thegreatindianconspiracy.pdf

The great Indian conspiracy

4. The Great Indian Conspiracy

5. The Great
Indian
Conspiracy
Praveen Tiwari

6. BLOOMSBURY INDIA
Bloomsbury Publishing India Pvt. Ltd
Second Floor, LSC Building No. 4, DDA Complex, Pocket C - 6 & 7
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070
BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY INDIA and the Diana logo are
trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published in India 2019
This edition published 2019
Copyright © Praveen Tiwari, 2019
Praveen Tiwari has asserted his right under the Indian Copyright Act to be
identified as Author of this work
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval
system, without the prior permission in writing from the publishers
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or
responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All
internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to
press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if
addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no
responsibility for any such changes
ISBN: TPB: 978-9-3869-5059-8; eBook: 978-9-3869-5060-4
Created by Manipal Digital Systems

7. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc makes every effort to ensure that the papers
used in the manufacture of our books are natural, recyclable products
made from wood grown in well-managed forests. Our manufacturing
processes conform to the environmental regulations of the country of
origin
To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com
and sign up for our newsletters

8. Contents
Preface
1. Meeting the Indian James Bond
2. Formulating Questions before Seeking Answers
3. Answering through Questions
4. The Era of Terror
5. When Terror Was at Its Peak
6. When They Crossed Our Doors to Hit Us
7. Bleeding through the Thousand Cuts
8. The Man Who Knew the Truth!
9. The Holiday Period for Pak-Based Jihadi Groups!
10. Widow or Wife?
11. The Harrowing Jail Experience of Sadhvi Pragya
12. The Conspiracy to Kill Mohan Bhagwat And Indresh Kumar
13. Who Leaked Secret Information to Tehelka?
14. Piling up Dubious Evidence
15. In the Words of a Zealot
16. The Calibrated Confession?
17. How the NIA Exposed ATS Maharashtra

9. 18. Too Many Agencies Spoil the Case
19. Islamic Extremism, Politics and Terrorism
20. The Pressure Tactics: Now or Then?
21. Saffron Terrorism for Sensationalism?
22. Digvijay Singh and the 26/11 Conspiracy
23. This Is How to Plan a Conspiracy
24. RSS Panics, Knocks the PM’s Door
25. Accused No. 9: Col. Purohit: Patriot, Conspirator or Terrorist?
26. As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: Indresh Kumar
27. The Stories That Changed Frequently
28. ‘Samjhauta’ with Terror
29. The Conspiracy against Narendra Modi
30. Last Word on the Lie of Saffron Terror
Epilogue
Reference
About the Author

10. K
Preface
eeping divisions alive is the core characteristic of politics. While
divide and rule was the governing principle of the Britishers, India started
her ‘tryst with destiny’ cheerfully. However, the political class carried
forward the same strategy as its predecessors to gain power. Such politics
wounded the hour of freedom. The country was divided on the basis of
religion, paying for the political ambitions of a few. Millions of Muslims
were wise enough to choose their homeland. A million others were swayed
by the communal frenzy of the time. The Pakistani psyche was poisoned
with a pathological hatred for India, if not Indians. The radicalisation
process had almost wiped out minorities from that country resulting in a
decrease in the population of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Radicalisation was India’s problem too, but to a lesser extent.
Independent India has witnessed some gruesome riots in its brief history.
Even now, the country faces challenges from the supporters of the two-
nation theory from within as well. Groups like SIMI and Indian
Mujahedeen are the illegitimate children of this fallacious theory. Some of
our youth had fallen prey to merchants of hatred like Hafiz Saeed, Zaki Ur
Rehman Lakhvi and Syed Salahuddin. The light of freedom dissolved the
common enemy, and both the communities drew further apart.
Islam and Christianity have fought each other for centuries across the
globe. The war between the West and the Muslim world has fuelled
terrorism. The US, the world’s greatest neo-imperialist power, has also
followed the British mantra for balance of power in its favour. The US is
not the only world power to have used terrorism as a strategic weapon.

11. What goes around comes around, and karma came a full cycle for the
US in Afghanistan when the seed it had sowed came back to haunt it. For
decades, Washington had condoned Pakistan’s duplicity against India in
the war against terror. The army that aimed to bleed India was fed using
dollars. The US establishment finally woke up on learning that its own
money had helped finance Taliban terrorism. The mightiest power on earth
had created its own enemy, virtually in the neighbourhood of Rawalpindi’s
army staff.
The Jihadi monster, at least in South Asia, was born out of the US
policy of divide and rule. Foreign and strategic policies of most countries
revolve around only two or three global power centres of various degrees.
Countries like Pakistan capitalise on their nuisance value and use foreign
aid to fuel proxy war across their borders. Its birth decided its
predicament, which is now becoming clearer with the country struggling
for identity and existence. As a ripple effect, India too owes some of its
troubles to its turbulent neighbourhood.
Diversity had no role in the ‘supposed land of the pure’. There was
clamour for a Hindu Rashtra on our side of the border. However, our
ancestors knew the value of equality. The whole world can now see the
difference. The words of visionary leaders, like Maulana Kalam Azad, on
the future of Pakistan have proved prophetically true. Indian Muslims
knew that a country that superseded culture over religion was bound to be
reduced to a failed state. The cocktail of a weak democracy and a
fundamentalist army has turned Pakistan into hell. The state of minorities
in Pakistan is a global concern.
It is not that India has never had its share of extremists. However, the
‘sanatan’ roots of Indian culture have withstood such onslaughts on a
much larger scale. The coexistence in India is an example for the world.
The problem started when Muslims were being ghettoised. A glaring
example of this phenomenon was one Indian politician offering legal help
to a suspected ISIS terrorist. The relevant political party depended heavily
on the Muslim vote bank. It made every effort to pander to them.
However, inciting a false sense of insecurity betrays political principles.

12. The Muslim electorate has been made to look for saviours. Mulayam
Singh Yadav adopted the same tactic to earn the title of ‘Maulana
Mulayam’. The Congress also perfected the same trick and ruled
unchallenged for several decades. It is the mother party of numerous
regional parties in India.
The founders of Jan Sangh were vocal about the Hindutva identity. An
agitation from Maharashtra aimed to get India declared a Hindu nation.
Nevertheless, such movements could never catch the public’s imagination.
Even the Hindutva circles did not show any enthusiasm towards the
demand. India’s rich culture lies in its unity in diversity. Majoritarianism
will only reduce her to Pakistan’s mirror image. This understanding has
prevented the Indian polity from getting swayed by communal tendencies
beyond a point.
The Congress ruled the country for a long time and adopted the policy
of appeasement to counter the growing influence of the Jan Sangh. Several
smaller parties also followed the same model. However, this only
perpetuated the polarisation of voters in Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP)
favour.
BJP emerged as a serious alternative to the Congress in the Vajpayee
era by demonstrating that a non-Congress government was capable of
completing its term. Now, Modi has gone a step beyond by ruling India’s
first non-Congress majority government.
Many Congress leaders pre-empted the situation and opted for some
desperate measures to prevent the party’s dominance. The appeasement of
minorities increased as BJP started to expand. It was portrayed as an
enemy of the Muslims. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), BJP’s
parent organisation, was demonised by linking it to Hindu extremism. The
motormouth leaders of the Congress did their best to malign the Sangh
Parivar. The opposition to BJP countered its rise by adopting the political
formula of Pakistan.
Pakistan and other theocratic Islamic states have deprived minorities
of basic freedom and equality. The underlining political current in such
nations is homogenizing the population. In contrast, India has celebrated

13. its multiple cultures. The divisive politics hit at this fabric of Indian
nationhood. Regardless, the Congress used it to vilify BJP as a communal
party. This led to the poisoning of a few Muslim minds which in turn gave
terrorist masterminds like Hafiz Saeed the power to spread tentacles
within our borders.
A political segment played with people’s emotions by painting even
ordinary incidents in communal colour. Domestic compulsions prompted
some leaders to stoop to a level where they politicised the global problem
of Islamic Jihad.
An overwhelming majority of Muslims was outraged at the savagery in
the name of Islam. A handful of extremists had misinterpreted the basic
philosophy of Islam in order to incite the youth to violence. However, the
Congress invented an ‘Indianised’ version of Jihad and christened it as
‘Hindu terrorism’.
While it is true that no religion sanctions terrorism, the phenomenon is
identified with Islamic extremism in today’s world. The Congress
proposed a different version of terrorism to serve two purposes: first, it
gave Muslim intelligentsia an alibi to divert criticism from its own
religion. Second, it maligned the RSS, the Congress’ biggest ideological
adversary.
It was indeed the lowest ebb of Indian politics. Raising the false bogey
of Hindu terrorism to assuage the feelings of Muslims only misled them.
Additionally, it widened the rift between Hindus and Muslims. Politicians
only care about their short-term goals, but the price is paid by the future
generations. This schism was created at the time of the Partition. Some of
the wounds of 1947 have still not healed. Yet, we have never witnessed
mixing up of terrorism in politics before. A bunch of saffron-clad people
were portrayed as the biggest threat to the country. Rahul Gandhi
allegedlly told a US diplomat that Hindu extremists were a greater threat
right now than Islamic extremists/pakistani groups.
Where are these Hindu terrorists now? Were there only five or six of
them? Why are there no details of their funding and network? Why has the
issue faded away every time after an election is over? ‘Saffron terrorism’

14. was only a lie told to gain political mileage. Communal politics
compromised India’s war against terror. This compelled me to spare a
thought about this phenomenon. I still meet with colleagues who believe
in this theory. My opinion was also tilted in their favour. This Goebbelsian
lie was inseminated under a well-planned strategy.
Not long ago, the notion of saffron terrorism dominated political
discourse. Selective news outlets kept churning out ‘exclusives’ based on
top secret information and audio tapes. They had managed to convince a
large population. Things became murkier after big incidents, like the
Samjhauta Express blasts, were attributed to Hindu groups. Some
conspiracy theories painted even the 26/11 Mumbai attack in saffron.
The Congress stuck to the issue for a long time. The fear of bans vexed
the RSS top brass. For the first time in history, the Sangh wrote to the
PMO, asking for an independent probe. The grand old party had a
momentary feeling of victory. Politics over terrorism gave Pakistan a
leverage to deny terrorism charges on an international stage. It came at a
time when the civilised world was seriously considering censuring a
country that had created a monster like the Taliban.
I began investigating the subject after meeting an undercover National
Investigative Agency (NIA) agent. There were several surprises along my
way. The NIA was under fire for giving clean chits to several ‘Hindu
terror’ suspects. It had been accused of working under pressure from the
Modi government. However, the facts were something else entirely. It was
not merely a case of manipulating the probe, where a whole bunch of
characters were placed in the story. It is nothing but a script of political
fiction.
This theory falls to the level of communalising the 26/11 attack.
Congress stalwart Digvijay Singh was unveiling the book that asked
whether the RSS had carried out these attacks. A section of the media was
a willing partner in this conspiracy. Meanwhile, several questions still
remain unanswered, including that of Col. Purohit’s role. Was he a
patriotic spy or a terrorist?

15. This question is necessary because Col. Purohit purportedly shared
every detail with his superiors on a regular basis. Was he part of a mission
to infiltrate the Hindu fringe elements? Why couldn’t the probe go beyond
Sadhvi Pragya and Aseemanand? What are the loopholes in this theory
that signal a political conspiracy? I began writing this book with such
questions in mind.
I have tried to present not only the facts but also the journey till the
climatic conclusion. The story was still developing while I was writing my
notes. Sadhvi Pragya was given a clean chit, and security agencies busted
an ISIS module in Hyderabad during the course of my writing. These
updates only broadened the spectrum of my pursuit. I have been closely
associated with the coverage of terror incidents as a TV journalist. I have
been a witness to the politics over the matter. This book is an attempt to
put the facts in the right perspective.
It is likely that the author might be accused of partisanship after the book
is launched. This book does not aim to support or oppose any political
dispensation. The reader should reach a conclusion after analysing the
incidents, facts and intricacies of the investigation. You will find that
characters like Aseemanand and Sadhvi Pragya were mere pawns in the
larger game. The book is also necessary because the theory of saffron
terror is harming India’s war on terror. As the cliché goes, terrorism has no
religion. The merchants of death prescribe a convoluted interpretation of
Jihad to realise their goal. The sword of legal action was hanging on Zakir
Naik’s head when this book was written. The televangelist has played the
victim card. How should we deal with those who spread venom in the
name of religion?
The bogey of saffron terrorism came as an opportunity to the
proprietors of terrorism. Terrorism does not stem from any religion. It
should be understood for what it is. It has an illegitimate goal and a
mastermind. Several powerful countries are willingly investing money in
its cause while some politicians continue to use it as a political tool. In
this power game, the only casualty is the sentiment of the common person.

16. This book also demonstrates that a citizen should keep communal
politics at bay. Leaders always tend to thrive on communal passions.
Passions can become lethal if they are unreasonable. The fundamentalist
mind is easily enticed by political gimmicks.
The way religion has mixed into our politics, one wonders whether
India is becoming radicalised. Who feels elated by linking the colour
saffron to terrorism? We will have to reach a rational conclusion to escape
becoming political pawns.

17. N
1
Meeting the Indian James Bond
othing can be more arduous than snooping on spies. They are trained
to doubt everything. Always on tenterhooks. It can be very difficult to win
them over. The task becomes even more challenging if you are trying to
reach out to one of the country’s finest secret agents.
I ventured out on one such mission to investigate the truth behind the
2007 Samjhauta Express bombings. While most foreign intelligence
reports were pointing fingers towards Pakistan-based Jihadi groups like
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, Indian investigating agencies
focused their probe on hardline Hindu groups encompassing several
sadhvis, swamis, ashrams as well as an army officer.
Truth was the first casualty in the politics surrounding the matter. Only
a person deeply associated with the probe could have revealed the real
facts. NIA would certainly have employed its most capable sleuths for
investigation.
It was not easy, even for a journalist, to gather relevant information. I
met several investigative journalists who could shed some light on facts. I
also probed my old NIA sources. I had met almost all the reputed
investigative journalists during my pursuit. Some of them were also close
friends. Most scribes attributed the Hindutva angle of the probe to NIA.
But most of these people could not speak from their own experience of
the case. I was in search of a person who was directly involved in the

18. probe.
My perseverance was not in vain, as I came across an official who had
worked undercover in the case. He had disguised himself as a Sadhu
during his stay in Aseemanand’s Ashram and had worked covertly in the
BJP and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) office. This link was privy to the
phone-tapping records of the entire investigation. He was personally
involved in the inquest of Sadhvi Pragya and Sunil Joshi.
This spy had also worked on the ground in several secret missions
carried out in North-East, Bengal and J&K. His aura was nothing short of a
super-agent. There are stories about how he had once survived four bullets
to convey a top-secret lead to his superiors. It was no mean feat to get
access to such a highly placed source.
The National Investigative Agency (NIA) was constituted exclusively
for anti-terror operations. It has fulfilled this responsibility to a great
extent despite several constraints. The agency has apparently prevented
several ghastly terror strikes across the country. It is probably one of the
hazards of a spy’s job that the achievements never come under the
spotlight. We only remember those incidents that intelligence agencies are
not able to contain. The recruitment process is rigourous for all agents,
and the ones who surivive it go on to be the unnamed saviours of the
country.
I now had information about a person who had investigated the
Samjhauta Express blasts as an undercover agent and knew every character
in the story like the back of his hand.
But the roadblock I faced was how to get a secret agent working on a
high-profile terror case to talk to me. My quest to uncover some, if not the
whole, truth would not have moved forward without his testimony.
Suspicion is a spy’s second nature, which made it harder to win his
confidence.
At this point, all I had in the name of solid facts were old reportage
and testimonies of some eminent journalists. I had closely followed the
case as a TV anchor and conducted many debates on various aspects of

19. these blasts. Nonetheless, I had not come across a single person with
firsthand knowledge of the case.
Well-placed contacts within intelligence agencies are the biggest asset
for any field journalist. These are the sources we count on for any big
breaking news. There was no dearth of information on the Samjhauta
Express Blast on the internet and other platforms. However, no persons
associated with the investigation had ever come out with the real story.
The most prominent actors of this saga were purportedly politicians.
Nevertheless, their role has been mostly either under wraps till date or
restricted to mere allegations.
Many dots of the conspiracy had been connected in the early phases of
the investigation. But there was an abrupt change in the direction of the
probe midway during the inquisition. Was it a deliberate plot to raise the
bogey of Hindu terrorism? It is a difficult question, but the term soon
acquired political connotations. Bhagwa terrorism or Hindu terrorism
became admonishing expressions against Hindu right-wing groups,
particularly the BJP-RSS.
While these terms are now overused in political parlance and public
discourse, there are very few facts to test their validity beyond
accusations. Armchair analysts have said much with little substance.
Finally, I had found a contact who could prove to be a treasure trove of
actual facts.
This book is the result of my subsequent interactions with this spy.
Delving into the process of extracting this information is necessary to
comprehend the significance of these revelations. The detectives are
trained to live surreptitiously to avoid risks to their lives; hence, the real
identity of the source cannot be divulged. It would suffice to state that this
agent is a high-ranking NIA official who is still serving the nation.
I had managed to gather the name of this link through my contacts.
Now, I needed to find my way to him. I met some journalists who were
known to have some penetration in intelligence circles. Much water had
flown through Delhi’s Yamuna since the 2007 blasts. However, new facts
were coming to light after the change of guard at the Centre.

20. Most lips were sealed during the previous UPA regime. But the can of
worms was gradually opening. David Headley’s deposition before Indian
courts had already put security agencies in the dock for their role in the
Ishrat Jahan encounter probe. The encounter was alleged to be fake, and
serious aspersions were cast on BJP President Amit Shah’s role in it. The
heat of the investigation nearly reached the doors of Narendra Modi, the
then Chief Minister (CM) of Gujarat. Headley had claimed that Ishrat and
her accomplices were part of a larger terror conspiracy.
Meanwhile, the findings in the Samjhauta Express blast case were
fresh under the scanner. NIA chief Sharad Kumar visited the US to verify
facts provided by the American intelligence agencies. The CIA, as well as
the secret services of some other friendly nations, had pointed fingers
towards Pakistan-based Jihadi organisations like Jaish-e-Mohammed and
Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Such new inputs have only deepened the mystery surrounding the
blasts. The evidence behind NIA’s Hindu terrorism theory remains
shrouded in doubt. It is also unclear whether any group or individual was
left out of the purview of the investigation. Was there political pressure
behind NIA’s change of stance? Only an insider could have spilt the beans.
My first breakthrough came from a veteran investigative journalist
who shared many interesting facts about the case. He claimed to be the
friend of this undercover agent and narrated several stories that were
apparently coming straight from the horse’s mouth. I was on the verge of
meeting a man who had been closely associated with all aspects of the
Samjhauta Express blast investigation. Almost all major arrests of the case
were made under his leadership.
I urged my journalist friend to arrange a meeting with him. Let me say
at the outset that I never expected a straight answer for many reasons. The
agent in question would never have disclosed the same details to a
journalist looking for a scoop. He had unofficially confided his experience
to a friend. I could understand my journalist friend’s hesitation in exposing
the identity of such an important source. Nevertheless, he assured me that
he would try to provide the same amount of information as that agent.

21. My inquiry was not restricted to the investigation alone. I also wanted
to delve into the lives of the accused and to try to assess the circumstances
that led them to the crime. My journalist friend was benevolent enough to
discuss many important aspects of the case. He told me how this matter
had been politicised and what role personal animosities played during the
inquisition. But many of these theories are already in the public domain.
I wanted to know whether the NIA faced political pressure at any stage
of its investigation. No person could have answered my queries better than
this undercover agent. However, my pleadings did not sway my journalist
friend’s resolve to protect the agent.
At long last, he agreed to only a telephonic conversation with the spy.
My friend picked up the phone and dialled his number. There was no
answer. We thought the man must be busy. It was getting more curious
with every passing minute. Suddenly, my friend’s cell phone buzzed. It
was a landline number. The smile on his face revealed that the mysterious
agent was calling.
They exchanged pleasantries, and my friend introduced me as an
experienced TV anchor. I grabbed the phone and asked for his well-being
in a low, deep and sombre voice. After a brief formal talk, he said he had
watched me on TV. I was as elated over this remark as Shri Rama was on
seeing Hanuman back with Sanjeevani. Perhaps, I now had a better chance
of getting some valuable information from him on several contentious
cases like the Samjhauta Express blast and the Ishrat Jahan case.
I was quick to pose the first question: ‘Are there doubts about the
NIA’s investigation, since even Sharad ji has gone to the US?’
‘Which investigation are you talking about?’ he quipped. I was a bit
startled but persisted by referring to the Samjhauta Express blasts.
The man denied that he had anything to do with the matter. This was
proving to be a big disappointment. It felt as if I had knocked the wrong
door.
‘Have you not worked as an agent in the case?’ I questioned him
directly.

