New Delhi: Late on Thursday (November 28), the Uttar Pradesh government ordered a judicial probe into the violence that broke out in Sambhal during a controversial survey of a Mughal-era mosque last Sunday (November 24). The decision to constitute a judicial commission came a few hours before the Supreme Court was to hear a petition by the caretakers of the Shahi Jama Masjid against a Sambhal court’s decision to order a survey in the mosque through an advocate commissioner to look for signs of an ancient Hindu temple.
While Opposition party leaders view the government’s decision to suddenly announce a judicial probe with suspicion, the terms and references of the three-member commission also raise questions as they seem to overlook the serious allegations of murder levelled against the police by the kin of those who were killed in the incident.
Uttar Pradesh governor Anandiben Patel constituted the three-member commission headed by Devendra Kumar Arora, retired judge of the Allahabad high court. Retired IAS officer Amit Mohan Prasad, who served under chief minister Adityanath, and retired IPS officer Arvind Kumar Jain, who was the director general of police in 2015, when the Akhilesh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party (SP)Nwas in power, are the other two members of the commission.
Five Muslims were killed in the violence although the government has only acknowledged the deaths of four persons. Several police personnel were also injured and some vehicles torched or damaged.
The judicial commission has four tasks. One, to inquire whether the incident was “sudden or well planned and the result of a criminal conspiracy.” Two, to inquire into the arrangements made by the district administration and police for maintaining law and order during the incident. Three, to ascertain the “reasons and circumstances” due to which the incident took place. And four, to provide suggestions to prevent a repeat of such incidents. The commission has two months to complete its probe.
Also read: ‘Have to Be Absolutely Neutral’: SC Asks Uttar Pradesh Court Not to Proceed with Sambhal Mosque Suit
The commission’s notification does not make any specific reference to other important elements of the incident, which would require investigation for a comprehensive understanding of the events. First, the root of the controversy. Under what circumstances did the court-appointed advocate commissioner Ramesh Raghav display a tearing hurry and conduct a survey of the mosque on November 19 evening within three hours of the orders of a local civil court.
The civil judge senior division passed the order for a survey 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 Hindu activists claimed that the mosque, built during the time of the first Mughal emperor Babar in the 16th century, was originally the site of a prominent Hindu temple dedicated to the prophesied avatar of Vishnu, Kalki.
Given that the court had granted the advocate commissioner time till November 29 — at least nine full days — to submit a report, what prompted him to initiate the survey immediately after the court’s orders? Did the administration take necessary steps to take the local religious communities into confidence, given that the mosque is located in a mixed population area, or hold any peace meetings to inform the local populace about the objective of the survey? Why did the advocate commissioner conduct a second survey, given that the subject is communally-sensitive? If at all the advocate commissioner was aware of the limitations of conducting a survey under night vision, why was it initiated in a hurried manner on the same day in the first place?
Second, there are serious allegations levelled against the police. Not only are the police accused of firing and killing the protesting Muslims, who were part of a mob that pelted stones at the police personnel and damaged vehicles, but have also faced allegations that they triggered the crowd to become violent with an unwarranted lathicharge.
The kin of those killed, the chairperson of the mosque’s caretaking committee Zafar Ali and Opposition leaders including Sambhal MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq have accused the police of firing at the mob. The police have denied these charges and maintained that they only fired rubber pellets and tear gas and used lathi-charge to disperse the crowd. The police also claimed that the four persons killed of gunshot wounds were hit by country-made weapons, suggesting that members of the mob may have shot at each other.
Civil rights NGO Association of Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Allahabad high court, has demanded that all the complaints of “offences and atrocities” allegedly committed by the police or state functionaries be registered forthwith and investigated by an independent investigating agency or team under the monitoring of the high court. The APCR also pleaded in the PIL that the court direct the police and the government to file a status report explaining on that grounds were the police promoted to “open fire” on the public.
In its PIL, the APCR said that the mob was protesting peacefully against what they believed were rumours of an excavation of the mosque when the police started a lathi-charge. “After the lathi charge, the mob allegedly turned violent and started pelting stones, it is worth mentioning that the police officers indulged in use of disproportionate force by opening fire indiscriminately and that four persons namely Naim Gaji, Mohammad Bilal, Ruman Khan and Mohammad Kaif lost their lives due to bullet injury,” said the APCR’s petition.
Third, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in a bid to divert attention from the alleged police firing at the Muslims, planted a story in the media that the violence took place due to a long-standing rivalry between two Muslim communities, Turk and Pathan. It would be imperative that the commission also probe how this unfounded theory of pitting two communities against each other, promoted by large sections of the media quoting unnamed police sources, was manufactured.
Reacting to the orders for a judicial probe, SP MP from Faizabad Awadhesh Prasad said that it was announced to put the “matter on hold” and to “divert people’s minds.”
“It is an open fact that bullets were fired, people died and dozens were injured. What is so special about this that this matter should be given to a commission? This government does not want to do anything. It is the government that has spoiled things,” said Prasad.
SP MP Barq, who has been accused of instigating the mob to “safeguard” the mosque, said “an honest and impartial investigation” would be possible only with a probe commission formed under the supervision of sitting judges of the Supreme Court or the Allahabad high court. Talking to reporters outside parliament, Barq also demanded that the police officers and administrative officials who were part of the incident be suspended if any impartial probe is to take place. “We consider them criminals,” said Barq on Friday, demanding that a murder case be lodged against the police.
The SP MP has also alleged that the violence incident on November 24 was orchestrated by the police administration. “The police first triggered the chaos, and then fake cases were filed,” he said.
The administration has denied charges of negligence or a security lapse.
Moradabad divisional commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, addressing a press conference on Thursday evening, was asked if the violence was a result of an “intelligence failure” and if action would be taken against the local police personnel. Singh replied to this by saying that although the administration of “inputs” that the matter was “sensitive,” they have taken all measures to tackle it and deployed all available forces. “We used drone cameras. If there was no intelligence why would we put all these arrangements in place? Police were also deployed on roof tops,” said Singh.
The senior official said that the police gave the stone-pelting mob the “necessary appropriate response” after exhausting all forms of deterrents. “We did whatever was permissible,” he said.
Uttar Pradesh deputy chief minister Brajesh Pathak, speaking to the media after the orders for a judicial investigation, said the government would take “strict action” against all the culprits after an impartial probe. We will abide by the orders of the honourable Supreme Court. We will maintain law and order in Sambhal,” he said, soon after the apex court directed the administration in the west Uttar Pradesh district to maintain peace and be “totally, absolutely neutral.”
