Senior Journalist Vinod K Jose, the Executive Editor of The Caravan Magazine, took to his Facebook account and raised several questions about the investigations and trial of Parliament attack after Davinder Singh, J&K DSP’s arrest with Hizbul Commander, Syed Mushtaq who is said to be the number 2 of the organisation. Vinod also also shared screenshots of letter written by Afzal Guru to his Supreme Court Lawyer Sushil Kumar in which he had alleged the role Davinder Singh adding he was tasked to bring Mohammed, (accused in Parliament attack) to Delhi.

“‪Afzal Guru first made the sensational announcement of the involvement of Davinder Singh, a DySP in J&K police, in a letter to his SC lawyer Sushil Kumar in 2004. Davinder Singh, according to Afzal, had assigned him to bring five non-Kashmiri speaking men to Delhi who were the five terrorists who attacked the Indian parliament in 2001. Two years later when I interviewed him in Tihar, Afzal repeated the same” Vinod wrote in the Facebook post.

“Nobody chose to listen to Afzal when he made the revelations sixteen years ago—which suggested the attack on Indian parliament was done with the help of officers such as Davinder Singh—and now with Davinder Singh seen in the company of Hizbul Mujahideen commanders, the nation is pushed to see many of the so called terrorist attacks with a pinch of salt” he added.

Vinod further questioned if attacks like Parliament attack are qualified to be termed as “Terrorist attacks” on the feet of meritorious evidences or they stand on shaky grounds of polices with incomplete investigations. He also questioned the agents who make the most of such acts politically.

“Do these attacks qualify as “terrorist“ attacks on the feet of meritorious evidences, collected and tried legally with due processes, or do they stand on the shaky ground of politics and rhetoric done by incomplete and convenient investigations? And who are the agents who make most out of such acts politically?”

Adding that Davinder Singh’s connection with militant organisations was evident from 2001-2020 Vinod questioned the logic of covert operations in India for which the nation spends an unaccounted amount of tax payer’s money every year.

“The second point is that the long pattern in Davinder Singh’s conduct, from 2001 to 2020, where Davinder Singh’s connection with militant organisations is more than evident, it must make every Indian raise questions on the logic of covert operations itself—for which India spends an unaccounted large sum of tax payer’s money year on year. What is the political and financial accountability of covert operations?” Vinod questioned.

“And foremost, at what levels does sanctions come for these acts? For eg, who asked Davinder Singh to send five terrorists with Afzal to Delhi in 2001 and who asked Davinder Singh to leave Kashmir to Jammu (or Delhi?) with Hizbul Mujahideen commanders in 2020? Also the question to be asked along with it: If Davinder Singh was useful on a longer leash of time, what does it mean suddenly today to see him behind bars for those leaders and officers who must have played a role in supervising him? Is it an inter-agency rivalry that got him arrested in the weekend with Hizb commanders, a mistake, and in which case, the superbosses of both agencies must be scripting a harmless way out as we speak. It is the superbosses who sanctions money and the moral authority of covert actions, and that's where the attention must be focused. Not just on a cog in a larger machine like Davinder Singh” Vinod’s Facebook post added.

“Davinder Singh brings back the question of India’s Covert Action to fore after a long break. If I remember it right, when IK Gujral was the PM, it was decided to stop sanctions for covert actions, which was shortlived and was lifted when Vajpayee came to power in 1998. Also in focus must be the roles that many played, not just govt people, but even non-government biggies and actors. Because, a covert action is not complete if the whole narrative is not in control--from the incident to its trial--and players of all hues are required to play certain roles, and they do” he added.

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



Aligarh (UP): Clashes broke out between anti-CAA protesters and police in the old city area here following incidents of arson and stone pelting on late Sunday afternoon.

The police had fired teargas shells to disperse the mob indulging in vandalisation of property and throwing stones at security personnel in upper Kot area of the Kotwali police station, said police sources.

There were reports of injuries to some people but the exact number of those injured in clashes is yet to ascertained, they said.

Reports of brick-batting, arson were still coming in from a spot where some women protestors were holding a dharna since Saturday on the Mohamed Ali Road leading to the Kotwali police station with police trying to evict the protesters from there, they said.

The clashes broke out shortly after a Bhim Army-led march by hundreds of anti-CAA protesters heading to the district collectorate earlier were stopped midway by police and Rapid Action Force jawans.

Stopped by police, the protesters, however, had headed towards the Eidgah area in the city where another group of anti-CAA women protestors had been holding an indefinite dharna for the past three weeks.

As the Bhim Army-led protestors, including women, were stopped by police from moving ahead after they crossed over the Katpula Bridge from the old city, they decided to join the women protesters sitting in Eidgah area.

The protesters had taken out the march on a call by Bhim Army chief Chandra Shekhar.

Shops in some areas near Kotwali had downed their shutters.

Aligarh SSP Rajmuni, who took over the charge as the district police only last night, had earlier told mediapersons that following the abortive march, an FIR has been lodged against three persons at the Delhi Gate police station for trying to violate prohibitory orders and breach peace in the city.

The new SSP said he was monitoring the situation arising out of the anti-CAA protests, going on both at the AMU and the old city area.

He had said our "channels of communications with protesters are going to remain open but it does not mean we will allow anybody disturb the city's law and order".