In a Tweet, Indian Air Force has claimed that, “Two low intensity explosions were reported early Sunday morning in the technical area of Jammu Air Force Station. The attack caused minor damage to the roof of a building at the station, while another blast hit an open area.” “Two attacks were witnessed at Jammu Air Force Station with no causalities”. Indian Director General Police Dilbagh Singh, clarified that the attacks were carried out through explosive-laden drones.
Air Officer Commanding said in a statement “the attack caused minor damage to the roof of a building at the station, while another blast hit an open area. There was no damage to any equipment or aircraft. Investigation is in progress.” Sources at Indian Air Force (IAF) Base said that three personnel were in the IED dumping area due to own negligence. There are reports that monitoring equipment was slightly damaged.
It is common for India to blame Pakistan for all mishaps. The Indian channels blared that it was an act of “terrorism”. India and Pakistan have agreed to make the Loc peaceful. As such, India should desist from making any gung-ho statements. It is understood that hyperbole about the attacks, described as drone attacks, would perk up sagging morale of the Bharatiya Janata Party government, badgered by continuing Covid-19 (Delta 4 plus) deaths and farmers’ protest now in eighth month.
Both India and Pakistan use drones for surveillance. But, delivering IEDs through drones is a novel incident. Use of drones for surveillance has been there for many years. Does the present incident culmination of Indian propaganda that Pakistan has been dropping drugs and arms and ammo in the occupied Kashmir and Indian Punjab through the drones. We recalled that India has been consistently alleging that Pakistan had been dropping assembled IEDs through the drones for future use. These quad-hexacopter drones can carry payloads in excess of 14-15 kg. But why they remained undetected while flying about 14 kilometers away from Pakistan LoC.
It is probable that there was no drone attack but an inadvertent IED explosion. The Indian Air force itself admits that thee personnel were in IED dumping area due to their own negligence.
A series of “terrorist’ incidents took place in India. None of them was properly investigated. India blamed Pakistan without even initiating investigation into them, not to speak of concluding them to form an opinion. Perhaps death of Indian atomic scientist Homi Bhabha was the only incident for which Pakistan was not slated. All the rest were pinned on Pakistan.
Incompetent investigation of past incidents: Pulwama incident
There was even media outcry about slip shod investigation into the incident. The National Investigation Agency could not nab any of the culprits. It closed the investigation with remarks that all those involved (Adil Ahmad Dar, Kamran Khan, Sajjad Butt) have been killed except one who fled to Pakistan.
Several questions about the incident are still unanswered (a) Why did India bank on the FBI when it already possessed all communications from Pakistan? For instance, it intercepted the whole talk between military dictator Yahya Khan and his coterie during the East Pakistan/Bangladesh crisis. It intercepted Musharraf’s conversation with his generals while he was flying back from China to Pakistan. India blamed. Isn’t’ there a collusion between the FBI and India? (b) Why did India blame Pakistan even before forensic-lab and National Investigation?
Agency investigation report? (c) Why are there differing reports about weight of the RDX used? Isn’t Indian army notorious for pilfering the RDX, fueletc and selling it to oridinary folk? The Indian Express speculated `High-grade RDX explosive, weighing about 80 kilograms, was used in the suicide attack’. The Hindu estimated 100-150 kg. (d) Why was a private vehicle allowed to approach the scene of incident in violation of the Central Reserve Police Force’s Standing Operating Procedures? The CRPF’s SOP required movement of up to 100 persons in a convoy. Why has the CRPF been moving such convoys, comprising more than 2,500 personnel each, on the Srinagar-Jammu highway. In the fortnight before the incident, two such convoys had moved from Jammu to Srinagar. The latest was on February 4, with a convoy of 91 vehicles and 2,871 personnel’. (e) Why could the convoy not spot the lonely suicide vehicle trailing behind? (f) How did the terrorists know the convoy movement was delayed by two days? (g) How did they remain undetected while loading the vehicle with explosives the whole day? (h) Not only WhatsApp but also landlines have never been accessible even in Hindu-majority Jammu (occupied Kashmir). Then how come `the FBI has told the NIA about the WhatsApp group operated by a member of the terrorist outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad who was in contact with the people who carried out the attack of Pulwama? (i) According to the FBI, a man called Mohammed Hussain was operating the WhatsApp group, from Muzaffarabad. But the number was however registered under the name of Jameela from Budgam’ (INDIA NEWS NETWORK, August 27).
