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.
New Delhi, Jan 17: Two of the main accused in the murder of rationalist M M Kalburgi have absconded and cannot be traced, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has told the Supreme Court on Friday in its status report.
Kalburgi, a former vice-chancellor of Hampi University and well-known epigraphist, was shot dead at his residence in Kalyan Nagar in Dharwad, Karnataka, on August 30, 2015.
Born in 1938, he was a Sahitya Akademi award-winning writer of old Kannada literature.
The SIT, in its status report filed before a bench of Justices R F Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat, said that investigation has been completed and charge sheet filed in the murder case.
"We have gone through the status report filed by the SIT. It says that two of the main accused have been absconding and cannot be traced. They also say that a charge sheet has been filed in the case and matter has been remitted to a Sessions Court for trial," the bench said.
As the Karnataka High Court is monitoring the case, nothing survives in the petition filed by Kalburgi's wife Umadevi and disposed of her plea, it said.
Umadevi moved the apex court in 2017 for a probe by a National Investigation Agency (NIA) or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claiming that no substantial probe has been carried out so far in the murder case by the state police.
She alleged that there was a common link between the murder of her husband and that of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar and social activist Govind Pansare, and hence the probe should be done by a Central agency.
On February 26 last year, the top court had transferred the probe into the killing of Kalburgi to the SIT, already investigating the murder case of journalist-activist Gauri Lankesh after Karnataka government said there were common links in the two cases.
The state's Crime Investigation Department was earlier probing Kalburgi's killing and a SIT was investigating the murder of Lankesh in September 2017, in Bengaluru.
The apex court had asked the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court to monitor the SIT investigation into Kalburgi's killing.
It had said that if killings of Kalburgi, Lankesh, Pansare and rationalist Dabholkar are linked, it should be probed by one agency and monitored by one high court.
Maharashtra's SIT was probing the killing of Pansare in 2015 and CBI has been investigating the murder of Dabholkar on August 20, 2013.
The apex court, which had earlier termed the plea "very serious case" had initially favoured a CBI probe into the murders of Kalburgi, Pansare and Lankesh, if there was any "common thread" in these incidents.
The killings of all these three activists happened within a period of five years.
Karnataka police had earlier in its status report told the top court that there appears to be an "intimate connection" between the killings of Kalburgi in 2015 and Lankesh in 2017.
The court had observed that one probe agency should investigate all the four cases if prima facie it appears that there is a "common thread" in the murders.
The top court had earlier pulled up Karnataka government for "doing nothing and just fooling around" with the investigation and indicated it may transfer the case to the Bombay High Court.
The apex court on January 10, 2018 had sought responses of probe agencies NIA and CBI and the state governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka on the allegation of Umadevi.