[Reader-list] JTSA allegations: my reply to a letter from Annie Zaidi

Thu Apr 29 23:38:31 IST 2010

fyi

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Praveen Swami
Date: Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Subject: JTSA allegations: my reply to a letter from Annie Zaidi
To: Annie Zaidi <zaidiannie at gmail.com>

Dear Annie:

Thank you for your letter.  I’m glad that, unlike many people I know, you’ve
actually sought my opinion on the allegations that the Jamia Teachers’
Solidarity Association has levelled at me.  Some people seem to have been
perfectly content to circulate the allegations without any effort at
verification.  Since the JTSA’s allegations have not been addressed, to the
best of my knowledge, to my Editors at *The Hindu*, I’ve had no opportunity
to respond to what I believe are scurrilous allegations.  However, I do hope
you will not be upset if I take the liberty of circulating my reply to you
to a few other people who I believe may be interested in what I have to say.

The principal JTSA claim, if my understanding is correct, is that I’ve
invented a suspect for the Bangalore and Pune bombings, undermining my own
earlier position—as they see it—that Hindutva groups had carried out the
attacks.

Separately, the JTSA also makes two, somewhat mutually-contradictory claims:
first that I blindly broadcast the views of India’s intelligence services,
and secondly, that I make up stories.  The first of these two charges is, by
its nature, difficult to prove or disprove: after all, if someone has
persuaded themselves that I am an agent of India’s intelligence services, my
denials are hardly likely to persuade them otherwise.

It seems common-sense to me that the issue is not *who* I get my information
from—which I am professionally bound, as you know, not to disclose—but how *
accurate* that information is.  This brings me to the second claim—i.e.,
that I have invented or misrepresented facts.  This allegation is a serious
one, but *can* be tested.  Below, I’ve put my responses to their claims in
the order in which they appear.  Please make up your own mind.

JTSA[1]

My Response

*While the Pune police commissioned experts to draw sketches of the suspects
based on this footage, ATS dismissed this exercise as “anything but useful”,
as their source, the CCTV footage, was itself grainy. (Siasat, April 12).
Where does Swami stand on this? He wrote in his 19th February piece: “All
that investigators have by way of suspects are three men recorded holding
brief meetings before the blast by a poor-quality closed-circuit television
camera. From the videotape, it is unclear if the men had anything to do with
the attack.” Exactly a month later, Swami conveniently develops an amnesia
about Abhinav Bharat and even about the poor quality of CCTV footage. What
was earlier ‘unclear” and hazy has in one month segued into solid shape: in
the form of top Indian Mujahideen (IM) operative Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa
ie., Yasin Bhatkal…. *

The  JTSA is right: I did indeed write about grainy video footage obtained
from a camera installed in a hotel opposite the German Bakery (I’ve dealt
with the Abhinav Bharat issue they’ve raised below, to avoid confusing
issues).  What I didn’t know when I wrote the story was of the existence of
footage from the second CCTV camera, installed above the cash counter in the
German Bakery.  Please note, though, that the existence of this footage was
known to journalists other than me long before the Maharashtra Police
Anti-Terrorism Squad disclosed its existence.  Mid-Day, to cite just one of
several examples that can easily be unearthed from the internet, had an
account of its existence as early as February 17, 2010.[2]  The article made
clear that the police had instructed witnesses not to talk about the
footage: “Pravin Panth, cashier at the bakery, said, ‘I have seen the
footage, but I cannot reveal the inputs. I have been advised to refrain from
revealing details to the media as this may harm investigations’.”  Please
also note that Yasin Bhatkal’s possible role in the bombings was dwelt on at
this stage of the investigation by other journalists.[3]

*Clearly, Swami’s changing perceptions about the CCTV footage is in accord
with the shifting attitude of the ATS itself.*

I wish my supposedly-formidable contacts in the intelligence services and
elsewhere had told me about the cash-counter footage.  That they didn’t
should lead to some obvious inferences, which I think are too obvious to
need fleshing out here.  As the JTSA points out, the Maharashtra Police
Anti-Terrorism Squad did indeed claim that it had identified Yasin Bhatkal,
from footage harvested from the cash-counter camera.  This was widely
reported in early April, *before* I wrote.[4]  I was, I have to say,
sceptical—hence, I worked to access the footage, and see for myself if the
man in the tape did indeed resemble Yasin Bhatkal.  I was reasonably
satisfied by what I found.  In any case, if investigators changed their
views when new evidence came to light, why is that a problem?

* *

*Swami’s articles appear magically, faithfully reflecting the Intelligence
reports. After the Batla House ‘encounter’, he launched a tirade against all
those who were questioning the police account of the shootout labeling them
all ‘Alices in wonderland’. He went so far as to identify ‘precisely’ how
Inspector Sharma was shot by claiming that “abdomen wound was inflicted with
[Atif] Amin's weapon and the shoulder hit, by Mohammad Sajid”…. And no sir,
Swami’s conclusion was not based on post mortem reports of the killed, fire
arm examination report or ballistic report but on this innocent fact: “the
investigators believe that…”*

* *

The National Human Rights Commission studied the same evidence I did—and
more which was not available when I wrote.  It says:  “…swabs which were
taken from the right hands of Mohd Atif Ameen and Modh Sajid by the doctors
at the time of post mortem in AIIMS were sent in sealed bottles to CFSL for
dermal nitrate tests in the laboratory. The same were found to contain gun
shot residue. This conclusively establishes that Mohd Atif Ameen and
MohdSajid had both used fire arms at the time of incident”.
[5]  Unless it believes that the NHRC is an intelligence agency, the
allegation made by the JTSA is untrue.

*Swami however felt no need to pen an article when the postmortem reports of
Atif and Sajid revealed that they had been shot from close range and that
neither of them sustained gunshot wounds in the frontal region of the
body—an impossibility in the case of a genuine encounter.*

I didn’t.  I still don’t.   Having studied the available evidence, the NHRC
concluded: “In such circumstances, the action taken by the police party in
which Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid received fatal injuries and died is
fully protected by law”.[6] Parenthetically, I note that members of the
Facebook group *I believe the 2008 Batla House encounter was FAKE*  insist
that “not only the JTSA report, but also NHRC (a statutory body of GOI) says
that the encounter is fake”.[7]  Either these people have not read the NHRC
report—or are lying.

*When two crude bombs went off outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium ahead of
the match between Mumbai Indians and Royal Challengers Bangalore on 17th
April, the Karnataka Home Minister V.S. Acharya announced that the state
Police were investigating the alleged involvement of the cricket betting
lobby. He forcefully denied any link with the earlier blasts in the city in
2008.*

*But Yasin Bhatkal seems to have preoccupied Swami’s mind on 19th April for
he evokes him again in connection with the stadium blasts (“Stadium Blasts
herald new IM offensive”). Citing the ever cooperative ‘investigators’, he
says that the ‘similarity in design’ and the manner in which some bombs
failed to explode are a sure indicator of the IM hand*

Leaving aside the minor irony here—the JTSA’s great faith in an embarrassed
BJP politician—there are two facts that need to be recorded.  In pursuit of
the government’s “betting mafia” story, the Karnataka Police arrested five
Uttar Pradesh suspects.  Those suspects were cleared of any involvement in
the attacks by the Uttar Pradesh Police.[8]  Second, I clearly identified
that suspicions directed at Mohammad Zarar Siddi Bawa, a.k.a. Yasin Bhatkal,
were based on what investigators were telling me.  Similarity in bomb design
is quite evidently reasonable ground for suspicion—though it is not of
course proof.  Since I have no independent expertise in bomb forensics, the
information was clearly attributed to investigators.  Its up to readers
whether they want to believe them or not.

* *

*Swami here details the biographies of SIMI activists in South India, making
the link, ever so cleverly, between SIMI—and yes, IM—and the stadium blasts,
without providing any evidence of their actual linkage. *

I’m a little uncertain here about precisely what the allegation is here—but
think the JTSA has some problem with my suggesting that SIMI and the Indian
Mujahideen are linked to terrorism.  I’m in good company, I think, in this
belief.  Javed Anand had a must-read article on the issue some time
back.[9]Yoginder Sikand had some good background earlier.
[10]  If you’re willing to fork out a few bucks for more detail, do read C.
Christine Fair on the subject.[11]  This is just a tiny part of a mass of
literature—not including charge-sheets, trial records and so on—on the
subject.  You don’t need access to the Intelligence Services to access
it—just a few hours in a good library

Like so many people driven by blind faith, the JTSA’s members don’t seem
willing to be persuaded by fact.  Increasingly, the positions of its
supporters seem driven by bizarre conspiracy theories.   For instance, Omair
Anas, one of the leading lights of the “Shut Up Praveen Swami”
group[12](which includes among its members an odd array of Islamists
linked to the
Jamaat-e-Islami’s student wing as well as members of that flag-bearer of
Delhi’s regrettably unsubstantial radical-chic, Sarai), has this post up on
his Facebook wall:

* *

*Omair** Anas *Who carried out 9/11 attack? Israel ! Israel! know how
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/israel-did-911-all-the-proof-in-the-world/

Sun at 23:55 · Share

*Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!!*[13]

I have two points to make in conclusion:

