by Mumtaz Alam Falahi
TwoCircles.net
New Delhi: The residents of Jamia Nagar today foiled a kidnapping/encounter attempt by some policemen in plainclothes in Shaheen Bagh area under the Jamia Nagar Police Station in Delhi.
It was around 8 in the night when a black Hyundai car with tinted glasses but with no number plates entered Shaheen Bagh. Five persons, maybe ATS sleuths in plainclothes, came out and tried to drag a youth named Amir into the car. He resisted and asked them why they were dragging him. They said they will tell him soon.
As the Jamia Nagar encounter and subsequent indiscriminate picking of locals were fresh in people's mind, locals began gathering. The plainclothes people threatened them but as mob got thicker, some of them slipped away. The locals, however, were able to catch one who later turned out to be an ASI of Noida Police. The public brought both the policeman and Amir to Jamia Nagar police station.
Hundreds of people gathered around the police station and demanded action against the 'kidnapppers'. They alleged that their plan was to encounter the person and later declare him a terrorist.
People say Amir was with his friend Irfan on a motorcycle. Amir from Zafarabad area in Delhi had come here to meet someone. They alleged that his friend Irfan was police informer because those came in car tried to drag into the car only Amir, not Irfan. Irfan also fled the scene.
The car had no number plate but a number plate was found in the car which had DL1T W 1590 written on it. The plate looked new and unused. The mob also was able to snatch some documents from the Noida policemen. They include PANCARDS, mobile, SIM. Among other things in the car two ID with different picture but same name belonging to an IT company was found in the car. The angry residents damaged the car and broke window panes. The local police reached the spot and asked the residents to hand over Amir and the policemen but the people demanded that they will do it before higher authorities.
Soon ACP (Sarita Vihar) Gurcharan Das reached there and persuaded the locals to handover the men. After much effort the police could bring them and the car to the Jamia Nagar Police Station. But hundreds of locals followed the police and reached the station.
People remained outside the station until 1 am when the police announced that the FIR from Amir has been registered. This all proceeding was done in the presence of Aziz Burney, Editor of Sahara Urdu daily, Md Rahman, Delhi High Court advocate and some local leaders.
Talking to mediapersons around 1 am, DCP Ajay Choudhry said those who came in the car were Noida Police personnel. The Delhi Police will investigate the matter. He said he had contacted Noida SSP and he assured he is looking into the case and action will be taken against the guilty officials.
Original report and pictures at twocircles.net
Showing posts with label Jamia Nagar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jamia Nagar. Show all posts
18 October, 2008
15 October, 2008
Study censures Media for its reporting of Jamia Nagar encounter
by S.K. Pande
14 September, 2008
Countercurrents.org
Speakers at a meet organised by the Delhi Union of Journalists to release its interim report on media's coverage of Jamia Nagar encounter were unanimous in their opinion that the credibility of the media has touched an all-time low and the challenge before the media is how to regain this.
DUJ Ethics Council’s interim report on “Delhi Blasts: A Look At Media Coverage” was released by veteran journalist Kuldip Nayyar on October 3, 2008. The report scathingly brings out lapses in the coverage of the recent encounter at Batla House, Jamia Nagar in Delhi by both the electornic and print media.
CPI(M) MP Hannan Mollah in his remarks regretted that due to unverified, breathless reporting by the media -- without critically trying to find out actual facts -- the whole Muslim community was being projected as terrorists. This has created a fear psychosis among the community and is leading to a feeling of frustration. He called for restrained reporting and cautioned against speculation.
Kuldip Nayar said that while to some extent government pressure on the media has lessened, particularly after the experience of Emergency, the pressure of financiers, political parties and others has increased. This has affected the media’s credibility adversely. “Let us make this Report a starting point for retrieving our values”, he said.
Recalling that during the Gujarat carnage, while the Gujarati language press was found wanting in objective reporting of the incidents, the English press somewhat redeemed the situation by fair reporting and won the confidence of the community most affected. He demanded that the National Humans Rights Commission, which has taken suo moto cognizance of the Jamia Nagar encounter should hold open sittings to ensure transparency.
Professor Obaid Siddiqui of A J Kidwai Mass Communication Research Centre at Jamia University, said that the media coverage of the encounter has given rise to the feeling among Muslims that they are being targeted and projected as anti-nationals contrary to the fact that majority of the Muslims are nationalists and organisations like SIMI and Indian Mujahideen have a very negligible following.
Among others who participated in the discussion were veteran journalists Ajoy Bose, Anjali Deshpande, Sujata Madhok and Amit Prakash Singh. The discussion was moderated by DUJ president S K Pande who said while increase in communalisation was bad enough, communalisation and sensationalisation is a cause of much concern. In the present situation where terrorism was rearing its ugly head, it was time that the media itself introspects its own role and strive to be part of a solution rather than a problem.
The DUJ report strives to be a beginning of a critique of media reporting of the Batla house police operation, Pande added. It was a modest beginning and just an interim report. Associated with the report were Anjali Deshpande, Sujata Madhok, Amit Prakash Singh, Naresh Nadeem, Mohd Shamim, Dinesh Chandra, L H Naqvi and Sreekumar. There are many others who wanted to remain anonymous and more responses are coming, he informed.
The foreword of the report made it clear that the Delhi Union of Journalists and its Ethics Council are concerned at the falling standards of reporting as evident in the manner in which the police operation at Balta House on September 19, 2008 was reported by various newspapers and TV channels in the capital. The reporting in about a dozen papers, some magazines and the Urdu press was analysed in the report.
“We wish to underline that accuracy in reporting facts is the first responsibility of the media. Where facts are disputed, the discrepancies should be pointed out and the sources questioned. Presenting several versions of incidents and using multiple sources of information is an inalienable part of credible reporting.
