Malegaon Accused Lt Col.Prasad Purohit Still;ing Lingring in PreventiveDetention without Trial See This NATION RULE OF LAW

The Malegaon terror attacks are back in the headlines sparked by the findings of an army court of inquiry instituted to probe the role of Lt Colonel Prasad Purohit, one of the key accused in the case. He was arrested on 5 November, 2008, nearly two months after the blast by the Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad, along with other members of the Hindu right-wing organisation, Abhinav Bha

The army official was arrested in 2008 and has been in jail since then. Screen grab from CNN IBN

The results of the military inquiry – obtained by Outlook  – paint a different picture of Purohit, wherein he emerges not as a terrorist mastermind but as an over-zealous intelligence officer. Each of the 59 witnesses called by the military panel describe a man with a proven track record of infiltrating extremist organizations in the past – including SIMI, Tabliq-e-jamal, and Naxal organisations [Read the Outlook exclusive here]:

This version is at odds with the ATS’s allegation of Purohit being Abhinav Bharat’s leader. In the picture that emerges from the COI testimonies, Sudhakar [Chaturvedi], currently an accused in the case, worked for Abhinav Bharat and kept feeding Purohit inputs on the right-wing group’s movements during the latter’s tenure as an intelligence officer of the Deolali unit in Maharashtra. Gradually, he became a key source and shortcut for Purohit to infiltrate right-wing groups. After Purohit was posted to Pachmarhi in Madhya Pradesh, he handed over the “source” to his unit, handled for a short while by the now retired Subedar Pawar.

There is also a significant paper trail that reveals Purohit had indeed filed reports based on his insider sources. The key among these is information he sent to senior intelligence officers in mid October on the Malegaon blasts, naming Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Indresh Kumar. The irony, of course, is that three weeks later, the ATS arrested not just Thakur and Kumar, but also Purohit himself as the prime suspects in the case.

As today’s Times of India points out, the findings of the COI put the NIA’s case against Purohit in serious jeopardy. Much of the evidence – conversations and close relationships with the key accused – can now be explained as part of his undercover work. There is no direct proof of his participation in the execution of the blasts themselves:

On two key evidential fronts — of that of RDX procurement and financial assistance — agencies are still floundering. While Purohit has been accused of stealing 60 kg RDX from J&K while he was posted there and passing it on to the bomb planters, the trail has not been established. Even the financial assistance routed through Purohit has stopped at Abhinav Bharat and does not lead to the actual conspiracy.

But that does not mean Purohit’s association with Abhinav Bharat was entirely innocent. Unlike his previous undercover work with SIMI et al, he has acknowledged an ideological “association” with an extremist organization of which he was a trustee.

In his first-ever interview with Outlook, when asked if he is in trouble because of his own rightwing views, Purohit is evasive: “This is a tricky question, involving both the army services and subjudice matters. I won’t be able to comment on this.” But he later adds: “Having a particular ideology does not make me a terrorist or anti-national.”

Pressed on his “explosive” conversations with co-accused Dayanand Pandey where he talks about a “Hindu Rashtra,” Purohit replies:

Being an intelligence officer or even as a civilian I am allowed to talk to people. Nothing bars me from talking to anyone. You must be having those transcripts. Have you heard or read anywhere in those transcripts people talking or discussing the Malegaon blast for which I have been behind bars for three-and-a-half years? If people don’t understand what infiltration is, it is a sorry state of affairs.

In that one answer, Purohit offers two different explanations: one, he has the right to hold rightwing views, which are irrelevant if there is no proof of his participation in the blasts; two, the rhetoric was part of his infiltration tactics and do not reflect his personal views.

And also this: Would he be able to offer this hair-splitting defense as a Muslim intelligence officer working undercover with a Muslim extremist organization accused of terrorist acts?

Purohit’s personal right-wing sympathies may not be evidence of guilt in the Malegaon case, but it does not let him off the hook with the COI, where he is charged of “allegedly being a member of Abhinav Bharat, an organisation not recognised by the armed forces of the Union.”

The Outlook piece also raises another unanswered question: “If Lt Col Purohit was doing only what his job demanded, why did the army hand him over to the ATS so quickly?”

