Who asked Davinder Singh to send five terrorists with Afzal to Delhi in 2001? Vinod K Jose questions
Senior journalist raises questions over Parliament attack after J&K DSP’s arrest with Hizbul leader
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.
Allahabad HC orders police protection to married couple apprehending 'honour killing'
Prayagraj (PTI): The Allahabad High Court has granted protection to a married couple who expressed fear that they may be killed by the woman's family.
The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena on March 25.
"No individual can make an 'honour issue' out of a consenting adult marrying a person of their own choice. It is the state's duty to protect the life, limb, and property of such persons even against their own family members," the bench said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Prachi Agrawal and her partner, who sought relief in connection with an FIR filed under Section 87 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for kidnapping, and abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage.
The couple submitted that they married at an Arya Samaj temple and possessed a marriage registration certificate issued under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.
The petitioners alleged that the woman's family members were averse to their marriage and lodged a bogus FIR against them.
The couple further submitted a joint affidavit expressing apprehension of an honour killing by the woman's family.
The court said that a prima facie case was made out and issued notice to the private respondent and granted two weeks to file a counter-affidavit.
Meanwhile, as an interim measure, the court granted the petitioners protection from arrest.
The court also explicitly ordered the woman's family members and relatives not to harm the petitioners, enter their matrimonial home, or establish contact with them directly or through any electronic means.
The bench directed the Aligarh senior superintendent of police to ensure that no harm comes to the couple and posted the matter for hearing on April 8.