“We also emphasise that uncovering the truth may not always be the job of the media. The media is not equipped to investigate and uncover the truth in severely complicated cases like the incident being examined in the report. But presenting different facets of events as they emerge is part of the professional responsibility of the media.
“Regrettably, in the competition to grab eyeballs we sometimes resort to hype, forgetting that some issues are too explosive for such treatment. They are volatile enough without the media adding fuel to the fire. Unfortunately there are several instances of such coverage. We cite one blatant example. On September 20, 2008, The Hindustan Times devoted all of page 3 to reports on terror, with the bold page slug saying “TERROR HUNT”. The shrieking banner headline was “India’s Bin Laden was a good- boy in school’. This was the headline for a report based on interviews with the schoolteachers of the alleged terrorist Abdus Subhan Qureshi, one of the men arrested in Mumbai for involvement in bomb blasts. The teachers claimed that he was a quiet boy and a good student. The story opens with the sentence: 'The world may be calling him India’s Bin Laden but it’s an image Abdus Subhan Quresh’s teachers find hard to reconcile with his school-day persona.' The story did not warrant the headline. Such headline-givers live in a world of their own. It is sheer exaggeration to label someone hitherto unknown to the average citizen as a ‘Bin Laden’.
“Frequently, the language used by the media to describe such incidents and suspects leaves much to be desired. It lays the media open to the charge of being judgmental and biased.
“By and large, the press has forsaken the use of certain prefixes like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’. Most newspapers have described those who were killed and arrested in Delhi as terrorists. It is a basic premise of Indian law that no person may be presumed guilty unless proved otherwise. The media’s use of epithets like “terrorist’ without the qualifying adjective ‘alleged’ or ‘suspected’ amounts to a declaration of guilt without trial in a court of law. This is equivalent to trial by the media. Journalists should know better. We understand that reporters in the field work under tremendous stress and pressure to be the first with the news. However, some editorial control of language should be exercised at the desk which is sadly missing in many reports. Television reports have been even more blatant, with the words ‘alleged’ or ‘suspected’ simply missing from the language used by both reporters and anchors.”, stated the report.
CALL FOR MEDIA COMMISSION
The postscript calls for a Media commission and a Media council for the entire media to replace the toothless Press Council. It notes that successive governments have failed to respond to countrywide appeals to constitute a Media Commission to go into the state of affairs in both the print and electronic media in the country after globalisation. The setting up of more and more news channels and growth of old and new newspapers have brought about big changes in the state of the country’s information industry. The aspirations, expectations and demands of the people, too, have grown tremendously with the strengthening of the roots of democracy in the country and their awakening of the right to information. We must recall that the country’s politics, economy and media since 1982, when the second Press Commission submitted its report, have changed as has the political structure. Even the All India Confederation of Newspapers and News Agencies has supported this stand.
The time has come for the government to appreciate the gravity and urgency of the matter and set up at the earliest a fully empowered Media Commission to go through the entire gamut of the information industry. A good beginning can be made by having a Media council through extension of the Press Council by making it more broad-based and also to have equal representation for the electronic media and a broadcast media to make it in tune with the time.
The report concludes by saying that the Jamia Nagar episode is a sad reminder of the diminishing credibility of the media. Instead of playing the role of the ‘watch dog’ of society, the media seems to be getting increasingly lazy and dependent on police handouts. The main job of the media is to question and not accept whatever is being served on a platter. Because of this increasing laziness of the print media and increasing ‘greed’ for sensationalism on the part of the visual media, news tends to be presented to the public without proper investigation which is the most important job of the media. Investigation does not mean that every media person has to become an ‘investigative journalist’. That is not the job of the daily reporter, nor is it expected from them. But what is expected is that the reporter would try to give the different sides of the incident after questioning as many eyewitnesses as possible.
In most of the papers the boys killed were declared terrorists much before any proof could be established against them. Each TV channel was competing with the other to sensationalise the raid as much as possible, perhaps with an eye firmly on the TRP ratings.
S.K. Pande is Chief of Bureau, India News Network and President, Delhi Union of Journalists
14 September, 2008
Countercurrents.org
Speakers at a meet organised by the Delhi Union of Journalists to release its interim report on media's coverage of Jamia Nagar encounter were unanimous in their opinion that the credibility of the media has touched an all-time low and the challenge before the media is how to regain this.
DUJ Ethics Council’s interim report on “Delhi Blasts: A Look At Media Coverage” was released by veteran journalist Kuldip Nayyar on October 3, 2008. The report scathingly brings out lapses in the coverage of the recent encounter at Batla House, Jamia Nagar in Delhi by both the electornic and print media.
CPI(M) MP Hannan Mollah in his remarks regretted that due to unverified, breathless reporting by the media -- without critically trying to find out actual facts -- the whole Muslim community was being projected as terrorists. This has created a fear psychosis among the community and is leading to a feeling of frustration. He called for restrained reporting and cautioned against speculation.
Kuldip Nayar said that while to some extent government pressure on the media has lessened, particularly after the experience of Emergency, the pressure of financiers, political parties and others has increased. This has affected the media’s credibility adversely. “Let us make this Report a starting point for retrieving our values”, he said.
Recalling that during the Gujarat carnage, while the Gujarati language press was found wanting in objective reporting of the incidents, the English press somewhat redeemed the situation by fair reporting and won the confidence of the community most affected. He demanded that the National Humans Rights Commission, which has taken suo moto cognizance of the Jamia Nagar encounter should hold open sittings to ensure transparency.
Professor Obaid Siddiqui of A J Kidwai Mass Communication Research Centre at Jamia University, said that the media coverage of the encounter has given rise to the feeling among Muslims that they are being targeted and projected as anti-nationals contrary to the fact that majority of the Muslims are nationalists and organisations like SIMI and Indian Mujahideen have a very negligible following.
