[Reader-list] Swami and Friends: JTSA Replies to Praveen Swami

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear All,

for those interested in the debate on the so called Batla House  
Encounter and its reportage. This is the JTSA's response (sent out  
today) to Praveen Swami's rejoinder to them, which was posted by  
Aditya Raj Kaul on this list, some days ago.

And, may I add, I do not believe that anyone should be prevented from  
posting material by people like Praveen Swami on this list. I find it  
always interesting to read his very imaginative prose. Naturally,  
when we are offered material that comes from sources such as Praveen  
Swami, it will be sooner or later, contested, especially as there is  
a great deal to contest, and usually because it (Mr.Swami's writing)  
is so imaginative. I see no trouble at all in some of us sharing on  
this list  the skills that we (and others) have acquired over our  
years of acquaintance with Mr. Swami's prose style in being able to  
see through his imagination, in order to reveal it for what it is.

best

Shuddha
_______________________________


Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association
1st May 2010
Swami and Friends

We are greatly surprised and also, one may add, a little amused at  
this display of victimhood on the part of Praveen Swami and his  
friends. It appears that we are to forget that Swami churns out one  
column after another in a national daily, week after week, giving  
detailed expositions of the guilt of those who are still awaiting  
trials. Ms Annie Zaidi in her letter to the editor of  
countercurrents, the website where our statement first appeared,  
seems so exercised by our accusations against Mr. Swami, but it does  
not concern her when her friend and ex-boss writes, to give just one  
example, about Abu Bashar, a poor maulana from Azamgarh, as a  
jihadist. (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 32,  
2010, The Hindu) Does she not realize that Bashar’s trial could be  
vitiated and prejudiced by Swami’s public indictments?

Our humble email campaign is being pitted as a grave injustice to  
Swami’s journalistic integrity, but the inequality between JTSA and  
the might of the Hindu group (and Swami’s clout within it) is  
apparent to anyone not ‘blinded by faith’. We may add here that Swami  
is an absolute non-entity for us. JTSA was formed in the aftermath of  
the Batla House ‘encounter’; when a group of teachers at Jamia Millia  
Islamia felt that the police story about the ‘encounter; was riddled  
with holes, and we came together to campaign for truth and justice.  
Our fight is against the State and its agencies, and the fact that it  
refused any free and fair enquiry into the ‘encounter’ strengthens  
our conviction that the State does not wish the truth to be revealed.  
Our limited interest in Swami is only because he appears to be an  
apologist for the State. We have no personal interest in Swami, we  
assure his friends and well wishers. However it is entirely  
reasonable and justified for anyone to issue public statements  
against someone’s politics—and Swami’s politics is clearly Statist  
and strangely unquestioning for an investigative journalist. It is no  
crime to raise doubts about a certain kind of reportage which merely  
parrots the investigators’ claims; surely Swami is not alone in  
pushing the Home Ministry’s agenda, but he certainly is the  
undisputed king of this. To fear that one’s writings would be  
‘challenged by those who don’t agree’ is intellectual dishonesty and  
crass arrogance at the least.

As for the Swami’s defence, we would like to submit the following:

I

Swami says that it’s no one’s business who the source of his story  
is; fair enough, though he shouldn’t baulk when he is criticized for  
consistent reliance on investigators and their dossiers alone. It is  
the accuracy of information, he says, which should be the issue. Very  
good! Except how do you measure the accuracy of statements such as  
these?

a)      “Bored by the religious polemic, though, Bashar’s students  
[alleged IM bombers] turned instead to Anurag Kashyap’s movie Black  
Friday…” (“Islamism, Modernity and Indian Mujahideen”, March 32,  
2010, The Hindu)

b)      “Early in the summer of 2004, investigators say, the core  
members of the network that was later to call itself the Indian  
Mujahideen met at Bhatkal’s beachfront to discuss their plans. Iqbal  
Shahbandri and Bhatkal-based cleric Shabbir Gangoli are alleged to  
have held ideological classes; the group also took time out to  
practice shooting with airguns. Bawa had overall charge of  
arrangements — a task that illustrated his status as the Bhatkal  
brothers’ most trusted lieutenant.” (The Rebirth of the Indian  
Mujahideen”, 19th April 2010, The Hindu)

One could provide a n endless list of such assertions that Swami  
makes. The only source of this supposedly accurate information can be  
chargesheets (which to repeat what we said in the last post, are only  
chargesheets, not proven guilt) or custodial confessions.