22. ‘No,’ the answer was just as straightforward. He was unrelenting
during the entire conversation. Then, right before hanging up, he asked me
for a meeting. The feeling was that of having won the lottery. ‘Why not, it
would be my pleasure,’ I replied casually and handed over the phone to my
friend. The man on the other side said something that I could not hear. My
friend responded by laughing but said nothing.
‘Brother, the fellow is a high-ranking undercover agent working for the
NIA, not some petty informant, who would start speaking about such a
sensitive matter at the first instance. I called him at your insistence. Had I
not forewarned him, he wouldn’t have revealed anything,’ my friend
chided as he hung up the phone.
‘These are top secret official matters. He does not even know you.
How can you expect him to start singing like a canary at the first
conversation?’ my friend continued.
But wasn’t I told the man had noticed me on TV? I had honestly
thought that had some weightage. Perhaps I was mistaken.
My friend resumed writing his script as I took leave for work. I had to
rush back for a scheduled TV discussion show. Incidentally, the topic of
the show was the apparent lack of evidence against Col. Purohit.
While the Congress was on the back foot on the issue, BJP had sensed
a political opportunity to target it. The former had alleged that the NIA
was working under governmental pressure and that the entire probe was
heading in the wrong direction.
The Congress was, in a way, implying that the premier investigating
agency was prone to political meddling.
But who had actually interfered with the inquiry? The answer probably
lies in the circumstances around the time when the US investigating
agencies, UN report and the chargesheet filed by the ATS were all pointing
towards terror modules activated from across the border. Yet, there were
seemingly deliberate attempts to link the crime with so-called saffron
terrorism.
I know as an anchor that all debates digressing from facts turn into a
slugfest. While this might make for good entertainment, such discussions

23. are devoid of any substance. I expected better from the show on Col.
Purohit. However, even political heavyweights were not aware of the
details of the case. All they knew was how to defend their party line.
Our politicians indulge in fruitless verbal spats which they believe will
influence a large chunk of voters. However, some TV guests do come
well-prepared for the debate and make best efforts to present their party‘s
views in a coherent manner.
No party had any substantial facts to offer as far as saffron terrorism
was concerned. Most spokespersons deliberated the issue based on media
reports, press conferences and political statements. This opacity of real
information further necessitated the need for some ground research on the
case.
Nevertheless, the show was over in an hour. The leaders, shouting at
each other in front of the camera, came out smiling from the studio. I
fulfilled the usual courtesy of seeing them off to some distance.
There was still some time for my next shoot, and as I headed for a cup
of tea, the same journalist friend I had parted ways with earlier in the day
called me from a distance. His presence prompted feelings of elation. I
could anticipate that he wanted to talk about my interest in the Samjhauta
Blast case.
‘SP Saab had come. He waited at the reception for some time and then
left,’ my friend whispered in my ears.
‘What?’ I was flabbergasted. I was pleasantly surprised because the
agent who was not interested in talking shop just an hour ago had now
come to meet me. My heart was filled with childlike glee because here
was my chance to get some first-hand exclusive information on one of
India’s most sensitive terror-related cases.
‘Where is the cop now?’ I asked impatiently.
‘He waited for some time and left. The man clarified that such matters
cannot be discussed over the phone, and meeting outside could put your
life in danger,’ my friend replied.
The threat to life might be a far-fetched idea to common citizens.
However, it is an everyday reality for an undercover agent deployed

24. against terrorists. There are always chances that his/her movements and
accomplices could be tracked. This is why meeting such people is never
without some risk.
These agents are well-armed and function behind veils. Sometimes,
not even their relatives are aware of their real profession. The visit of such
a senior secret agent revealed that not only did he know who I was but that
he also trusted my credentials as a journalist. This was an ample signal
that he was willing to share information with me. I was now even more
eager to meet him. I urged my friend to arrange a meeting. He told me to
wait for the call and fix the schedule accordingly. I was enthusiastic
because I was going to start writing this book with such a crucial lead
within my grasp.

25. M
2
Formulating Questions before
Seeking Answers
y source had worked undercover in many sensitive locations,
including Aseemanand’s ashram and the offices of BJP and VHP. The tales
of his valour narrated by my journalist friend had impressed me. I was
curious to know about his adventures during the Samjhauta Express blast
probe.
The time and place of our meeting had to be decided by him. But the
onus for the interview preparations was on me. I needed to list the
questions I wanted to ask. The biggest question was how this investigation
turned towards the angle of saffron terrorism. It was also pertinent to ask
whether the Indian intelligence agencies had entirely rejected the findings
of their US counterparts to propound a new theory.
The latter had clearly pointed the finger at Pakistan-based terror
groups. In contrast, the premise of saffron terrorism had given that country
a chance to score brownie points in international diplomacy. It was clearly
harming India’s efforts to highlight the menace of cross-border terrorism
on the global stage. The Pakistani establishment was emboldened to wash
its hands off every terror strike within Indian boundaries. India’s locus
standi on terror camps operating from Pakistani soil was weakening.

26. While the inquisition was proceeding at its own pace, why was the
Hindu terror bogey being raised repeatedly? Normally, such sensitive
investigations are kept out of bounds from the public domain. However,
the politics over the Samjhauta Express blasts, Malegaon blasts and
Hyderabad’s Mecca Masjid blasts, among other such acts of terrorist
violence, was unrelenting. Our democracy is not new to the politics of
vested interests. Yet, there is an unwritten code to keep national security
and the country’s image out of it. Therefore, the possibility of saffron
terrorism could not be rejected altogether. However, the mindless political
statements of some of our politicians on this matter bolstered the spirits of
anti-India elements sitting across the border.
I was keen to ask this detective whether the evidence was indeed
leading the investigation towards the Hindu extremist elements or was
proof deliberately being fabricated to reach this conclusion. It was almost
certain that such a person in his position would not spill the beans easily.
But I had to be ready. My job was to extract the information for which I
needed to do some groundwork. The questions discussed so far were based
on conjecture and already a subject of intense public debate.
In the meantime, news surfaced that the NIA’s special court has
acquitted the eight accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The learned
judge had reportedly observed that all of them were Muslims and could
not have killed the people belonging to their own community to incite
communal violence, that too on a pious occasion like Shab-e-Baraat.
While the court’s argument seemed valid, the judgement raised a question
over the probe conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).
Aspersions were cast on the 10,000-page chargesheet filed by the ATS that
linked the accused to the proscribed Students Islamic Movement of India
(SIMI). The chargesheet had divulged in detail how these men had
procured explosives and how the bombs were planted. It had even alleged
the involvement of a Pakistani citizen in the conspiracy. The CBI had also
corroborated the conclusions drawn by the ATS. Nevertheless, the NIA had
changed the track of the entire investigation. I was hoping that the man I

27. would meet could shed some light on whether the agency took notice of
the chargesheet or not.
The SIMI angle to the Malegaon blasts had almost been forgotten
amidst the cacophony surrounding the alleged saffron terrorism. Our
agencies had suspected the hand of a Pakistani operative much before the
US intelligence agencies. The verdict on the Malegaon blasts had clear
ramifications for the Samjhauta Express blast case. The theory of saffron
terrorism had emanated from the Malegaon blast investigation and later
remoulded the Samjhauta Express blast probe.
The irrefutable evidence against Col. Purohit, Aseemanand and the
other co-accused was nowhere in sight. But when the alleged SIMI
activists were released despite proofs or details of their modus operandi,
the real purpose behind raking up the issue of saffron terrorism without
any solid evidence started to unveil. The intent of the then-UPA
government was already being doubted after a spate of controversial
statements by top Congress leaders like Sushil Kumar Shinde, Digvijay
Singh and P. Chidambaram.
The acquittal of the accused in the Malegaon blast had other dangerous
connotations. The question of whether the real culprits would ever be
exposed remained. The UPA government had almost reduced the NIA to a
puppet at the hands of the politicians. Why had the Maharashtra ATS
disowned its own presentment? Was it a precursor to an entirely new
script? The NIA’s whole premise appeared to be a fabricated story based
on some testimonies.
Many of the witnesses claimed that they were made to confess under
duress. The NIA’s line of investigation had put the ATS in the dock. The
whole theory suggested by the ATS was thrown out of the window by the
judiciary. It was reprimanded for not fulfilling its responsibility in the
right manner. The court also wondered how the crime could have been
committed without any motive. It was considered implausible that Islamic
extremists would target a Muslim-dominated locality.
However, it was argued that such a discernment could not be expected
from terrorists, who had no religion. After all, the sly masterminds of

28. SIMI devise their strategy sitting within the country and keeping in view
the prevailing social circumstances. The Muslims could have been
targeted to foment communal passions. So, had killing Muslims been a
part of the larger nefarious designs of terrorists? Had the NIA weaved the
Hindu terror story simply because the majority of victims of these
dastardly acts were Muslims? In fact, many such controversial remarks by
the leaders of self-styled Hindu groups were cited by the NIA to support
its hypothesis.
Did these statements really indicate a larger conspiracy? Or was the
NIA simply using them to augment its case? I was eager to pose all these
queries to the secret agent.
According to the chargesheet filed by the Maharashtra ATS, SIMI
wanted to incite communal riots in Malegaon. However, the court
dismissed this charge stating that the terrorists could have chosen the
occasion of Ganesh Utsav for this objective. The Hindu festival had
concluded just before the blasts, and any of the processions or Ganesh
Pandals could have been a soft target for SIMI. It further stated that the
accused were framed merely based on their criminal record. Their links
with SIMI were also beyond doubt. In contrast, only one of the alleged
offenders in the NIA’s investigation was found to have a criminal record,
and he was murdered.
Several doubts still persist over the line of investigation pursued by the
NIA. The skeptics are asking about the consequences of eventually finding
the ATS probe to be correct. The agency chief claimed that there was no
evidence against Col. Purohit, and several weak links existed in the probe.
Nobody could have been a more apt person to corroborate or dispel these
theories than this NIA operative.
I was fascinated with the mystery of saffron terrorism amidst all the
hoopla surrounding it. My position as a journalist was definitely going to
help me unearth the truth of the matter. I started to tap all the relevant
contacts. However, extracting exclusive information from these sources
was not going to be easy as was evident from my experience so far. In the

29. meantime, I was still waiting to fix an appointment with the NIA
undercover agent.
It was during this time that I met my friend and colleague, Shivendra
Shrivastava. He is a seasoned crime reporter with experience in covering
the NIA beat. I discussed this project with him. He asked for some time
and promised to suggest contacts who could help in this endeavour.
Then came the moment I was eagerly waiting for. I was returning to
the office after meeting Shivendra. Normally, I avoid taking phone calls
while driving. However, my attention was drawn by the fact that the
cellphone screen was not displaying any number. Instead, a strange three-
digit numerical was flashing on the screen. I knew this was it. In fact,
since the day my friend gave my number to the secret agent, I would keep
my cell phone silent during the bulletins and check it after every anchor
link.
Therefore, I wasted no time, parked the car by the side of the road and
answered the phone. A slightly unclear voice greeted me from the other
side.
‘How are you, Doctor Sa’ab?’ he asked. I am usually called by this
sobriquet in the media circles. It was not difficult to fathom the identity of
the person who had called me.
‘Where are you right now? Are you going somewhere?’ he enquired. I
told him that I was on the DND flyover and heading towards the Noida
film city. He then asked whether I could come to Mayur Vihar metro
station to meet him. Needless to say, I agreed. Curiously, the Mayur Vihar
metro station was only about a five-to-ten-minute drive from my location.
Could it be that the undercover agent was aware of my whereabouts? I
laughed to myself at the idea. Perhaps, I had become over-obsessed with
this spy. I lost no time in turning towards the designated location. But I did
not think of how I was going to call that person.
Parking my car at the metro station was a headache as the construction
work had clogged the traffic. Finally, I stopped just in front of the exit gate
and began to peer closely at all those who were passing by. Each person
coming out of the gate seemed like a spy to me. Around fifteen minutes

30. had passed when the same mysterious number flashed through my
cellphone screen again. The man wanted to know whether I was the one
who had been waiting in a yellow car for the past fifteen minutes. I had
just finished answering the call when a man knocked on the passenger
window of the car. I gave him a good, hard look. This time, he asked
straightaway to open the door.
As soon as I opened the door, he asked to move the car. It was now
clear he was the man I was waiting to see. We had not gone far when he
asked me to park the car. Without indulging in niceties, he told me to ask
what I wanted to know. I was still looking at him from top to bottom. He
was a bespectacled man in a half-sleeve T-shirt. With untidy hair and
chappals on his feet, he had an unassuming appearance.
I was aware that this person was a senior NIA officer associated with
several high profile cases. I tried to hide my astonishment at his looks by
initiating the conversation.
‘Can I record the interview?’ I began. The question perhaps alarmed
him as he sternly asked to switch off my cellphone. The sleuth also asked
me to provide assurance that I would not divulge his identity in any
manner. I gave my word and took out my pen and paper to take notes.
Before we could talk further, I could not help wondering why the man had
chosen such a place for the rendezvous. Why was he dressed so shabbily?

31. W
3
Answering through Questions
as the NIA investigation under political pressure? What was the
reality of saffron terrorism? Why did Aseemanand, Sadhvi Pragya, Sunil
Joshi and Col. Purohit come under the scanner?
Nagging doubts and a flurry of questions flashed through my mind. I
needed to come back to my spontaneous self before asking them. It was
only possible by opening up to him. My question was straightforward. He
paused for few a seconds before answering. It gave me a chance to
recollect all the questions I wanted to ask.
You don’t have to worry about missing any answer while interviewing
in front of the camera. The electronic eye doesn’t miss anything. I have
recorded several such shoots on the Dictaphone and later even on cell
phones. I didn’t have the same luxury this time. I had given my word not
to shoot him, and the fate of such an important interview depended on my
writing speed. The silence was to ascertain that there was no snooping
around. A question about his looks and attire did not appeal to him
enough. I thought quickly as I prepared to ask my next query.
Finally, the answer came in a heavy voice. ‘You also wear suits most of
the time, why jeans and T-shirt today?’
The question clarified two things; he would size me up before coming
to the point, and some of his answers might be hints or counter-questions.
The sleuth’s presence was a confirmation that he wanted to say something.

32. ‘The suit is only for the camera, this is how I dress in real life. It is
kind of a burden at times, and I have not understood why all anchors have
to dress up like that. An unnecessary tradition which every channel
follows.’ I had to stop as it felt I was digressing. Wasn’t I supposed to
speak less and listen more? Nevertheless, this topic was an icebreaker, and
after all, I had asked about appearance in the first place. Most of all, it was
working as he replied, ‘To remain unassuming is part of our job. I am on
duty, even at this moment. We are after an Indian Mujahideen (IM)
terrorist.’
I was beginnning to like where the conversation was going. The world
must be shown the shadowy world of spies without glamour. Few people
are aware that espionage isn’t a superhero business as depicted in popular
culture. It is essentially a team game. This confabulation was continuously
interrupted by phone calls from this man’s superiors. He was answering
his boss’s queries in as few words as possible.
The man urged me to ask my questions while assuring me that he
would be generous in satisfying all my queries. ‘I had come to see you at
the office, but you were busy doing a show,’ he clarified. These beneficent
words boosted my morale as his amiable nature became more apparent.
But I could not help asking why he didn’t call me for a meeting
instead. The NIA officer reasoned that he didn’t want to put me at risk and
was taking precaution even now for my safety. He elaborated that agents
like him had been well-trained to face any danger, but their acquaintances
could sometimes be put in danger. He was still on duty, looking for some
terror suspect and the fact that his activities were being monitored could
never be dismissed altogether. He confided that caution had become a part
of his habit and was the reason he preferred to be in disguise. I must
confess that I was a bit nervous after hearing this, and my initial
enthusiasm gave way to tension. It was clearly a signal that I had to
conclude this dialogue without wasting time.
So I came straight to the point and asked about his role in the
Samjhauta Express Blast probe.

33. ‘I worked as an undercover agent in various locations. I was chasing
almost every major character of this probe,’ he answered.
‘Please tell us a little more about the locations that you covered to
make your point clearer,’ I was ready with the next question.
‘I spent a lot of time impersonating a Sadhu in Aseemanand’s office. I
used to keep a close watch on every activity happening there.’
A straight answer to a straight question! The conversation was finally
picking up. I rued the fact that recording was forbidden, as writing
diverted my attention. I couldn’t have told him to speak slowly. Both time
and circumstances didn’t allow that.
He didn’t seem very impressed with my questions.
‘What exactly do you want to know? The whole story of our operation
is documented in the chargesheet. I can give you a copy if you want. Ask
me the question that has drawn you here,’ he said, almost pressingly.
It was clear there was no point beating about the bush. Yet, the next
question was again from my prepared list.
‘Were you also deputed at the BJP office and VHP headquarters?’
He weighed my question for a few seconds, in silence, and then
replied, ‘Yes, I have worked undercover at these places. I have monitored
many people in the BJP office for some time. We suspected their links
with the characters of our theory. The VHP and Sangh offices were in the
purview of our operation. Many potential suspects were frequent visitors
there.’
He was living up to my anticipation of the meeting. But I was careful
not to rub him the wrong way through my questions. At one point, it felt
like the conversation was over, and I was not nearly done yet.
‘See, I know you as a good TV journalist. The friend who introduced
you is like a family. I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge.’ It
was yet another encouragement.
‘Was the NIA investigation deliberately diverted to propagate the
theory of saffron terrorism?’ I was now under pressure to be forthright.
‘It is not the case. The NIA investigation was unbiased. The change in
the line of questioning or the investigation itself was based on solid facts.

34. We have given all the details in the chargesheet. It clearly demonstrates
how these people wanted revenge against so-called Islamic terrorism. As I
said, I myself was keeping an eye on some of the accused. The whole plot
came to light after the murder of Sunil Joshi,’ he answered promptly.
There was nothing new in this information. ‘Why would a serving NIA
officer speak against his own organisation to me?’ I thought.
But I persisted with my questions. ‘The NIA’s whole premise is based
on some testimonies. The accused are retracting from their confessions
one after another. They allege that their statements were taken under
duress. Can a case rest solely on confessions? Were some of these not
really framed?’ I argued.
Again, he paused before answering. But I was becoming accustomed to
his silence and waited for his reaction.
‘Not only NIA but almost every investigation agency is strict while
interrogating. Do you expect a terrorist to break easily? It is true that we
were not benign to these people. Nevertheless, how can you deny the
significance of statements? They are an essential part of any legal case.’
‘So, you are denying the accusation of excesses levelled on the
accused?’
‘I do not mean to say we made them speak untruths. All I want to say
is we had to be stern to extract truth from them. However, collecting
evidence, in this case, was challenging.’
This was an important assertion because the lack of credible proof was
a big hole in the proposition of saffron terrorism. The NIA chargesheet
had stated that the accused were part of a secret meeting in Faridabad
where the blast conspiracy had been hatched. Two of the NIA’s witnesses,
who had claimed to participate in this meeting, have turned hostile. The
NIA chargesheet had also mentioned Sadhvi Pragya’s bike as a piece of
evidence.
My spirits were dampening now, and I was beginning to feel that this
man would not reveal much. Would this be another case of the promise of
something substantial and getting vapour instead? Still, I could derive

35. satisfaction from the fact that I was now acquainted with one of the most
credible sources of this case.
Conjuring questions was becoming increasingly difficult. I was lost in
my thoughts when his cell phone buzzed again. He apprised his senior
about some operation, taking place at the metro station. He informed that
the suspect had not arrived at the station and that he was therefore shifting
his location.
I knew nothing about the context of their chat and was not even keen to
know more about this operation. I had come in the hope of getting some
scoop regarding saffron terrorism and that was proving to be futile.
‘There is no single father in this job. They have appointed so many
bosses over your head,’ he lamented while hanging up the call.
I was amused to learn that even the job of spies was not free from the
tyranny of bosses. My smile brought him back from his world of thoughts,
and he said, ‘Dear friend, you have not come prepared for this interview.’
I was startled by this sudden jibe. ‘Sorry, I do not understand you…’ I
said, almost innocently.
‘Don’t take it otherwise. But should you really expect a serving NIA
officer to answer such contentious questions? I can imagine what you want
to know. However, tell me first what you know about this matter,’ he
responded.
I told him that I had been regularly reporting, anchoring and writing on
this issue. ‘I have closely followed every development in this case,’ I said.
‘You have seen it from the viewpoint of a TV journalist. Try to look at
it from the perspective of an investigation agency. Only then will you be
able to find the right questions. You will have to immerse yourself entirely
in the nitty-gritty of the case. As far as the NIA is concerned, we were
moving forward based on inputs and instructions. You need to see the
probe in its entirety. Perhaps, you want to know about the loopholes in the
NIA’s investigation. But how can I speak against my own organisation and
criticise an operation I was a part of?’
‘But it is important to know whether this operation was conducted
under pressure or not,’ I retorted.

