence to collect intelligence through any means, particularly through penetration of Indian organisations run by Indian citizens, in areas where there is no such insurgency.
Only the Intelligence Bureau and the intelligence wings of the State Police are authorised to run such operations. Even the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) is not empowered to do so.
That, Raman believes, is why military intelligence has refrained from defending Purohit in this case, as it would have to admit illegal intelligence operations against Indian citizens by penetrating Indian organisations.
Given the multiple threats facing the nation, we must strengthen our intelligence capabilities, but the legal limits to intelligence collection must be respected if we are not to degenerate into a police state.
This is why we must know the truth about Purohit’s claim that military intelligence was running clandestine operations against Indian citizens in the country. Who authorised them, and who is the ultimate source to whom the intelligence is furnished?
Niticentral.com, 24 June 2013
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/06/24/b-raman-knew-hindu-terrorism-from-real-terrorism-94390.html
