A DUBIOUS CBI INQUIRY
REPRESENTATION
TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITIES AGAINST THE DUBIOUS INQUIRY ON THE INFAMOUS GOPALGARH MASJID KILLINGS IN RAJATHAN, INDIAE CBI INQUIRY
Mr.
Wajahat Habibullah
Chairman
National
Commission for Minorities
Lok
Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi
May
7, 2013
It
was very kind of you to give us appointment to meet you, and for a patient and sympathetic hearing.
The
most agonizing experience for civil society groups and Muslims is the gruesome
incident of Gopalgarh Masjid Massacre in which ten Muslim Meos were killed in
police firing and mob violence (hacking and burning and drowning of the dead)
in police presence. The incident occurred because of the dereliction and
collusion of district officers like the DM and SP, who were suspended by the
government but reinstated without as for six months no department inquiry was
initiated to justify their suspensions. The CBI investigation and Judicial
Inquiry are moving with snail pace and in a lackluster manner raising several
doubts in public perception.
We
bring to your kind notice grossness, communal bias and unprofessional approach by
the CBI’s IO and his team, in addition to delaying the investigation and thus
stalling the process of justice to the poor innocent Muslims, arrested by
deception (invited to discuss compensation assessment of looting and arson in
their houses and shops).
The
partisan role of the CBI should be evident from the following facts:
1.
CBI filed statements of 94 persons recorded U/S-161
of the Cr. P.C. Most of these witnesses are government servants and doctors.
There are no mention of statement from public witnesses who saw the violence,
except three injured Muslims, namely, Junaid, Farid and Umar, who were
mentioned as accused in the FIR 119 lodged by the SHO of the Gopalgarh Police
Station at 9.30 PM on 14th September 2011.
2.
While Farid and
Umar were admittedly taken away by police as injured from the Masjid to government hospital, Bharatpur, leaving
behind Junaid in Masjid in grievously
injured condition. The SHO named several other injured as accused in the
aforesaid FIR.
3.
The CBI hasn’t
yet completed investigations on the two FIRs lodged by Abdul Rashed, the Imam
of the Masjid who was thrashed by mob, about the incident which took place on
September 13th and 14th
2011. Neither other 11 FIRs lodged by ten eye witnesses of the murders
of ten Muslims and 39 injured were investigated nor statements of the informants
(with their witnesses mentioned in the FIRs) recorded.
4.
The CBI has also
not so prepared the site plan of the place of the incident, a basic requirement
in any criminal case of this magnitude. The site plan will expose wrong facts
concocted by police and CBI.
5.
The CBI has not done
investigation on the FIR No. 138 by Abdul Gani, chairman of the Masjid
Management Committee, who was pursuing the case of encroachment on the
graveyard land of
Gopalgarh. To humiliate,
silence and intimidate him and his family, Abdul Gani remains arrested for the
last more than 16 months.
6.
In FIR No. 119
lodged by Adhyatam Gautam, SHO Gopalgarh, mentioned that in order “ to disperse
the crowd after warning 8 rounds of tear
gas shells were fired by STF HC.”
7.
As if in cahoots
with police, the CBI also repeats the same assertions verbatim that the above “tear
gas shells were fired to disperse the crowd after mandatory warnings.” These statements
are NOT TRUE, according to the Fire Arm Examination Report No.
CFSL-2011/F-1172, dated 30/01/2012, of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
(CBI), New Delhi,
shown below (8-10).
8.
“The
eight (08) Tear-gas shell cases (marked C/67 to C/74) contained in Parcel No.
13 had NOT been fired from the Tear-gas Gun (marked W/10) of parcel No. 10.
These eight (08) gas shell cases had been fired from a Single Tear-Gas Gun other
than the Tear-gas Gun contained in parcel No. 10.” (Para vi, page 6, NABL)
9.
“The
five (05) Tear-gas shells (marked C/108 to C/112) contained in Parcel 15 had NOT
been fired from one of the Fire-Arms contained in Parcel No. 1 to 9 as
Tear Shell can not be possible to fire from the Rifles contained in these
parcels.
10.
Further
the five (05) Tear-gas Shells (marked C/108 to C/112) can not be chambered
into and fire from the Tear-gas Gun contained in Parcel No. 10.”(Para (vii, page 6, NABL) (Emphasis added in 9-10 above.)
11.
If there was
firings, as claimed by police/CBI by both the Meos (from Masjid) and Gujjars (from
outside and within the compound of the Masjid), then there would have been some
deaths and grievous injuries to the Gujjars and policemen also. Meos must be
knowing how to shoot to kill and hurt in such confrontations! No Gujjar or
policemen was killed, showing one sided firing by police and mobs of Gujjars.
Only Muslims were killed, hacked and burnt alive and then some were thrown in
the well of the graveyard. These assertions by the CBI and police are partisan
with open communal motives, namely, holding Muslim Meo responsible for the
violence, provocative speeches and often repeated allegations of terms like
‘jehad,’ revenge, etc., often habitually inserted by police in FIRs against
minority Muslims.