*First, *a number of Islamist groups, as well as some of Maoist supporters,
have been engaging in a wilful misrepresentation of my
work—misrepresentation that, your letter leads me to believe, may be
succeeding simply because the audiences for this campaign do not seem to
take the trouble of reading what I have written.  For example, a Google
Groups thread claims that I have been advocating targeted killing of
“insurgent leaders (and cadres)! Understandably, away from the battlefields.
Dragged out of homes or on the city streets? A la Mossad!?”[14]*  *Please
see for yourself if I actually said anything of the kind. I did indeed point
to a successful campaign targeting “the leadership and cadre of Khalistan
terrorists”.  I trust no sensible person would have objections to the
targeting of these murderous criminals.  I concluded that “Learning from its
own success stories, India needs to fight insurgencies in smarter, leaner
ways. Like Andhra Pradesh, States must invest in training facilities that
meet their particular needs; expand intelligence capabilities; and use
technology effectively. Instead of focussing on simply expanding the size of
Central forces, the Union government must understand the need for them to be
properly trained and equipped”.  [15]**

*Second,* it seems to me a little sad that my critics have chosen to use
personal slurs and innuendo, instead of engaging in a debate on facts—a
debate I think is important and healthy.  It is all the more dismaying when
people you would expect to value civil debate engage in these kinds of
tactics.  I find these tactics despicable. I’m happy to be challenged on
points of fact and interpretation.  I’ve no doubt that my work will contain
mistakes, and believe that informed criticism is good for public debate and
good journalism.  Sadly, I don’t think the JTSA statement has helped either
cause.

Warm regards,

Praveen

------------------------------

[1] Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association, ‘Praveen Swami’s Not So Fabulous
Fables’ (CounterCurrents.org: http://www.countercurrents.org/jtsa250410.htm)

[2] Bipin Kumar Singh and Kaumudi Gujjar, ‘Footage gave important leads:
cops’ (MidDay:
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/feb/170210-german-bakery-blast-cctv-footage-vital-clues.htm),
February17, 2010.

[3][3] Johnson TA, ‘Yasin Bhatkal is IM bombmaker, now in Karachi: Probe
team’ (*The Indian Express: *
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/yasin-bhatkal-is-im-bombmaker-now-in-karachi-probe-team/582699/),
February 22, 2010.

[4]  ‘IM leader Yasin Bhatkal mastermind of Pune blasts, claims ATS’, (Daily
News and Analysis:
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_im-leader-yasin-bhatkal-mastermind-of-pune-blasts-claims-ats_1368789),
April 8, 2010.

[5] ‘Shri Kamran Siddique Gen.Secretary, Real Cause, New Delhi:
2811/30/8/08-09-FE’ (National Human Rights Commission: New Delhi, July 20,
2009). Online at nhrc.nic.in/Batla.doc.  Page 21

[6] Shri Kamran Siddique Gen.Secretary, Real Cause, New Delhi:
2811/30/8/08-09-FE’ (National Human Rights Commission: New Delhi, July 20,
2009). Online at nhrc.nic.in/Batla.doc.  Page 25

[7] http://ko-kr.facebook.com/BatlaHouse

[8] Aakash Singh, ‘Suspects arrested for Chinnaswamy blast case are thieves
from UP’ (MyNews.in:
http://www.mynews.in/News/Suspects_arrested_for_Chinnaswamy_blast_case_are_thieves_from_UP_N49091.html),
April 22, 2010

[9] Javed Anand ‘Suspect SIMI? Of course’, (*The Indian Express: *
http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/349496/), August 16, 2008

[10] Yoginder Sikand, ‘The SIMI story’, (Countercurrents.org:
http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-sikand150706.htm), July 15, 2006.

[11] C. Christine Fair, ‘Students Islamic Movement of India and the Indian
Mujahideen: An Assessment’, *Asian Policy Vol 9 *(Washington DC: National
Bureau of Asian Research), January 2010.

[12]
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115282715164932&ref=search&sid=100000903926148.964712540..1

[13]
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383468305#!/profile.php?id=1383468305&v=wall<http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383468305#%21/profile.php?id=1383468305&v=wall>

[14]
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth/browse_thread/thread/d9c6220d869a0cc5/f48d96c7a196bad5?lnk=raot&pli=1
**

[15] Praveen Swami, ‘For a review of counter-insurgency doctrine’, (*The
Hindu*: http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article395529.ece), April 13,
2010.

Praveen Swami
Phone | +91 (11) 23926463 Fax | +91 (11) 23739101

u The Hindu <http://www.thehindu.in/> | My
<http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01038015154355230251/BDSOkDAoQobXBpJEk>
Recent Articles<http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01038015154355230251/BDSOkDAoQobXBpJEk>
 | Find Me on  <praveenswami at gmail.com>Google Talk <praveenswami at gmail.com>
 | Send Me  <http://public.me.com/praveenswami/>Large
Files<http://public.me.com/praveenswami/>
 u

-- 
Aditya Raj Kaul

India Editor
The Indian, Australia

Cell -  +91-9873297834
Blog: http://activistsdiary.blogspot.com/