36. There was silence again. I thought he was convinced that I was not
interested in deceiving him or spoiling my relations with my journalist
friend. Truth was that I could not have betrayed him, even if I wanted to.
Our conversation was being documented only on paper and becoming
etched in my memory.
Once again, I conveyed my honest intentions to him and said, ‘See,
you can be sure that this meeting is not being recorded anywhere. All I
want to know is whether the NIA investigation was headed in the right
direction or not. The answer to this question will decide the future course
of my research,’ I told him.
It was clear that he was not going to speak against the NIA. I could
sense that he was beginning to understand the gravity of the situation. I
had reasons to believe he would not send me disappointed. After all, this
rendezvous was his idea.
‘Tell me how to go about unearthing the truth.’ I decided to let him
take the conversation towards the right direction. The onus would be on
him.
‘Well, this is the right question, my friend,’ he interjected. ‘I am not an
interviewee for you. My seniors are the more befitting candidates for that.
They would be willing to talk to you. However, I can help direct your
research work to move down the correct road.’ His phone rang again. But
this time, he just looked at the screen and disconnected the call. It was an
indication that this discussion was now entering a more serious ambit.
The sleuth kept his cell phone aside and addressed me in an
introspective tone, ‘Let me list some of the relevant questions necessary to
find the truth. Revisit various theories attached to this case. Go through
the investigative details of various agencies. I can provide a copy of the
NIA chargesheet. A lot is hidden in the preliminary investigation of the
police as well as the ATS probe.’
I did not want to break his chain of thoughts. However, just to be sure
that he was not diluting the real issue again, I said, ‘I have been doing the
groundwork. If you don’t mind, could you please highlight some of the
weak links in the NIA’s inquisition?’

37. My insistence appeared to be testing his patience as he spoke after a
moment of silence, ‘I am suggesting some questions. Try to find their
answers, and you will reach the truth. First and foremost, who do you think
is the real mastermind? Have you found the details of the funding in the
whole story? What is the irrefutable evidence in the hands of the
investigative agencies?
‘One also needs to look deeply into the initial findings of the probe
agencies and the sharp contrast in the conclusions drawn at a later stage.
Try to find the Madhya Pradesh (MP) connection to the conspiracy. Does
the modus operandi of the Malegaon and the Samjhauta Express blasts
bear the signature of a specific terror group? You will find a lot of hints in
various statements made by politicians in the entire controversy. Delve
deeper into how SIMI and the other accused are linked to Indore. Have you
studied the narcotics test report of the alleged SIMI operatives?’
I was trying to keep pace with him while noting down all these
questions. He sensed my precipitance and assured me that I could have his
personal mobile number for any kind of future help regarding this project.
However, there was a rider that he would only be able to spell out the right
questions and that I should not expect all the answers from him. I would
have to accept that he wanted to help, but could only do so from the
shadows. Surreptitiously, as a spy would.
I handed him my pen and the note pad and requested him to write
down his cell phone number. I had his personal contact number now. Yet,
my mind craved for some sensational piece of information.
‘Can you reveal something that can surprise me?’ I asked, looking
straight into his eyes.
He answered with a smile, ‘You journalists can never get enough of
sensationalism. Alright, let me reveal such a fact. But I will not permit
you to quote me.
Why would the government led by his own party snoop on him? This
baffled me.
‘This I cannot say. But many secrets might be lying hidden behind this
question. Pay attention to one more thing: Is it possible that some of the

38. leaders conducting press conferences on this issue were getting sensitive
information even before the government?’ the spy replied.
‘One more thing has never ceased to intrigue me. I had myself seen
Sandeep Dange standing with a leader. I called my senior to ask
permission for his arrest. However, I was instructed only to keep an eye on
him. The senior called back after a while to inform that I should let Dange
go. I have still not been able to understand why we let an absconder slip
from our hands. Perhaps, we will never know the secret behind this,’ he
further added.
It was surprising because Sandeep Dange was an important link in the
NIA’s line of investigation. The failure to arrest him raised serious
questions about the intent of the entire probe exercise. The premier
investigative agency appears to have concenttrated on two suspects, both
of whom wore saffron clothes. The term saffron terrorism had become part
of the political parlance only after their arrest. Were the NIA’s honchos
deliberately targeting these two supposed saints? Nevertheless, these were
all speculations, and solid answers could only be found by listening
carefully to the questions posed by this undercover agent.
I asked him to suggest some more sources whom I could approach to
gain a better perspective.
He answered, ‘Try to meet the lawyers associated with the case. You
can also arrange meetings with some of the senior officials involved in the
probe. Any person, who had been a part of the high-level meetings, could
prove to be a valuable source. Remember me if you need further
assistance. I shall try to do my best.’
The meeting was far from futile. Though no big scoop came out of it, it
had at least given direction to my research. I was now aware that even
Congress leader Digvijay Singh was under the purview of the
investigation. I bid adieu to my new friend and headed straight to the
office, pondering over these questions.

39. T
4
The Era of Terror
he questions posed by my new acquaintance hinted at some of the
loopholes in the NIA investigation. However, one cannot jump to
conclusions based on just one meeting. The NIA’s role in the probe had
already been questioned, and a mere statement from a spy was not
clinching evidence in the court. My source had already clarified he would
disown his statements in public. But my rendezvous with the spy had
given rise to some new questions. I decided to begin my search
chronologically.
The term ‘saffron terrorism’ became a part of public discourse after
the first blasts in Malegaon. Its genesis dates back to the 2002 Gujarat
riots. Many news magazines had used this expression to depict the post-
Godhra riots. It acquired political colour only after the Malegaon terror
attack. It was necessary to connect the dots between the various blasts
before studying the sequence of political statements. I had covered the
controversial blasts as a TV journalist and had the good fortune to talk to
many experts over the issue.
Malegaon, Nashik district’s second largest city, is also known as a city
of weavers. It is situated on National Highway No. 3, linking Mumbai and
Agra. Around 79 per cent of the city’s nearly six lakh population is
Muslim. It used to be a small junction by the name of Maliwadi (hamlet of
gardens) till the eighteenth century. A large number of Muslims settled

40. here after 1740 when a local jagirdar, Naro Shankar Raje Bahadur, started
building the Malegaon fort. Muslim workers and artisans came from
places like Surat and several cities of north India during the construction
period spanning nearly 25 years. The British conquered the fort in 1818,
triggering further migration of Muslims from Hyderabad. Soon, it became
a refuge for persecuted Muslims from all over India.
In 1857, many Muslims from the northern region relocated to
Malegaon. Likewise, a sizeable segment of the community came from
Varanasi in 1862 to escape famine. The political unrest in the Hyderabad
estate during the 1940s and 1950s also saw a similar exodus to the town.
The trend continued during various communal riots occurring after 1960.
The relationship between the Hindu and Muslim communities of
Malegaon has been fragile at times, and the city itself is one of the most
communally sensitive areas of Maharashtra. However, Malegaon also
boasts of a distinct culture inspired by Marathi culture. Marathi is among
the more popular languages of this area, although several organisations
have devoted themselves to the propagation of Urdu in the town.
Two incidents of terror blasts drastically changed Malegaon’s image.
The first one to rock the city came on 18 September 2006. The terrorists
targeted a graveyard near a mosque. A large number of people had
gathered at the place to offer Juma prayers on the occasion of Shab-e-
Baraat. The investigations revealed that bombs had been planted on two
bicycles. The blasts claimed 37 lives, and over 125 people were injured.
The conspirators had deliberately chosen a sensitive time and location to
inflict maximum damage. The perpetrators of this attack were well trained
and were experts in making and planting bombs. This came at a time when
the country was suffering a series of bomb blasts across different cities.
I started to gather more information about the blasts that preceded or
followed the Malegaon carnage. My first-hand experience with the
terrorist attack dates back to 2005 when Delhi was rattled by serial blasts
during the festival season of Diwali. I had seen the mayhem during this
dastardly act from close quarters. Delving deeper into the recent history of
terror attacks in India brought the sad memories of that day to my mind.

41. On 29 October 2005, the evening crowd had just begun to throng the
busy Delhi markets. Even the newsroom had started to slip into the festive
mood with Diwali just two days away. About an hour or so before prime
time, news trickled that Paharganj, Sarjoni Nagar and Govindpuri had
witnessed blasts. All the three bombs went off within a time span of 30
minutes. I rushed to Paharganj and later to Sarojini Nagar to report the
blasts. The scene at these two locations was heart-rending. Human body
parts littered the road. The police was trying to secure the area for vital
evidence. But it wasn’t easy amidst the melee. The media personnel were
struggling to reach the blast site amidset the prevailing confusion. In
short, it looked as if death itself had danced on the roads of Delhi that day.
The blast took 61 innocent lives. Out of these, 43 people were killed at
Sarojini Nagar where I was stationed. The investigation revealed that a
Pakistan-based terror group was behind the serial blasts. The security
agencies nabbed 10 suspects from various parts of the country. Most of
them were caught at railway platforms and bus stands. The sketches made
after the blasts played an important role in these arrests.
Sarojini Nagar and Paharganj are among the busiest markets of Delhi
on any given day. These places were teeming with people on that fateful
evening, as Diwali was around the corner. The Paharganj area was at a
walking distance from my former office. The whole area had been
cordoned off. But a large crowd had still gathered on the roads and alleys.
Shrieks and wails were piercing the air. A local shopkeeper pointed
towards a wrecked cycle rickshaw to indicate that the bomb had been
planted on it. The investigators later established that it was actually fitted
to a motorcycle. The Sarojini Nagar blast was even deadlier. The
explosives were planted on a Maruti van here. I reported from the site for
many hours in the aftermath of the blast.
The fear of more blasts was lurking, but call of duty had to be
followed. It was a time when the country was rocked by blasts at regular
intervals. It seemed as if the terrorists had waged a full-blown battle
against India. I covered the Delhi blasts as a reporter and closely followed
the others as an anchor. On 7 March 2006, the terrorists struck again.

42. This time, the holy city of Varanasi was their target. The bomb blast
ripped off the outer perimeter of the Sankat Mochan Temple. Like most
other blasts of those years, it was also thought to be a cylinder blast in the
beginning. Since the blasts were a regular occurrence, the media were
extra cautious while confirming a major terrorist act. The bomb went off
at the Sankat Mochan temple in Varanasi at the time of evening prayers.
At least 10 people lost their lives, and over 40 were injured. Soon after,
another blast occurred at city’s railway station killing five people.
There were reports of an unexploded bomb on Shivganga Express
train, resulting in hours of delay in its schedule. An anchor is often
required to speak impromptu when a news just breaks in. Such was the
frequency of terror blasts in those days that I had become used to speaking
on such incidents. I even taught media students how to delve on the news
of a terrorist act in the initial few minutes and how the news could
eventually turn from a suspected cylinder blast to a major terror
conspiracy. The news of a blast would come all of a sudden in those days.
Such events had ceased to evoke the same astonishment from the viewers.
I had also become used to the terror-related news much like a pathologist
becomes accustomed to post-mortems.
The breaking news of a blast at the time of leaving the office could
spoil any prime time anchor’s whole night. Any media professional would
understand what I mean to say. Such a moment presented itself on the
evening of 11 July 2006. At around 7 pm, Mumbai’s local trains were
rattled with seven blasts one after another. All the bombs exploded within
a span of 11 minutes, leaving 209 people dead and over 700 injured. It was
a well-coordinated attack, and the terrorists had used the ‘pressure cooker
bombs’ to turn the city’s lifeline into a ‘deathline’. All major TV channels
received an e-mail after three days. A little-known organisation called
‘Lashkar-e-Kahar’ had taken responsibility for the 7/11 attacks. The mail
also claimed that the perpetrators were free and out of bounds for the law
enforcement agencies.
Such an e-mail was unprecedented at that time. However, it later
became a trend among the terrorist outfits. The terrorists were now almost

43. teasing India’s security establishment with such tactics. Several terror
groups often made contradictory assertions to claim a terror act. Later,
Lashkar and SIMI also issued statements owning up to the attack. Even
Al-Qaeda was not ruled out by the media as well as security agencies. The
name of the group was immaterial to the Indian government. Nobody
concerned with the country’s security had any doubt that it was the
handiwork of Pakistan’s spy agency ISI. However, MK Narayanan, the
then National Security Advisor (NSA) wasn’t as forthright. He said during
an interview that there was no clinching evidence to indict ISI, adding that
some evidence suggested its involvement.
The statement was seen as a setback for diplomatic efforts to isolate
Pakistan in the global community. However, former Home Secretary VK
Duggal tried to do some damage control by releasing an official statement
claiming that all clues led to the suspicion that ISI was behind the 7/11
blasts. As usual, politicians sought to reap dividends out of this attack.
Imam Bukhari and some other leaders opposed the detention of suspects
belonging to the Muslim community. Anees Durrani, a prominent leader of
the community, asked why only Muslims were being blamed after every
blast. The train bombings had opened the old wounds of India’s
commercial capital. On 12 March 1993, the city witnessed the gory face of
terror for the first time. As many as 13 blasts shook the city on that fateful
day. RDX was used in the explosive devices planted to inflict the
maximum damage of life and property. It emerged that the underworld
don, Dawood Ibrahim, had been behind these blasts. He had apparently
shook hands with ISI with the purpose of avenging the Babri Masjid
demolition.
Dawood Ibrahim managed to leave the country before the serial blasts.
There is ample evidence indicating that he runs his empire of crime from
Pakistan and that the ISI plays the good host in return for his help in
implementing its anti-India conspiracies. US intelligence agencies had
indicated his role in funding the Samjhauta Express blasts. They even
named Arif Kasmani as the conduit who had supplied money to the
conspirators through Dawood. Nevertheless, these findings were

44. overshadowed by the probe conducted by our own investigation agencies,
which had taken an altogether different line. The 7/11 attack was a big
morale booster for anti-India forces sitting across the border. It managed
to send a signal that terrorists could strike at will. Most of the terror
activities till date followed a similar pattern. Or so we were told.
Almost all the blasts were invariably linked to terror outfits harboured
by Pakistan’s deep state. The leaders of terrorist groups in collusion with
ISI hatched the conspiracies. The sleeper modules within India were
activated to implement them. Such cells still pose a challenge to security
agencies. The Mumbai train carnage was followed by blasts in Malegaon,
the Samjhauta Express, Hyderabad’s Mecca Masjid and Ajmer Sharif.
These incidents were purportedly different from the previous blasts. Their
investigation had become the basis of the genesis of the supposed
phenomenon of ‘Hindu terror’, which altered the course of Indian politics
in many ways.
I concentrated my research on these attacks and assimilated all the
information I had gathered about these attacks. My motive was to reach
the bottom of the mystery and the characters involved in these blasts. All
the questions posed by the NIA agent were in reference to these specific
blasts. To put these incidents in perspective, I focused on the terror
incidents preceding these bombings and the ones that occurred after them.
Malegaon was rocked twice by blasts, first in 2006 and then in 2008.
Ajmer Sharif became a target in October 2007. Lucknow, Varanasi and
Faizabad suffered serial blasts just a month later, claiming 15 lives and
injuring 40 others.
I had extensively covered all these incidents as a journalist and only
needed to go through the news reports of that time to jog my memory. I
also decided to talk to expert journalists and more importantly, to
approach the persons who played an important role in the investigations of
these incidents. Meeting with the undercover agent was only a first step in
this direction. But it had left me with more questions than answers. These
questions were also part of the process to reach the truth. These particular
terror incidents had resulted in a paradigm shift in Indian politics.

45. Therefore, it was necessary to understand them. The bombings never
ceased after Malegaon and Ajmer Sharif, fuelling further speculations.

46. A
5
When Terror Was at Its Peak
fter the Ajmer Sharif blasts of October 2007, Lucknow, Varanasi and
Faizabad were the next targets for terrorists. The blasts that shook these
cities on 23 November claimed 16 lives.
Allegedly to take revenge for the beating of three suspected terrorists
in its premises, the terrorists had targeted the Lucknow court. Varanasi,
Faizabad and Ayodhya were always on the terror radar for their religious
significance and to foment communal passions.
The initial investigation had found clear links between the motives and
modus operandi of these blasts. The terrorists had meticulously decided
their targets to vitiate the communal harmony of the country. Like the
Mumbai train blasts, various terror outfits clambered to take credit for
each of these incidents.
Most notably, Lashkar and IM competed with each other in sending e-
mails after every blast. Their motive was to project their strength and
mislead the Indian security agencies and to lure disgruntled youth for
recruitment for their sleeper modules. Therefore, these claims had little
credibility. What mattered more was the word of investigative agencies.
While Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed were avowed enemies
of the Indian state for quite some time, several new organisations like IM
and Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) and SIMI were also trying to gain a
foothold within the Indian territory.

47. However, another blast, prior to the attack on Uttar Pradesh (UP), had
largely escaped public attention. It was different from other explosions, as
the terrorists had chosen the day of Id-ul-Fitr to strike. None of those
gathered at the Ludhiana’s Shingar Cinema knew what was coming their
way. On 14 October 2007, the show was disrupted by a huge bang. It
claimed six lives by the time the dust had settled inside the theatre. Over
30 people were severely injured. Most Hindu festivals and national
holidays had been days of high alert until recently. It was another
confirmation after the Ajmer Sharif incident that terrorists no longer
differentiated between religions for destruction. The investigations
revealed that ISI was trying to bring back Babbar Khalsa from the ashes.
The then senior intelligence officer Jagdish Mittal had told journalists
that Islamic extremist groups had joined hands with the remnants of pro-
Khalistan groups. He further claimed that terrorists wanted to vitiate the
communal atmosphere through these blasts.
The Ajmer Sharif conspiracy was attributed to the terrorists of
Bangladeshi origin. The ISI had commanded them to target Ajmer Sharif
because devotees of both religions thronged the shrine in equal numbers.
The terrorists ended the year 2007 by creating mayhem in UP.
The year 2008 also commenced for them from the same state. The
terrorists struck at a CRPF camp in Rampur even before the first sunrise of
the next year. The operation that was believed to be carried out by
Lashkar-e-Taiba took the lives of eight jawans. The attack was followed by
an intense debate, both inside and outside TV studios. The federal security
agencies claimed that they had tipped off the state government about an
imminent attack on the CRPF camp. The input was apparently shared
shortly after the blasts in Lucknow, Varanasi and Faizabad.
The then CM, Mayawati, countered by saying that she had forwarded
the information to the central command of CRPF. Regardless of the truth,
the attack clearly demonstrated a lack of coordination between the central
and state security apparatus. But the blame game also proved that Indian
intelligence agencies had penetrated the terror networks against India.
They were aware of who was running the machinery of terror.

