|
intelligence
The Fog Of Deception
Some of the unanswered questions that remain in the case of the first army officer to be charged with terrorism
A week after Outlook’s exclusive interview with Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit,
an accused in the Malegaon blast case of 2008, it’s still not clear
whether the story the first army officer to be charged with terrorism
has been telling rings true or not. Outlook reported on details of the
army’s Court of Inquiry (CoI), in which some officers vouched for
Purohit’s version of events. But the picture that emerges is still
confusing. Outlook takes a look at some of the many unanswered
questions:
Mystery man Purohit being taken to court. (Photograph by Apoorva Salkade)
- Who was Lt Col Purohit reporting to when, in his own words, he infiltrated Abhinav Bharat?
Purohit claims he had the requisite permission from his immediate
superior Col S.S. Raikar (retd), who has corroborated Purohit’s claims
of providing inputs and allegedly cleared his association with Abhinav
Bharat.
- So, was Purohit mandated to infiltrate right-wing groups?
That depends on which version you believe. Purohit, of course, says
he was following orders. Army sources, however, say board members of the
CoI have observed that Purohit appears to have operated independently
and without authorisation. Sources also confirm that, on paper, no such
operation was sanctioned whereby Purohit would have specifically had to
infiltrate Abhinav Bharat or similar right-wing groups.
- Was Purohit then part of a covert army operation?
Sources investigating cases of right-wing Hindutva terror say that
Military Intelligence (MI) does not ordinarily have the mandate to
infiltrate civilian groups in non-conflict zones. If we believe
Purohit’s version, there should have been top-level clearance—which the
army denies. Lt Gen Ravi Sawhney (retd), former director-general of
military intelligence, says the army relaxes the rules in some cases—but
only after a lot of deliberation. “The enthusiasm displayed by this
gentleman,” he says, “doesn’t stand the test of scrutiny. If he’s
crossed the lakshmanrekha, he’ll have to face the consequences.”
- How often did Purohit go beyond his MI mandate?
According to CoI board members, Purohit seems to have overstepped
his brief more than once. For instance, he had no authorisation to
attend religious meetings organised by Abhinav Bharat in Faridabad and
Calcutta in 2008 and in Bhopal in 2009. These were outside his area of
responsibility, especially because he had been posted out of Deolali on
October 2, 2007, and was doing an Arabic course with the Army Education
Corps. Therefore, as an officer-student, he wasn’t supposed to be
performing intelligence duties. Or was this, too, a ruse to conduct a
non-official op? Even so, despite many officers speaking up for him
before the CoI, army brass say his direct association with Abhinav
Bharat goes against him. Purohit’s admission is that he was a trustee of
the Abhinav Bharat Trust, and he says this is not the same as Abhinav
Bharat, the group allegedly involved in the Malegaon blast. But sources
in the army say that, according to rules, neither group is one with
which army personnel are allowed to associate as members or otherwise.
- Did Purohit obtain permission from superiors, as he claims?
So far, Purohit hasn’t been able to produce documentation to support
his claim that he obtained his superiors’ permission to join the
Abhinav Bharat Trust. Neither did he obtain permission to organise an
Art of Living camp in Madhya Pradesh or to lecture ncc cadets in Pune on
Vijay Diwas. So it does appear he was in the habit of acting
independently. The CoI is viewing those actions as dereliction of duty.
- Were these transgressions by Purohit red-flagged by his superiors in his service record?
Purohit’s orientation is evident from the quality and quantity of
intelligence inputs he provided during previous tenures: as intelligence
officer in the Deolali unit, he sent inputs on Bangladeshi immigrants,
on the banned simi and other such groups before focusing on right-wing
Hindutva groups such as Sanatan Sanstha and Abhinav Bharat. One of the
officers who testified at the CoI, Brig R. Borthakur (former head of
military intelligence, Southern Army Command, mentioned Purohit’s
eagerness to investigate the Malegaon bombings—completely outside the
army’s purview. During Purohit’s cross-examination at the CoI, Borthakur
said: “I visited you in January 2007 at Deolali, and you briefed me. I
appreciated your work and advised you to concentrate on your charter of
duties and not on other cases, which was not your primary task. I told
this to you after you showed interest in investigating the 2006 Malegaon
blasts.” The brigadier told the CoI he’d asked Purohit to let the
civilian investigating agencies do their job.
- Wasn’t Purohit also feeding his superiors with information about saffron extremists?
While it has been corroborated that Purohit provided inputs, there
are those who question its quality. Days before his arrest, Purohit had
conveyed information about Sadhvi Pragya Thakur’s involvement in the
Malegaon blasts; but the National Investigation Agency says Purohit had
met her in early 2008. Says a Maharashtra anti-terrorism squad officer
formerly associated with the investigation, “If you compare his report
and the progress of our investigation, you’ll see that by the time he
sent the report, the Sadhvi’s name was already being talked about. Maybe
he wanted to safeguard himself by sending the report.” Col S.S. Raikar
(retd) had told the CoI he did receive inputs from Purohit after the
Abhinav Bharat meetings he attended. But now, doubts are being raised:
were the inputs provided selectively, only to ensure that Purohit had a
cover? According to anti-terrorism squad sleuths of Maharashtra, there’s
a stark difference in the details forwarded by Purohit to his superiors
and details gathered by the investigators—but such discerning scrutiny
is yet to take place in the special mcoca court trying the case.
- Was Purohit used by the army and then dumped?
It has been asked why Purohit’s actions—especially his apparent
transgressions—were not questioned earlier. During the preliminary
inquiry by Col R.K. Srivastav—who handed Purohit to Maharashtra’s ats on
November 5, 2008—the names of several serving and retired personnel had
cropped up. However, none of this was ever substantiated. One theory
doing the rounds is that an operation to prop up right-wing groups to
counter Islamist terrorism was sanctioned “in principle”, but those who
saw the Abhinav Bharat operation going wrong, left Purohit to fend for
himself.
Says Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal (retd), who has been in charge of
several key military operations: “The army works by a set mandate.
Random intelligence-gathering is not the job of an officer. There are
coordinated operations, but it never turns out like this. Purohit
appears to have flouted set rules of the army. No officer will allow
such a man like him to be an undercover operative.”
By Toral Varia Deshpande with Chandrani Banerjee
|
