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 10)
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 backthe 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