48. The Rampur attack undoubtedly exposed chinks in our security
mechanism, but the later developments indicated that our agencies were
not sitting idle. The motive of all these blasts was to weaken the country.
The terrorists wanted to attract the world’s attention through audacious
attacks. More worryingly, they seemed to have spread their tentacles deep
within the Indian territory. The ISI no longer needed foreign militants to
infiltrate our nation; groups like the IM and SIMI were willing to do the
job for them.
The string of attacks continued regardless. The second major strike of
2008 came five months later. On 13 May 2008, six regions of Jaipur city
were wrecked by nine blasts. Around 63 people were killed in these blasts,
and 200 others were injured. The way bombs went off within a span of 15
minutes proved that it was also a well-coordinated attack. As a world-
renowned tourist destination for visitors from around the world, Jaipur
was on the terror radar.
When I was anchoring live during these blasts, it felt as if this was the
biggest terror attack in the history of India. The needle of suspicion was
again pointed at Pakistan. The probe revealed that the explosives were
planted on bicycles. The investigating officers followed this vital clue to
identify suspects which revealed the connection to the Bangladesh-based
HuJI, the masterminds behind the blast. With the help of Lashkar and
SIMI, this operation had successfully been pulled off. Curiously, these
serial blasts came at a time when the Rajasthan government had declared
its intentions to take tough action against illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
It was said that the blasts were carried out to avenge this policy, although
HuJI later proved to be just another front for the ISI. Its involvement was
established in several similar terror incidents that had nothing to do with
Bangladesh.
Our newsroom was again bustling with activity on the evening of 14
May. All major news channels had received an e-mail, allegedly from the
IM. The terrorists had left an important clue in a bid to bolster their claim.
The mail mentioned the chassis number of one of the bicycles used to
plant the bomb. This bicycle with chassis no - 129489 was parked at the

49. city’s Chhoti Chaupar locality. The investigators found that people who
spoke broken Hindi in Bengali accent had bought the bicycle. The links
between the Jaipur blasts and the Hyderabad explosions of the previous
year were also emerging.
On 25 August 2007, two bombs had exploded near Hyderabad’s
Lumbini Park and Gokul Chat Bhandar within an interval of five minutes.
At least 42 innocent lives were lost in these blasts, and over 60 were
injured. All fingers were pointing towards HUJI in this case as well.
Suspects named Shahid and Bilal were thought to be the masterminds.
These same persons were suspected to have been behind the Mecca Masjid
blast of May 2007 as well.
However, clouds of terror were still hovering over Hyderabad. As
many as 19 live bombs were found the following morning from various
parts of the city. Fortunately, the terrorists had failed to wire them
properly. All of these were packed inside plastic bags. The plan was to
wreck not only the streets but also the spirit of the city. The audacity of the
attack left little to doubt that the country was facing an undeclared war and
that the enemy had help from within our own boundaries. The ISI
connection in virtually every blast was a clear indicator as to who was
financing this war.
The police had arrested four in connection to the Hyderabad blast,
including a resident of Dubai. He was nabbed with fake currency worth ₹
2.36 crore. He told interrogators that this money had come from Pakistan
via Dubai. Cutting the root of terror funding remains a global problem till
date. Unleashing fear among people from across the border is essentially a
costly affair, and a spate of blasts proved that the terrorists had sufficient
funding.
When the country was still picking up the pieces after the Jaipur blasts
in May, the next chapter of bloodshed happened. On 25 July 2008,
Bengaluru was devastated with 9 blasts around the city, which killed 2
people and injured 20. The terrorists failed to unleash the large-scale
destruction they had imagined because most of the explosives were of low
intensity. No terror outfit came forward to accept responsibility for these

50. blasts. The needle of suspicion pointed towards the usual culprits—HuJI,
Jaish-e-Mohammed, SIMI and Lashkar. The investigators claimed that the
terrorists not only wanted to terrorise the citizens of Bengaluru, but also to
send a message to the US. Being a software hub, Bengaluru has many US-
based software companies which have business interests in the city. The
modus operandi of these blasts was quite similar to that of the twin
explosions in Hyderabad. Notably, the same type of low-intensity
explosives was also used in Malegaon and Mecca Masjid.
In 2009, the long arms of law reached Nasir, the top Lashkar operative
in South India. He had made some sensational revelations, including
allegedly sharing links with the prominent Muslim leader from Kerala,
Abdul Nazer Mahdani. Mahdani was an accused in the 1998 Coimbatore
bombings and had spent nine-and-a-half years circling the courts before
being acquitted. He was also arrested for his alleged involvement in the
Bengaluru blasts, but no charge was proved against him.
The Coimbatore bombings were the biggest terrorist attack in India
since the 1993 Mumbai carnage. The saboteurs chose Valentine’s Day to
carry out 12 blasts at 11 different locations of the city. Around 58 families
lost their loved ones in this tragedy. The bombs exploded just before
Advani had reached a rally which he was going to be addressing. In fact,
one of the bombs was detonated barely 800 metres from his podium.
Mahdani had a reputation for making venomous speeches before the
blasts. He had formed an organisation called the Islamic Sevak Sangh to
rally Muslim youth. Such organisations were a lucrative breeding ground
for the ISI’s activities.
The people of Bengaluru were thanking the heavens for being spared a
more devastating destruction of life and property. But sadly, there was no
respite for the country. The city of Ahmedabad was jounced the very next
day with an extraordinary attack. On 26 July 2008, the news of the first
blast in the city broke at about 7 p.m. The number had risen to an
astounding 21 in less than an hour. Fifty-six innocent persons were never
to open their eyes again, but the senses of India’s security agencies were
finally beginning to awaken.

51. An e-mail was released under the name of the IM claiming
responsibility for this destruction. It also carried the usual threat about
annihilating India and avenging the Gujarat anti-Muslim riots. More
curiously, the mail was sent to TV channels about five minutes before the
first explosion. ‘Just wait for five minutes for the revenge of Gujarat
riots,’ it read. The mail pertaining to the Ahmedabad blasts was sent from
the IP address of a US citizen named Ken Heywood. This IP address was
obtained by hacking an insecure Wi-Fi connection. Meanwhile, HuJi
contradicted these claims by asserting that it was behind the explosions.
The security agencies believed that the Ahmedabad and Bengaluru
blasts were the handiwork of the same group. The investigation followed a
similar strain of thought. The same terror organisations were held
responsible; some more sleeper cells were busted, and more evidence
piled up indicating that the strings of all these attacks were being pulled
from across the border.
The terror blasts had become a regular occurrence. Soon, such news no
longer baffled the common masses. They had become almost immune to
them. Our security agencies were seemingly helpless amidst all this
destruction. All the explosions in various cities followed a similar pattern.
It was clear that terrorists had spread their tentacles deep into our society
and that their facilitators were among us. The e-mails after every incident
were also emanating from within the country. In fact, terror blasts had
become such a routine that TV news channels no longer waited for the
word of investigation agencies before expounding on the conspiracy of the
blast.
The bombs were almost invariably planted on bicycles; either RDX or
ammonium nitrate was found in them on most occasions. Even the emails
received after such incidents had a similar ring to them. I had become
accustomed to anchoring such events live. It seemed that the terrorists
could target any city at will. However, the scary truth was that there was
no other place where they could get better traction than in the national
capital.

52. And as expected, Delhi was a target of these terror attacks in 2008. On
13 September, several explosions shook the city, claiming 33 lives and
injuring 130 others. I was present in Rajeev Chowk minutes before the
explosions. Two of the bombs had gone off in that area. It was the fourth
major terrorist incident that year after Jaipur, Bengaluru and Ahmedabad.
The intelligence agencies had reportedly intercepted a phone call to
Pakistan soon after the Ahmedabad carnage. The terrorists were heard
discussing the success of the operation ‘BAD’. The acronym ‘BAD’
clearly stood for Bengaluru, Ahmedabad and Delhi.
Some Mumbai-based software engineers had apparently colluded with
SIMI activists to make these blasts happen. The security agencies
suspected that the Dawood Ibrahim network was also helping their cause.
Five youth who were arrested in Mumbai claimed to have met the
mastermind of the Mumbai train bombings. The Crime Branch claimed
that these SIMI operatives had conspired to carry out blasts in seven trains
across different locations. It was on the basis of their testimony that the
MP ATS later arrested the top SIMI terrorist Qayamuddin Kapadia from
Indore. He confessed to having masterminded the Ahmedabad blasts and
to taking part in the Delhi blasts conspiracy.
The investigation of the 2008 Delhi blasts had led probe agencies to
some of the sleeper cells of the IM. Many of the key operatives were
arrested from various parts of the country during the investigation. Their
questioning seemingly led to the Batla House encounter just five days
after the blasts. The Delhi police claimed that the men surrounded during
the operation were hardcore IM terrorists. The biggest damage inflicted by
this encounter was the loss of the brave and decorated police inspector
Mohan Chandra Sharma. Atif Ameen, allegedly the chief bomb-making
expert of the Indian Mujahedeen was neutralised during the encounter.
However, several NGOs and political groups cast aspersions on the
authenticity of the encounter and the matter reached the National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC). The Delhi police were given a clean chit by
the NHRC, but the petty politics had already affected the morale of our
security agencies by then.

53. The security agencies were still busy connecting the dots of the Delhi
bombing plot when the sound of a blast reverberated in the country’s
capital yet again. On 27 September 2008, barely two weeks after the serial
blasts, a low-intensity blast claimed three lives in the Mehrauli area. The
offenders were temerarious enough to make a threatening call to the police
just before the blast. The SIM card for this call was bought from a shop in
Faridabad. The police rounded up some suspects of Bangladeshi origin
along with the shopkeeper who had sold the SIM card. The nature of this
blast was different from that of the bombings two weeks ago. It was
postulated that it was an operation carried out by some group other than
the IM. Some reports suggested that the bomb at Mohali had the
signatures of IM operative Abdul Karim Tunda, who had been involved in
several such incidents.
After Delhi, it was Gujarat and Maharashtra’s turn again. On 29
September 2008, i.e, just two days after Mehrauli incident, similar bombs
exploded in Modasa and Malegaon. In Malegaon, two bombs planted on a
bike went off near a hotel, killing ten people. Seventeen other explosive
devices were diffused in other parts of the city. The blast in Modasa ended
the life of a 15-year-old child and injured 10 others. The bomb was kept on
a bike there as well, and the target was the vicinity of a local mosque.
While these two explosions gained the media’s attention, the recovery of a
bomb from Faridabad around the same time went largely unnoticed. It was
the month of Ramzan and Navratri, and the bomb at Faridabad was planted
near a temple. The terrorists clearly wanted to target large crowds
belonging to both the communities.
The bike used for the Malegaon blasts belonged to a man in Surat who
was linked to a right-wing Hindu organisation. This clue ultimately led
investigators to Pragya Singh Thakur aka Sadhvi Pragya, and a new theory
of terrorism took shape. This was a paradigm shift in the history of
terrorist activities in India. Nowhere had the term ‘Hindu terror’ ever been
used till now, and it gave Pakistan an alibi to escape the blame for its
misdeeds. I intended to focus my research on these terror activities, which
were thought to be the reprisal of Hindu extremist groups.

54. T
6
When They Crossed Our Doors to
Hit Us
he country was outraged by the biggest terror attack in India’s history.
It not only exposed the shortcomings of our security network but also laid
bare the lack of professionalism among media houses. 26/11 is still one of
the darkest days in contemporary Indian history. I still remember how I
continued live anchoring during the first night of the attack. The news
broke with the information of a shootout at the Chatrapati Shivaji
Terminal.
Initially, it was thought to be the result of a local gang war. However,
TV channels soon started flashing dramatic text on the screen proclaiming
it as the biggest terror attack on India’s soil, our very own 9/11 moment.
The sensational live footage of the attack from various locations gave an
impression of the whole army having attacked Mumbai. Senior police
officials Ashok Kamte, Vijay Salaskar and the then Mumbai ATS Chief
Hemant Karkare had laid their lives in the line of duty within hours of the
attack. It was difficult to believe the scale of this operation at the
beginning.
The terrorists had chosen sea-route for the first time. The brazenness
of the assault was enough to shock most Indians. I continued anchoring the
whole night of 26 November. It was only in the morning that a colleague

55. came to relieve me. There was nothing else in my life for the next three
days. I was occupied with presenting the latest updates to the viewers,
continuously talking to the experts and trying to see the reality amidst a
flurry of speculations. Everything, from death toll to the number of
terrorists, was a conjecture. However, it was clear that the terrorists were
aware of the coverage they were getting in the media.
Their handlers sitting across the border were watching the broadcast of
the news by the Indian media. It was upon their instructions that a part of
the Taj Hotel was set on fire for optics that suited their agenda of terror.
The live broadcast of the commando action at Nariman Point also drew
flak from all corners. Finally, when the dust settled after three days, it
became clear that 10 Lashkar-trained Pakistani men had entered Mumbai
with meticulous planning.
They commenced their operation from Leopold café and then moved to
Shivaji Terminal. Afterwards, the terrorists separated into three groups and
entered the Hotel Taj, Hotel Oberoi-Trident and a Jewish Centre at
Nariman House. At least 171 people died in the attack. Many of them were
foreigners. Nine terrorists were killed while Ajmal Kasab was caught
alive, thanks to the bravery of a Mumbai police braveheart.
The attack drew worldwide condemnation. World powers, as well as
the United Nations, took strong notice of the episode. The Pakistani
response was initially of denial, but the proof was so incriminating that the
country was forced to acknowledge that Kasab was a Pakistani. The
international pressure resulted in the registration of a case in Pakistan and
brief detention of Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed. However, it was only a
diversionary tactic as Saeed still walks free in Pakistan despite being
proscribed by the UN.
The confessions of double agent Headley have also spilt the beans over
ISI’s role in 26/11. The whole world was increasingly convinced that ISI
was not only harbouring the Taliban, but also Lashkar and several such
organisations. The hardcore Lashkar terrorist Abu Hamza’s arrest further
revealed the entire conspiracy. According to Hamza’s statement, the

56. terrorists had planned to rock Mumbai in 2006. The original conspiracy
entailed using disgruntled Indian youth in these attacks.
These nefarious designs were foiled, as a large consignment of
weapons and RDX was seized in Aurangabad. The seized AK-47 rifles and
high-grade explosives were meant to be used in Mumbai. Hamza further
disclosed that he had fled to Pakistan following this seizure and redrawn
the whole conspiracy. This time, they chose the easier option of picking
Fedayeen from the terrorist camps operating in Pakistan. Hamza’s
confession also corroborated Headley’s claims that at least three officers
of the Pakistan army were part of the plot.
The 26/11 attacks exposed Pakistan in front of the international
community. It could no longer use Indian extremists as a ruse to hide its
real face. Nevertheless, the attack shook the nation’s conscience to its
core. Politics was galore over the entire matter. The attempts to incite
Islamophobia were now more pronounced than ever. Even some senior
leaders associated with the government of that time were found guilty of
playing politics over the matter. The country was gearing for general
elections in April 2009.
The UPA government was on the back foot for failing to curb the spate
of bomb blasts, and raising the suspicion of Hindu extremists behind the
Malegaon blasts clearly served its purpose. The accusations sparked an
intense debate about whether the deeds of RSS-affiliated organisations
were destabilising the country or not. Some prominent RSS functionaries
came under the scanner. Meanwhile, NDA lost the Lok Sabha polls badly
under the leadership of LK Advani.
Manmohan Singh retained his post with 44 extra MPs, whereas BJP’s
strength was depleted by 17 MPs. The results demonstrated that the people
had voted for economic issues and that terrorism was not high on their
agenda. This was despite the fact that the issue of terrorism was always in
vogue among political circles between 2006 and 2008. News of terrorist
activities came at regular intervals from the north-eastern parts of the
country, even in the election year of 2009. Dozens of terror groups are still
active in that region. The intelligence agencies have ample proof of the ISI

57. and Chinese support to these outfits. The nation, however, was still
mourning the Mumbai attacks.
It proved to be a temporary lull and terrorists were back with their
sinister agenda in 2010. The famous German Bakery of Pune was more
crowded than normal days on the eve of the Valentine’s Day. It was around
8 p.m, and the prime time show at my channel had just hit the air when the
German Bakery was shattered by a powerful explosion. This place was
situated near the Osho commune and was a popular hangout destination
among the foreigners. The blast claimed 17 lives while 54 others were
injured.
The German Bakery blast had not only broken the brief silence after
26/11 but also exposed the government’s claims of having learnt its
lessons from the Mumbai attack. Two little-known groups, Lashkar-e-
Taiba Al Alami and the Mujahideen Islami Muslim Front, came forward to
accept the responsibility of the attack. It emerged that Lashkar-e-Taiba had
been using the IM as a front. All these outfits with fancy names were just a
ruse to give an impression that it was a home-grown insurgency.
The state of Pakistan has followed the dubious strategy of sheltering
terrorists on one hand and claiming to be their biggest victim, on the other.
The international community, led by the US, has known of this duplicity of
the Pakistani army for quite some time. However, the Afghan situation, as
well as the fear of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists,
has held it back from taking a stern action. We now know that US had
prior inputs of an inevitable attack on Mumbai, thanks to CIA’s double
agent Headley.
The intelligence cooperation between India and the US has improved
over the past few years. However, one must say that Uncle Sam prioritises
its own interests over everything else. The benevolent aid given by
Americans has kept the Pakistani war machinery well-oiled. However, the
Pentagon, the US legislature and common US citizens are increasingly
wary that the same money is being used to kill their own soldiers in
Afghanistan. The citizens of Western countries, including the US, were the
main target of the German Bakery blasts. The intention was to gain media

58. coverage at the global level and malign India as an unsafe country for
foreigners.
Such conspiracies are not restricted to narrow sectarian vested
interests. The aim is to weaken the roots of national unity by inculcating
disaffection among the youth towards the country. Religious indoctrination
is the easier route to misguide the vulnerable minds. The arrested terrorist
Abu Hamza had elaborated on how ISI viewed the unemployed as the
potential recruits. There is a whole network of training camps across
Pakistan to turn these hapless youth into dreaded enemies of humanity.
Unfortunately, a handful of youngsters were lured into this trap in the
name of the religion.
It is not that our intelligence agencies were not aware of what was
going on; they simply did not know how to reverse this trend. The
dangerous mix of religion and politics further aggravated the situation.
The internal divisions over terrorism were weakening India’s diplomatic
efforts to isolate Pakistan on the global stage. The Batla House encounter
was the most glaring example of petty politics over terrorism. The NIA’s
softened stance on SIMI activists in the Malegaon blast probe also
appeared to be the outcome of the same brand of politics. The war against
terror was reduced to a joke, as police, ATS, CBI and NIA differed in their
findings of the Malegaon blast probe. The advent of the term saffron
terrorism gave a new impetus to the hardliners across the border.
Eventually, the IM was found to be behind the German Bakery terror
incident. Riyaz Bhatkal, the chief of this terror organisation, is believed to
be in Karachi. He was radicalised during his stint with SIMI and later
joined some other misguided youth to form the IM. Bhatkal is believed to
be the main conspirator behind blasts in several cities including Mumbai,
Jaipur, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and Delhi. His younger brother Yasin
Bhatkal is now behind bars. The CCTV footage at the German Bakery
showed that Yasin Bhatkal had planted explosives there. The security
agencies have managed to break the IM’s back over the recent years. But
its remnants still threaten the peace.

59. There was no major terror attack for the better part of 2010 after the
German Bakery blast. However, this lull was short-lived. On 6 December,
our channel played the news of high alert across all sensitive locations in
the country on account of the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition.
I returned home, relieved that no untoward incident had taken place. But
the holy city of Varanasi faced the wrath of terrorists the very next day.
This time, the target was Sheetla Ghat, located adjacent to the famous
Dashashwamedh Ghat. A low-intensity bomb at the time of the evening
Ganga Aarti.
Two people, including a two-year-old child, were dead, and dozens of
other people were injured. An e-mail was again shot to all major channels
on behalf of the IM accepting the responsibility. It termed the Allahabad
High Court decision on the Babri Masjid dispute as ‘biased’ and claimed
that the blast was to avenge the verdict. One can discern from the
statement that the IM masterminds not only wanted to harm the majority
community but also to incite the minorities.
The first half of the year 2011 did not see any terrorist activity. The
government had announced several measures to spruce up our security
network in the aftermath of 26/11. The nodal agency to deal with terrorist
crimes was now in place with the enactment of the National Investigation
Agency Act 2008 by the Parliament. Earlier, the ATS investigated all such
cases. But an increase in the number of terrorist incidents gave rise to the
need for a central agency to deal with such matters. Like the FBI in the
USA, the NIA has the mandate to conduct its probe without permission
from any state government. Gradually, all terror-related cases were handed
over to the agency.
The government acted on several recommendations by the Ram
Pradhan Committee which had been constituted after the Mumbai attacks.
The report submitted by the committee had indicted the then Mumbai
Commissioner of Police Hasan Gafoor for inaction. It had also stressed the
need for modernisation of police while pointing out that it was ill-
equipped to counter terror threats. Just when it seemed that all loopholes
had been plugged, Mumbai bore the brunt of yet another attack on 13 July

60. 2011. Three bombs exploded in the Opera House, Zaveri Bazaar and
Dadar, killing 26 people and injuring over 150 others. These bombings
were a stark reminder that India’s financial capital was susceptible to
terrorist violence despite all efforts. Once more, the attack was attributed
to the Indian Mujahedeen.
The infamous murder of the renowned crime journalist Jyotirmoy Dey
(Jey Dey) and killing of Dawood’s brother, Iqbal Kaskar, were also linked
to these blasts. Dawood is known to be one of the biggest financiers of
subversive activities in India. Jey Dey had accessed the major news of the
recovery of a big consignment of explosives in Mumbai. He had also
reported about how important information regarding this seizure had gone
missing. The NIA sleuths questioned an operative of IM who was arrested
after the Ahmedabad blast. It was revealed that Riyaz Bhatkal had
masterminded the Mumbai blasts. The similarities between several such
incidents were clearly indicating the footprints of one terror outfit behind
the spate of bombings.
The channel where I worked at that time was situated in the heart of
Delhi, unlike most other channels which operate from Noida. There is
often a traffic congestion near the High Court area due to the large number
of parked vehicles. It was just another day on 7 September 2011. I had
taken the same route as I did every day to reach my office. I had passed
the High Court area barely an hour ago when a bomb blast outside the
High Court gate killed 15 people. HuJI took the responsibility through an
e-mail soon after the bombing. The mail cited the sentencing of Afzal
Guru as the motive. Afzal Guru had denied any link with the organisation.
On 25 May 2011, a low-intensity blast had rocked gate number 7 of the
court premises. But it did not attract much attention as nobody was hurt.
Targeting the Delhi High Court premises was a jolt to his attempts to
escape capital punishment. In fact, he came out on record to term this
attack as cowardly. This from a man who was convicted for one of the
most ghastly terror attacks in India.