Among others who participated in the discussion were veteran journalists Ajoy Bose, Anjali Deshpande, Sujata Madhok and Amit Prakash Singh. The discussion was moderated by DUJ president S K Pande who said while increase in communalisation was bad enough, communalisation and sensationalisation is a cause of much concern. In the present situation where terrorism was rearing its ugly head, it was time that the media itself introspects its own role and strive to be part of a solution rather than a problem.
The DUJ report strives to be a beginning of a critique of media reporting of the Batla house police operation, Pande added. It was a modest beginning and just an interim report. Associated with the report were Anjali Deshpande, Sujata Madhok, Amit Prakash Singh, Naresh Nadeem, Mohd Shamim, Dinesh Chandra, L H Naqvi and Sreekumar. There are many others who wanted to remain anonymous and more responses are coming, he informed.
The foreword of the report made it clear that the Delhi Union of Journalists and its Ethics Council are concerned at the falling standards of reporting as evident in the manner in which the police operation at Balta House on September 19, 2008 was reported by various newspapers and TV channels in the capital. The reporting in about a dozen papers, some magazines and the Urdu press was analysed in the report.
“We wish to underline that accuracy in reporting facts is the first responsibility of the media. Where facts are disputed, the discrepancies should be pointed out and the sources questioned. Presenting several versions of incidents and using multiple sources of information is an inalienable part of credible reporting.
“We also emphasise that uncovering the truth may not always be the job of the media. The media is not equipped to investigate and uncover the truth in severely complicated cases like the incident being examined in the report. But presenting different facets of events as they emerge is part of the professional responsibility of the media.
“Regrettably, in the competition to grab eyeballs we sometimes resort to hype, forgetting that some issues are too explosive for such treatment. They are volatile enough without the media adding fuel to the fire. Unfortunately there are several instances of such coverage. We cite one blatant example. On September 20, 2008, The Hindustan Times devoted all of page 3 to reports on terror, with the bold page slug saying “TERROR HUNT”. The shrieking banner headline was “India’s Bin Laden was a good- boy in school’. This was the headline for a report based on interviews with the schoolteachers of the alleged terrorist Abdus Subhan Qureshi, one of the men arrested in Mumbai for involvement in bomb blasts. The teachers claimed that he was a quiet boy and a good student. The story opens with the sentence: 'The world may be calling him India’s Bin Laden but it’s an image Abdus Subhan Quresh’s teachers find hard to reconcile with his school-day persona.' The story did not warrant the headline. Such headline-givers live in a world of their own. It is sheer exaggeration to label someone hitherto unknown to the average citizen as a ‘Bin Laden’.
“Frequently, the language used by the media to describe such incidents and suspects leaves much to be desired. It lays the media open to the charge of being judgmental and biased.
“By and large, the press has forsaken the use of certain prefixes like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’. Most newspapers have described those who were killed and arrested in Delhi as terrorists. It is a basic premise of Indian law that no person may be presumed guilty unless proved otherwise. The media’s use of epithets like “terrorist’ without the qualifying adjective ‘alleged’ or ‘suspected’ amounts to a declaration of guilt without trial in a court of law. This is equivalent to trial by the media. Journalists should know better. We understand that reporters in the field work under tremendous stress and pressure to be the first with the news. However, some editorial control of language should be exercised at the desk which is sadly missing in many reports. Television reports have been even more blatant, with the words ‘alleged’ or ‘suspected’ simply missing from the language used by both reporters and anchors.”, stated the report.
CALL FOR MEDIA COMMISSION
The postscript calls for a Media commission and a Media council for the entire media to replace the toothless Press Council. It notes that successive governments have failed to respond to countrywide appeals to constitute a Media Commission to go into the state of affairs in both the print and electronic media in the country after globalisation. The setting up of more and more news channels and growth of old and new newspapers have brought about big changes in the state of the country’s information industry. The aspirations, expectations and demands of the people, too, have grown tremendously with the strengthening of the roots of democracy in the country and their awakening of the right to information. We must recall that the country’s politics, economy and media since 1982, when the second Press Commission submitted its report, have changed as has the political structure. Even the All India Confederation of Newspapers and News Agencies has supported this stand.
The time has come for the government to appreciate the gravity and urgency of the matter and set up at the earliest a fully empowered Media Commission to go through the entire gamut of the information industry. A good beginning can be made by having a Media council through extension of the Press Council by making it more broad-based and also to have equal representation for the electronic media and a broadcast media to make it in tune with the time.
The report concludes by saying that the Jamia Nagar episode is a sad reminder of the diminishing credibility of the media. Instead of playing the role of the ‘watch dog’ of society, the media seems to be getting increasingly lazy and dependent on police handouts. The main job of the media is to question and not accept whatever is being served on a platter. Because of this increasing laziness of the print media and increasing ‘greed’ for sensationalism on the part of the visual media, news tends to be presented to the public without proper investigation which is the most important job of the media. Investigation does not mean that every media person has to become an ‘investigative journalist’. That is not the job of the daily reporter, nor is it expected from them. But what is expected is that the reporter would try to give the different sides of the incident after questioning as many eyewitnesses as possible.
In most of the papers the boys killed were declared terrorists much before any proof could be established against them. Each TV channel was competing with the other to sensationalise the raid as much as possible, perhaps with an eye firmly on the TRP ratings.
S.K. Pande is Chief of Bureau, India News Network and President, Delhi Union of Journalists
23 September, 2008
Fact Finding into Jamia Nagar encounter killing
The following is the report of a fact-finding team, comprising Suprem Court lawyer Prasanth Bhushan, Dr Anup Saraya of AIIMS Front for Social Consciousness,
Advocate N.D.Pancholi, Vice-President , People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Delhi),
Shahana Bhattacharya of People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Ms. Sree rekha, Reader Jamia Millia, Adv Mayank Misra, Mr Shakeeb Ahmed of Janahstakshep,
and K. K. Bhattacharya, on the Jamia Nagar incident:
Date of incident: 19 September 2008
Date of first visit to Jamia Nagar area by team: 21 September 2008
1. The police sitting outside L-18 say that on the day of the incident six companies of police were here. Each company has 72 men.
