A tale of two encounters: Dehradun and Batla House

MANISH SETHI & ADEEL MEHDI
Countercurrents.org

Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Group (JTSG) extends its heart-felt condolences to the family of Ranbir Singh, the youth who was killed in a police encounter in Dehradun last week. This encounter again brings to the fore the trigger happy ways of the Indian police who kill and torture for medals and promotions. We demand exemplary punishment for the guilty policemen.

However, the manner in which the Indian State and the mainstream political parties have responded to the encounter in Dehradun is in striking contrast to the reaction to the shooting down of two young men in Batla House in Delhi last September. Both encounters were followed by mass anger and upsurge which spilled onto the streets of the capital cities of Uttarakhand and the country. While the ‘secular’ Congress has put its weight behind the agitation in Uttrakhand, joining the peoples’ demand for fair probe and crying foul over human rights violation, the BJP not to be left behind in the Human Rights race sent its emissary in the form of BJP President’s and Ghaziabad MP’s son to the family of the slain youth to reassure them that the probe into the encounter would be fair and independent, without the involvement of the accused Dehradun Police. A CB-CID enquiry has already been ordered and all police men involved in the shootout have been charged for murder.

Recall now the jingoist hysteria created by Congress and BJP alike, aided by a section of pliant media, in which all calls for independent and impartial enquiry in the Batla House encounter were branded as unpatriotic and downright insulting of the bravery of Special Cell cops. The Congress, which today preens on the retrieval of its minority vote, persistently bulldozed all demands for a probe into the Batla House ‘encounter’. So much so, that even the simple, procedural requirement for a magisterial enquiry was subverted through the Lieutenant Governor, who refused to grant permission for an enquiry on flimsy grounds. The post mortem reports of the deceased—the killed boys as well as Inspector Sharma—have been accorded the status of State secret.

So, what could be the reason for this speedy demonstration of justice for Ranbir Singh, and the obstinate refusal to concede to the widespread demand for an enquiry into the killings of Atif Ameen and Mohammad Sajid? Except that Atif and Sajid fall in that unfortunate category of ‘encounterables’—those whose killings can be justified, explained, and remain unmourned by our society and polity. It is all right to snuff out the lives of young men as long as they are drawn from a certain demographic and reside in areas identified as ghettoes. What we are being told here is that Atifs and Sajids cannot claim the framework of democratic rights—the only framework that they must exist in is that of national security.

JTSG reiterates its demand for a judicial probe into the Batla House incident, and the application of the same standards of justice for Atif and Sajid as those applied in the unfortunate and tragic case of Ranbir Singh.

The authors teach at Jamia Millia Islamia, and are attached to Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Group

Report on Batla House encounter rips apart police stories

MUMTAZ ALAM FALAHI
TwoCircles.net

New Delhi: Full five months since the globally much publicized Batla House encounter, the mystery over it still remains as the police just confused the public and contradicted their old versions whenever they came up to explain what happened on that day. The much-awaited report on the shootout, rigorously prepared by a dedicated team of Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Group in the inspiring leadership of Manisha Sethi, just rips apart all police stories about the encounter.

The report, based on police statements, press reports, testimonies of families and friends of the accused, both dead and detained, and other documentary evidence, highlights the numerous contradictions in the police version(s) about the encounter and the accusations.

The 65-page report, published in a book form, was made public today in a program at Jamia Millia Islamia, attended by novelist and writer Arundhati Roy, Supreme Court lawyer Collin Gonzalves, JMI V-C Prof Mushirul Hasan, Ansal Plaza encounter witness Dr Hari Kishan and ex-RSS pracharak and now full time human rights activist Jugal Kishore Shastri from Ayodhya.