61. T
7
Bleeding through the Thousand
Cuts
he 26/11 carnage was an attack on our sovereign nation. It was the
result of a narrative of a paranoid security state, i.e. Pakistan. The ISI has
long proven that its activities are part of an undeclared war against India.
The spate of terror attacks was not only aimed at damaging the psyche of
an emerging neighbour but also at disturbing our communal harmony.
India has survived such divisive politics since the British era.
Unfortunately, some of our own politicians also believe in the ‘divide and
rule’ dictum. Such elements have always sought to politicise the issue of
terrorism for petty gains. This is despite the fact that all communities have
equally suffered from this scourge.
The terrorists have managed to penetrate the vulnerable minds of both
India and Pakistan. And it is not always the have-nots who are driven
towards this menace. The attack on India’s temple of democracy
demonstrated the same.
On 13 December 2001, five terrorists barged into the Parliament
complex in a car. Nine people, including six police personnel and two
members of the Parliament staff, laid down their lives. The Fidayeen
attack was purportedly carried out jointly by the LeT and JeM. The
dangerous intentions of the operation were self-evident. Hundreds of MPs

62. along with several prominent ministers were present at the Parliament
during the time of the attack. Afzal Guru was held guilty of participating
in the entire conspiracy. He was hanged on 9 February 2013 after a long
legal procedure.
Predictably, Pakistan condemned the capital punishment to Afzal Guru.
However, many people started to term him as a hero within the country as
well. Guru was punished after all his legal options were exhausted. The
successive courts had examined all the evidence pertaining to the case in
detail. Afzal Guru was arrested based on the records of conversation
among the assailants. The unabashed petty politics over Afzal Guru did no
good to India’s fight against terrorism. Notwithstanding the fact that the
traces of the ISI were found even in the Parliament attack, Pakistan
continued to give an impression that the disgruntled Muslims, particularly
Kashmiri youth, were behind the insurgency in India. Instead of giving a
befitting response to these attempts, we remained entangled in our inner
politics.
It was not as if the terrorists had not given hints of attacking the
temple of Indian democracy. In an equally audacious attack, three suicide
bombers had barged into the J&K assembly premises on 1 October 2001.
The attack claimed 38 lives. The Indian establishment reacted strongly, but
only in words. Fortunately, none of the leaders of the state were injured in
this attack. Emboldened by this attack, the terrorists chose the Indian
Parliament as their next target.
The same terrorist who found support among a section of Indian public
had well-wishers in the dreaded terror outfit HuJI as well. Afzal Guru,
however, kept on condemning the High Court blast.
A persistent crackdown has managed to curb the activities of the IM to
a large extent now. However, it has not been fully annihilated, as some of
IM’s bosses are still safe in Pakistan. The outfit tried to repeat the
bloodbath in Pune on 1 August 2012. Luckily, nobody was killed in the
low-intensity blast on this date.
The city of Hyderabad was not as lucky the following year. On 21
February 2013, two powerful explosions shook the city. Ammonium

63. Nitrate was used to make the bombs that took seven lives. The modus
operandi of these bombings had an IM signature yet again. It proved that a
series of arrests might have weakened its network, but it was certainly not
out of the game. Sushil Kumar Shinde, the then Home Minister, confirmed
that intelligence agencies had some prior information about the attack.
However, there was no input about the place of the attack. The blast
reignited the debate on security preparedness. The Manmohan Singh
government found it hard to explain how an attack had occured despite
intelligence inputs.
The theory of saffron terrorism and the support of Afzal Guru by some
politicians encouraged Pakistan to deny its hand in the terrorist activities
before the UN and other international forums it used both as a ruse to deny
its role in sponsoring terrorism in India. India’s soft stance to carry
forward the dialogue process was further emboldening the Pakistani state.
No tall promises after the Hyderabad blasts could prevent another
attack after a month. J&K bore witness to blasts in the consecutive two
months. First, on 13 May 2013, a CRPF camp in J&K came under
Fedayeen attack, where five brave jawans were martyred before the
attackers could be neutralised. The diary and other evidence collected
from the slain militants proved their Pakistani origin. The next was in
Srinagar on 24 June 2013 where an army convoy was attacked in the city
outskirts, killing 8 soldiers while 17 others were injured. This incident
occurred just a day before PM Manmohan Singh’s visit to the valley.
On 27 October 2013, Narendra Modi, who was BJP’s Prime Ministerial
candidate at that time, was scheduled to address a rally in Patna. Hardly
five minutes had passed since he had started his speech when eight blasts
jolted the city. One of the low-intensity bombs exploded at the venue of
the rally itself. Six people died and over hundred were injured in the
synchronised explosions.
Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh said after the blasts, ‘What
a coincidence blast at the Patna Railway on the day of Modi’s Rally! The
challenge to Nitish Govt to find the culprit!’ Manmohan Singh was prompt

64. in condemning the incident and asked Nitish Kumar to ensure a speedy
inquiry. The IM was again found to be at its root.
Only Digvijay Singh can tell what he meant by these statements. But
his remarks have time and again played politics over the sensitive issue of
terrorism. He has been the most vocal among all politicians to rake up the
issue of saffron terrorism. He was even seen disseminating ‘secret’
information to journalists on many occasions. The 2014 election verdict
proved that his remarks had no effect on the masses and had inadvertently
helped the anti-India forces sitting across the border.
The clean chit to Col. Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya has irked our
neighbouring country. It has alleged that the Modi government has
deliberately covered up the conspiracy of Hindu right-wing elements. The
terror machinery of Pakistan has not abated in its anti-India agenda a bit.
This was evident on 27 July 2015, when some militants crossed the
international border near Gurdaspur. They first fired indiscriminately at a
bus and then hijacked a car to reach a community health centre. Many
innocents came under their firing here as well. SP Baljit Singh of the
Punjab police laid down his life fighting these infiltrators.
The members of the SWAT team later neutralised the assailants. These
militants were sent with the motive of taking hostages in a Mumbai-like
fashion. Initially, the hand of Khalistani insurgents was suspected behind
the attack. However, Punjab police, as well as the Union Home Ministry,
later confirmed that they were Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists. The intent
behind this attack was much more sinister as these attackers had planted
five bombs on a narrow railway bridge between Dinanagar and Jhakholari
stations. A vigilant trackman spotted these bombs minutes before a train
was about to pass through the bridge. It was stopped just 200 metres away
from the bridge, and all traffic was held on this route until the bomb squad
diffused the bombs.
The beginning of the year 2016 again brought a fresh wound of terror.
On 2 January, some militants managed to enter the premises of Pathankot
airbase. Seven elite security personnel were martyred in the gunfight and
combing operations that continued for over 17 hours. This daring attack

65. came just after PM Modi’s impromptu visit to Lahore where he met his
counterpart Nawaz Sharif at his home.
One has to understand the reason behind this dichotomy in Pakistan’s
behaviour. The Pakistani army’s writ runs large over the country’s foreign
affairs, particularly its relations with India. Whenever any democratically
elected leader tries to improve relations with India, the elements within
the army react to an act of terror. The same pattern was repeated in the
Pathankot incident. India has irrefutable evidence that the assailants came
from Pakistan and that handlers sitting in the Jaish-e-Mohammed
headquarters instructed them. The Nawaz Sharif government offered joint
investigation to escape international censure. A Pakistani team of
investigators was given access to the airbase, and crucial evidence was
shared with them. The recurrence of such events has estranged Pakistan’s
ties with most world powers barring China.
The Pathankot attack was the last major terror strike on Indian soil
after my meeting with the NIA agent. Recalling such a long list of terror
incidents still shudders the mind. It is as if Indians have accepted
terrorism as a part of life. It was a mere coincidence that there were fresh
revelations on my topic of research as soon as I decided to write on this
subject. The NIA chief Sharad Kumar stated that there was no enough
proof against Col. Purohit. After a few days, Sadhvi Pragya was also given
a clean chit in the Malegaon blast case. It was the same Sadhvi Pragya
who was demonised as the face of ‘Hindu terror’.

66. I
8
The Man Who Knew the Truth!
t is indeed true that terrorism cannot be linked to any religion. Yet, one
cannot deny that disgruntled or radicalised Muslim youth were involved in
most terror incidents across the country. The Malegaon, Mecca Masjid,
Modasa and Samjhauta Express blasts were said to be exceptions as the
Hindu extremists were suspected to be behind these bombings.
As the NIA agent had suggested a detailed study of these cases, I
collected detailed information, not only about the so-called Hindu terror
conspiracies but also regarding all the terrorist attacks during the past one-
and-a-half decade. A separate book can be written based on this research.
All the terror assaults of the past decade had many common attributes.
Their modus operandi was similar, and the explosives used were almost
the same. All of these explosions were believed to be perpetrated by jihadi
groups like SIMI, HuJI and the Indian Mujahedeen. These commonalities
raised doubts over the theory of ‘Hindu terror’ that had suddenly cropped
up. However, it was also important to discern what the evidence suggested.
I ventured to gather details about Col. Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya while
contacting some of the important characters of the alleged plot of Hindu
terrorism. I was only following the NIA agent’s advice to get into the heart
of the matter. The deeper I delved into the matter, the more intriguing it
became. Why were Col. Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya named as the accused
in the NIA chargesheet without any credible proof? Even the Chief of the

67. agency Sharad Kumar had exonerated Col. Purohit after returning from a
visit to the US.
Everybody knew where politicians stood over the alleged Hindu terror,
but key figures in the investigation were still out of the public glare. I
planned a documentary on this issue from this angle and pitched the idea
to my editor. We discussed the matter for a while, and he liked the concept.
I told him before leaving the room that the NIA would have to give the
clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya as there was no evidence against her. The
political cauldron was still boiling over the matter, and the NIA was
preparing to file a supplementary chargesheet.
My pursuit took me to BM Mohan, the former Director of Karnataka
Forensic Science Laboratory. This man was an important resource as the
narcotics test of the SIMI accused was conducted under his supervision.
They had confessed their involvement in the Samjhuata Express blasts. I
came across the details of this narcotics test while searching the internet.
Further information regarding this test could have shed light on many
unsolved aspects of the case. I must confess that I had been totally
oblivious to the significance of this link until then, despite being a
journalist.
Most of the news related to the Samjhauta Express blast revolved
around politics or the legal proceedings of the case. Nobody had bothered
to hear the unabridged version from the people directly involved in the
probe. Like my secret agent friend, BM Mohan could also be a valuable
source of information. However, it was not easy to reach him.
There was not much information about him on the internet. One could
only find out that he had settled down in Bengaluru after his retirement. I
took the help of my reporter colleagues from Bengaluru and Kerala to get
his phone number. But these attempts proved to be futile.
Meanwhile, I came across a video of a debate show on a news channel
website. BM Mohan had also participated in this debate. I contacted an
acquaintance working in this channel and requested him to provide me
with BM Mohan’s number. To my pleasant surprise, I was noting down the
number after a few hours.

68. I didn’t lose time and called the number almost immediately. The call
was answered after a few seconds. I had barely introduced myself when
the curt reply came, ‘I am busy right now, please call after some time.’
I did not lose heart. At least, I had his contact number now. I tried
calling again after about an hour but nobody answered the call. Journalists
can be quite persistent when it comes to following up on a potential lead.
Hence, I called him a third time, and yet there was no answer. . I started
getting anxious. Could it be that he was avoiding talking to a journalist?
Nevertheless, I sent him a Whatsapp message. I revealed my identity in
the message and expressed the desire to talk to him regarding a
documentary on terrorism.
‘What do you want to ask?’ came the reply. I reverted by saying that I
wanted to talk about the Samjhauta Express blasts and the so-called
saffron terrorism.
‘I don’t know much about this subject, why do you want to talk to
me?’ Mohan answered.
‘It is important to talk to you to unearth the truth behind the theory of
saffron terrorism, I insisted.
His answer was something of a series of question marks.
Assuming that he was avoiding the question, I shot a direct question at
him, ‘Do you think the theory of saffron terrorism weaved around the
Samjhauta Express blasts has any grain of truth?’
‘It is a bogus theory. There is nothing like saffron terrorism.’
Such a straightforward answer! It was enough to surprise me. A
thought occurred that I should break this news. After all, BM Mohan was
not an ordinary personality. He had presided over the narcotics tests of
several sensitive cases. His statement was certainly news. Then I
wondered why he had not stated such a clear viewpoint earlier. Certainly,
many journalists must have contacted him. However, few people would
have expected to find startling facts about saffron terrorism from the
forensic laboratory that had conducted narcotics, brain mapping and lie
detector tests of the SIMI activists thought to be the perpetrators of the
Samjhauta Express blasts by the ATS.

69. This outright rebuttal of the ‘Hindu terror’ theory was coming from a
responsible and respectable man.
‘The alleged SIMI activists had confessed their role in the Samjhauta
Express blasts in narcotics tests conducted under your aegis. Was it not a
clinching evidence to expose the falsehood of “Hindu terror” theory?’ I
sent another question to corroborate his statement.
‘I do not understand what you are asking’, came the reply. This answer
too was puzzling to me. Perhaps he was just trying to avoid any
controversy.
‘What did the SIMI suspects reveal about the Samjhauta Blast in their
narcotics test?’ I persisted.
‘Sorry, I don’t know what you are talking about,’ came the curt reply.
I thought to myself that perhaps I should have begun with verifying his
identity. It was a nasty jolt to my hopes. Was he simply trying to avoid me,
or was I talking to somebody else? If so, then who was this person who
was chatting with me for so long? I weaved all my doubts into one
deciding question, ‘Are you really not BM Mohan?’
‘No.’ This put us both in a rather awkward situation.
I had taken this number from a senior TV journalist friend. BM Mohan
had been a guest on his channel. I had myself seen the video of his debate
on the official website of my friend’s channel.
‘Whose number is it then?’
It was a tough question to ask. The man on the other side had also
started to take an interest in the conversation. He was a renowned
intellectual of Bengaluru and a regular face on TV studio debates. We
discussed the subject of this book in detail. He had a clear opinion of the
issue. But I was looking for hard facts. Therefore, the conclusion of that
conversation and his take on things are not relevant to here.
I watched the video of that debate again. I noticed that the anchor was
a good friend of one of my colleagues. I did not waste time in activating
this connection. Right intentions always bring right connections. TV
anchors usually develop good links with regular studio guests. Their

70. popularity also facilitates such acquaintances. I was successful in getting
yet another cell phone number. Hopefully the right one this time.
My first call went unanswered. I sent a message introducing myself
and asking for a suitable, convenient time for a conversation. I kept calling
for two days, but to no avail. It was indeed disheartening that the man on
the other side was ignoring me. ‘Don’t talk, if you won’t, but at least
answer my messages,’ I was thinking to myself. Although hurtful, I could
not have challenged his right to remain silent. My research was continuing
regardless, and I was eagerly awaiting the filing of the supplementary
chargesheet by the NIA.
Just when I had lost all the hope of talking to BM Mohan, a short
message sparked a glimmer of hope.
‘Let us talk tomorrow at 12.30 p.m.’
I responded with a customary ‘Thank You’.
All hopes of gaining access to BM Mohan were withering as he had not
answered my repeated messages for the previous three days. The message
felt god-sent. I not only felt my expectations rejuvenated, but also my self-
respect redeemed. After all, he had not blatantly ignored me for all these
days. All emotions are based on conclusions of the mind, and we should
not conjecture without knowing the truth. I went to bed a satisfied man
that day, with the hope that BM Mohan would prove to be a worthy source
of information.
‘Early to bed and early to rise’ is not a dictum many journalists follow.
Most of their days start with a mad rush. However, when you wake up with
10 missed calls from your boss and the office landline number, it is
natural to feel guilty for putting your mobile phone in silent mode. The
same happened to me the following morning. Terrified of many unforeseen
contingencies, I called the assignment desk back.
‘Hey, where are you? We have been calling all morning,’ informed my
colleague at the desk, as if he had been waiting for my call.
‘What happened?’ I asked, somewhat hesitantly.
‘It seems that Sadhvi Pragya has been acquitted. The boss says you had
prior information in this regard. The news is not yet confirmed, but we are

71. running it by quoting a newspaper and want it to run as our own story,’
came the answer.
Dealing with news is a major responsibility. Even a slight
misinformation can cause serious legal entanglements. Accuracy and
veracity of statements are paramount. However, the constraint of time
results in errors on the part of TV journalists on many occasions. I had
only given my personal judgement to my superiors on the basis of
information that I had gathered. However, my discretion was not enough
to play it live on TV. One cannot own such sensitive news without
authentic information from a credible source.
This reminded me of my new acquaintance and only source in the NIA.
I immediately dialled his number. However, I was wary of his habit of
remaining extra vigilant at all times. The newsroom pressure was adding
to my doubts about whether I would be able to confirm this news at all.
The familiar voice on the other side proved me wrong. He picked up my
call at the first instance.
‘Are you giving the clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya in the new
chargesheet?’ I asked directly.
‘It was imminent. There was hardly any evidence against her.’ Going
by my experience so far, I had not expected such a prompt reply. It
confirmed that this man now trusted me.
I needed to be more precise as the onus of confirming the news was on
me.
‘So shall I confirm the news on air? It would be a huge embarrassment,
if proven otherwise,’ I enquired. He understood the nature of my job and
allayed my reservations with a brief answer, ‘Rest assured.’
I hung up and stood in front of the camera for a live chat. My fellow
anchor began with asking whether the clean chit to Sadhvi was possible. A
source is the most sacred thing to any journalist. A credible source gives
him/her confidence. The news had been authenticated by the most well-
placed contact possible.
Not only did I confirm the news on the live bulletin but also presented
some of the facts related to the case. The video of this chat is available on

72. YouTube. On 13 May 2016, I reported on this turning point in the ‘Hindu
terror’ saga from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. Our channel was running an
‘exclusive’.
‘Well-placed NIA sources have told this channel, and we can confirm,
that Sadhvi Pragya is going to get a clean chit in the NIA’s supplementary
chargesheet. It will be presented before the court in due course of time.
The NIA has apparently admitted in this chargesheet that there is no
credible evidence against Sadhvi Pragya. Actually, there has been no
clinching evidence against the Sadhvi from the beginning itself.
This whole case of hers rests mostly on the grounds of some
confessional statements. As far as Sadhvi Pragya is concerned, she was
indicted in the case because of the bike used in one of the blasts in
Malegaon. Earlier, it was alleged that the bike was registered in Sadhvi
Pragya’s name. In fact, the inquisition had reached Sadhvi’s doors only
because of this clue. The NIA chargesheet had also mentioned a statement
by her sister as evidence against her. The chargesheet claims that Sadhvi
Pragya was watching the news of Malegaon blasts with her sister. The
sister, however, started to cry after watching the mayhem on the ground,
saying that Hindus, as well as Muslims, have been targeted in the blast.
Upon this, the Sadhvi had allegedly remarked, “What you reap is what
you sow. They have given us wounds, and we will respond in kind.” Some
other statements of this kind were the basis of NIA’s accusations against
Sadhvi Pragya. But all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile one
after another. Some of them even alleged coercion on the part of the probe
agencies. Even Sadhvi Pragya has alleged torture in several submissions
before various government departments…’
I was speaking without a pause. Such enthusiasm is natural when you
are giving some exclusive bit of information to the viewers. But the TV
medium has its own constraints. My fellow anchor was gesticulating to
make me stop, but I paid no attention. Then, when I myself felt that it was
stretching too far, I stopped . The anchor lost no time in saying ‘thank
you’. I was satisfied, but a worry was constantly bothering, ‘What if the
news proved to be wrong? What if it does not turn out to be a clean chit in

73. the end?’ Engrossed in these questions, I returned to the studios where the
assignment desk asked me to provide some exclusive phono on this news.
Lining up the NIA agent was simply out of question. I recalled the
available options and thought of the VHP national spokesperson Vijay
Shankar Tiwari flashed through my mind. He promptly picked up my call,
and I straightaway came to the point.
‘We have information that Sadhvi Pragya is going to get a clean chit.
Can somebody from your side give a live chat on this issue?’ I asked.
‘This is very good news. She was wronged for no reason. Even I was
being framed in the case,’ Tiwari replied gaily.
I was startled at these words. I had called up Tiwari for an exclusive
phono, but he had inadvertently revealed an important fact. Even my spy
friend had tracked VHP functionaries during the probe.
‘How did they try to implicate you?’ I expressed my curiosity.
Tiwari replied, ‘Sadhvi Pragya was constantly on the move during
these terror incidents. She had also visited my house in Delhi. I was
pressurised during questioning.’
‘Sir, you have disclosed a very interesting fact. I will talk to you later
in detail. For now, I’d appreciate it if you could provide me with a number
of a link who can shed some light on the clean chit for Sadhvi Pragya,’ I
tried to wrap up the conversation.
Vijay Shankar Tiwari suggested the name of JP Sharma, who was
Sadhvi Pragya’s lawyer, and shared his contact number. I knew it was
going to be a busy day for Tiwariji as a spokesperson. He was also
expected as a studio guest on our channel. Resolving to talk to him in
greater detail, I went ahead to fulfil the immediate task at hand.
The next live bulletin was scheduled in a short while, so we decided to
record Sharma’s phone conversation. He answered the calls after two or
three rings. But I had not even introduced myself when the call was
dropped. I tried again but the number was now out of reach. Eventually,
the call was reconnected. Sharma was on his way to Jaipur. I requested him
to give his reaction to the news we had broke.

