Reply to Anil Joshi

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 REPLY TO ANIL JOSHI <>QUESTIONS WHICH NEED ANSWERS Question 1: For months before the Attack on Parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that Parliament could be attacked. On 12 December 2001, at an informal meeting the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee warned of an imminent attack on Parliament. On 13 December Parliament was attacked. Given that there was an ‘improved security drill’, how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex? Question 2: Within days of the Attack, the Special Cell of Delhi Police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba. They said the attack was led by a man called ‘Mohammad’ who was also involved in the hijacking of IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the CBI.) None of this was ever proved incourt. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim? Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on Close Circuit TV (CCTV). Congress Party MP Kapil Sibal demanded in Parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. He was supported by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptullah, who said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress Party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, ‘I counted six men getting out ofthe car. But only five were killed. The close circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men.’ If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing? Question 4: Why was Parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised? Question 5: A few days after 13 December, the government declared that it had ‘incontrovertible evidence’ of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilization of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal’s ‘confession’, extracted under torture (and later set aside by the Supreme Court), what was the ‘incontrovertible evidence’? Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilization to the Pakistan border had begun long before the 13 December Attack? Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages, and landmines were being planted in their fields? Question 8: In a criminal investigation it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. How did the police reach Mohammad Afzal? The Special Cell says S.A.R. Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar Police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the 13 December Attack? Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the Special Task Force (STF) of Jammu & Kashmir Police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation? Question 10: Is it plausible that organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation? Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to ‘Mohammed’ and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now? Question 12: On 19 December 2001, six days after the Parliament Attack, Police Commissioner, Thane (Maharashtra), S.M. Shangari identified one of the attackers killed in the Parliament Attack as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000, and immediately handed over to the J&K Police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. IfPolice Commissioner Shangari was right, how did Mohammad Yasin, a man in the custody of the J&K Police, end up participating in the Parliament Attack? If he was wrong, where is Mohammad Yasin now? Question 13: Why is it that we still don’t know who the five dead ‘terrorists’ killed in the Parliament Attack are? 6:08:24 PM Posted By Lesson Learner Comments (4) Politics Comments aniljoshi Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:35:01 PM So you were here all the time BUT "CAREFULLY" AVOIDED TO EXPRESS YOUR SOLIDERITY WITH THOSE WHO SACRIFISED THEIR LIVES FOR INDIA.I am not SURPRISED AT ALL.My dear quoting from the "verbal terrorist's" 13( and sorry if I said "Quoting",infact "cut and paste" will not get you any "booker".Below my contempt - OR FOR THAT MATTER AN INDIANS - to comment.GOOD NIGHT. Learner Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:48:26 PM I am not here for any "booker"you may be.Leave the nonsense talk and answer these questions.if not able to then shut your dirty mouth. HH Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:51:33 PM Nobody has answers of such question..or doesn't want to think to prove they are right... K.Venugopal Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:02:03 PM Is Lesson Learner hinting that Indian intelligence agencies organised the Parliament attack and that Afzal Guru and others are their agents? Is he thereby implying that Indian intelligence agencies are in the employ of Pakistan? Only someone without a trace of love for India can imagine this way. Let us start with hanging Afzal Guru and not stop till all anti-Indians are despatched speedily to await the Final Judgement. Learner Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:04:49 PM Venugopal i am not trying to tell anything. It is you who is thinking that way.I am just trying to convey that there is not sufficient evidence against Afzal to grant him death sentence. Thats All. K.Venugopal Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:33:05 PM Dear Learner, That's the whole point. We would always have our own view points. But at the national level, how are differences of opinion, at least in the legal realm, resolved? By letting the Supreme Court of India have the last word. They have said it - he is guilty and should be hanged. If there are still legal options left, by all means Afzal should be afforded that. But once the legal options end, then we should all accept the final verdict. How else can a nation continue to function?