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.
Trouble ‘Miyas’ everywhere only then they will leave Assam: Himanta Biswa Sarma
Says “Himanta Biswa Sarma, BJP are openly against them, we are saying it openly
New Delhi: Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Tuesday said that four to five lakh “Miya voters” would be removed from the electoral rolls in the state once the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists is carried out. He also made a series of controversial remarks openly targeting the Miya community, a term commonly used in Assam in a derogatory sense to refer to Bengali-speaking Muslims.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of an official programme in Digboi in Tinsukia district, Sarma said it was his responsibility to create difficulties for the Miya community and claimed that both he and the BJP were “directly against Miyas”.
“Four to five lakh Miya votes will have to be deleted in Assam when the SIR happens,” Sarma said, adding that such voters “should ideally not be allowed to vote in Assam, but in Bangladesh”. He asserted that the government was ensuring that they would not be able to vote in the state.
The chief minister was responding to questions about notices issued to thousands of Bengali-speaking Muslims during the claims and objections phase of the ongoing Special Revision (SR) of electoral rolls in Assam. While the Election Commission is conducting SIR exercises in 12 states and Union Territories, Assam is currently undergoing an SR, which is usually meant for routine updates.
Calling the current SR “preliminary”, Sarma said that a full-fledged SIR in Assam would lead to large-scale deletion of Miya voters. He said he was unconcerned about criticism from opposition parties over the issue.
“Let the Congress abuse me as much as they want. My job is to make the Miya people suffer,” Sarma said. He claimed that complaints filed against members of the community were done on his instructions and that he had encouraged BJP workers to keep filing complaints.
“I have told people wherever possible they should fill Form 7 so that they have to run around a little and are troubled,” he said, adding that such actions were meant to send a message that “the Assamese people are still living”.
In remarks that drew further outrage, Sarma urged people to trouble members of the Miya community in everyday life, claiming that “only if they face troubles will they leave Assam”. He also accused the media of sympathising with the community and warned journalists against such coverage.
“So you all should also trouble, and you should not do news that sympathise with them. There will be love jihad in your own house.” He said.
The comments triggered reactions from opposition leaders. Raijor Dal president and MLA Akhil Gogoi said the people of Assam had not elected Sarma to keep one community under constant pressure. Congress leader Aman Wadud accused the chief minister of rendering the Constitution meaningless in the state, saying his remarks showed a complete disregard for constitutional values.
According to the draft electoral rolls published on December 27, Assam currently has 2.51 crore voters. Election officials said 4.78 lakh names were marked as deceased, 5.23 lakh as having shifted, and 53,619 duplicate entries were removed during the revision process. Authorities also claimed that verification had been completed for over 61 lakh households.
On January 25, six opposition parties the Congress, Raijor Dal, Assam Jatiya Parishad, CPI, CPI(M) and CPI(M-L) submitted a memorandum to the state’s chief electoral officer. They alleged widespread legal violations, political interference and selective targeting of genuine voters during the SR exercise, describing it as arbitrary, unlawful and unconstitutional.