2. Our observation- Nobody could have escaped from the building – the police in the first statements after the encounter otherwise said (as reported in electronic media) that 2 persons escaped during the encounter. The building has only one entrance and exit and there is a gap between the terrace of this building and next. It appears that this story of there being 5 men/boys is based on interrogation of Saif who was the youth who was arrested while Atiq and Sajid were killed during the encounter.
3. Zeeshan who also shared the flat/room had left at 8 am as he had a test(entrance test of some kind. Headlines Today reported him gone to IIPM for taking some reexaminations there, a Channel apparently has also run a clip of administratives of IIPM attesting to the fact!(More DETAILS?) was arrested later in the night of 19 Sep. According to Ameeque (cousin of Atiq and independent doc. film maker who has worked extensively for Doordarshan and editor of paper Samyik Varta), Zeeshan was wondering what he could do when he heard about the encounter after he got out of his examination and called some people about advice. Some told him to run away- but he didn't want to as he had not done anything wrong. He got the phone no. of the TV Channel 'Headlines Today' and went to their office to give his statement. This was partially aired. As he was coming out of the TV channel's office he was arrested by the police. He too is being called a terrorist.
4. Account of Badr Tasleem
Mr Badr Tasleem (works in Jamia in admn.) who lives in L-17 Jamia Nagar (next door to L-18 where the encounter took place on 4th floor) says that he first thought crackers were being burst but then he had some doubts and came out of his house to see what was happening. The sounds of the gunshots were coming from L-18 – there were already some men, i.e. presumably special cell men and the residents of the house, up there. He heard a scream. The gunshots continued. Then a group of men led by a man in kurta pyjama (who Mr. Tasleem has identified in one newspaper photo- he was possibly a plainclothes special cell person) with guns came running by asking for the way into the building (L-18) and ran up- planning among themselves as to who would "cover" whom (in the event of firing upon them).
Gunfire continued from the top floor of the house. There was no police cordon that he could see around the house or even too much in the lane. At least no one in uniform. After some time they brought down one man who was wearing a white shirt and blue tie- he was supported on two sides by two persons. Mr. Tasleem later learnt that this was Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma. There was no blood on the front of his shirt/clothes when he was brought down, except a small spot or mark on the right of his shirt. (not sure about this at all). The firing continued after that. They then brought down one person but completely wrapped up so he could not see who it was. They then brought another person's body but that was not covered. He could not see whose bodies these were.
The first time he came out of his house hearing gunshots (which were already being fired) was around 11 am and they continued till about 11.40. There was no police cordon before the Special Cell people had gone upstairs- ie before the gunfire started. And even when he got out of his house to see what was happening he saw that there were only 5-7 policemen around. There was no barricade at the end of the road either. The full force came only after 11.20 a.m. or so. A very large number of policemen came. Before that there were Special Cell (or STF as everyone here calls them) people in plainclothes but they could not tell.
5. Account of Ex-Councillor Mr. Asif Mohammad
(He was independent councilor and won from the entire area – including Sukhdev Vihar, Maharani Bagh etc- i.e not just 'Muslim' areas and had taken up the incident of fake encounter of Abu Samal in the same area in the month of Ramzan in 2002. In that case the police had made two eyewitnesses disappear. The people had held demonstrations in front of police station etc. He was then arrested and detained as a 'SIMI' member for eight and half months in jail and for some more months under NSA as they said he was with LeT. He was implicated in 24 cases and is presently an undertrial.)
He arrived on the spot around 11.10 or 11.15 am. According to him, there was police presence in the area from the night. Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma was seen at the juice stall outside at 11 pm on the night of 18th Sep. (He heard this from one of the local youths who has been a petty criminal and recognized Inspector Sharma). He says that there are eyewitnesses (who stay in house opposite L-18) who say that police 'Gypsies' went past the house twice at night – once at around 2-3 a.m and once at 4 am. People were awake on account of Ramzan schedule and they saw these. (We found no eyewitness nor much corroboration of this police presence from before. There was of course a lot of checking in the area after the blasts.)
He said that these boys had applied in the local police station (PS Jamia Nagar) for tenant verification – and there was a copy of this pending application with him. The application is stamped and received on 21 August 2008. The copy was with the person who was the caretaker of the house Abdur Rahman who works with PWD and lives nearby, who was acting on behalf of the landlord who lives in Ghaziabad (according to rent agreement, landlord's address was Aligarh). Abdur Rahman showed this to some TV channels and after that he was also picked up. Police wanted him to give them the form. They have also picked up his son Zia. They are now trying to say that this form is fake, their stamp on it is fake etc. However various NGOs also can distribute the form, Asif Mohd. said, and also one can download it from the net- they could look different therefore.
Atiq who was killed used to earlier stay in Sangam Vihar …If they were planning blasts would they in the application for verification have submitted their original village address (part of driving licence given as proof) – and PS (Sarai Meer, dt. Azamgarh). Also they put in the application after the blasts in July and before the blasts in Delhi. If they were mounting such an attack would they have given these truthful and original addresses?
Also all five names of those who were renting the house (Zeeshan Ahmed, Md. Saif, Md. Sajid (24 years) and Md. Sajid (20 years) and Mohd.Khalid) were added on the tenant verification form.
Asif Mohammad knows the area and the PS Sarai Meer in Azamgarh- and knows that the police there have had no complaints regarding the families of these youth.
About a week ago one Abdul Rashid Agwan (?), an older man, was picked up from Shaheen Bagh by the Special Cell and interrogated about SIMI – he had been member (?) -- he was repeatedly asked to name youth aged between 25-26 who had been part of SIMI whom he knew. He did not know anyone in that age group being an older man, and said so to the Special Cell who let him go with a threat.
