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

[Pheeta Ram]

Kudos Shuddha!


On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>