In her opening remark Manisha Sethi, leading soul of the teachers' group, lambasted the government for not ordering judicial probe into the encounter even when there are deep holes in the police version of the shootout. Since September 19, 2008 – the day when the encounter took place at House No. L-18 in Batla House area in New Delhi's Jamia Nagar, killing two suspected terrorists Atif Amin and Muhammad Sajid, both from Azamgarh, Sethi's team has held various meetings, rallies, dharnas and public hearings on the encounter to highlight the discrepancies in the police theory and press the government for enquiry.

Noted writer Arundhati Roy said police atrocities, custodial killings and tortures and encounters seem to be result of a sort of collusion between police, media and judiciary. She also blamed the Bollywood – referring to films like Mukhbir and A Wednesday – for making publicly acceptable custodial atrocities and killings and encoutners. "That is the reason when I and other people questioned the Batla House encounter, we were called anti-national and gaddar," she said while reiterating her demand for judicial probe into the shootout.

Eminent Supreme Court lawyer Collin Gonzalves criticized the so-called secular government of UPA at the centre for rewarding Delhi Police Inspector M C Sharma with Ashok Chakra, as grave charges have been leveled against him in several earlier cases including Ansal Plaza encounter. While demanding judicial probe into the Batla shootout he said encounter killing is a murder which is an unnatural death, and for every such death, according to the law, an FIR has to be filed against those involved in the killing. He also said that anyone could be behind the terror attacks in the country – Muslims, Hindus or even police.

While recounting the police atrocities he had to face as he, being a witness to the Ansal Plaza encounter, stood up to say a spade a spade, Dr Hari Krishna compared today's police with Ravana who had become so notorious that he did not spare even Lord Rama's wife. He urged JMI V-C, being like father of the students, file a murder case under Article 302 against the policemen involved in the killing of the two youths, who were Jamia students.

Ex-RSS pracharak and Ayodhya ki Awaz chief Jugal Kishore Shastri said there seems to be a conspiracy behind implicating Muslim youths in all terror attacks in the country. "Following the Sachar Committee report which exposed real backwardness of the Muslim community, there was a sympathy wave for the community, but all of a sudden terror blasts began to take place and Muslims were accused from here and there," he said adding that this all was to keep the community backward and deprive them of their rights.

The report by Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Group has profile of those killed and arrested in the Batla House operation, contradictions in police version regarding the encounter operation, information about dreaded terrorists, bullet proof jacket, injuries and bullets to the suspected terrorists, evidences, escape routes and fired rounds, besides contradictions in the mastermind theory and instances of violations of NHRC guidelines for an encounter.

The teachers' group has demanded a judicial probe headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, transfer of investigations from the Delhi Police to CBI, exemplary punishment to police officers guilty of implicating innocent Muslim youth in false cases of terrorism and adequate compensation and jobs to those acquitted in the terror-related cases.

Some of the questions raised in the report are as follows:

1) Did the police have prior information about the presence of dreaded 'terrorists' in L-18 when they raided the flat? So far, conflicting versions have been provided by the police. In one version, they claim ignorance of such confirmed information, pleading that they went in only for a routine recee and were ambushed (then how did the Police Commissioner within hours declare Atif and Sajid to be the mastermind behind all blasts since 2005, when Sajid would have been 14-years-old); and in another, they claim to have put Atif under surveillance since 26th July 2008 (so how did these boys manage to plant bombs all over the city right under the Delhi Police's nose?)

2) Were the Police men wearing Bullet proof vests (BPV) or not? In some statements, the Delhi Police said that they avoided wearing the BPVs in order not to alert the 'terrorists'; in yet other statement they claim that their officer escaped all injury while firing upon an armed Sajid because he was wearing a BPV.

3) What explains the injury marks on the bodies of the deceased boys? Atif's back was sloughed off and Sajid had bullet wounds on his head as though bullets had been pumped into his head while he was made to kneel―all of which raises doubts about the genuineness of the 'shootout'.