Asif Mohd. raised questions about how Mohan Chand Sharma died, and says that according to his informal sources he was not hit from the front but from the back.
Badr Tasleem whom we spoke to before him had said that Sharma had no blood on the front of his body. By the time Asif Mohd saw him (or saw a man) near the Khaliullah mosque – there was a lot of blood on the lower part of his body.
At 11.10-11.15 when Asif Mohd came there was nobody from the media barring one man, one Saba Israr. They could not tell about how many policemen there were because many were in civilian clothes.
6. Account of Masih Alam, advocate, resident of L-17 Jamia Nagar
According to Adv. Masih Alam, he first heard firing from inside L-18 at around 10.45 am. (Ruk ruk ke firing ki awaaz aa rahi thi). He got out of his house to see and saw that there were 2-3 policemen at one end of the road (where the barricades now are) and 2-3 persons on the other side. After about 5 minutes (after 10.45 am) one injured person was brought down on foot supported by police…Then some 4-5 people wearing bullet proof vests went running up and then he heard the sound of 5-7 shots being fired. Then two policemen went up with a stretcher and got a body down.
There was very little police presence at least in uniform till then. There was no one below the flat for instance. But it would be impossible for anyone to escape from there. He does not know who the boys killed were- he has not been formally shown the pictures of those killed and is unable to say if these boys used to stay or visit there often.
As for the account that there was police and Special Cell presence in the area from the night he did not know much about it. There was a lot of checking in the area since the blasts.
Area leader Pervez Hashmi (present councilor) etc came later around 11.10 am or so along with LN Rao and Karnail Singh of Special Cell (the police say that they had taken him, Hashmi, into confidence).
The firing according to Masih Alam continued for about 15-20 minutes.
7. According to other observers while there were very few policemen on the street there was a very heavy outer cordon of police at least by 11.15.
8. Meeting at Jamaat Islami e Hind office, Abul Fazl Enclave-
Ameek, cousin of Atiq, gave his own background and that of Atif's own eldest brother Raghib Ameen, one of the most senior news cameramen in Delhi. They had all studied in Shibli School in Azamgarh and had come to the town to study from their village Sanjarpur in Azamgarh District). Atif asked Raghib's advice about what he could do as an elder in the family and Raghib told him to come to Delhi and take admission in Jamia. Atif wanted to stay with friends close to where he was to study and he asked Raghib and shifted near Jamia. He could not get admission into Jamia and joined B.Sc IT course in a private institute at South Extension. He stayed at that time in a DDA flat in Jasola. He had been in Delhi for three years. Just recently in July-August he got admission in PG course in Human Resources Management in Jamia and Ameek was aware that he had done so. He had also learnt that Atif had shifted closer to Jamia. He had told his brother that his 20 rupees daily conveyance fare would be saved by shifting to this new locality. Ameek did not meet him very often but happened to meet him 10-12 days ago. Atif asked him about a job or work- saying 'kab tak amma abba ke bharose rahenge'. Ameek told him that once he finished the course he could look for work.
8. Atif was 23 years old when he was killed.
9. Sajid the boy who was killed was just about 16-17 years old. (Ameek first told us about Sajid, then Sajid's brother Arshad came –he was in tears and had just come from Dubai where he works- Sajid is his youngest brother – Sajid and Arshad had two other brothers- Arshad was 17-18 years older than Sajid. Arshad told us and gave us a copy of his Identity card showing that Sajid was born in March 1991- therefore not 20 years old as given in police verification form) Sajid had come to Delhi to try to join Jamia in 11th standard. He had already completed his 11th class in Azamgarh but wanted to come here to better his chances. He did not clear the entrance examination, and was hoping to try again.
The family had not been officially informed about his death.
10. Ameek told us about the other two youth whom he knew about who shared the room. Khalid was enrolled in the second year of the BSc MLT (Lab Technician's course) at the Jamia Hamdard University.
11. Saif who is arrested had done his MA in History from a University in UP. Ameek met him when he met Atiq 10-12 days ago – he asked Saif what he wanted to do/be…Saif replied that he wanted to be a pilot- when Ameek asked him why he said that he had always been attracted from childhood when he used to see aeroplanes…
12. Zeeshan who was arrested by the police coming out of the Headlines Today office and shown as being arrested in Jhandewalan – had gone to write an entrance exam…had done a management course at IIPM(????) and had left home at 8 am that day. His father teaches at Shibli college, it is an educated family and like many others his father wanted his son to do well, go to Dubai or somewhere and earn some money, get a good job…and Zeeshan too was trying. His family members and everybody else are shocked.
13. We also got copies of a letter sent by the newly formed Indian Muslims Coordination Committee (formed for aiding in this case) to the Delhi State Minorities Commission in which they have demanded a judicial enquiry into this encounter.
14. We also have a copy of a letter sent by one student Suhaib Akhtar stating that one of his co tenants, one Mohd Rashid, s/o Shiv Murat, a research scholar in JMI was picked up on 18.09.08 by police in civil dress and had not reached the house till 20.09.08- the letter is addressed to the Lt. Governor and asks about the whereabouts of his co-tenant.
15. At the Jamia Nagar Police Station, the SHO Mohd Iqbal had gone to Court (there had been three arrests in this connection and hence he had to go to court). The Additional SHO also supposedly was not there/ did not want to speak. The FIR registered into the encounter (against the dead accused and others- we don't know contents) is no. 208/2008.