These attacks speak volumes on incompetence of India’s security and investigation agencies. India blamed Lashkar-e-Tayba for the incident. India did not explain how some persons from Pakistan boarded a dingy (small boat0, sailed into Indian waters and carried out the attacks. A DW documentary, apparently sponsored by India, blames Pakistan’s LeT, but did not even touch enfant terrible Davidsson’s questions raised in his book The Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence (First Edition, 2017). Here is a bird’s eye view of the questions:(a) Indian courts ignored prime evidence and failed to reach at viable conclusions, doing injustice to the whole case. Powerful institutions in India and the US were the main beneficiaries of this mass-murder conducted by Indian prime Intelligence Agency, RAW and her surrogates. (b)
There was a deliberate and tacit consensus within mainstream media, RAW, judiciary, political elite, police and investigating agencies to cover up the true facts on 26/11. It amounted to protection of the real criminals. The author exclaims, “I could discover no hint of a desire among the aforementioned parties to establish the truth on these deadly events.” (c)Key witnesses were not called to testify. Witnesses who said they saw the terrorists commit violence, or spoke to them, or were in the same room with them, were ignored by the court. Contradictions and miracles were not sorted out; one victim was apparently resurrected from the dead when his testimony was essential to the blaming of Pakistan. A second victim died in two different places, while a third died in three places. (d)The number of terrorists who committed the deeds changed repeatedly, as did the number of terrorists who survived. Crime scenes were violated, with bodies hauled off before they could be examined. Claims that the terrorists were armed with AK-47s were common, yet forensic study of the attack failed to turn up a single AK-47 bullet. (e) Of the “hundreds of witnesses processed by the court” in relation to the attacks at the Café Leopold, Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Oberoi-Trident Hotel or Nariman House, “not a single one testified to having observed any of the eight accused kill anyone” . (f) Indian authorities declined to order autopsies on the dead at the targeted Jewish center in Nariman House. The dead, five out of six of whom were Israeli citizens , were instead whisked back to Israel by a Jewish organization based in Israel, allegedly for religious reasons .(g) The surviving “terrorist” had no public trial. One lawyer who agreed to defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated. (g) Mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of Closed-circuit television cameras on the days in question. But only a very small percentage of the claimed footage was ever released and it suffers from serious defects–two conflicting time-stamps and signs of editing. (h) Why no one from the Indian commando battalion of 800 soldiers rushed to battle ‘eight terrorists’ was allowed to testify in court? The suspect, after being convicted and sentenced to death, was presumably executed, but the hanging was done secretly in jail and his body, like the bodies of the other dead “terrorists,” was buried in a secret place. (i) The FBI showed great interest, it actually had a man on the scene during the attacks and sent an entire team directly after the event. It was given direct access to the arrested suspect and to his recorded confession (before he even had a lawyer), as well as to eyewitnesses. The NYPD also sent a team after the conclusion of the event, as did Scotland Yard and Israeli police.
In a review on the book, published in the Global Research, Professor Graeme McQueen questioned: “Immediate finger pointing of the perpetrator is typical modus operandi in false flag operations. When officials claim to know the identity of a perpetrator prior to any serious investigation, this suggests that a false narrative is being initiated and that strenuous efforts will soon be made to implant it in the mind of a population. Lee Harvey Oswald was identified by officials as the killer of President John F. Kennedy and as a lone wolf with no associates–on the afternoon of the assassination day, long before an investigation and even before he had been charged with the crime. In the Mumbai case the PM of India implied, while the attack was still in progress, that the perpetrators were from a terrorist group supported by Pakistan”.
