Makkah Masjid, Lumbni Park, & Gokul Chat Bhandar Blasts: Information and documents sought under the RTI Act
The Public Information Officer
Office of the Director General of Police
Hyderabad /
The Public Information Officer
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Hyderabad
Sub:Information and documents sought under the RTI Act
Sir :
1.What is the status of investigation into the blast cases of Makkah Masjid and Gokul Chat and Lumbini Park ?
2.Is it true the police now holds the view that the suspected Muslims are no longer believed to have been involved ?
3.Which groups of the right wing Hindu organisations are now known by police to be involved ?
4.How many suspects from other-than-Muslim religious groups have the police interrogated ?
5.Have suspects from other-than-Muslim religious groups been treated the same way as Muslim suspects were treated ?
6.How many of those suspected have been or are in the process of being charge sheeted ?
7.Under what provisions of the criminal law are they in the process of being charge sheeted ?
8.Are these provisions identical to those applied against the Muslim suspects ?
9.If not, why not ?
10.Was the source of each intelligence which falsely implicated Muslims investigated ?
11.Were the personnel who provided the wrong intelligence investigated for links with any group/s holding divisive ideology or following the path of violence ?
12.Were they asked to explain how why and under what circumstances they provided false intelligence to the State ?
13.Have any of them been issued with any memos regarding these and allied matters ?
14.Have any of them been shifted out to other assignment or operational areas so the State is not again misled with misinformation from its own policing agencies ?
15.Did not the wrong intelligence involve the State in making formulating and following an ineffective policy to address the issue of terror attacks ?
16.Which officials processed the intelligence ?
17.Did any officials express reservations as regards the intelligence provided ?
18.Was any action taken on these ?
19.Were these noted in files concerned ?
20.On whose instructions were these disregarded ?
21.Was any issue raised by any official as to why all the while baseless nonsense was being fed to State by “intelligence” establishment as material establishing Muslims as terrorists ?
22.Was any point made by any official, in any meeting or discussion with the political establishment including the then Home Minister, as to wrong information fed to the State by “intelligence” establishment was wrongly projecting Muslims as terrorists causing disaffection between other citizens vis-à-vis Muslims and thereby undermining the cohesiveness between different groups, alienating the Muslims and eroding the goodwill that they would otherwise enjoy in the nation ?
23.Does not “wrongly projecting Muslims as terrorists causing disaffection between other citizens vis-à-vis Muslims and thereby undermining the cohesiveness between different groups, alienating the Muslims and eroding the goodwill that they would otherwise enjoy in the nation” qualify as an offence under the Indian Penal Code ?
24.Was any official of the police department or intelligence establishment charged for the same or even asked to explain why such action should not be initiated against him or her ?
25.Was any “intelligence” official asked at any later point of time as to what the basis of such alleged “intelligence” found later to be false, was ?
26.Should future inputs by these “intelligence” officials not be suspect – was anything officially set out to ensure such biased false “intelligence” is not in future allowed to be routinely fed by biased vested interests to target secularism ?
27.If these officials eavesdropped only on Muslims, why were they “certain” no one else was involved ?
28.If they eavesdropped across the spectrum and they missed the conversations of radical Hindu outfits, how could they miss all of them ?
29.If they did NOT miss the conversations of radical Hindu outfits, did any official appreciate they were abettors of the crimes of planting of explosives by these outfits and are thus equally guilty and must be prosecuted for the same offences that were alleged against the Muslims, viz., conspiracy to wage war against the State, offences under the Explosives Act, offences of inciting hatred, dividing communities, etc. ?
30.Was there ever any discussion on how alleged“nationalists” claiming to work in the name of Hindu Dharma have been doing the work of terrorists all the while smugly allowing Muslims to be blamed ?
31.Which organisations of the said type have been identified as suspect and are being investigated ?
32.Are the officials investigating these only Hindu officials or does the composition of the team/s include Muslim officers of rank higher than Head Constable, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector ?
33.Are the officials whom they report to exclusively Hindu officials ?
34.Are persons of eminence and known secular credentials from the Hindu faith involved in discussions with the police force as regards such matters ?
35.Is there any move to involve persons of eminence and known secular credentials from all faiths in discussions with the police force as regards such matters to ensure the police does not lose its secular credentials because of misguided policies on account of actions or omissions of biased officials ?
36.Is there any effort to identify officials without bias to have only such officials on teams investigating such sensitive matters ?
37.Has any effort been made by the police department to reassure the minority community that they will not again be targeted unfairly in the future and will be dealt with in the same manner as any other group is treated for similar alleged offences ?
38.Has any confidence building measure been taken by the police for thje above or allied purposes ?
39.Has there been any effort to recover from alleged “informers” of the police who fed wrong “information” to the police that caused the persecution of Muslims by wrong action of the police force in the matters outlined at serial no: 1 above, monies paid to them for their “information” and if so has any of it been recovered ?
40.Has there been any effort to recover from police officers who paid such monies to person who fed wrong “information” to the police that caused the persecution of Muslims by wrong action of the police force in the matters outlined at serial no: 1 above, the said monies paid by or through them for such “information” and if so has any of it been recovered ?
41.After the then CP wrote to Minorities Commission admitting non-involvement of detained boys in blasts, after their wrongful detention was established, on their complaints of torture, or at least after the SHRC ordered a CB CID inquiry with report in six months, was any administrative or other disciplinary action against those who illegally detained them ?
42.Considering that five people were dead in firing established from evidence before the Hon’ble Justice V Bhaskara Rao Commission of Inquiry as unjustified, reasons given by police established as false to mislead Government, bound to mislead Commission of Inquiry and considering that evidence by police was also established as fabricated to mislead Commission of Inquiry, and to mislead Government, considering that identical in all material aspects affidavits of police officials Sudhakar, Ramchandra Reddy and Anantha Reddy though they acted at different times and circumstances, prove conspiracy to fabricate evidence to mislead Commission of Inquiry, was any administrative or other disciplinary action taken or initiated against them for these wrong actions qualifying as offences against justice and conspiracy ?
43.Admissions by P Sudhakar, Inspector of Police, establish not even one person died at petrol pump – he says when he filed FIR that evening, he was not even aware some people had died in the firing ! The Police story being thus established from their own versions as incorrect, was any administrative or other disciplinary action taken or initiated against the persons who fabricated the said story ?
44.Arguments of learned counsel for the secular police of a secular state when he asked about the Muslims who died, “Who are these people ? They came from some foreign country ?
They ruled us ! They imposed Urdu on us !” being over (“us” and “them” is an unmistakable distinction drawn as if those Muslims were not Indian), was any official or the said counsel asked to explain on whose authority and why such stands were asserted ?
45.Despite the sick “who are these people ? they came from some foreign country ? they ruled us ! they imposed Urdu on us !” why did the police department not change its counsel ?
46.Did the police department appropriate his remarks as its own or at least approve of this assertion of divisive ideology affecting State institutions ?
47.Since the State Police took no step to distance itself from such remarks, did the State Police approve of this sort of assertion of divisive ideology affecting State institutions ?
48.When a statutory body with power to acquire evidence does so, can the State Police ignore that evidence as in the case of evidence of torture by police of illegally detained youths, obtained by the A.P. State Minorities Commission ?
49.Is there accountability of public action, and an absence of communal bias in police officials, and did they follow the guidelines of the D K Basu judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the arrest of the Muslim youths ?
50.Is the police department not a major stakeholder in the administration of justice and in the rule of law prevailing in the State ?
51.Does it periodically review its work to ensure absence of communal bias, and at what frequency ?
52.When was the last such exercise carried out and what were its findings ?
53.The Commission of Inquiry i.e., the Hon’ble Justice V Bhaskara Rao Commission of Inquiry – considering the State appointed it, the State wanted to know the facts about the events of 18-05-2007, why did the state Police do nothing to secure any evidence as to the facts and filed no videos and affidavit of senior officials till cross examination of some police witnesses started to visibly break up the police version and show it up to be false ?
54.Did the State police instruct its counsel to withdraw witnesses who were police officials or those who had filed affidavits attested by a police officer ?
55.If so, why and on whose directions was the decision taken ?
56.Considering that the policemen who were required to bring the facts to light have acted deliberately to cover up the same, have they not become abettors of all offences themselves ?
57.Have they been proceeded against departmentally for the statements they made, the affidavits they filed, the evidence they gave, to inquire why they did what they did ?