(PS Jamia Nagar- 26943227; 26945563; SHO Mohd. Iqbal- 9313609151; ACP (Sarita Vihar)- 26825588)
Advocate N.D.Pancholi, Vice-President , People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Delhi),
Shahana Bhattacharya of People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Ms. Sree rekha, Reader Jamia Millia, Adv Mayank Misra, Mr Shakeeb Ahmed of Janahstakshep,
and K. K. Bhattacharya, on the Jamia Nagar incident:
Date of incident: 19 September 2008
Date of first visit to Jamia Nagar area by team: 21 September 2008
1. The police sitting outside L-18 say that on the day of the incident six companies of police were here. Each company has 72 men.
2. Our observation- Nobody could have escaped from the building – the police in the first statements after the encounter otherwise said (as reported in electronic media) that 2 persons escaped during the encounter. The building has only one entrance and exit and there is a gap between the terrace of this building and next. It appears that this story of there being 5 men/boys is based on interrogation of Saif who was the youth who was arrested while Atiq and Sajid were killed during the encounter.
3. Zeeshan who also shared the flat/room had left at 8 am as he had a test(entrance test of some kind. Headlines Today reported him gone to IIPM for taking some reexaminations there, a Channel apparently has also run a clip of administratives of IIPM attesting to the fact!(More DETAILS?) was arrested later in the night of 19 Sep. According to Ameeque (cousin of Atiq and independent doc. film maker who has worked extensively for Doordarshan and editor of paper Samyik Varta), Zeeshan was wondering what he could do when he heard about the encounter after he got out of his examination and called some people about advice. Some told him to run away- but he didn't want to as he had not done anything wrong. He got the phone no. of the TV Channel 'Headlines Today' and went to their office to give his statement. This was partially aired. As he was coming out of the TV channel's office he was arrested by the police. He too is being called a terrorist.
4. Account of Badr Tasleem
Mr Badr Tasleem (works in Jamia in admn.) who lives in L-17 Jamia Nagar (next door to L-18 where the encounter took place on 4th floor) says that he first thought crackers were being burst but then he had some doubts and came out of his house to see what was happening. The sounds of the gunshots were coming from L-18 – there were already some men, i.e. presumably special cell men and the residents of the house, up there. He heard a scream. The gunshots continued. Then a group of men led by a man in kurta pyjama (who Mr. Tasleem has identified in one newspaper photo- he was possibly a plainclothes special cell person) with guns came running by asking for the way into the building (L-18) and ran up- planning among themselves as to who would "cover" whom (in the event of firing upon them).
Gunfire continued from the top floor of the house. There was no police cordon that he could see around the house or even too much in the lane. At least no one in uniform. After some time they brought down one man who was wearing a white shirt and blue tie- he was supported on two sides by two persons. Mr. Tasleem later learnt that this was Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma. There was no blood on the front of his shirt/clothes when he was brought down, except a small spot or mark on the right of his shirt. (not sure about this at all). The firing continued after that. They then brought down one person but completely wrapped up so he could not see who it was. They then brought another person's body but that was not covered. He could not see whose bodies these were.
The first time he came out of his house hearing gunshots (which were already being fired) was around 11 am and they continued till about 11.40. There was no police cordon before the Special Cell people had gone upstairs- ie before the gunfire started. And even when he got out of his house to see what was happening he saw that there were only 5-7 policemen around. There was no barricade at the end of the road either. The full force came only after 11.20 a.m. or so. A very large number of policemen came. Before that there were Special Cell (or STF as everyone here calls them) people in plainclothes but they could not tell.
5. Account of Ex-Councillor Mr. Asif Mohammad
(He was independent councilor and won from the entire area – including Sukhdev Vihar, Maharani Bagh etc- i.e not just 'Muslim' areas and had taken up the incident of fake encounter of Abu Samal in the same area in the month of Ramzan in 2002. In that case the police had made two eyewitnesses disappear. The people had held demonstrations in front of police station etc. He was then arrested and detained as a 'SIMI' member for eight and half months in jail and for some more months under NSA as they said he was with LeT. He was implicated in 24 cases and is presently an undertrial.)
He arrived on the spot around 11.10 or 11.15 am. According to him, there was police presence in the area from the night. Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma was seen at the juice stall outside at 11 pm on the night of 18th Sep. (He heard this from one of the local youths who has been a petty criminal and recognized Inspector Sharma). He says that there are eyewitnesses (who stay in house opposite L-18) who say that police 'Gypsies' went past the house twice at night – once at around 2-3 a.m and once at 4 am. People were awake on account of Ramzan schedule and they saw these. (We found no eyewitness nor much corroboration of this police presence from before. There was of course a lot of checking in the area after the blasts.)
He said that these boys had applied in the local police station (PS Jamia Nagar) for tenant verification – and there was a copy of this pending application with him. The application is stamped and received on 21 August 2008. The copy was with the person who was the caretaker of the house Abdur Rahman who works with PWD and lives nearby, who was acting on behalf of the landlord who lives in Ghaziabad (according to rent agreement, landlord's address was Aligarh). Abdur Rahman showed this to some TV channels and after that he was also picked up. Police wanted him to give them the form. They have also picked up his son Zia. They are now trying to say that this form is fake, their stamp on it is fake etc. However various NGOs also can distribute the form, Asif Mohd. said, and also one can download it from the net- they could look different therefore.
Atiq who was killed used to earlier stay in Sangam Vihar …If they were planning blasts would they in the application for verification have submitted their original village address (part of driving licence given as proof) – and PS (Sarai Meer, dt. Azamgarh). Also they put in the application after the blasts in July and before the blasts in Delhi. If they were mounting such an attack would they have given these truthful and original addresses?
Also all five names of those who were renting the house (Zeeshan Ahmed, Md. Saif, Md. Sajid (24 years) and Md. Sajid (20 years) and Mohd.Khalid) were added on the tenant verification form.
Asif Mohammad knows the area and the PS Sarai Meer in Azamgarh- and knows that the police there have had no complaints regarding the families of these youth.