Regrettably ex DGI, ISI’s remarks were exploited by C Christine Fair, Hussain Haqqani and others to allege that Pakistan’s ISI was involved n Mumbai attacks. Mohammed Ayoob and Etga Ugur, Assessing the War on Terror, 2013, Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc., Colorado 80301 (USA). Chapter V: Pakistan Perfidious Aly in the War on Terror, C. Christine Fair, p. 85)”. According to Indian officials who interrogated him after his indictment, David Headley, an American involved in the Mumbai attacks conceded ISI involvement (Jason Burke, “ISI chief aided Mumbai terror attacks: Headley”, The Hindu October 19, 2010; Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt and Ginger Thomson, “US had warnings on Plotter of Mumbai Attack”, New York Times, October 17, 2010). US officials have not endorsed this claim. But, according to some reports, the current director general of the ISI Shuja Pasha acknowledged that the persons connected to the ISI were involved in attacks (Woodward, Osama’s Wars, pp 46-47).
India TV maliciously reported “Retired Pakistani Army officers were involved in 26/11: Former Pak ambassador to US
In yet another sensational revelation that confirms Pakistan’s hand in deadly terror Mumbai terror attack in 2008, Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, said that an ex-chief of the ISI spy agency had admitted that “some retired Pakistan army officers were involved in attack. (Published on: May 11, 2016) Lt. Gen. Shuja Pasha, who then headed ISI, made the admission to his CIA counterpart, Gen. Michael Hayden at a meeting in Washington in December 2008, Haqqani writes in his new book, “India vs. Pakistan: Why Can’t We Just Be Friends”.
A Kashmiris Afzal guru was hanged for complicity in the attack on Indian parliament. While in prison, he wrote a length letter to his lawyer which reflected that he was innocent. Actually it was police officer Davinder Singh who in collusion with “terrorists’ was facilitating attacks in India including the attack on the parliament.
The dramatic arrest of Davinder Singh (torture expert), deputy superintendent in the Jammu and Kashmir Police, along with freedom fighters highlights that Pakistan has no hand in the ongoing freedom struggle. Pakistan was wrongly blamed for an attack on the Indian parliament. Innocent Kashmiris are killed by the Indian army in fake encounters. Let us review a few cases of miscarriage of justice.
On January 11, 2020, he was apprehended from the Srinagar-Jammu highway. It is alleged that he was ferrying Naveed Babu and Altaf, two freedom fighters affiliated with Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba groups.
The arrest sound like a stage managed drama. Several questions come to mind. How the Indian government remained ignorant of Davider Singh’s nexus with freedom fighters spanning three decades? Why no action was taken against him when he was mentioned as key security personnel involved in the 2001 Parliament House attack? Why he was detailed on escort duty with European MPs’ visit to Jammu and Kashmir in November 2019? The visit was meant to subdue international uproar in the wake of abolition on August 5, 2019, of disputed state’s special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Why security machinery in Jammu and Kashmir has not officially divulged the details behind the operations that led to the arrest? How could a deputy Superintendent of Police act as a lone wolf when there are so many agencies operating in the Valley? How come senior police officers remained unaware of his activities? Media reports indicate that Davinder Singh, again and again, called his arrest a game.
There are several stories floating in media about innocence or guilt of Davinder Singh. He reportedly said “Sir, yeh game hai, aap game kharab mat karo [Sir, this is a game, don’t spoil it]”. “khel kharab ho gaya [the game got spoiled]”.
When arrested, Davinder was travelling in a Hyundai i20 car. He was reportedly intercepted near Qazigund by the DIG of South Kashmir, Atul Goel. Davinder Singh quickly stepped out of the car and told Goel two Hizbul Mujahideen commanders were inside the car. And, he was going to bring them to Goel. How could a DIG be unaware of the movement of his own subordinate officer?