Security expert B Raman offers one possible answer in the Eurasian Review. Arguing that Purohit’s defense is likely to land the army in big, big trouble, he writes:

The military intelligence is authorised to collect tactical intelligence through human and technical means in areas where the Army has a counter-insurgency role as in Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East. In areas where it has no counter-insurgency role, it is not permissible for the military intelligence to collect intelligence through any means—particularly through the penetration of Indian organisations run by Indian citizens…

It appears to me that the military intelligence has so far avoided coming to the defence of Purohit in the case under investigation previously by the Mumbai Police and now by the NIA due to worries that if it did so, it could amount to its admitting its illegal actions in mounting intelligence operations against Indian citizens by penetrating Indian organisations.

The Malegaon case made headlines for being the first ever case of saffron terrorism. But it may become memorable for raising as many questions about the role of the military as it does of the accused.

According to Purohit’s statement before the court, a source called him sometime in the second week of Oct ’08, giving him crucial details on the Malegaon blast. By then Purohit had left Deolali and was taking a course in Arabic at Pachmarhi. He says he passed on the information to the intelligence officer at Jabalpur, Maj Bhagirath Dey, and the commanding officer of Southern Command liaison unit, Col Vinay Panchpore, besides the then intelligence officer at Deolali. Dey and Panchpore’s depositions before the COI confirm that Purohit did inform them about the blast weeks before he was arrested.

Panchpore’s exact statement runs thus: “After the Malegaon blast, two telephone calls were made on October 14, 2008, and Purohit informed that Sadhvi Pragya was involved. I asked him to call the Deolali unit.” Purohit likewise claims to have forwarded Dey a handwritten letter on Oct 15, ’08. The letter, submitted as evidence before the court (a copy of which is with Outlook), elaborates on right-wing activities in Maharashtra, MP, Gujarat and on Pragya Singh Thakur’s role in the Malegaon blast.

In his letter, Purohit also details how Indresh Kumar of the RSS had established sufficient influence over abvp cadres and ex-abvp people and how he operated in MP through two of his key associates. Purohit also refers to the Gujarat blasts in July and says Indresh Kumar is “instrumental in carrying out these actions”.

More importantly, Purohit writes: “The other person operating in your area of responsibility is one lady by name of Pradnya (sic) Singh originally resident of Murana or Bhind. She frequents between Indore, Jabalpur and Gujarat. The vehicle used in the bomb blast of Malegaon was assembled from three different vehicles, one of which was Bajaj Freedom and the same was registered in the name of the above mentioned lady.”

The question now is: can this letter serve as a strong defence for Purohit in the civil courts where he faces several charges, including terrorism? The trial in the case is yet to begin. That is why the army inquiry gives significant pointers to the defence. The question is to explain how the relationship between a source (Sudhakar) and a handler (Purohit) became one of associate, and Purohit became a trustee of Abhinav Bharat. A trust deed has, in fact, been furnished before the COI. Originally procured from the Maharashtra ATS, it shows Purohit as a trustee.

However, Col R.K. Srivastav, who conducted the preliminary investigation and was instrumental in Purohit being handed over to ATS, says in his statement that Purohit was the “de facto head” of Abhinav Bharat. Purohit himself has admitted to being part of Abhinav Bharat but has claimed that, “the trust (Abhinav Bharat) is a non-profit, charitable organisation and legally registered in Pune”. His lawyer Yogesh Bhardwaj told Outlook, “The Abhinav Bharat Trust and Abhinav Bharat organisation are two different entities. There are five organisations under the same name in the country, but none of them is a trust.”

“The army inquiry has no bearing on the MCOCA case. These are two different inquiries by two different agencies.”Rohini Salian, Special public prosecutor, NIA

This still leaves the question of Purohit’s ‘ideology’. Col B.P. Dhar, also being investigated by the army, has said that Purohit had attended three controversial religious meetings at Faridabad and Calcutta in 2008, and in Bhopal in 2009. At a later stage in the inquiry, Col Srivastav, Col V.S. Tomar and Brig Raj Kumar have alleged that these were Abhinav Bharat meetings. Col Tomar, for instance, told the court, “The first meeting took place in some ashram. Some people whom he (Col Dhar) did not know before were attending and were introducing themselves as Sameer Kulkarni, Maj (retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and one chap Shankaracharya.” Purohit in his defence has said these were networking meetings and claims that he had forwarded the intelligence reports to his superiors. One Col (retd) S.S. Raikar has corroborated his claims. In fact, the only charge Purohit has accepted is the sale of a non-service pattern weapon allegedly due to lack of procedural knowledge.

