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

[Rakesh Iyer]

My belief:

I will only add to this one thing. Praveen Swami was going reports after
reports of Muslims being involved in the Mecca Masjid blasts. After the
investigations and proceedings in the court, not a single one of those
convicted (against whom Praveen Swami was castigating in his articles).

What more should I add? People like him are glorifying police investigations
when we ourselves hardly believe the police in general.

Then why should I believe him?

Rakesh

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:02 AM, TaraPrakash <taraprakash at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, it's interesting to know that Swami is a non-entity for JTSA (crass
> arrogance) and still he is being hounded for his politics. JTSA was formed
> for a worthy cause, but it's cause now seems to have become to go after
> Swami whenever they can. They will have to put there act together unless
> they are reduced to Swami hating organization. There have been several
> ocasions when newspapers, including Hindu, are challenged for their
> reporting or their editorials. Hindu has been often branded statist,
> communist, mouthpiece of CPI(m) {during Singur and Nandi Gram movements}
> and
> mouthpiece of Chinese government all the time. But I can't remember a time
> when a correspondent  was singled out and maligned like this.
>
> I would understand if the demonizing was directed at the newspaper that
> gives him space to write his "imagination". I am no friend of Swami, but I
> will welcome his articles on this list for the principle of journalistic
> freedom, and not necessarily for Shuddha's trivial and trivializing
> rejoinder.
>  ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>
> To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 6:14 AM
> Subject: [Reader-list] Swami and Friends: JTSA Replies to Praveen Swami
>
>
> > 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/>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>
>