About a week ago one Abdul Rashid Agwan (?), an older man, was picked up from Shaheen Bagh by the Special Cell and interrogated about SIMI – he had been member (?) -- he was repeatedly asked to name youth aged between 25-26 who had been part of SIMI whom he knew. He did not know anyone in that age group being an older man, and said so to the Special Cell who let him go with a threat.
Asif Mohd. raised questions about how Mohan Chand Sharma died, and says that according to his informal sources he was not hit from the front but from the back.
Badr Tasleem whom we spoke to before him had said that Sharma had no blood on the front of his body. By the time Asif Mohd saw him (or saw a man) near the Khaliullah mosque – there was a lot of blood on the lower part of his body.
At 11.10-11.15 when Asif Mohd came there was nobody from the media barring one man, one Saba Israr. They could not tell about how many policemen there were because many were in civilian clothes.
6. Account of Masih Alam, advocate, resident of L-17 Jamia Nagar
According to Adv. Masih Alam, he first heard firing from inside L-18 at around 10.45 am. (Ruk ruk ke firing ki awaaz aa rahi thi). He got out of his house to see and saw that there were 2-3 policemen at one end of the road (where the barricades now are) and 2-3 persons on the other side. After about 5 minutes (after 10.45 am) one injured person was brought down on foot supported by police…Then some 4-5 people wearing bullet proof vests went running up and then he heard the sound of 5-7 shots being fired. Then two policemen went up with a stretcher and got a body down.
There was very little police presence at least in uniform till then. There was no one below the flat for instance. But it would be impossible for anyone to escape from there. He does not know who the boys killed were- he has not been formally shown the pictures of those killed and is unable to say if these boys used to stay or visit there often.
As for the account that there was police and Special Cell presence in the area from the night he did not know much about it. There was a lot of checking in the area since the blasts.
Area leader Pervez Hashmi (present councilor) etc came later around 11.10 am or so along with LN Rao and Karnail Singh of Special Cell (the police say that they had taken him, Hashmi, into confidence).
The firing according to Masih Alam continued for about 15-20 minutes.
7. According to other observers while there were very few policemen on the street there was a very heavy outer cordon of police at least by 11.15.
8. Meeting at Jamaat Islami e Hind office, Abul Fazl Enclave-
Ameek, cousin of Atiq, gave his own background and that of Atif's own eldest brother Raghib Ameen, one of the most senior news cameramen in Delhi. They had all studied in Shibli School in Azamgarh and had come to the town to study from their village Sanjarpur in Azamgarh District). Atif asked Raghib's advice about what he could do as an elder in the family and Raghib told him to come to Delhi and take admission in Jamia. Atif wanted to stay with friends close to where he was to study and he asked Raghib and shifted near Jamia. He could not get admission into Jamia and joined B.Sc IT course in a private institute at South Extension. He stayed at that time in a DDA flat in Jasola. He had been in Delhi for three years. Just recently in July-August he got admission in PG course in Human Resources Management in Jamia and Ameek was aware that he had done so. He had also learnt that Atif had shifted closer to Jamia. He had told his brother that his 20 rupees daily conveyance fare would be saved by shifting to this new locality. Ameek did not meet him very often but happened to meet him 10-12 days ago. Atif asked him about a job or work- saying 'kab tak amma abba ke bharose rahenge'. Ameek told him that once he finished the course he could look for work.
8. Atif was 23 years old when he was killed.
9. Sajid the boy who was killed was just about 16-17 years old. (Ameek first told us about Sajid, then Sajid's brother Arshad came –he was in tears and had just come from Dubai where he works- Sajid is his youngest brother – Sajid and Arshad had two other brothers- Arshad was 17-18 years older than Sajid. Arshad told us and gave us a copy of his Identity card showing that Sajid was born in March 1991- therefore not 20 years old as given in police verification form) Sajid had come to Delhi to try to join Jamia in 11th standard. He had already completed his 11th class in Azamgarh but wanted to come here to better his chances. He did not clear the entrance examination, and was hoping to try again.
The family had not been officially informed about his death.
10. Ameek told us about the other two youth whom he knew about who shared the room. Khalid was enrolled in the second year of the BSc MLT (Lab Technician's course) at the Jamia Hamdard University.
11. Saif who is arrested had done his MA in History from a University in UP. Ameek met him when he met Atiq 10-12 days ago – he asked Saif what he wanted to do/be…Saif replied that he wanted to be a pilot- when Ameek asked him why he said that he had always been attracted from childhood when he used to see aeroplanes…
12. Zeeshan who was arrested by the police coming out of the Headlines Today office and shown as being arrested in Jhandewalan – had gone to write an entrance exam…had done a management course at IIPM(????) and had left home at 8 am that day. His father teaches at Shibli college, it is an educated family and like many others his father wanted his son to do well, go to Dubai or somewhere and earn some money, get a good job…and Zeeshan too was trying. His family members and everybody else are shocked.
13. We also got copies of a letter sent by the newly formed Indian Muslims Coordination Committee (formed for aiding in this case) to the Delhi State Minorities Commission in which they have demanded a judicial enquiry into this encounter.
14. We also have a copy of a letter sent by one student Suhaib Akhtar stating that one of his co tenants, one Mohd Rashid, s/o Shiv Murat, a research scholar in JMI was picked up on 18.09.08 by police in civil dress and had not reached the house till 20.09.08- the letter is addressed to the Lt. Governor and asks about the whereabouts of his co-tenant.
15. At the Jamia Nagar Police Station, the SHO Mohd Iqbal had gone to Court (there had been three arrests in this connection and hence he had to go to court). The Additional SHO also supposedly was not there/ did not want to speak. The FIR registered into the encounter (against the dead accused and others- we don't know contents) is no. 208/2008.