74. Sharma was visibly elated. I was the first person to give him this news.
It was nothing short of a victory to Sharma as he was pleading Sadhvi
Pragya’s case for a long time.
‘We knew the truth would prevail in the end. If true, this news is a big
triumph at the end of a long struggle,’ he said.
He willingly gave permission to record his phone conversation. The
same phono was played out during the whole day on our channel.
What he told the channel in this conversation is briefly given below:
‘I am receiving this information through you. It is a big victory, if true.
Sadhvi Pragya has written several letters pleading her cause, from the
President to the Home Minister, in the past. She had also alleged torture in
jail and given details to the NHRC. Sadhvi had told me that she was
stripped naked and beaten by a leather belt. Her followers were forced to
assault her. She was shown obscene CDs. She used to wear only saffron
clothes after renunciation. However, she was made to dress in a normal
salwar suit. Not only her body but also her soul was battered in custody.
No female police personnel were present during her questioning. This
persecution compelled her to give a confessional statement. The
statements of other witnesses were also extracted in a similar manner. We
have never lost faith in the judiciary. I feel that it was a political
conspiracy.’
I talked to JP Sharma after finishing this recording. He was yet another
important source for my project. He knew the legal aspects of this matter
like the back of his hand and possessed many important documents related
to the case. He was forthcoming in accepting my request to give me an
appointment upon his return to Delhi. Apart from the NIA agent, Vijay
Shankar Tiwari and JP Sharma were important leads in stripping away the
layers of the saffron terror mystery. Besides, my learned journalist friends
were always there for help.
Meanwhile, it was 12 noon by now. I suddenly remembered that BM
Mohan, the Former Director of the Karnataka Forensic Science
Laboratory, had agreed to talk to me at 12.30 p.m. After this exclusive
newsbreak, I was now going to talk to an important link in the saffron

75. terror theory. Believing it to be my day, I called Mohan half an hour
earlier. The first call went unheeded as usual. But the result was different
when I tried after a while.
‘Mr Praveen, I will reach my office within half hour. Ask your
Bengaluru team to contact me. I will tell them where to come.’ His reply
had left little scope for improvisation. Mr Mohan appeared to be even
smarter than the NIA undercover agent. He had not been picking up my
call for the last two to three days and yet had saved my number.
Furthermore, he knew I would need to send a team to him. Frankly, he had
covered all my potential queries in two sentences.
My spirits were high, and I had a good feeling about everything. I
immediately contacted my Bengaluru team, shared BM Mohan’s number
and left the rest of the job to them. I had to rush to the next bulletin during
which I had the good fortune to see my exclusive newsbreak getting
verified. The NIA had filed its supplementary chargesheet by the evening,
and Sadhvi Pragya was exonerated in it as reported by us. The further
developments in the news kept me engaged for the next few hours.
It was only after two to three hours that I found time to call the
Bengaluru team. They had tried to contact Mohan several times. But he
was asking them to wait for his call.
Stressing the importance of the interview, I told my Bengaluru
colleagues to remain alert for Mohan’s call. Before I could doubt his
assurances, Mr Mohan’s number flashed on the screen of my cellphone. It
was heartening to know that he was not avoiding me. He apologised and
said that he had to suddenly go out of the city. Promising to coordinate
with my team, he asked for further details.
‘Apologies are due from my side for bothering you, sir,’ I replied. ‘Our
team will reach the place as per your convenience. I will connect to you
through live stream video chat, and we will record the conversation,’ I
explained to him.
It didn’t take much time for our team to reach BM Mohan and make
all the arrangements.
‘At last, I was able to reach you,’ I began the conversation.

76. ‘Rather, you caught me,’ he quipped.
‘Before we start recording, would you please give an idea about the
questions you want to ask?’ Mohan said.
‘I want to talk about the narcotics test of the SIMI terrorists. You have
already discussed the issue in TV channel debates,’ I replied, fearing
whether he would be willing to speak.
‘What is the point in repeating what has already been said?’ Perhaps,
the man was not happy with the reactions he received last time.
‘I only want you to reiterate what you have already stated, but on the
mike of our channel. We cannot use the footage of some other channel.
Besides, I am greatly interested in this subject, and I would like to
understand it better from you. I assure you would not be disappointed in
the end. Your interview would always be remembered in times to come,’ I
was making every effort to convince him.
Taking note of my sincerity, he finally assented to record the
conversation.
Here are the excerpts:
Q: What is your reaction on the NIA’s clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya?
A: You are digressing from the topic I was told before the start of this
interview. See, it is not my subject. Therefore, I do not have any viewpoint
on it. You should ask questions related to my field. I cannot enlighten you
on Sadhvi Pragya’s case as I know nothing about it.
Q: But you know a lot about the Samjhauta Express blast, which was
attributed to saffron terrorism. The NIA has alleged that Sadhvi Pragya
was one of the lynchpins of the so-called Hindu terrorism. Is the NIA
investigation now headed in the same direction as suggested by the
narcotics tests conducted under your supervision?
A: I have already stated in the media that the alleged SIMI terrorists had
admitted their role in the Samjhauta Express blasts during the narcotics
test. They had given details of how suitcases were procured for the blast
from Kathria market…But, I cannot recall the name of the city.
Q: From Kathria market in Indore…

77. A: Yes, yes…Precisely. They had mentioned the Kathria market of Indore.
The accused had also elaborated on how these suitcases were converted
into bombs.
(I know Kathria market very well as Indore is my home city. The NIA’s
chargesheet also alleged that the suitcases that were used for making the
bombs were bought from that market. But it had placed the blame on
Abhinav Bharat activists. BM Mohan’s assertions were directly
contradictory to the NIA theory. Why had the NIA’s sleuths not trusted the
findings of the narcotics test? Sadly, one could not have expected Mohan
to answer this question. Yet, he could say how trustworthy narcotics tests
are. I continued with the interview.)
Q: Doubts have been raised about the efficacy of narcotics tests. How
accurate are their results?
A: Narcotics tests coupled with brain mapping and lie detector tests leave
little room for doubt. The alleged SIMI terrorists had given the same
answers on all these tests. It would be a fair assumption that they were not
lying.
Q: Are statements made during these tests legally admissible?
A: Yes. But only if they are corroborated by other evidence.
Q: Then, why didn’t the probe agencies delve deeper into the revelations
made during these tests?
A: My job is limited to forensic tests and their results. The rest of the
responsibility lies with the investigative agencies. You should ask them
this question.
Q: Nevertheless, did the statements of the accused during the forensic tests
and the manner in which these leads were pursued raise several questions?
A: You are again asking a question that is out of my purview. How can I
comment on it? I am simply not aware of the details of the investigation.
(Obviously, nobody would have liked to make off-the-cuff remarks on
such a sensitive subject. The issue of saffron terrorism had not only
reverberated in the domestic political arena, but it had also weakened
India’s case on the international stage. How could any government
compromise national security for political gains? This question led us to

78. examine the whole investigation process. Was there a grain of truth in the
premise of saffron terrorism?
BM Mohan certainly did not seem to believe so. He was convinced that
the SIMI operatives had spoken the truth during the narcotics tests because
their statements were consistent through all the forensic tests. I wanted to
talk in detail with Mr Mohan despite his reluctance to speak in detail. He
was not particularly forthcoming in our conversation. His opening remark
that I caught him suggested he was not willing to spill the beans. However,
I could not have wasted this hard-won opportunity. So, I persisted with my
questions.)
Q: Are the confessional statements of these SIMI activists available in the
public domain? The video of the narcotics tests in several other sensitive
cases is readily available on YouTube. Why are the recordings of the
narcotics test of these terrorists not available?
A: That is a rather inappropriate question. Such things are confidential.
The people leaking such information break the law. I am not going to
commit such a deeds and you should not do so either.
Q: But sometimes, it is necessary to bring such information in the public
domain for the sake of truth. Don’t you think that the NIA was wrong in
not pursuing the investigation on the lines of the narcotics test findings?
A: I can only comment on my job. It is not for me to pass judgement on
others. Perhaps, they failed to find any solid evidence to support the
statements of the accused made during the narcotics tests.
Q: You do not seem to be speaking freely. Are you afraid of somebody?
A: I have answered every question to the best of my knowledge. I cannot
speak on something that is not my subject. It is true that I do not want
controversy based on any of my statements. This is the reason I was
avoiding this interview. If I talk, you will say I am not answering freely; if
I do not, you would accuse me of running away from questions. You must
understand I cannot stray from my principles. I have performed my
responsibilities to the best of my capability, and I am telling you whatever
I know.

79. (Any further provocation could have irritated him. It was not my
intention to make him angry. All I wanted was to extract some factual
information from him. One more inconvenient question could potentially
abruptly end the interview. It was better to stick to the questions related to
his job.)
Q: Is the questionnaire for the narcotics tests provided by the probe
agencies?
A: Yes, it is normally the case. However, we rephrase these questions to
suit us. Forensic tests are a scientific process, and we have to keep the
motive of investigation agencies in mind. Obviously, these agencies
provide details of the crime, and we conduct tests based on this
information. As I stated earlier, there are three kinds of truth verification
tests. We can affirm the veracity of a statement if it is consistent in all
these tests.
Q: It means that the probe agencies knew that the suitcases for bomb
making were bought from Indore’s Kathria market.
A: They must have been suspicious, at the very least. Those suspects had
also named Safdar Nagauri as the mastermind of the entire conspiracy.
They had also made several other important revelations to indicate that all
of them were connected as members of a group.
Q: Can you elaborate on some of these revelations?
A: It is an old matter. I don’t exactly remember all the details. But
considering the politics over the Samjhauta Express blasts, I can recall the
statements made by the accused.
It was futile to expect BM Mohan to reveal more. He had his own
reasons for withholding information, and it would have been unbecoming
to force him. I expressed my gratitude to him as well as our Bengaluru
team and sat silently for some time.
This conversation had only strengthened the doubt that NIA was under
political pressure in this case. The agency was apparently more inclined to
prove that it was the job of Abhinav Bharat. Aseemanand and Sadhvi
Pragya were easy targets as religious personalities. Were they mere pawns
to frame the RSS and VHP?

80. The continued raking up of the issue by leaders like Sushil Kumar
Shinde, Chidambaram and Digvijay Singh suggested there was an attempt
to stick the mud of ‘Saffron Terror’ in public memory.
The ATS as well as the NIA claims are based on some confessional
statements and purportedly, Sadhvi Pragya’s bike, as an evidence. The NIA
has pointed out that all the SIM cards were bought from the same shops
and that the used explosives were similar. It was alleged that Aseemanand
and Col. Purohit were angry over repeated blasts occurring in the country
and wanted to avenge the death of Hindus. The NIA chargesheet quoted
witnesses who stated that these accused had expressed this angst during
the meetings of Abhinav Bharat.
But many of these witnesses have retracted from their statements.
Captain Nitin Joshi, one of the important witnesses, has cast aspersions on
the investigation process. He has alleged torture and conspiracy to frame
his family in false cases. According to him, he was forced to state that Col.
Purohit possessed RDX and vowed to avenge bomb with a bomb. When
asked why he remained silent for so long, Nitin Joshi claimed he had
complained to the NHRC in 2010. He admitted that he was afraid and not
in a position to openly take on the security agencies. Many other witnesses
have also alleged to making statements under duress.
The NIA chief Sharad Kumar had said that there was no evidence
against Col. Purohit. This admission calls for some accountability. A
serving army officer was incarcerated, tortured and labelled as a
mastermind of Saffron Terrorism. The clean chit given to Sadhvi Pragya
following Kumar’s statement leaves no doubt about the glaring loopholes
in the theory of Hindutva terrorism. With the NIA’s top boss exonerating
Col. Purohit, it seems evident that the NIA’s charge of Hindu terror was
poised to fall on its face.
The NIA undercover agent had already said that there was no solid
case against Sadhvi Pragya. Everybody knows Sadhvi Pragya’s fiery
speeches were mentioned as circumstantial evidence. But few are aware of
her travails in the custody.

81. Her lawyer shared these harrowing details with me. Few people
empathised with Sadhvi at that time due to the propaganda of saffron
terrorism. It is not hard to understand the circumstances that forced her to
confess. She had pleaded against custodial torture before the Supreme
Court as well as the NHRC. The way witnesses have turned hostile in this
case, Sadhvi’s claims seem to have some merit.
BM Mohan’s interview suggested that the NIA had ignored many
important aspects of this case. After studying the background of all major
terror blasts rocking India in the first decade of the 21st century, I was now
concentrating on cases related to Hindutva terrorism. It was necessary for
me to find the details of the findings of the narcotics test of the SIMI
operatives. I was also interested in going deeper into the characters alleged
to be the main conspirators of Hindu terrorist incidents.

82. U
9
The Holiday Period for Pak-Based
Jihadi Groups!
nder the supervision of BM Mohan, narcotics tests had been
conducted on many accused terrorists; hence he was privy to exclusive
details of many terrorist incidents. Thus I found him rather surprised at
how the Samjhauta Express blast probe had taken such a different turn
from the facts revealed by SIMI suspects in his presence.
The courts pass their verdicts based on evidence, and the manner in
which the then Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, had openly favoured the
accused had flabbergasted many analysts. In November 2011,
Chidambaram informed journalists that the NIA would not oppose the bail
plea of these people. This statement was widely condemned. Two of the
arrested men, including the main suspect Noorullah, were released on bail
soon after.
On 25 April 2016, the NIA court released all the eight suspects due to
insufficient evidence. One accused had even died during the long legal
proceedings. The long arms of the law could never reach the four other
people charged with the crime. These included one Pakistani citizen. The
whole inquest was apparently derailed in an effort to prove the theory of
saffron terrorism. The Maharashtra ATS was especially facing some flack
and probing questions because no matter what theory one believes to be

83. true, there was little doubt that it had messed up the investigation and
tortured innocent persons.
The history of terrorism in India, particularly in the past decade, was
replete with proven conspiracies hatched by outfits like the IM and SIMI.
The information revealed by BM Mohan was relevant in this context. An
analysis of this history makes it clear that the Indian public had always
been the prime target of Jihadi groups. This menace grew rapidly after the
Babri Masjid demolition and manifested itself in several deadly incidents
like the attack on the Parliament and 26/11.
Far from curbing the terrorists operating from within its boundaries,
Pakistan tried to propagate that India was facing a homegrown insurgency.
Earlier, Kashmir was cited as raison d’être for this unrest; later Jihadi
organisations also used the Babri Masjid demolition and Gujarat riots as a
ruse for spreading terrorism in the country. A propaganda video released
by ISIS in May 2016 is a case in point.
It shows Indian recruits spewing venom against the Indian state in
Hindi. One youth from Mumbai can be seen avowing revenge for Babri
Masjid, Kashmir and Gujarat in this video. This footage was yet another
proof of how the new-generation Jihadis are using the latest technologies
for misguiding youth across national boundaries. A handful of Indian
youth have also been misled to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq through the
internet. Personally, I was against airing the contents of this video as it
only served the interests of the terrorists. The news media should not fall
prey to their agenda. No amount of censorship has succeeded in preventing
these terrorists from maintaining a strong presence in the virtual world.
It becomes easier to turn men into savages when religion is used to
justify bloodshed. The Jihadi narrative fans the sentiment of young minds
by giving a false perspective of Kashmir, Babri, and Gujarat violence, and
tries to portray Islam as being in danger. It is not difficult to understand, in
the Indian context, who is behind the attempts to misguide the youth. It
has become almost impossible to curb the Jihadi propaganda in the
information age. The incendiary material, which was earlier limited to
terrorist camps, is now freely available.

84. Religious indoctrination has the potency to inflict even the educated
and intellectual minds. The terrorist propagandists look to target the
vulnerable minds that have just crossed their adolescence. The more
experienced and qualified ones are lured with fancy self-styled titles like
the commander and regional heads.
The probe into the 26/11 carnage established how terror masterminds
like Hafiz Saeed and Maulana Masood Azhar exploit poverty for their
nefarious designs. All 10 terrorists who were sent to Mumbai belonged to
a less privileged background and lacked the mental strength to discern
truth from false propaganda. In fact, Kasab had told interrogators that
some of his cohorts were rag pickers.
The Babri Masjid episode gave Pakistani deep state ammunition to
foment trouble inside India. The enemies within the nation, like Dawood
Ibrahim, were willing to play into the hands of the ISI. Pakistan was not
only interested in ‘bleeding India to thousand cuts’ through death and
destruction; it also wanted to divide its society on religious lines by
inciting Muslim youth. An overwhelming majority of the Muslim
community could see through these dangerous intentions and remained
focused on contributing to India’s progress. However, a select handful of
Muslim youth were led astray by falling for the false notion of Islam. This
section was the most potent weapon for ISI. According to the famous
Indian philosopher, Chanakya, the best way to ruin an enemy is to spoil its
progeny. India’s foes sitting across the border were apparently following
the same dictum.
Groups like the SIMI and IM may have been harboured by Pakistan,
but they comprised largely of our own misguided youth.
No terror conspiracy can ever succeed without heat from the fire of
hatred. The zealots fanning this hatred never realise it will one day reach
their own doors. They consider this mindless hatred to be their biggest
strength. Every effort is made to keep this fire alive. A brief chronology of
terror incidents during the past three decades, only confirms this fact:
Terror Incidents before Alleged ‘Saffron Attacks’

85. 12 March 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, 350 people killed
14 February 1998Coimbatore blasts, 58 people killed
1 October 2001Attack on J&K Assembly, 38 people killed
13 December
2001
Attack on Indian Parliament, seven people killed
13 May 2002 Shramjeevi Express bombings in
28 August 2005Jaunpur: Total 5–30 deaths
24 September
2002
Akshardham attack, 31 people killed
January 2003–
August 2003
Mumbai rocked by bomb blasts on four occasions,
killing over 70 citizens
29 October 2005Three blasts in Delhi, 70 people killed
7 March 2006 Attack on Sankatmochan Temple in Varanasi, 21
people killed
11 July 2006 Seven blasts in Mumbai trains, 209 people killed
The Alleged Hindu Terror Attacks
8 September
2006
Malegaon bombings, 37 people killed
18 September
2006
Samjhauta Express blast, 68 people killed
18 May 2007Mecca Masjid blast in Hyderabad, 13 people killed
25 August
2007
Two blasts in Hyderabad, 42 people killed
11 OctoberBlast near Ajmer Sharif Shrine, three people killed

86. 2007
14 October
2007
Blast at Shingar Cinema in Ludhiana on the festival of
Eid. Six people killed
Post Alleged ‘Hindu Terror’ Attacks
24 November
2007
Blasts in Lucknow, Varanasi, Faizabad, 16 people killed
1 January
2008
Attack on CRPF camp in UP’s Rampur, eight jawans
killed.
13 May 20086 blasts in Jaipur, 63 people killed
25 July 2008Bengaluru serial blasts, two people killed
26 July 2008Seventeen serial blasts in Ahmedabad, 29 people killed
13
September
2008
Five blasts in Delhi, 33 people killed
27
September
2008
Two blasts in Delhi’s Mehrauli, three people killed
29
September
2008
Blasts in Maharashtra’s Malegaon and Gujarat’s Modasa,
10 people killed
26 November
2008
Fidayeen Attack on Mumbai, 171 people killed
13 February
2010
Pune bomb blasts, 17 people killed
7 December
2010
1 person killed in a low-intensity blast in Varanasi

87. 13 July 2011Mumbai blasts, 26 people killed
7 September
2011
Delhi bombings, 19 people killed
1 August
2012
Pune blast, no casualty
21 February
2013
Blasts in Hyderabad, 16 people killed
13 March
2013
Terrorist attack in Srinagar, eight people killed
27 October
2013
Blasts on the day of Narendra Modi’s election rally in
Patna, five people killed
2015 Fidayeen attacks in Gurdaspur and Pathankot
Between 12 March 1993 and 11 July 2006, India suffered 18 major
terrorist strikes, leading to the deaths of around 1,083 people. Four of
these targeted India’s financial capital through serial bombings and train
carnage. Over 550 (more than half) of these lives were claimed by just 2
terror attacks on Mumbai (1993 and 2006) (refer to table). It is necessary
to analyse these figures for a better understanding of the pattern of these
terror incidents.
Barring the phase of saffron terrorism, a total of 34 major terrorist
incidents have occurred between November 2007 and January 2016. The
infamous 26/11 fidayeen attack was also perpetrated during this period. At
least 618 innocent citizens have been killed in these attacks. (Refer to
table)
Now let us discuss the terror strikes between 11 July 2006, Mumbai
train bombings and 24 November 2007, the blasts in three cities of UP.
The sabotage activities during this period of around 16 months are
attributed to ultra-right-wing Hindu elements.

