Mail Today
January 27, 2009
MALEGAON BLASTS
By Krishna Kumar in Mumbai
With Karkare gone, is the case being weakened?
THE MALEGAON blast case against Hindutva terrorists, painstakingly built by the slain Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare, appears to be unravelling under his successor K. P. Raghuvanshi.
Raghuvanshi is not investigating the links of the accused with the Sangh Parivar, claim the victims of the September 2008 blast — in which seven people were killed. Worse, the prosecution is now assuming the tone of defence while explaining glaring lapses in the chargesheet.
Despite the entire case resting on a conspiracy to violently overthrow the Constitution and install hardline Hindutva instead, Raghuvanshi is loath to press tough charges like waging war against the state and sedition against the accused.
In a recorded conversation produced as part of the chargesheet, the main accused — serving military intelligence officer Lt. Col. Shrikant Purohit — exhorted his co- conspirators to seek help from Israel and Hindu forces abroad to dislodge the Indian state.
Yet the prosecution is not convinced. “ They were only talking. It could have just been in their mind,” defended Raghuvanshi.
He also maintained his role was investigating the Malegaon blast only. As an afterthought, he added that his legal team was examining the transcripts and may invoke the law against three or four of the accused later. “ If we had invoked the charge of waging war against the country, the case would have got weakened.
We are legally examining the transcripts and may later go for a separate trial, with the charges,” he said.
The ATS’s hesitation is surprising, since all terror cases invite charges of waging war against the state and sedition as a matter of routine. And the Malegaon case, with the exchanges between Purohit and retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, is tailor- made for tough laws.
For instance, the law lays out, “ Whoever wages war against the government of India or attempts to wage such war or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death.” It adds: “ A ( an accused) joins an insurrection against the government of India.
A has committed the offence defined in this Section.” More surprising is the prosecution’s unwillingness to apply the sedition law, which also fits the case perfectly. The relevant IPC Section has it that, “ Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fine may be added.” This soft treatment of the Malegaon accused has led many to question the ATS’s credibility. A former Maharashtra minister didn’t hide his disappointment: “ I don’t want to say anything about Raghuvanshi.
No one can replace Karkare. He was of a different mettle.” But Maulana Abdul Karim Milli, a community leader from Malegaon, was scathing in his attack of Raghuvanshi. “ We had protested when he ( Raghuvanshi) took over the 2006 Malegaon blast case, which was then given to the CBI. Now, he has taken over this probe. Our people don’t believe he would lead the probe or the trial fairly.” Malegaon residents have made up their mind to seek out politicians in Delhi and Mumbai to have Raghuvanshi removed. He initially investigated the Nanded bomb blast case, in which a couple of Sangh Parivar bomb- makers were accidentally killed while making a bomb. The Nanded probe could have exposed the Hindutva terror conspiracy, averting subsequent blasts in Muslim localities and mosques.
In the 2008 Malegaon probe, the ATS has also not questioned many of the co- conspirators who plotted a Hindutva takeover of the country. For instance, there is a reference to a two- time BJP parliamentarian, one Colonel Dhar and Delhi- based doctor R. P. Singh, who were actively engaged in giving shape to Purohit’s idea of a “ new nation”. The probable links of the accused with other blasts like the Hyderabad Mecca Masjid one have not been probed at all.
Equally baffling is the ATS’s attempt to co- opt Abhinav Bharat president Himani Savarkar as a prosecution witness, even though she had a definite role in Purohit’s organisation and activities.
Raghuvanshi laughed off these concerns, saying: “ We need evidence against them, we have charged those who were involved in the Malegaon blast. If we put the names of 50 people that crop up then our case will fail.” The case now seems to be only about a few people whose organisational and ideological links have been completely blurred out. That was something Karkare attempted to flesh out, inviting the wrath of the Sangh Parivar.
|
