'Why Will Protesters Kill Each Other?': Sambhal Mosque Committee Head Says He Personally Saw Police Fire

New Delhi: The administration in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal, where four Muslims were killed during a survey of a Mughal-era mosque, was caught on the wrong foot a day ago, on November 25, after the chairperson of the mosque’s managing committee alleged that he personally witnessed police firing bullets at the mob.

‘No bullet from public in my presence’

Zafar Ali’s allegations contradicted the claim of the police that they did not fire any lethal weapons at the crowd and only used tear gas, lathi-charge and rubber pellet guns to disperse the people. Soon after Ali made the allegations in a press conference, the lawyer was summoned for questioning by the police, who held their own press briefing to deny his claims. The police called his allegations “misleading” and “politically-motivated.”

Ali was later allowed to go home, and the police clarified that he was not being detained or arrested.

Four Muslim men have been confirmed dead so far in the violence that took place on the morning of November 24 during the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. The police said that the post-mortem reports showed they were killed due to gunshot wounds but have maintained that they were fired at with country-made weapons. The police have tried to suggest that the members of the mob shot at each other during the chaos but stressed that all would be clear after a magisterial probe report.

“I saw that the police were firing bullets. It happened right in front of me. There was no bullet fired from the public in my presence,” Ali said.

‘Police vandalised own vehicles’

He also alleged that the police were carrying country-made weapons during the incident and that they vandalised and torched their own vehicles parked near the mosque. “Police were also carrying desi kattas. Why will they [protestors] kill each other ? If they had to fire, they would have fired at the police and not the public. This is something to think about,” said Ali.

The senior lawyer also claimed that he was present at the spot when he overheard the Moradabad deputy inspector general, Sambhal superintendent of police, and Sambhal district magistrate discussing that shooting orders be passed against the crowd.

Superintendent of Police Sambhal Krishan Kumar Bishnoi denied the allegations that the police shot the protestors.

“When things were brought under control by rubber bullets, why would we resort to firing,” he asked.

Bishnoi said that at no point during the incident were the police and the mob at a distance of less than 100-150 metres.

“To say that police stood there and shot them at close range and fired with country-made pistols itself raises a question. We are a professional police force,” said Bishnoi. The police and riot-control police carried tear smoke munition and pump action gun, he said, rejecting the allegation that the police used country-made weapons.

The officer also denied the allegation that he, along with the deputy inspector general and district magistrate were discussing the firing order. “Under no circumstance were the three of us at one place,” said Bishnoi. He also described Ali’s allegation that the police set their own vehicles on fire as “politically motivated” and “self-motivated.”

Ali’s allegations ‘misleading’: Cops, administration

The SP and the DM Rajender Pensiya in a joint press conference said Ali’s allegations were misleading and a part of a conspiracy. They said Ali made those allegations about police firing to use societal and media pressure to protect the accused persons and to snatch sympathy from the policemen injured in the stone-pelting incident to those who pelted the stones.

The DM also rejected Ali’s claims that he witnessed the firing. “Till around 10.30 am to 11 am, he was in the mosque conducting the survey. Was he inside the mosque doing the survey or outside watching the firing?” asked Pensiya.

Excavation rumour

In his press conference, Ali also said the incident was triggered after a rumour spread that the survey team had started excavation at the mosque. The rumour was spread after the ablution tank in the mosque was emptied for measurements giving people the impression that digging was going on, he said, adding that although an announcement was made clarifying this, believe held on to the rumour.

Ali said that the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) and circle officer (CO) police Sambhal were to blame for instigating the crowd to turn violent.

“All of this happened because of the conspiracy of SDM and CO of Sambhal. When the people asked the CO about what was going on, about the water in the mosque, he hurled abuses at them and ordered a lathi-charge. He also said that anyone asking questions would be shot. SDM and CO Sambhal created panic,” said Ali.

The DM said there was no such rumour or basis for it. “He said the ablution tank water was emptied for measurement But it was emptied only for photography and videography,” said Pensiya.

Police have so far arrested 25 Muslims, including two women, and booked more than 2,500 persons, including the Samajwadi Party Member of Parliament Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, for the violence that took place during the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid.

Barq, speaking outside parliament a day after the November 24 incident, alleged that some officers fired with their private weapons along with their service weapons and set their own cars on fire.

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav repeated these allegations outside parliament, demanding that action be taken against the police officials and murder charges be slapped against them. He alleged that the incident was orchestrated by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party to divert attention from the “loot of votes” in the Kundarki bypoll election, which the saffron party won in a shocking result.

“Around 1.5 hours after the survey began people gathered outside and sought to know the reason for the survey. The circle officer used foul language and ordered a lath-charge at them. Opposing this, some people pelted stones. And in return, the police, constables as well as officers, fired bullets with their service and private weapons,” said Yadav, reading out a written statement.

Ancient Monuments Preservation Act

In total, the police have lodged seven FIRs in  the matter. One of the FIRs named Barq, accusing him of instigating the mob through a speech delivered by him a few days earlier after the administration led by a court-appointed advocate commissioner carried out a hurried survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid on the directions of a local civil judge. The court had on November 19 ordered a survey of the mosque after taking cognizance of an application by some Hindu activists who have filed a suit claiming that the Islamic religious site built during the time of Emperor Babur was originally a prominent Hindu temple dedicated to the prophesied avatar of Vishnu, Kalki.

Around 15 police constables, four police officers and one deputy collector were injured in the stone-pelting and firing, police said.

Civil judge senior division Aditya Singh on November 24 directed the survey of the mosque on an application filed by eight plaintiffs, led by pro-Hindutva lawyer Hari Shankar Jain and Hindu seer Mahant Rishiraj Giri, as part of a civil suit claiming right for access into the mosque. The mosque, claimed to have been built on the directions of the first Mughal emperor Babar, is acknowledged as a “historic monument” on the official website of the Sambhal district. The Hindu petitioners, however, claimed that the mosque was the site of an ancient temple dedicated to Kalki, the prophesised final incarnation of Vishnu. In 1529, Babar partly demolished the Hari Hari temple and tried to convert it into a mosque, said Vishnu Shankar Jain, lawyer and the son of the chief plaintiff Hari Shankar Jain.

While accepting the plea of the Hindu plaintiffs to get the mosque surveyed by an advocate commissioner, the court said, “The submission of a report of the site might facilitate the court to adjudicate the suit.” In their suit, the plaintiffs said that the mosque was  a monument protected under Section 3 (3) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. They claimed that they were being “denied access” to the mosque, described by them as “subject property,” as the Archaeological Survey of India had not taken any steps for entry of the general public as mentioned in the provisions of Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

The plaintiffs claimed that the site was a centuries-old Har Hari Temple dedicated to Kalki and was being “used forcibly and unlawfully” by the Jama Masjid caretaking committee.