88. Six major acts of terrorism were recorded during this time span, (refer
to Table) claiming nearly 169 lives. The NIA alleged the hand of Hindu
extremists in the Malegaon, Samjhauta Express, Mecca Masjid and Ajmer
Sharif blasts at a later stage of the probe. The Khalistani terrorist group
Babbar Khalsa in cahoots with ISI was believed to be behind the Ludhiana
explosions.
Malegaon was once more on the receiving end of terrorism on 29
September 2008. These blasts killed 10 persons. While initial clues
pointed towards the familiar pattern of Pak-supported terrorists, the
investigation later turned towards the ‘Hindu terror’ angle. Although the
blasts took place after the perceived Hindutva phase of terror, the choice
of city and modus operandi were almost similar to September 2006
explosions.
Hyderabad’s famous Lumbini Park and Gokul Chaat shop areas also
came under attack during this so-called ‘Hindutva Phase of terror.’ Two
terror suspects Shahid and Bilal were arrested in connection with this act.
The initial investigation suggested it was the handiwork of HuJI. The
police and ATS probe established that the masterminds of this blast and
that of Mecca Masjid bombing were the same. Such a clear connection
between these two acts punches several holes in the theory that Hindu
extremists had perpetrated the Mecca Masjid explosion.
Similarly, there was enough evidence to prove the involvement of
SIMI in the Malegaon mayhem. The US intelligence agencies had proved
that the Samjhauta Express blasts had the signature of Lashkar-e-Taiba.
But the NIA ignored all these facts to focus its investigation on saffron
groups. This is despite the fact that there were clear similarities between
the terror incidents of the so-called Hindutva terror phase and those that
followed in the coming years. Yet, an argument was put forward that the
majority of the people killed in the so-called saffron terrorist attacks were
Muslims and that as Islamist terrorists would never have targeted them,
only Hindu extremists could have carried out these attacks.
Indians of almost every religion have suffered from terrorism. We
need to put the purported ‘Hindutva phase of terror’ in perspective because

89. it seems as if Pakistan-based terror groups were on leave en masse during
this period. Were these outfits sitting idle when Home Minister
Chidambaram was making allegations against the majority religion of the
country? The obvious answer is no as suggested by the rising death figures
of terrorist incidents after this phase.
Scores of terror strikes were carried out in various parts of the country
before and after the spate of so-called saffron terrorist acts. How can one
explain that Jihadi groups were redundant only during this particular
period? The proponents of ‘Hindu terror’ theory seem to suggest these
dreaded Jihadi organisations had gone on holiday during September 2006
to October 2007, while entrusting their Hindu counterparts with the job of
carrying out their hideous agenda. Even a superficial glance at the
chronology of terrorist attacks is enough to call this bluff.
One needs to see the various terrorist activities till date in a larger
picture. A variety of Jihadi outfits have committed these crimes against
the country. But it is hard to find an instance where all of these
organisations have halted in pursuing their agenda.
The valuable advice of the NIA undercover agent was now beginning
to make more sense. He wanted me to not only study the so-called saffron
terror cases in detail but also to gain an in-depth knowledge of other
attacks in contemporary history. All these incidents point towards the fact
that terrorists have always sought to capitalise on religious differences.
They have tried every method to turn our youth against their own country.
However, the NIA’s focus on Hindu right-wing groups gave an impression
that there was no Pakistan-sponsored Islamic terrorism in the country at
that moment. The statements of leaders like Digvijay Singh and P
Chidambaram only contributed to the diversion of public attention from
the real source of this menace.
In August 2010, Chidambaram addressed the meeting of state police
chiefs from all across the country. His speech at the meeting concentrated
on homegrown terrorism. Chidambaram took great pains to underscore the
need to beware of the phenomenon of saffron terrorism. Although
Chidambaram’s address also mentioned left-wing violence, it carried

90. reference to the Islamic extremism. This was the time when the NIA’s
investigation into the Hindu right-wing groups was frequently hitting the
headlines.
Sadly, the country has faced at least 21 major terrorist attacks since
Chidambaram’s speech. All of them were found to be linked to Pakistan in
one way or another. Yet, statements of leaders like Chidambaram gave
Pakistan an alibi to hide its real face. Its leaders went overboard to prove
that India was facing a homegrown insurgency. Not even a single attack
since that meeting had even the slightest connection to Hindu groups.
The time when our own leaders sought to send Jihadi groups on leave
was an embarrassment for the country in the international arena as well.
The whole premise weakened India’s efforts to expose Pakistan’s reality.
Only a divisive mind can differentiate killings based on the religion of
victims. Unfortunately, some of our leaders did the same. Nothing can be
more foolish than categorising terrorist incidents on such basis. After all,
Muslims are the biggest victims of violence in countries like Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria and Pakistan. The ones who killed innocent students at the
Army school in Peshawar also claimed to represent Islam.

91. O
10
Widow or Wife?
nly Chidambaram knew the reason for his verbose propaganda over
saffron terror. But the political significance of the matter was undeniable.
The Home Minister saw such an expediency in the issue that he appeared
to concentrate all his energies on it while ignoring cross-border terrorism.
The allegations of political pressure on the NIA investigation, as well as
preceding an ATS probe, were surfacing.
Political bickering is normal for any democracy. The real question was
whether it was influencing the investigation of such a sensitive case. A lot
of water has passed through the Ganga since the supposed phase of
Hindutva terror, and only persons directly associated with the inquisition
could have shed some light on the truth. Many reports were published over
the custodial atrocities on the alleged SIMI terrorists after their release on
bail. Sadhvi Pragya’s lawyer JP Sharma had also alleged the torture of his
client under custody. He had claimed that Sadhvi was paraded naked in the
jail and beaten with a belt. Sharma had promised to elaborate more on
Sadhvi’s angle to the entire case. I was eagerly waiting for his return to
Delhi to fix a meeting.
This wait was finally over on 27 May 2016. At around 4–5 pm, Sharma
called me while I busy in the office. To take time out from a newsroom is
not an easy task and I hoped he would not call me right away for a
meeting. Nevertheless, I answered the call with some enthusiasm.

92. ‘Dr Sa’ab, I have some breaking news for you,’ Sharma began without
any formal greeting or salutation.
What a brillilant stroke of luck that the man was himself offering a
scoop! I was convinced it could only be something related to Sadhvi
Pragya and the NIA’s investigation of saffron terror. It was a surprise in
itself that he had saved my cell phone number. Perhaps he had truly
understood my sincerity over the issue.
‘Are you back in town? What is the breaking news?’ I asked.
‘I will be back in Delhi by evening. However, the news is that the court
has issued warrants against two ATS officers who were involved in the
Malegaon blast probe. Both will have to face criminal case now,’ he
informed with a triumphant voice.
‘Have they been reprimanded on charges of atrocities against Sadhvi
Pragya?’ I tried to guess.
‘No…no. This matter is related to one of the witnesses. Do not worry;
justice shall soon prevail in the case of custodial torture as well. However,
run this news for now. You are the first journalist to know this information.
I am still in the premises of the special CBI court in Indore. The verdict
has just come out,’ Sharma replied.
Although the news was still not clear, I could understand Sharma’s
avidity. His efforts of eight long years were now beginning to bear fruit.
‘But who is the witness concerned? Where is he, and what is his
connection to the case?’
‘This is one of the most painful stories associated with the entire case.
This person was not even remotely linked to the case. Yet, he was picked
up and severely tortured.’
I was eager to know, but Sharma wanted to stress more on the pain of
this victim without revealing the essential bit of information.
I had only concentrated on the political aspects of this case until now.
But the story of this victim could have exposed some other aspects of the
entire case. I was curious to know the details.
‘Sharmaji, please elaborate. Whom are you talking about?’ I almost
pleaded.

93. ‘I am talking about Dileep Patidar. This young man from Indore was
rounded up as an eyewitness in 2008. He has still not returned home. I am
convinced that he was murdered. His wife, Padma, was present during the
court proceedings today. She asked the judge whether she should declare
herself as married or a widow in legal documents. My heart melted at this
question. Padma does not know even today, why her husband was arrested
by ATS. The police had even refused to register a missing complaint from
Dileep’s family. At last, there is a ray of hope for justice to this family.
The story of the atrocities by the ATS on this family is coming to light
after eight years,’ Sharma replied, his voice choking with emotions.
‘I can understand the travails of this family. It is enough to fill you
with a sense of consternation. What more can you tell me about Dileep
Patidar?’ I asked.
‘Much has already been written about him. I will send some details via
e-mail. Actually, I have just come out of the court. Dileep’s family is with
me. I will be busy for some time. But we will discuss the matter in detail,’
he answered.
I could understand that he was preoccupied.
‘Alright. Please send the photocopy of the judgment on Whatsapp and
also some details about Dileep,’ I said hurriedly before hanging up.
Thus, I read out the following news to the viewers, ‘The Indore CBI
court has ordered the filing of criminal cases against two officers of the
Maharashtra ATS over the misconduct and arrest of Dileep Patidar, who is
still missing. He was alleged to have been an eye-witness of the Malegaon
blasts. The CBI had also looked into the matter. In a closure report filed a
few days ago, the CBI had expressed inability to find Patidar. However, the
report has raised serious questions about the ATS officers. Dileep was
picked up from his home in November 2008 by the ATS for questioning.
However, he has not returned home ever since. His family fears he has
been murdered.’
Dileep’s story was tormenting. Although we did run the news given by
Sharma, it barely conveyed the agony faced by Dileep’s family. I received

94. Sharma’s mail after some time. It contained some more information
regarding Dileep’s case.
A 29-year-old young man was still settling into family life with small
kids and a wife. He worked as an electrician. Neighbours knew him as a
calm and non-aggressive person. There is now hope his wife will get her
answer from the system. The CBI court has ordered registration of
criminal cases against the Maharashtra ATS cops.
I chose the medium of the blog to tell his story to the world. The
article was published on several popular websites. Dileep Patidar, a
resident of Indore, remains officially ‘missing’. Nobody was able to trace
Dileep during the past eight years. One life, one family hardly mattered
against the rewards of bolstering the Hindutva terror theory at the instance
of political masters.
Dileep Patidar’s son had hardly learnt to walk when Dileep Patidar was
picked up for questioning. On 11 July 2014, the boy was standing outside
the Indore Collectorate, alongside his mother, holding placards in his
tender hands. The hope of seeing his father gave him the strength to join in
his mother’s struggle to look for her husband. The placard in his hands
asked, ‘Mere pita kahan hain? (Where is my father?)’
Dileep’s wife, Padma, was narrating her sordid tale with vacant eyes.
In fact, making herself heard had become the only mission of her life. The
poster hanging from her neck asked, ‘Mere pati kahan hain, Maharashtra
ATS jawab de? (Where is my husband, Maharashtra ATS must answer?)’
For Padma, the glimmer of hope was fading fast into the abyss of an
unknown future.
Padma did not even know who had picked up her husband. She went to
Indore’s Khajrana police station, but in vain. She was clueless when police
refused to even lodge an FIR. Today, hundreds of supporters were
following her. Members of the Patidar Samaj had also reached the venue
of the protest. A delegation went to hand over a memorandum to the SDM.
It asked the President to initiate action against the Maharashtra ATS and
the CBI.

95. These people lamented that the police had not even bothered to clarify
whether Dileep was still alive or not. The burden of the question being
held by his son on the placard was too much for a little soul like his. He
had just started school, and Padma was condemned to face this question
almost every day from her school-going son.
The memorandum claimed that Dileep was rounded up on the night of
either 10 or 11 November. It alleges that local police refused to take any
action. It merely informed the family that the ATS had taken Dileep to
Mumbai. Dileep’s family tried thrice to register a police complaint, on 14,
20 and 22 November. However, the police refused to fulfil its obligation.
According to Dileep’s family, officers of the Mumbai police allowed
phone conversations with Dileep until 17 November. He simply blipped
off the radar after that.
On 24 November 2008, Dileep’s brother Ram Swaroop filed a habeas
corpus petition in the MP High Court. The court ordered a joint
investigation by the ATS and police. The report filed by the ATS claimed
that Dileep had gone into hiding out of his own free will. However, very
few were ready to believe that a simple electrician could be proficient
enough to dodge the ATS. Secondly, Dileep was in the ATS custody when
he talked to his family for the last time. The court handed over the probe
to CBI in October 2010. India’s premier agency admitted its failure in
finding Dileep’s whereabouts in its closure report. But there were enough
hints in the report to question the ATS’s role in the matter.
The CBI maintained in the closure report that Dileep was in ATS
custody from 10-20 November. It noted that he called his family for the
last time from the custody itself. The report contradicted the ATS’s claim
that Dileep was allowed to stay with his friends during questioning. It
stated in unequivocal terms that he had gone missing from ATS custody.
Several lies in the ATS version strengthened doubts that it was hiding
something. The ATS police officers failed to provide cellphone numbers or
addresses of Dileep’s supposed friends. It was difficult to believe, in any
case, that a man considered as a key witness in such a high profile case
would be permitted to stay with friends.

96. The CBI had punched enough holes in the explanations put forward by
the ATS to establish that Dileep had been punished for no fault. The role of
two ATS officers, ACP Rajan Ghule and Inspector Ramesh More, was
found to be suspicious in the CBI investigation. Kidnapping charges were
slapped against both of them. They were also booked under sections
related to forced statement and collecting false evidence.
Ghule and More, on their part, contended that Dileep was let off to
fetch his identity documents as they were preparing to record his
statement in front of the judicial magistrate. According to them, Dileep
never returned after that. The CBI report records that Dileep was never
produced in the court. It says Dileep had called his father and a cousin on
one or two occasions to inform that he was in the custody of the ATS. He
also confided that police was pressurising him to become a witness.
According to the ATS, Dileep was a tenant of Ramchandra Kalsangra,
one of the main accused in cases attributed to extremist Hindu groups.
Kalsangra has eluded the ATS; the CBI; and later, the NIA, until date. The
police wanted Dileep to depose against him. It is feared Dileep succumbed
to torture during his incarceration. Although it has never been proved, the
CBI’s closure report clearly suggested the same.
Dileep’s case could be a testament to the ATS’s manner of
investigation in cases of saffron terror. Many other witnesses have made
similar allegations, but it was Dileep’s case that finally put the ATS in the
dock. Yet, this has not ended the wait for his family. The agitating wife,
supported by Patidar organisations, want accountability to be fixed on the
CBI and the ATS. The Patidar community has threatened to intensify
protests if justice is not delivered. The Indore CBI court decision has come
as a respite to their sagging spirits. The order passed by the CBI court
came as a ray of hope to the family. Sadly, Dileep’s story has remained
ignored in the public space.
Dileep Patidar lived with his wife and son in a rented accommodation
in Indore’s Shanti Vihar colony situated in the city’s Kanadia road. An
electrician by profession, Patidar belonged to Dupada village in Shajapur
district. On 16 October 2008, Shiv Narayan Kalsangra, Shyam Sahu,

97. Dileep Nahar and Dharmendra Bairagi were taken into custody from
Shanti Vihar colony. Sadhvi Pragya was arrested as an accused a week
later. The same Sadhvi Pragya, who has now been exonerated by the NIA.
There seems to be nobody to answer for the travails she faced during the
eight years she spent in captivity. Besides Sadhvi, Shiv Narayan and
Shyam were also listed as accused by the NIA.
The ATS officials took Shiv Narayan Kalsangra to his home and seized
his licensed revolver. Ramchandra Kalsangra and Shiv Narayan’s tenant,
Dileep Patidar, were witnesses to this action. Ramchandra Kalsangra (29)
was the main accused in the NIA’s chargesheet. The NIA claimed to have
questioned him. Shiv Narayan’s father, Gopal Singh, had sought to file a
complaint in the Khajrana police station against the NIA’s officers for
abducting his son and stealing jewellery. According to the families of
Dileep and Shiv Narayan, Dileep was picked up as the ATS officers feared
they could face action.
This is not simply a matter of one person’s disappearance. It is a
serious question mark over the credibility of the ATS probe. The CBI
findings have exposed the lies of the ATS. If the case of a ‘missing’ person
could spill so many beans, think of what those still behind bars could
reveal. Dileep’s story is also a glimpse into the impunity of ATS officers.
Lokesh Sharma and Dhan Singh were also arrested in the same case.
However, the ATS failed to file a challan against them for the want of
evidence. Their investigation was not handed over to the NIA. The
allegations of custodial torture have only deepened aspersions over the
already dubious ATS probe.
A clear picture is finally emerging. It will get clearer as the real brains
behind the entire plot are exposed. Many persons were under pressure to
give a pre-determined turn to the investigation. The pattern of terror
strikes in India suggests that the term saffron terrorism came into being
during a particular period. Leaders like P Chidambaram, Sushil Shinde and
Digvijay Singh played their part in politicising it. Dileep’s saga became
my motivation to delve deeper into other such ironies of the story of

98. Hindutva terrorism If the judiciary had intervened in just one such case,
what about the others similarly implicated on flimsy grounds?
The man who told me Dileep’s story could have the answer. I again
called JP Sharma and discussed Dileep’s case in greater detail. I was
scheduled to meet in his Saket court chamber in two days’ time. I was on
the track suggested by the NIA agent. I was excited that Sharma would not
send me back with only questions like my spy did. I could expect some
answers from him as well.

99. S
11
The Harrowing Jail Experience of
Sadhvi Pragya
adhvi Pragya’s lawyer, JP Sharma, had made me realise the
significance of Dileep Patidar’s case to the entire episode of Hindutva
terror. Sharma has consistently maintained that there could be no proof
against his client as the whole premise of saffron terrorism was based on
lies and half-truths.
Sharma was another valuable source of information for my project
after the NIA agent and BM Mohan. Nobody could shed better light on the
legal aspects of the case than he could. So, I reached his chamber in
Delhi’s Saket court as soon as he returned to the city.
After the exchange of pleasantries, and before we came to the topic,
Sharma presented me with a booklet. It was a collection of various news
items related to the subject, both in Hindi and English.
‘I think I am already up to speed with all these pieces of news as a
journalist,’ I remarked, as I casually flipped through the pages of the
booklet.
‘I have decided to bring forth the truth of the matter only after
realising the loopholes in the theory of the Hindutva terror and witnessing
the politicisation of the issue from very close quarters,’ I further added.