4) The Police claim that Sajid was an expert bomb maker who used quartz clocks, detonators, ammonium nitrate, yet none of the 'recoveries' which even the police have purportedly made, comprise any of the above material that could be used for making Sajid's 'signature' bombs. So what made Dadwal and his force conclude that Sajid was the one behind the blasts in Delhi and elsewhere?

5) Why is there such rigid resistance to any independent probe on the part of the government and the Delhi Police? So much so that the Lieutenant Governor has even rejected a magisterial enquiry, which is mandatory as per NHRC guidelines on encounter killings.

6) Why are post-mortem reports of all the three killed not being made public? Is there something to hide?

The report also carries brief profiles of the accused in the case, including the two students killed. The fact that most of them were students enrolled in educational institutions, whether Jamia or elsewhere, or working gives the impression that they were regular young men in search of better opportunities in life. None of their actions puts them under suspicion: they enrolled as students, bought SIM cards in their name, signed a rent lease deed, duly verified by the police (copy in report), provided genuine address details etc. Moreover, the day after the blasts in Delhi, there were several arrests and detentions in the Jamia Nagar area, which was common knowledge. It is highly unlikely that actual terrorists would make no attempt to move away from a neighborhood which was obviously under the police scanner to a safer hideout.

Testimonies of eyewitnesses at the Jan Sunwai (12 Oct 2008, Batla House) have also been included in the report. Neighbours testified that they found nothing strange or suspicious about the boys and resented the fact that no senior local resident was taken into confidence or to crosscheck any information about suspected terrorists. The manner in which the police operated raised suspicions about their real motives. Further, they also said that while the operation was on, the policemen could be seen throwing pots etc on to the 4th floor flat of L-18, and that they heard gun shots of only one kind. This naturally raises the misgiving that the police was trying to create an impression of cross fire and struggle, where none existed.

The report is available with the following members of Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Group:
Dr. Ghazi Shahnawaz (Dept. of Psychology), Adil Mehdi (Dept. of English) and Ahmed Sohaib (Centre for the Study of Comparative Religions, Noam Chomsky Complex).

Why everybody loves a good stereotype

by Antara Dev Sen
The Asian Age
October 2, 2008

"You support terrorists?" my friend was horror-struck.

"We can’t presume they are terrorists," I begin, "there must be a
trial first."

"Rubbish! They are terrorists! And it’s indefensible that Jamia Milia
University is using government money to protect them."

"Everyone is entitled to legal aid and is innocent until proven
guilty..."

"They are guilty. The police nabbed them."

"That’s the police version?"

My friend, a secular and sensitive writer, is mortified. "The terrorists shot an officer dead! But you still won’t believe them?"

"You believe police ‘encounters’?"

"Certainly. You don’t?"

"Maybe, if they’re credible."

"Why won’t you believe the police?"

"It would have been easier to believe the cops if they didn’t offer several versions of the same ‘encounter’, if they could find the bullets that killed Inspector M.C. Sharma and the gun that fired them, or answer the questions locals and activists are throwing at them punching holes in their theories, if fake ‘encounter’ killings like Sohrabuddin’s and his wife’s were not fresh in our minds?"

"A police officer is killed, and you side with the terrorists!"

"No, a life cut short is tragic, especially for the family. But two boys were also killed in the shootout. Terrorists? Prove it. Sharma did have a reputation? Remember his killing ‘terrorists’ in a fake encounter at Ansal Plaza?"

"He faked his own killing, you say?"

With bombs going off every few days and our threat perception spiralling, it’s not easy to root for civil rights. Logic and ethics get all tangled up as fear spooling out of bombed markets and grieving neighbourhoods flood your senses. Where does one draw the line between safeguarding human rights and supporting terrorism? How much of our rationality and morals are we ready to barter for some more security? Would it really buy safety or are we being manipulated into fighting others? battles? Conversely, are we bending over backwards so much to protect civil rights that we can’t see the obvious?

For example, you can’t deny that there is Muslim terrorism in India. We are not immune to the global virus, especially since some neighbours have been diligently breeding it for us. And it is naïve to pretend that all Muslim terrorism in India is retaliation against
discrimination and abuse, or to romanticise the murder of innocents.