On the question of the new footage, why does the Pune Police continue  
to be unimpressed with ATS’s naming of Bhatkal? Why do they say that  
the ATS is after “usual suspects’?

(see http://epaper.mailtoday.in/ 
Details.aspxboxid=2310463&id=35313&issuedate=1242010)

II

On the Batla House ‘encounter’, Swami responds thus:

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 Mohd Sajid 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.


  We have maintained and reiterate it even more strongly now, after  
the publication of the post mortem reports, that the National Human  
Rights Commission studied the evidence placed before it selectively,  
and willfully ignored all contrary evidence. The only so-called  
clinching evidence against the two slain boys is the presence of gun  
shot residue on their right hands, which in NHRC’s words quoted by  
Swami, “conclusively establishes that Atif and Sajid had both used  
fire arms at the time of incident.” However the presence of Gun shot  
residue (GSR) is hardly ‘conclusive’ evidence. For several years now,  
forensic scientists have cautioned against the enthusiasm of  
prosecutors to push for GSR as crucial evidence, for these reasons:

1)      GSR is like a cloud of invisible particles, which can be  
inadvertently shaken off by the shooter with the shake of a hand,  
even a single swift movement or rubbing of hands etc. It easily  
transfers to clothes or car seats etc.

2)      It is entirely possible for non-shooters to be contaminated  
by GSR. Police vehicles are particularly prone to GSR contamination  
and non shooters can likely acquire GSR traveling in vehicles  
ferrying shooters, or in which shooters have previously travelled.  
Indeed, experiments conducted by forensic scientists have revealed  
that even those non-shooters who entered a room a few minutes after  
there had been firing acquired GSR.

3)      Particles that are ostensibly peculiar to GSR can be produced  
in ways other than fire shots, for example particles similar to GSR  
can be found in brake linings.

(Among others, see New Scientist, 23 November 2005, magazine issue  
2527/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825274.300-why-we- 
cannot-rely-on-firearm-forensics.html?full=true)

So really, GSR is hardly the kind of clinching evidence that the  
NHRC, and following it, Swami would have us believe. Indeed, as the  
post mortem reports clearly demonstrate, the two boys were shot from  
a close range, making it that much easier for GSR to be deposited on  
their on their bodies.

Second, he responds to our charge of refusing to comment on the Batla  
House ‘encounter’ in light of the post-mortem reports:

"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”.  
Either these people have not read the NHRC report—or are  
lying." (from Swami's rejoinder to the JTSA text)

At the cost of repeating ourselves, we would like to place the  
following facts:

The NHRC’s ‘available evidence’ consisted of the statements of senior  
police officers:

1) R.R. Upadhayay, Additional Commissioner of Police, Vigilance;
2) Satish Chandra, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi;
3) Neeraj Thakur, DCP (Crime & Rly.), Delhi;
4) Karnail Singh, Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, Delhi.

These are the very same people who were being supposedly  
investigated. Not a single neighbour from Batla House or family  
member of the deceased was called for deposition to verify or cross  
check the police version despite them having filed applications  
wishing to testify before the Commission; the NHRC did not even  
bother to visit the site of the ‘encounter’. Mr. Swami may not find  
it of interest that the NHRC did not deem it necessary to investigate  
the presence of non-firearm ante-mortem injuries; neither did it  
exercise the NHRC that the two boys did not receive a single bullet  
injury in the frontal region of their bodies—or that such evidence  
does not square with the statements made by the senior police  
officers’ descriptions of the sequence of events in their notes to  
the NHRC.


III
On our raising of Swami’s linking of Bhatkal and IM to the Bangalore  
stadium blasts, Swami says:

"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."

  No body expects Swami to have independent expertise in bomb  
forensics, but independent reporting certainly. There were other  
journalists who were not buying the investigators’ story that the  
presence of easily available samay clocks could be proof alone of the  
omnipresent IM’s hand.

“But as far as the suspects are concerned, it is turning out to be an  
old game for the Karnataka police. They have zeroed in on Riyaz  
Bhatkal and Bilal—who have been blamed for any terror attack on any  
part of the state for the past four years.
The police do not have any evidence to link Bhatkal to the Bangalore  
blasts. The only premise on which their argument is based is the  
“similarity in planning the attacks”. Karnataka police's inability to  
make a breakthrough in the case has drawn flak.
“It is highly intriguing that the police have not made any major  
breakthrough. They are trying to find scapegoats and hence naming the  
usual suspects," said Rakesh Para, a former intelligence officer of  
the Karnataka police.”

( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/93651/India/IPL+betting 
+mafia+behind+twin+blasts:+K'taka+HM.html )

There were also others who were willing to cite alternate theories:

“Sources in Bangalore said the Indian Mujahideen is being linked to  
the April 17 bomb episode outside the cricket stadium largely on  
account of the presence of the clocks. “But as these clocks are  
easily available all over the country it is not easy to corroborate  
only on this basis or the usage of ammonium nitrate gel as the  
explosive,” said the sources.
Karnataka DGP Ajai Kumar Singh said: ‘We are looking at the  
similarities between these blasts and blasts in other parts of the  
country. There are however a lot of dissimilarities between these  
blasts and the July 25 serial blasts in Bangalore’.”

( http://www.indianexpress.com/news/clock-in-stadium-bombs-points-at- 
im/609027/1 )

  It is of course up to the readers to decide whether to believe the  
investigators or not, but surely by obfuscating other view points,  
Swami is telling his readers that the investigators information is  
the sole authoritative version of affairs.

  On the link between SIMI and IM and terrorism, he further writes:

"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. Yoginder Sikand had some good  
background earlier. If you’re willing to fork out a few bucks for  
more detail, do read C.  Christine Fair on the subject. 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"

Yes indeed, we have a problem with Swami’s linking of SIMI and IM’s  
connection with terrorism, but in particular with his linking of  
these groups to the stadium blasts. And we are not in bad company  
either. In August 2008, Justice Geeta Mittal, who headed the High  
Court Tribunal on the ban on SIMI asked the Centre to produce any  
“fresh material” to “connect” the organisation to “bomb blasts,  
riots, destructive activities”. She said: “You say that SIMI is  
connected to bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities. Place  
specific material before me, you (Centre) cannot presume their  
involvement.”  JTSA finds SIMI’s ideology abhorrent, particularly its  
views on women, but that does not mean that we are willing to let  
them be hanged on charges of terror when there is no evidence to  
prove it.

Second, the IM’s links with SIMI are tenuous. The DGP of Gujarat,  
P.C. Pande provided a semantic link between SIMI and IM: “You remove  
S and I from ‘SIMI’ and you get IM, for Indian  
Mujahideen.” (Ahmedabad, Aug 16 2008, IANS) Well, it could as easily  
be argued that if you remove ‘B’ from IB and supplant it with ‘M’,  
you get IM.

The only proof of this shadowy organisation’s existence are the  
dubious emails sent in the aftermath of the blasts claiming  
responsibility, and the lengthy chargesheets filed by the various  
police departments.

We did not see any link between the life story about a supposed IM  
operative and the stadium blast, neither did Swami provide any in his  
rejoinder. As for trial records, Tehelka has done a series on SIMI  
which can be cited and which prove Swami’s confident assertions  
utterly wrong. These are also easily accessible on the Internet.  
Moreover, none of the IM trials have even begun for Swami to cite. As  
for forking out a few bucks for detail, don’t bother, because  
Christine Fair approvingly cites among others, Praveen Swami himself!  
Talk about friends in need, friends indeed!

We cannot speak for either the Facebook Page I Believe the 2008 Batla  
House Encounter was fake or the page, Shut up Praveen Swami as none  
of us are members of either of the pages, but cannot help noticing  
that the ‘Shut Up Praveen Swami’ page was hacked into and destroyed  
on 28th April 2010. When its creator, re-started the page on the same  
night, it was again hacked into on 30th April 2010.


PS: a member of the JTSA did indeed email the release to the Hindu on  
this email id openpage at hindu.co.in on 27th April 2010. We would be  
grateful to the editors of the Hindu were they to publish the entire  
text of the exchange, including our rejoinder to Swami’s response. It  
is a little unfair to ask us to circulate Swami’s email, as the Chief  
of Bureau asks us to in the name of ‘fairness’, when they have a  
newspaper and a weekly magazine at their disposal, which has always  
given Swami a free run.


Released by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association  
(www.teacherssolidarity.org)

On 29-Apr-10, at 11:38 PM, Aditya Raj Kaul wrote:


Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net