For investigating agencies, no greater nightmare comes alive than one of their cases falling apart. And the loss of face is deemed even greater if the case is as high-profile as that of Syed Mohammed Ahmad Kazmi. The senior Urdu journalist was arrested on March 6 this year by the Delhi Police Special Cell. Subsequently, the nation’s premier anti-terror agency has been pulled up for its questionable policing methods while human rights activists have highlighted how their cases most often do not hold up to judicial scrutiny.
Kazmi got bail—and relief from his protracted ordeal—on October 19 by the Supreme Court. In fact, according to the apex court’s order, Kazmi became entitled to a bail on July 17. He spent the extra months in jail because the hearing for his appeal was kept pending in Delhi’s lower courts, and refused even by the high court, a tactic the police employed, say his family. “A free and fair trial is a constitutional guarantee, and there are safeguards to ensure one,” says Mehmood Pracha, Kazmi’s lawyer. “Almost all of them were flouted.”
Kazmi is accused of being part of a conspiracy that culminated in the February 13 attack on an Israeli embassy vehicle carrying Tal Yehoshua Koren, the wife of an Israeli diplomat, at a traffic junction near the prime minister’s residence in New Delhi. The police chargesheet says that Kazmi was in contact with Iranian national Houshang Afshar Irani, the person who allegedly stuck a magnetic bomb on the vehicle while on a bike. (The bomb exploded, minutes later, injuring the diplomat’s wife, her driver and two others, but mercifully, no one was killed). It also says Kazmi had undertaken repeated reconnaissance trips of the Israeli embassy in his Alto car and kept track of the movement of diplomats’ vehicles. He has been charged with offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Explosive Substances Act and the Indian Penal Code.
However, without going into details since the case is subjudice, ACP Ashok Chand, who is part of the investigating team, counters, “The chargesheet was filed after a thorough investigation and is based on facts, backed by documentary and oral evidence.”
Pracha adds that his client was also a victim of trial by media. A leading newspaper had frontpaged a report in July that, according to the chargesheet, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps had planned the attack and that Kazmi had been in contact with members of the group. The police countered it promptly, denying they had ever suggested the role of the IRGC in the attack. The only mention the chargesheet makes of the IRGC is in one of the appended confessions, which is not signed by Kazmi, where the accused reportedly met some members of the IRGC on one of his visits to Iran and agreed to work for them in return for money. There is no confession made before a magistrate, only the police claim of confessions that Kazmi’s lawyer says are “fabricated and not admissible as evidence”.
Meanwhile, as the case progresses, the lawyer has pointed out discrepancies in the chargesheet. For instance, the only witness to the incident claims that the attacker who planted the bomb was on a red bike, but Yehoshua Koren remembers it being black, which is also the colour of the bike the police recovered and claim was used in the attack. He also questions why a team from Delhi Police went to Iran after filing the chargesheet. “They should have gone before that. Anyway, what have they brought from there? Nothing.”
That could well have been because of the Iranians stonewalling queries from the visiting Indian officers, but either way, given the international ramifications of the entire issue, Syed Mohammed Ahmad Kazmi’s case, as one who was branded a “terrorist”, will definitely not be forgotten in a hurry.
Apropos the accompanying article Magnets Don’t Stick?, it doesn’t answer the question as to why Kazmi’s family gave a somewhat contradictory explanation about the bike used in the attack? Also, IRNA, for which Kazmi works, suppressed news about the ‘green revolution’ against Ahmadinejad’s regime in Iran. If he’s so honest, if justice matters so much to him, why didn’t he quit IRNA?
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
1. Why his family members gave contradictory explanation for bike that has been used for the attack?
2. Mr. Kazmi who works for IRNA which has tried to hide green revolution in Iran. If he is so honest y didnt he quit IRNA during that time?
The author writes .... "For investigating agencies, no greater nightmare comes alive than one of their cases falling apart."
Oh really!!! You give too much credit to our investigative agencies. In fact, I am trying to recall the last one that did not fall apart. At least my memory fails me. Please enlighten me.
So if they get nightmares from cases falling apart - my guess our investigative agencies live in just nightmares - from one to another.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT