Khalid Mujahid: Custodial deaths and terror suspects

The death of terror suspect Khalid Mujahid, on Saturday, while being escorted by police from court to Lucknow jail has turned the heat on the state police and administration by a few notches. Mujahid, along with Tariq Qasmi, was arrested for allegedly being involved in the bomb blasts that took place in the Lucknow and Faizabad courts in 2007 and in the Gorakhpur blasts the same year. Right from the time of the arrests there has been allegations of police highhandedness and targeting of the minority community. The Samajwadi Party had promised in its election manifesto to review the cases against ‘innocent’ Muslim youth lodged in jails on terror charges. Accordingly it moved the Barabanki court in April seeking a withdrawal of the cases against Mujahid and Qasmi. The court rejected the plea.
While an FIR has been filed blaming 42 police personnel for the death of Mujahid, including a former DGP of Uttar Pradesh, the state has asked for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death. Relatives have alleged that there were signs of torture on Mujahid’s body. One of the things the death of Khalid Mujahid points to is the indifferent attitude shown by the Akilesh Yadav government to the RD Nimesh Commission report. The commission, constituted by the Mayawati government, had submitted its report in August and is believed to have found a lot of discrepancies with the police version of the arrests of Mujahid and Qasmi. It still isn’t clear as to why has the state government not acted upon the suggestions by the commission. This also leads to the greater question of why do governments fail to act on the recommendations put forward by enquiry commissions. Such inaction leads to public discontent and loss of faith in the government’s commitment towards the people.
Khalid Mujahid’s death is not the first instance of custodial death and unless there are serious changes in the way the police function and in the way cases are handled this might not be the last. All cases, especially terror-related, need to be handled swiftly and the officials investigating the case need to be held responsible for undue delays.

Intelligence and a lack of it

What should have been a feather in the cap of the police force has now become a crown of thorns. On the face of it the Delhi police seemed to have nabbed a terrorist and with this averted a possible attack. But the jubilation of preventing a fidayeen attack on the Capital with the arrest of Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist Liaquat Shah alias Kaka Khan in Gorakhpur, near the India-Nepal border, by the Delhi police was short-lived when it was reported that the Jammu and Kashmir police were informed about Shah's arrival and were waiting for him. Shah, according to the J&K police, was on his way to surrender before the Kupwara district police under J&K's 2010 surrender-cum-rehabilitation policy. The policy is a major effort by the state to woo Kashmiris who crossed over to Pakistan but now want to return and lead a normal life.
While it is positive news that the Centre has, following a request from J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah to Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde, asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to probe the matter, the claims and counter-claims by the Delhi police and the J&K police raise a lot of questions, none of which reflect well on our 'preparedness' to counter a terrorist attack. The 26/11 attacks exposed the pitiable state of our intelligence-sharing mechanisms. Since then, a lot has been said about coordination and sharing of information among various intelligence and investigative agencies. The Shah arrest reveals that while the J&K police and the ministry of home affairs were informed about his return, and thus on the same page, the Delhi police, which was acting on information from its 'sources', was not in the loop. 'Let not the right hand know what the left is doing' is an ideal which may work in some fields but it is fatal as a dictum for intelligence and security agencies entrusted with the protection of the nation from threats, both from inside and out.
However, all is not lost. The Centre is considering reviewing its existing policy towards militants who surrender, to work on a 'larger policy framework' and to fill in the gaps. Shah's arrest and the publicity it has gathered are definitely not what scores of such militants, who return to Kashmir after abandoning their past ways, want. After being a militant for years the crossing-over is not easy: it's a daunting task to gain the confidence of the government. The greater threat comes from their earlier masters who generally do not take kindly to such changes of mind. Given that our government has a less than foolproof record of protecting ex-militants, the most prominent being the killing of Mohammad Yosuf, better known as Kuka Parrey, who was heading the counter-insurgency movement in Kashmir, it can hardly afford any more goof-ups like the one it seems to have made with Shah.
(This appeared as an edit in the Hindustan Times)