The inquiry has also raised questions about Srivastav’s handling of the investigations. The colonel reached Pachmarhi on Oct 24, ’08, on the army HQ’s instructions and conducted a five-day investigation during which he formally questioned Purohit. The latter was handed a ‘movement order’ the next day for New Delhi, to be accompanied by Srivastav. The duo took off from Bhopal airport, but much to Purohit’s surprise, landed instead at Mumbai airport, where Srivastav was received by a representative of the Maharashtra ATS. Purohit was arrested by the ATS on Nov 5. As per procedure, an officer has to report to the destination unit and register his presence in the official registry. However, what has emerged in the course of the inquiry is that while Purohit was handed a movement order for Delhi, information about the change in destination from Delhi to Mumbai was withheld. Technically, therefore, Purohit was “missing” from Oct 29 to Nov 4 in 2008. Several other officers too have raised questions about the manner of Purohit’s detention.

The army would naturally be upset that a member of its ranks has been arrested by civilian authorities and charged with acting against national interest. However, the significant point in the Purohit case is how in the saga of saffron terror it probes the possibility of an armyman turning terrorist. And the internal inquiry by the men in uniform does not seem to answer that decisively.

Malegaon 101:
The Blast, The Arrest And The Army Court Of Inquiry

• Seven people die in a blast in front of a mosque after Ramzan in Malegaon, 270 km from Mumbai, on Sept 29, 2008. The bombs were fitted on motorcycles.
• Hand of Indian Mujahideen suspected initially. But Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad zeroes in on radical Hindutva organisations, including Abhinav Bharat.

• ATS chief Hemant Karkare makes first arrests in the case. Killed in 26/11 attack on Mumbai. Congress leader Digvijay Singh claims Karkare spoke to him.
• A 4,528-page chargesheet filed by ATS in January 2009 says the 14 accused conspired to set up “a separate Hindu rashtra with its own constitution and aims”.

• Pragya Singh Thakur (left), Indresh Kumar (right) and Dayanand Pandey (far right) among those charged. Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit first serving officer charged with terror.
• Purohit, learning Arabic at an army school in Madhya Pradesh at the time of the Malegaon blast, is detained in last week of Oct ’08.
• Army commissions court of inquiry under Rule 180 but does not allow Purohit to cross-examine witnesses. Purohit goes to Armed Forces Tribunal.
• All but one of the 60 officers examined as witnesses by the new COI are said to have affirmed Lt Col Purohit’s conduct. COI concludes on May 24, 2012.
• An army COI is a confidential fact-finding committee. Officers against whom COI is initiated are allowed to cross-examine witnesses. Findings are forwarded to the convening authority. After vetting them, a summary of evidence is submitted. Depending on the level of culpability, punishment is handed out.

***

Questions In The Air

• If Lt Col Purohit was doing only what his job demanded, why did the army hand him over to the ATS so quickly?
• Why did the army not conduct its own internal inquiry before handing him over to the Maharashtra ATS?
• Did Lt Col Purohit have the requisite permissions from his superiors to attend the three religious meetings or to collect funds?
• With wose okay did Col Srivastav hide Purohit’s movement status for several days in the last week of October 2008?
• Is the clean chit of his colleagues merely a technical victory for Lt Col Purohit, and do the
  bigger questions remain unanswered?
• Why did the army not dismiss Purohit swiftly from service if he was involved in a criminal case?
• What impact will the COI verdict have on the ATS probe which is currently in a limbo?

***

Purohitspeak?
What the Lt Col reportedly said

“We will fight the Constitution to fight for our nation.”

“Many things are wrong in the country and need to be rectified. Hindu religion is in danger. It is our duty to defend Hinduism.”

“We have to establish this country in accordance with the Vedic procedures, we want the Sanatan Dharma, the Vedic Dharma.”