12.
When a delegation
of families of the victims, local community leaders and social workers met the
CBI team of three senior officers (Joint
Director, DIG and SP) in Delhi.
The CBI officers assured the anxious delegation that “within ten days or so you
all will see the results,” indirectly alluding that responsible officers of the
district would be arraigned/arrested. (Soon after we had met the NCM and Rahul
Gandhi, an anxious and angry IG of
Bharatpur Range maintained in before me in the CM office in presence of senior officers—anxious
to placate our delegate--that the SP Hinglaj Dan was squarely responsible for
such massacre and violence.) Even after
ten months, the CBI assurance has turned out to be illusive. Innocent five
Muslims (four from one family) are in jail without bail so far. This is
intimidation.
13.
During discussions
with the CBI, the CBI officers alleged that the CBI team recovered a country
gun from the Masjid!! The delegation members
present promptly pointed out that before the CBI the masjid, already
senior politicians and bureaucrats, including Rahul Gandhi, central and state
home ministers, CM and CS, DGP of Rajasthan, had inspected the site (Masjid).
Wasn’t the Masjid routinely combed and sanitized for security reasons before
these dignitaries visited the place? The embarrassed officers, thus exposed,
kept silence. Such concoctions
undermines credibility of the CBI in public eyes. Muslims do expect justice and
fair play from this apex investigation body.
14.
Ironically, if
not farcical, after more than one year of the incident and beginning of the CBI
inquiry, suddenly the CBI published an advertisement in Dainik Bhaskar to award
Rs. 50,000/- to any one who can “find the missing CD” of the incident of 14th
September 2011 for investigation purposes!” Rather than shooting in the
dark (perhaps a ploy to further delay or digress the investigation), why the
CBI didn’t or doesn’t “arrest the SDM of Pahadi Mr. BL Jaiman and the
photographer to produce the CD for which order and payment were made by the
SDM?” It is learnt that rather than confront the aforesaid SDM and
photographer, the police and CBI is reportedly trying to implicate the then SDM
Kamrudin for the CD who had nothing to do with the photography as he was called
by the DM for “help’ to persuade Meos to disperse. Kamruddin was not officially
responsible for the photography of the incident as it was not in his
jurisdiction. Our understanding is the local police/CBI is trying to destroy
evidences of violence. This must be closely examined by the highest authorities
in the CBI.
15.
If a Muslim
officer from Deeg was asked to “mediate” with Meos persuading them disperse
from the Masjid, which they did, why not
the SDM of nearby Sikari, who is a Meo
Muslim, asked by the DM to do the needful who understands Meo mood and culture
better? Could the Meo SDM have exposed the conspiracy of killing his brothers
Meo Muslims? Why was he avoided? Why Kamruddin was invited? These patterns
indicate how the district administration and CBI are working in tandem to
implicate the victims who lost ten lives and their 39 persons got injured and
houses of many were looted and burnt down.
16.
The CBI,
apparently under the influence and guidance of the state police has successful
divided the Muslims: the Majority Meo who are politically and numerically large
in numbers and the Non-Meo (Kasai or Butchers)
who are numerically and politically weaker. The CBI arrested only Non-Meo
Kasais, not the Meos fearing political implications. This strongly reinforces
the perception that communalized and politicized bureaucrats tend to divide
Muslims for petty purposes, namely, as in this case, to protect political
interests and the officers who colluded in violence and committed dereliction
of duty.
Sir, a former
peaceful state Rajasthan has become hotspot because of a failed governance due
to communalization of bureaucracy. It has ruined its traditional image hurting
us all. We wish to live in peace and communal amity with brothers of all
communities. We believe communal violence is unproductive in national interest.
We believe it is duty of the state to provide right to life and property (if
not education and employment) to all minorities. We also believe and urge that
elite professionals like IAS and IPS should be secular and abide by professional
mandate given to them by the Indian constitution for which taxpayers pay money
from their sweat. We also believe that
if a DM and SP decide, there can be no communal violence and, if at all it
occurs, it can be contained/controlled in time with minimum loss of life and
property. The DM and SP of Bharatpur miserably failed in their professional
duty, tarnishing the image of their cadre and state.
If you think it appropriate and
necessary, this representation may please we sent to the CBI Director for
necessary action. (We had already submitted a detailed representation last year
in July to the CBI pointing at partisan role of the IO of the CBI.) We shall be
grateful if this is representation is acknowledged. Once again thanking you,
With high regards,
Yours sincerely,
1. Prof. M Hasan, Ph.D. (Syracuse, NY).
Former Professor, HCM Rajasthan State Institute of Public Administration,
universities of Jodhpur and Nairobi, and former Member AMU Academic
Council. Presently, President Initiative for Research and Affirmative Action
(IRADA) Society, Jaipur.
2. Advocate Sayed Shahid Hasan Naqvi, Rajasthan High
Court, Jaipur.
3. Shabbir Khan, Member, IRADA and a well known social
philanthropist and social worker.
,