(PS Jamia Nagar- 26943227; 26945563; SHO Mohd. Iqbal- 9313609151; ACP (Sarita Vihar)- 26825588)
21 September, 2008
Some questions about counter-terror operation in New Delhi
A team comprising activists, academicians and journalists visited the site of the police operation against alleged terrorists staying in an apartment in Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, in the afternoon of September 20, 2008 (Saturday). Two alleged terrorists, Atif and Sajid, along with Mohan Chand Sharma, an inspector of the Delhi police's Special Cell, died in the operation while a third alleged terrorist was arrested.
On the basis of our interactions with the local residents, eye-witnesses and the reports which have appeared in the media, we would like to pose the following questions:
1) It has been widely reported (and not refuted by the police) that in early August this year Atif, who is described by the Delhi police as the mastermind behind the recent terrorist bombings in Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi, underwent a police verification exercise along with his four roommates in order to rent the apartment they were staying in Jamia Nagar. All the five youth living in the apartment submitted to the Delhi police their personal details, including permanent address, driving license details, address of the house they previously stayed in, all of which were found to be accurate.
Is it conceivable that the alleged kingpin behind the terrorist Indian Mujahideen outfit would have wanted to undergo a police verification- for whatever purpose- just a week after the Ahmedabad blasts and a month before the bombings in Delhi?
2) The four-storeyed house L-18 in Jamia Nagar, where the alleged terrorists were staying, has only one access point, through the staircase, which is covered by an iron grill. It is impossible to leave the house except from the staircase. By all reports, the staircase was taken over by the Special Cell and/or other agencies during the counter-terror operation. The house -- indeed, the entire block -- was cordoned off at the time of the operation.
How then was it possible, as claimed by the police, for two alleged terrorists to escape the premises during the police operation?
3) The media has quoted 'police sources' as having informed them that the Special Cell was fully aware about the presence of dreaded terrorists involved in the bombings in Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi, staying in the apartment that was raided.
Why was the late Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, a veteran of dozens of encounter operations, the only officer in the operation not wearing a bullet proof vest? Was this due to over-confidence or is there something else to his mysterious death during the operation? Will the forensic report of the bullets that killed Inspector Sharma be made public?
4) There are reports that towards the end of the counter-terror operation, some policemen climbed on the roof of L-18 and fired several rounds in the air. Other policemen were seen breaking windows and even throwing flower pots to the ground from flats adjacent or opposite to L-18
Why was the police firing in the air and why did it indulge in destruction of property around L-18 after the encounter?
5) The police officials claim that an AK-47 and pistols were recovered from L-18.
What was the weapon that killed Inspector Sharma? Was the AK-47 used at all and by whom? Going by some reports that have appeared (see 'Times of India', 20.09.08), the AK-47s have been used by the police only. Is it not strange that alleged terrorists did not use a more deadly and sophisticated weapon like the AK-47, which they purportedly possessed, preferring to use pistols?
We feel that there are far too many loose ends in the current story of the police encounter at L-18 in Jamia Nagar. We demand that a fair, impartial and independent probe into the incident be initiated at the earliest to answer the above questions as also any other ones that arise from the contradictions of the case.
Shabnam Hashmi,
Satya Sivaraman,
Manisha Sethi,
Tanweer Fazal,
Arshad Alam,
Pallavi Deka.
On the basis of our interactions with the local residents, eye-witnesses and the reports which have appeared in the media, we would like to pose the following questions:
1) It has been widely reported (and not refuted by the police) that in early August this year Atif, who is described by the Delhi police as the mastermind behind the recent terrorist bombings in Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi, underwent a police verification exercise along with his four roommates in order to rent the apartment they were staying in Jamia Nagar. All the five youth living in the apartment submitted to the Delhi police their personal details, including permanent address, driving license details, address of the house they previously stayed in, all of which were found to be accurate.
Is it conceivable that the alleged kingpin behind the terrorist Indian Mujahideen outfit would have wanted to undergo a police verification- for whatever purpose- just a week after the Ahmedabad blasts and a month before the bombings in Delhi?
2) The four-storeyed house L-18 in Jamia Nagar, where the alleged terrorists were staying, has only one access point, through the staircase, which is covered by an iron grill. It is impossible to leave the house except from the staircase. By all reports, the staircase was taken over by the Special Cell and/or other agencies during the counter-terror operation. The house -- indeed, the entire block -- was cordoned off at the time of the operation.
How then was it possible, as claimed by the police, for two alleged terrorists to escape the premises during the police operation?
3) The media has quoted 'police sources' as having informed them that the Special Cell was fully aware about the presence of dreaded terrorists involved in the bombings in Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi, staying in the apartment that was raided.
Why was the late Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, a veteran of dozens of encounter operations, the only officer in the operation not wearing a bullet proof vest? Was this due to over-confidence or is there something else to his mysterious death during the operation? Will the forensic report of the bullets that killed Inspector Sharma be made public?
4) There are reports that towards the end of the counter-terror operation, some policemen climbed on the roof of L-18 and fired several rounds in the air. Other policemen were seen breaking windows and even throwing flower pots to the ground from flats adjacent or opposite to L-18
Why was the police firing in the air and why did it indulge in destruction of property around L-18 after the encounter?
5) The police officials claim that an AK-47 and pistols were recovered from L-18.
What was the weapon that killed Inspector Sharma? Was the AK-47 used at all and by whom? Going by some reports that have appeared (see 'Times of India', 20.09.08), the AK-47s have been used by the police only. Is it not strange that alleged terrorists did not use a more deadly and sophisticated weapon like the AK-47, which they purportedly possessed, preferring to use pistols?
We feel that there are far too many loose ends in the current story of the police encounter at L-18 in Jamia Nagar. We demand that a fair, impartial and independent probe into the incident be initiated at the earliest to answer the above questions as also any other ones that arise from the contradictions of the case.
Shabnam Hashmi,
Satya Sivaraman,
Manisha Sethi,
Tanweer Fazal,
Arshad Alam,
Pallavi Deka.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)