58.What is the definition that police has of “Jihadi literature” ?
59.Who coined it ?
60.Under which provision of which law is possessing any type of literature a crime, and did the literature allegedly possessed by the detainees qualify under that provision for their detention ?
61. Has there been any initiative in the police force to ensure such aberrations as at that time in the above referred matters, do not recur again ?
62.Considering that the concepts of Jihad as a struggle for righteous life as found in the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita and the Guru Granth Sahib are the same, were at any time any persons other than Muslims ever arraigned on the charge of “possession of Jihadi literature” ?
63.Are Muslims wrongly charged then, still under police surveillance as special future targets of likely detention etc. without any other reason than that they were then so charged ?
64.Have Muslims who were then detained and charged been threatened against seeking redressal from the legal system, by policemen, holding out the threat of their false implication in future cases ?
65.Copies of charge-sheets, statements of all witnesses and accused, and judgements of the Hon’ble Courts available with the police be furnished, for which necessary payment will be made whenever sought.
66.Has there been any move to initiate an inquiry as to how such a large scale misdirection of investigation took place ?
67.Has there been any move to initiate an inquiry as to whether the organisations that actually plotted and executed the blasts were, because of such a large scale misdirection of investigation, facilitated in plotting and executing blasts ?
68.Has there been any move to ban Sanatan Sanghatan and other organisations whose members have been found involved in the offences as for example organisations like SIMI were banned ?
69.Why does the recruitment of police personnel ignore fluency in Urdu in its recruitment advertisements and insist on Telugu fluency thereby excluding a large number of Muslim candidates fluent in Urdu and not so in Telugu, despite Urdu being the second official language of the State in several districts ?
70.Is this decided by the Home Ministry in consultation with police officials or without such consultation ?
71.Do any Muslim officials from the police force sit in and participate in deliberations formulating policy especially involving action against terror creating groups including deliberations formulating policy as regards people of various groups, faiths, political affiliations etc., especially formulating policy as regards Muslims ?
72.Is there any policy in the police force to exclude Muslims from senior positions except the occasional useless figurehead “Muslim” ?
73.Is there any policy in the police force to exclude Muslims from senior positions in intelligence gathering work except the occasional useless figurehead “Muslim” ?
74.Are persons who seek to correct imbalances as by efforts like the present one that necessitates introspection and debate, marked out for hostile action by the police to undermine their efforts or to intimidate them into backing off ?
75.Was it a sheer coincidence that not a single police official commanding any unit on duty on 18-05-2007 at and around Makkah Masjid and not a single police official commanding a unit called in as reinforcements was a Muslim ?
76.Has any step been taken after the above was pointed out during the inquiry before the Hon’ble Justice V Bhaskara Rao Commission of Inquiry, to ensure policing is done by a secular force involving officials of all communities and not to treat Muslim officials as either suspect or incapable and therefore to be kept out of sensitive assignments ?
77.Are officers of other faiths than Islam kept out of assignments involving work in and around places of worship of such other respective faiths ?
78.Since some years ago the area around DRDL was “cleared” of Muslims believing that Muslims were suspect and the sensitive nature of the work at DRDL would be compromised by the presence of so many Muslim families in the area surrounding, now that Hindu outfits are established by unbiased police investigation to be the ones involved in securing explosive possibly inclusive of RDX, plotting blasts, trying to fabricate evidence of Muslim involvement, executing blasts, etc., is there any move to “clear” areas surrounding such establishments as DRDL, DRDO, and other scientifically relevant defence research units from persons claiming to be of the same faith as those who are now found to be actually involved ?
79.Has any in-house analysis been initiated by the police department of the events from 18-05-2007 till the finding that the blasts in question were executed by other than Muslim groups, were any citizen groups involved in any of the said effort if initiated, or are they likely to be ?
80.If such effort was initiated what was its result ? If no such effort was initiated is there any proposal to do so now or later ?
Your response within the statutory period with full information is requested. It is also requested that vague responses not really addressing the issues raised be avoided, and clear information be kindly furnished. Necessary charges in the form of postal order no………
for Rs.10/- are enclosed as detailed below, and if any further charges are required the same shall be immediately remitted on written intimation.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
Major Quadri
majorquadri@gmail.com