The arrest looks suspicious in view of the fact that no disciplinary action was taken by the police department. The case was immediately handed over to the notorious National Investigation Agency, a political tool to detain political leaders. Indian courts have expressed ennui at dismal performance of the NIA. On March 20, 2019, acquitting Swami Aseem Anand and three others in the Samjhauta Express blast case, a special court in Panchkula said that the NIA had failed miserably to establish the guilt of the alleged culprits. The court specifically pointed out the shortcomings in the agency’s investigative mechanisms. About a month later, the Kerala High Court freed five young Muslim men accused by the agency in the Panayikulam sedition case. Several other cases in the past five years, including the Malegaon (Bombay) blasts case, are a sad reflection on the agency’s competence.
Some politicians raised eyebrows on Davinder’s arrest. Former Congress President Rahul Gandhi tweeted that this had been done as the “best way to ‘silence’ Davinder Singh”. Referring to current NIA chief Y.C. Modi, Rahul Gandhi reminded that he had earlier investigated the Gujarat pogrom and the Haren Pandya assassination case. In both cases this “case (as well) is as good as dead.” He and other Congress leaders raised questions about Davinder’s role in the Parliament House attack. Rahul Gandhi tweeted that “The best way to silence Terrorist, is to hand the case to the NIA”.
Police records reflect that Davinder had been accused of torturing the accused.
Afzal Guru’s hanging: He was convicted in the Parliament House attack case. On October 21, 2004, in New Delhi’s Tihar jail, he wrote a letter to his lawyer, Sushil Kumar, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court. In a letter addressed to his lawyer, he had alleged that he had to confess under duress. Guru blamed that Davinder Singh tortured him to confess. One of Davinder Singh’s “torture inspectors” was Shanti Singh. He “electrified him naked for three hours, and made him drink water while giving electric shocks through telephone instrument” Guru claimed that the Designated Court (the trial court) had sentenced him to death on the basis of the police version of the case and under the influence of the media.
Afzal Guru said that his relative Altaf Hussain acted as a link between Afzal Guru and Davinder Singh. Altaf took him to Davinder Singh, who asked him to do a “small” job for him which involved taking a man to Delhi and helping him get rented accommodation. The letter said: “I took him to Delhi. One day, he told me that he wants to purchase a car. Thus I went with him to Karol Bagh. He purchased the car. Then in Delhi he used to meet different persons, and both of us he, Mohammad and me used to get the different phone calls from Davinder Singh.”
Guru made many other startling revelations in his letter. He claimed when he was arrested at Srinagar bus stand following the attack on Parliament House, Tariq (who was another former surrendered militant like Afzal Guru who was allegedly harassed by the police) was there with the Special Task Force (STF).
Guru regretted that the designated court had not provided him an opportunity to tell the “real story”. He hoped Supreme Court to look at “reality through which he had passed”. but it was in vain. He argued that his incrimination was a ploy of the Special Task Force. “Special Police is definitely the part of this game because every time they forced me to remain silent. I hope my forced silence will be heard and justice will prevail. I once again pay heart-felt thanks to your good self for defending my case. May truth prevails,” he prayed in the letter.
Guru’s story is corroborated in Davinder Singh’s subsequent interview in 2006. A journalist Parvaiz Bukhari recorded the interview, but could not publish it in the magazine. It was later published in the book, The Hanging of Afzal Guru and the Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament, with an introduction by Arundhati Roy.
In this interview, Davinder Singh, without compunction, confessed torturing Guru during interrogation in his camp at Humhama (Budgam district) for several days. He admitted that he never recorded Afzal Guru’s arrest. He says in the interview “His (Afzal’s) description of torture at my camp is true. That was the procedure those days and we did pour petrol in his arse and gave him electric shocks. But I could not break him…,”
Davinder Singh also denied that he knew Mohammad, the terrorist involved in the Parliament House attack, or captured him, and claimed that he would not have released him had he captured him.