But to prop up Muslims as the enemy, or suggest that every Muslim is a potential terrorist, is ridiculous. For decades, we have faced terrorism from non-Muslims, from Punjab to the Northeast to the recent rash of terror across India by Maoists or Hindutva extremists. We have lost one Prime Minister to Sikh killers and one to Hindu terrorists. And lost thousands of lives to Muslim militants, from Jammu and Kashmir to the Mumbai blasts.

Yet the trend today is to equate terrorism with Islam. Take Delhi. Every recent bomb blast has been blamed on Muslims. The attack on the Red Fort in December 2000 and on Parliament in December 2001, the Diwali blasts of October 2005, the serial blasts of September 13, 2008, and the blast last Saturday. Even though 15,000 clerics had
congregated in February at Darul Uloom Deoband, the Muslim seminary in Uttar Pradesh whose alumni include the Taliban, and denounced terrorism as anti-Islam.

We love stereotypes. So while parading the three suspects in the Delhi blasts, middle class kids, two of whom are students of the Jamia Milia Islamia University, instead of the hood to protect their identity, the police wrapped brand new red Palestinian scarves around their heads, revealing only their eyes, like Hamas militants. Manipulating the perception of the Muslim as terrorist, or the terrorist as Muslim, was easy.

Religious profiling has been part of our anti-terrorism drive, and with their socio-political deprivations, Muslims are easy targets. According to the Sachar Committee Report, only 59 per cent of Muslims are literate and their participation in governance is severely limited: only 4 per cent in the IPS, 3 per cent in the IAS, barely 1.8 per cent in the IFS, etc. Marginalised for long, Muslims are now being pushed dangerously close to the edge.

Apart from violating the constitutional guarantee of equality, religious profiling hinders the fight against terror. It diverts attention from those who are tangibly linked to terrorism but do not fit the religious profile. So stereotypes about Muslim terrorists make us ignore State-sponsored Hindu terrorism like in Gujarat, where justice was so beyond reach that the Supreme Court had to transfer the 2002 "riot" cases outside of the state. Or the continuing terror attacks on Christians in Orissa (about 50 killed in Kandhamal this
time), and Karnataka by Hindu extremists. Bajrang Dal activists have been found making bombs, like in Kanpur a month ago. Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad found them making bombs in Nanded in 2006 and also recovered a false beard, moustache and sherwani. This Hindu group had bombed three mosques since 2003. Once free from
stereotypes, the police can efficiently counter terror.

But stereotyping terrorists is easier. We remember the jailing and torture of Iftikhar Gilani, Delhi bureau chief of Kashmir Times, for almost seven months, before intense lobbying by the media and politicians got him released in January 2003. Similarly, Tariq Ahmed Dar, a young Kashmiri model, was jailed for several months in 2006, as a "Pakistani spy". He was released after intervention by the media and top politicians. In August, cops picked up Milan Molla, a tea-shop owner in Kolkata, threatening to brand him a terrorist unless he paid up Rs 150,000. His mother paid part of it with borrowed money, freed him and went public with a complaint. Every year, there are dozens of such cases. Given that young Muslim men are routinely targeted in the name of fighting terrorism, Jamia?s decision to provide legal aid to its students is perhaps essential.

"But would Jamia have provided this support if the boys were accused of rape?" exclaimed my friend. Maybe not. But then, being accused of a crime against an individual is not the same as being charged with a crime against the nation. The loyalty of Indian Muslims is regularly questioned, from India-Pakistan cricket matches to national
politics. In a terrified society, officially branding them anti-national would be easy. To prevent our strained social fabric from falling apart, we need to pursue the truth, not myths, and protect civil rights. That does not make us supporters of terrorism, it helps
us curb it.

Antara Dev Sen is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted
at sen@littlemag.com