Davinder Singh’s 2006 interview appears to have given a clean chit to Afzal Guru. Davinder Singh told his interviewer thus: “His (Afzal Guru’s) description of torture at my camp is true. I had a reputation for torture, interrogation and breaking suspects. If anybody came out of my interrogation clean, nobody would ever touch him again. He would be considered clean for good by the whole department.” But the fact remains that Davinder Singh did admit that he could not break Afzal Guru and that he sent him back after his torture wounds healed. Why did the investigation into Afzal Guru’s role in the Parliament House attack not consider the involvement of Davinder Singh in the conspiracy?
Guru was hanged to death on February 9, 2013. A few words about the background to the attack are in order. In the attack on Parliament House, five terrorists and nine persons, including five Delhi police personnel, were killed on December 13, 2001. Guru was accused of providing logistical help to the terrorists in Delhi. He was apprehended in Srinagar and brought to Delhi within a few days of the attack. The trial court, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court confirmed his death sentence.
In the letter which Afzal Guru wrote to his lawyer, he claimed that he had been made to accept the crime under duress. He claimed that the Designated Court (the trial court) had sentenced him to death on the basis of the police version of the case and under the influence of the mass media. More important, the story of how Afzal Guru came under the influence of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Davinder Singh (whom he misspells as Dravinder Singh), which he narrates in his letter, is very credible.
Afzal Guru said that he was introduced to a Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ashaq Hussain of Budgam, through his relative Altaf Hussain, who also acted as a link between Afzal Guru and Davinder Singh. Afzal Guru said in his letter that Altaf took him to Davinder Singh, who asked him to do a “small” job for him which involved taking a man to Delhi and helping him get a rented accommodation. He said in the letter that he had no option but to help that man, whom he did not know earlier and whom he suspected to be a non-Kashmiri. The letter said: “I took him to Delhi. One day, he told me that he want [sic] to purchase a car. Thus I went with him to Karol Bagh. He purchased the car. Then in Delhi he used to meet different persons, and both of us he, Mohammad and me used to get the different phone calls from Dravinder Singh.”
In 2006, Davinder Singh gave an interview to a journalist Parvaiz Bukhari. The interview was never published in the magazine that commissioned it but was later published in the book, The Hanging of Afzal Guru and the Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament, with an introduction by Arundhati Roy. In this interview, Davinder Singh confesses that he interrogated and tortured Afzal Guru in his camp at Humhama (Budgam district) for several days and that he never recorded Afzal Guru’s arrest. “His (Afzal’s) description of torture at my camp is true. That was the procedure those days and we did pour petrol in his arse and gave him electric shocks. But I could not break him…,” he says in the interview.
Davinder Singh’s 2006 interview appears to have given a clean chit to Afzal Guru. Davinder Singh told his interviewer thus: “His (Afzal Guru’s) description of torture at my camp is true. I had a reputation for torture, interrogation and breaking suspects. If anybody came out of my interrogation clean, nobody would ever touch him again. He would be considered clean for good by the whole department.” But the fact remains that Davinder Singh did admit that he could not break Afzal Guru and that he sent him back after his torture wounds healed. If so, why did the investigation into Afzal Guru’s role in the Parliament House attack not consider the plausible role Davinder Singh allegedly played in the conspiracy? There are no answers. If Davinder Singh’s boast in that interview was correct, Afzal Guru could well have been an innocent, as there are no answers to why he could not break Afzal Guru when he was in his custody.
Davinder Singh’s revelations reflect Afzal Guru was innocent. He was hanged on the trumpedup charges, hyped by media.
2001 Attack on occupied Kashmir assembly
The investigation remains shrouded n mystery like so many other incidents.
Plane hijacking Kandahar
India slumbered while the plane flew all along to land at Amritsar. India could not do anything to neutralize the “terrorists”. It flew to Kandahar where the “terrorists’ demands were accepted. This was an epic story of incompetence of Indian agencies.
Ganga hijacking case
India itself planned the hijacking through its agents. The purpose was to coin an excuse to deny overfly space to Pakistan during the 1971 turmoil in then East Pakistan.
India should shun old habit of quickly blaming Pakistan for all so-called terrorist incidents in India. Let there be a fair investigation.