100. •
Meanwhile, the last page of the booklet caught my attention. The
inside back cover of the booklet carried a newspaper article mentioning
the alleged atrocities against Sadhvi Pragya during custody. It cited one of
the applications filed on her behalf.
‘What is this about?’ I asked Sharma.
He told me that Sadhvi had detailed incidents of alleged torture in this
application.
‘Sadhvi has submitted pleas to several government authorities as well
as the NHRC and the courts. Even the fact that she was a cancer patient did
not move the hearts of her tormentors. In fact, she developed this ailment
only because of custodial torture,’ Sharma lamented.
Was Sadhvi Pragya suffering from cancer? There were many rumours
to this effect, but I was hearing it for the first time from a reliable source.
‘She can’t even walk on her own without help. Sadhvi has been forced
to live a life of utter misery,’ he continued.
I had seen Sadhvi Pragya in photographs taken during the Simhastha
Kumbh in Ujjain. However, they didn’t suggest she was fighting such a
life-threatening ailment.
I took the copy of her application from Sharma for a quick read. It was
not merely a plea for relief, but also the entire story of how she was
framed in the case. Sadhvi Pragya was one of the central characters of this
contentious issue, yet her plight was kept under wraps. The court had
allowed her to choose the place for her medical treatment.
However, Sadhvi Pragya had outrightly refused the offer.
The application, translated verbatim below, explains this better:
The Hon’ble Judge,
Bombay High Court, Mumbai (Maharashtra)
Via- Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhopal (MP)
Subject- Apropos Health Ailments
Sir,
I, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, submit this application to you as an
under-trial in the Malegaon Blast case (2008). Currently, I am lodged

101. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
in Bhopal central jail in connection with another case. Today (16
January 2013), a gentleman came to see me in the jail and showed a
copy of your order, asking me to choose an appropriate place for the
treatment of my illness.
Sir, I am grateful for this kind consideration. Your merciful order has
inspired me to share my state of mind with you. I am confident you
will fully understand my physical as well as mental constraints.
Therefore, I take the liberty of making the following humble
submission:
I have been a patriotic, veracious, conscientious, and idealist person
since my childhood. I have imbibed these values from my father. I am
a social worker and a respectable citizen.
I have renunciated all worldly belongings to become a sanyasi in
January 2007.
In October 2008, ATS Inspector Sawant called me from Surat. He
requested me to come to Surat, while urging to help the law by
furnishing some information about a ‘bike’. Considering it my duty, I
reached Surat on 10 October.
Inspector Sawant and his colleagues said they wanted me to present
before their senior and brought me to Mumbai on the night of 16
October. I was illegally detained at Mumbai’s Kala Chowki for 13
days. I was subjected to gruesome torture of physical, mental and
obscene nature during this period.
Several senior police officers encircled me, and I was beaten up with
belts. Besides repeatedly banging me, on the floor, I was also forced to
listen to porn CDs. The torture continued unabated day and night.
For reasons unknown to me, I was taken to Rajput Hotel and severely
tortured. It led to the rupturing of my lung and diaphragm. I had to be
administered oxygen in a private hospital called ‘Sushrusha’ after I
fell unconscious and had difficulty in breathing. The fact that my lung
and diaphragm were damaged is mentioned in the report of this
hospital. It will be submitted to the esteemed court if ordered. I was

102. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
secretly kept in ‘Sushrusha’ hospital for two days and then shifted to
another private hospital. Here too, I was kept on artificial oxygen
supply. I was kept on oxygen supply for five days in total.
I was again taken to the Kala Chowki after a slight improvement in my
condition and lodged in the office room of Mr Sawant. There was no
respite from torture and lewd abuses. I was forcibly taken to Nasik
from here, and my arrest was shown only after 13 days. I was not fed
during all these days. The hunger, persistent torture and the fact that
my mouth was stuffed with a rag during the entire period had forced
me to the verge of dementia.
My saffron robe was removed, and a Salwar-Kameez was put on my
body in the unconscious state.
I was illegally subjected to narcotics, a polygraph and brain mapping
tests without the court’s permission. The same tests were repeated
after my arrest was made official.
I have suffered serious spinal injuries due to these atrocities. This,
together with other ailments, have made any movement difficult for
me. The ATS torture has made me mentally disturbed, and I am falling
short of any more tolerance.
It is my fifth year in prison. My religious beliefs were violated when
they served me eggs in the Mumbai jail. These adverse circumstances
have manifested in many serious diseases in my body. I am fighting
breast cancer. Yet, it is no longer possible for me to eat food prescribed
by doctors.
I used to be sent to the hospitals of Mumbai and Nasik upon court
orders. The police personnel would take me to JJ Hospital or any
government hospital. The court order was implemented only to the
extent of admitting in the hospital. They fulfilled all the official
formalities, but I never got treatment.
I underwent breast operation in 2009. But the pain resurfaced after a
year. I was lodged in a jail in Nasik after the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) was lifted. I was sent to the district

103. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
hospital. However, I was shifted to Mumbai again when the MCOCA
was imposed.
I have been in the Bhopal jail since March 2012. The harassment at the
hands of the police continued during the hospital visits. The jail
authorities were not against sending me for treatment, but the security
personnel around me did not change their illegal behaviour. I returned
from the hospital without any treatment on many occasions.
The story of my persecution has been same since the beginning. I
wanted medical consultations. But the attitude of the government and
the indifference of the system have broken this desire. Fighting against
all these travails for the last five years, I feel tired now.
Therefore, as long as this sick body of a sanyasi keeps working with
the help of Yoga and Pranayama, so much the better. But I will not take
any other treatment in the custody. Sir, the physical effects of an
incarcerated life have forced me to take this decision. I hope you will
understand my feelings and circumstances and not take it otherwise.
Sir, a sanyasi lives the life of penance. That is only possible in a free
atmosphere and under free will. I have been forced to spend five years
of my life against my nature, routine, dignity and moral values. And
this for committing no crime. A sensitive life, like that of a Sanyasi,
cannot be lived under torture and inhumanity.
Now I have detached myself from all the adverse circumstances. I will
spend the remainder of my life, remembering my god. I will be
satisfied with whatever life I have left but will maintain a distance
from the conventional treatment and medical tests, as long as I am
incarcerated. However, freedom can give me an opportunity to avail
medical attention of my own choice and live longer.
Sir, keeping in mind the lifestyle of a Sanyasi in Indian culture,
consider granting me bail while deliberating on how justice must be
delivered.
I can submit proof of every word written in this application. I am not
an expert on law; what I do know is that I am innocent. I have always

104. lived and still live as a patriotic person and abide by the Constitution. I
have no criminal background. The Mumbai ATS has falsely implicated
me in this case.
Applicant
Pragya Singh
The face of Dileep Patidar kept coming back to me as I read this letter.
Patidar’s case came to the limelight only because the ATS was not able to
explain his missing status. The brazenness of the ATS also suggested it
had backing from the very top.
I was silent for some time. The agony of Sadhvi was beyond my
imagination. This short letter, a plea for help, was enough to shake my
conscience. It must have been impossible for her to express all her
sufferings in one letter, but she had definitely presented the facts
necessary for her treatment as a free citizen.
I asked Sharma why this letter was not already in the public domain.
‘Ask this question to those who were updating media on this issue. The
changes of the past eight years have totally broken her spirit. This was not
merely torture, but also an attack on her faith,’ Sharma replied.
‘Sorry, I could not understand what you meant by an attack on her
faith,’ I inquired.
‘Her saffron clothes were taken away,’ he continued. ‘She was forcibly
made to eat eggs in the jail and forced to watch porn material. The police
officials were particularly severe in their behaviour as she had a following
as a saint, and Sadhvi’s sympathisers were raising their voice against her
arrest. The cops wanted to weaken her mentally by attacking her way of
living. And they were successful as well. Sadhvi Pragya has narrated how
she found herself distraught after police atrocities. She would not even
know where she is and what was happening to her. Only her spiritual belief
saved her from going the way Dileep Patidar did.’
Sharma’s eloquence made it clear that he was used to narrating this
same story. Yet, this aspect of the case was not publicly debated. Perhaps,

105. few would have dared to antagonise the powerful nexus of politicians and
security agencies. Especially in a matter which was the favourite topic of
press conferences of the top ministers, who were proclaiming saffron
terrorism as the biggest threat to the country.
When I had seen Sadhvi Pragya during the Simhastha Kumbh fair, she
was gasping for breath at regular intervals while talking to journalists and
complaining that she had lost the capability to talk much.
‘Have all the accused in this case met with the same fate?’ I wanted to
know, from Sharma.
‘Yes,’ he said. ‘The disappearance of Dileep Patidar is big evidence in
this regard. The ATS had crossed all limits of savagery in Sadhvi’s case.
Kamal Chauhan was called in a similar manner for questioning. He had
little idea of what awaited him. And he was portrayed as the most
important character of the ATS theory,’ he completed.
Who was Kamal Chauhan? The allegations of saffron terror revolved
around a bunch of bhagwa-clad people in popular imagination. Like
Dileep Patidar, Kamal Chauhan was also a little-known name in this story.
According to Sharma, Kamal Chauhan was also falsely implicated in
this case. The police claimed Chauhan was an explosive expert. However,
Chauhan had no idea of these charges when he was arrested. The pleas of
Chauhan’s father that he was a simple farmer went unheeded. The
authorities alleged that he had participated in the meetings where the
conspiracy of bomb blasts was hatched. Chauhan was an active RSS
member and took weapons training at various locations.
‘How was Chauhan’s case similar to that of Sadhvi Pragya and Dileep
Patidar?’ I asked Sharma.
His answer forced me to think that the NIA was indeed in haste to
increase the list of the accused.
Sharma took out some papers and began narrating, ‘Kamal Chauhan
received a call from Indore’s Depalpur police station one day, calling him
to the police station for some clarifications. He complied on 9 February
2012 and went to the police station with a friend. However, the police said
nothing to him at the station. The NIA sleuths were also sitting there in

106. plain clothes. The agency at that time had been given the right to take
action in any state after 26/11 attack.
The local police personnel were wary of the complexities of the case
and handed Kamal over to the NIA officers only after obtaining a written
undertaking. This undertaking is still in the records of Depalpur police
station.
Kamal’s family received no information about his whereabouts for the
next three days. The police merely said that the senior officers had taken
him for questioning. These three days were nothing short of hell for Kamal
as he was subjected to the same torture. When he too lost his senses, a
transit remand was taken from a Noida court, and his arrest was officially
shown from Noida on 12 February 2012. The following day, he was
presented before a special court in Panchkula.’
Kamal’s case appeared to be yet another reminder that the NIA’s
investigation was not according to the rulebook. If Indore’s Depalpur
police station had documents of handing over Kamal Chauhan to the NIA,
then how could his arrest be shown from Noida? I slowly began to
understand why Sharma had mentioned this case with that of Dileep
Patidar and Sadhvi Pragya.
Sharma remained silent for a while and then started again, ‘These
people have not only hatched a political conspiracy but committed a
heinous crime. A free and fair enquiry would expose them all. It was a
deep political plot. The conspiracy to kill RSS leaders Indresh Kumar and
Mohan Bhagwat was covered up by constructing the false demon of
Hindutva terror,’ he surmised.
The alleged threat to the lives of Indresh Kumar and Mohan Bhagwat
had been widely covered in the media. But no credible proof had emerged
so far to prove it beyond any doubt. I couldn’t help but wonder if Sharma
could shed some light on the matter.
‘Proof? Hemant Karkare had himself apprised RSS leaders about this
conspiracy. Bhagwat, Nitin Gadkari and his friend, Ravi Boratkar, were
present in this meeting. The Malegaon blast accused, Col. Purohit and
Dayanand Pandey, were said to be after the lives of Indresh Kumar and

107. Mohan Bhagwat. At the same time, fingers were pointed at Indresh Kumar
in the case of alleged Hindutva terrorism. The murder conspiracy of RSS
leaders was hushed up as it would have cast aspersions of the theory of
saffron terrorism.
Sharma was speaking with such passion as only a man convinced about
the fallacy of the ‘Hindu terror’ would do.

108. O
12
The Conspiracy to Kill Mohan
Bhagwat And Indresh Kumar
n 28 January 2011, The Indian Express published a news item that
created ripples in political as well as security circles. Citing a Military
Intelligence (MI) report on Col. Purohit’s activities, the newspaper
claimed that Abhinav Bharat, a far-Hindu group, had conspired to kill RSS
leader, Indresh Kumar.
According to the news report, Col. Purohit had admitted to his
suspicion during the interrogation that Indresh Kumar had links with the
ISI. Purohit was apparently under the impression that Indresh Kumar had
received counterfeit currency worth ₹ 21 crore from Pakistan’s notorious
spy agency. However, the RSS had already dismissed these charges as
political insinuations.
The MI report noted that the blasts had occurred on 29 September
2008, the day Col. Purohit also celebrated the birthday of his son. Besides
the IB, Purohit was also grilled by the MI. Hemant Karkare led a team of
the Maharashtra ATS in a joint interrogation on 29 October 2008.
The investigators of MI concluded that Abhinav Bharat was Col.
Purohit’s brainchild, set up to give a befitting reply to ISI’s nefarious
activities in the country. Some well-to-do hardline RSS members had
allegedly funded Abhinav Bharat. Seventy-year-old Shyam Apte, a

109. resident of Pune, was one such RSS supporter. He was apparently
approached by members of Abhinav Bharat to fund the plot to kill Indresh
Kumar.
Ajay Rahilkar, aka Raja, who managed the financial affairs of Abhinav
Bharat, purportedly accepted that the organisation had paid ₹ 3.2 lakh to
Rakesh Dhavde for the supply of weapons. The MI team further claimed
that Dhavde purchased weapons for the outfit upon Col Purohit’s orders.
‘Rahilkar has disclosed the payment of ₹ 3.2 lakh to Rakesh Dhavde to
buy arms as directed by Purohit. This has been separately confirmed by
Dhavde and Col. Purohit, who stated that these weapons were being
procured on the directions of (self-styled) Shankaracharya (of Sharda
Peeth Dayanand Pandey) who tasked Col. Purohit to eliminate one Indresh
Kumar, a senior RSS functionary based in Delhi. Indresh Kumar, allegedly
an agent of ISI, along with one Subedar Singh, was also involved in the
pumping of fake Indian currency,’ The Indian Express quoted the MI
report as alleging.
However, there was a divergence between the statements made by Col.
Purohit and Shyam Apte. While Purohit told investigators that Dayanand
Pandey had asked him to ‘eliminate’ Indresh, Shyam Apte claimed before
the Maharashtra ATS that Purohit was the brain behind the conspiracy to
kill Indresh Kumar. Purohit allegedly disclosed to Apte that he came to
know about Indresh Kumar’s ISI connection during a special assignment
in Nepal, entrusted to him by Director General Military Intelligence
(DGMI). As per Apte’s testimony, Purohit was frustrated when Army
headquarters did not act on his report, and he approached Apte to murder
Indresh, as he was ‘the enemy of the country.’
The same news report cited Sadhvi Pragya’s purported statement to
allege that she had discussed the issue of the ‘proposed elimination’ of
Indresh, who was like a father to Pragya, with Dayanand Pandey. Pandey
allegedly told Pragya that Purohit had requested him to accommodate two
commandos at his Faridabad ashram in Delhi. According to Pragya’s
reported statement, Pandey conveyed to Pragya that he refused this request
of Col. Purohit as they had been sent to kill Indresh Kumar.

110. The MI report states that the plan to assassinate Indresh was hatched
during Purohit’s visit to Delhi from Panchmarhi between 26 and 29
January 2008. The MI investigators believed Purohit stayed at Dayanand
Pandey’s ashram in Faridabad during this visit. It was during this stay that
Purohit introduced Maj. (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Bharat Bhai and
Sameer Kulkarni to Pandey. It was during this meeting that Pandey asked
Purohit to buy weapons for killing Indresh if MI is to be believed.
The MI sleuths further mention Abhinav Bharat’s first public meeting
in Bhopal on 11 and 12 April 2008, as the occasion when Purohit brought
Pandey and Swami Aseemanand on a common platform for the first time.
‘The presence of Sadhvi, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange at the
function also demonstrated his proximity to the core group who had
undertaken anti-Islamic acts in the recent past. The officer initially denied
his presence at the meeting, but on confrontation with Sadhvi, admitted to
his illegal presence. He also admitted handing over a 9 mm pistol to one
Aloke, close associate of Shankaracharya, at the Bhopal Railway Station to
kill Indreshji in Delhi,’ the MI report goes on to claim.
A similar story about the plot to kill RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat also
surfaced during the same time. Both the alleged conspiracies faced
judicial scrutiny by the Mumbai High Court, which accepted the ATS plea
that the cases were closed as investigations did not establish these
conspiracies.
Sameer Kulkarni, one of the accused in 2008 bomb blasts, had brought
these accusations to the court’s notice. He was the same man who was
alleged to have arranged Purohit’s meeting with Dayanand Pandey at his
Faridabad ashram. Kulkarni wrote a letter to the court claiming that two of
the witnesses had told interrogators about the conspiracy to kill Bhagwat.
The letter demanded action based on the statements of these witnesses.
Later, the ATS informed the court that Bhagwat’s security was spruced up
in the wake of the threat. A division bench of Justice B H Marlapalle and
Anup Mehta was satisfied with the report presented by the ATS in this
regard and dismissed Kulkarni’s petition.

111. Delving deeper into the entire saga raised more questions than it
answered. Sharma believed investigative agencies had deliberately ignored
the conspiracies against Indresh Kumar and Mohan Bhagwat.
‘But what evidence do we have to trust these claims of such
conspiracies?’ I asked Sharma.
‘Where is the scope for doubt? Allow me to state that your fraternity
has also played its part in politicising this issue,’ he retorted with an
obvious reference to the media.
‘It is true that the media’s role is often criticised. However, you must
acknowledge it is our obligation to show things as they stand,’ I replied.
‘But I am talking about political media,’ he interjected.
‘Political media?’ I nudged him to extract more information.
‘See, I am a lawyer, let me explain in legal terms. The CBI and NIA
overlooked the Supreme Court’s judgement to willingly play into the
hands of their political masters,’ he replied while taking out a legal
document.
It was a copy of an apex court’s judgement in the Sunita Devi Vs. State
of Bihar case, reported in 2005 (1) SCC 608.
‘As many instances have come to light when the parties, as in the
present case, make reference to the supervision notes, the inevitable
conclusion is that they have unauthorised access to official records. We,
therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of each State and Union Territory and
the concerned Director General of Police to ensure that the supervision
notes are not made available to any person and to ensure that
confidentiality of the supervision notes is protected. If it comes to light
that any official is involved in enabling any person to get the same,
appropriate action should be taken against such official. Due care and
caution should be taken to see that while supplying police papers,
supervision notes are not given,’ the order stated.
To put it in other words, the supervision notes are highly confidential
documents, and they cannot be made available to anyone. Yet, not only
these documents but also top secret audio tapes were also leaked under the

112. UPA regime. According to Sharma, it was a deliberate ploy aimed at
political propaganda.
Now, I realised why BM Mohan was adamant against providing
documents related to the narcotics tests of Malegaon blast accused.
However, it was clear there was little chance of any further sensational
leaks in the matter, and all I had to do was to collect the available
information from different sources and put it in the right perspective. The
challenge, therefore, was to identify the right sources.
When asked what the information was that Sharma thought had been
deliberately brought to light for political mileage, Sharma replied, ‘The
confessional statement of Swami Aseemanand was the most crucial tool at
the hands of the proponents of “Hindutva terror” theory. In fact, it had
become the focal point of the allegations levelled against the BJP-RSS.
This statement was recorded on 18 December 2010, by Tees Hazari
Metropolitan Magistrate Deepak Dabas, in the presence of the CBI
officials. One might ask why this statement was recorded in Delhi when
the trial was not even being conducted there.
‘Aseemanand’s recorded statement was sealed by the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and sent to Hyderabad,’ Sharma
continued. ‘Two days later (20 December 2010), CBI officer Mukesh
Kumar wrote a letter to Tees Hazari’s CMM requesting a copy of the
statement. Later, an RTI application revealed that the court had given a
directive to break the seal of the documented statement and provide it to
Mukesh Kumar. It is important to note that even a CMM is not authorised
to order breaking of the seal of such a document and give it to anybody.
Only the relevant court has the authority to open the seal. It is amply clear
there were only two copies of Aseemanand’s deposition—one in the
jurisdiction of the court and another in the possession of CBI. It is from
here that the conspicuous role of the ‘political media’ begins.
Tehelka published this statement on 31 December 2010, barely two
weeks after CBI laid its hands upon it. This leaves little doubt as to who
was behind releasing this sensitive document to the magazine. It was only
upon the basis of Aseemanand’s confession that Congress started fanning

113. the issue of saffron terrorism. You see, how all the dots were connected
into a conspiracy?’
I had been following the saga of saffron terrorism as a newsman, but
this time, I was listening to some undisclosed information. It had never
occurred to me how schematically selective information was percolated
for vested political interests. The notion that the accused related to the so-
called saffron terrorism theory were themselves admitting to their guilt,
had undoubtedly affected the public psyche.
We, journalists, rely on our sources in many cases and consider them
as sacred. Still, the question merited an answer as to who was giving all
this information to the selected media groups. Was it a result of the strong
penetration of the concerned journalists in the security establishment or
was the ruling party favouring some news publications over other because
of ulterior motives?
Perhaps, Sharma was not the right man to answer these questions. Still,
I sought a legal opinion on the leaking of Aseemanand’s confessional
statement.
‘This was definitely a case of contempt of court. It also illustrated how
CBI was hand-in-gloves with politicians in giving this case a political
colour. The Supreme Court judgement in the Sunita Devi case was flouted
several times by the investigative agencies. Even the then Home Minister,
Sushil Kumar Shinde, was accused of leaking the NIA’s report and scoring
brownie points in the media,’ Sharma replied.
It was not difficult to access the archives. Tehelka had published
Aseemanand’s statement as its cover story. The magazine claimed it
possessed a copy of the 42-page confession. Tehelka’s reportage became
the basis of the nationwide coverage of this news. I was not a stranger to
all the information that had come into the public domain in the form of
journalistic scoops. But I needed to brush up my memory in a structured
manner. I was sure that a chronological analysis of these leaks would
certainly indicate some hitherto unknown aspect of the case.
I took my leave from Sharma with the assurance of remaining in touch.
He parted after handing over an envelope filled some papers. He said these

114. documents contained some additional information that might be useful for
my research. I was curious but somehow mustered the patience to not open
the envelope before leaving.

115. I
13
Who Leaked Secret Information to
Tehelka?
t was not a mere coincidence that Tehelka was getting exclusive access
to information related to the Hindu terrorism cases. This was apparent
especially after Aseemanand’s confessional statement came into the public
domain through this magazine. On 31 July 2010, journalist Rana Ayyub
published a report claiming Tehelka was in possession of 37 audio tapes, 2
videotapes and numerous transcripts of various accused relating to the
Malegaon blasts. A reporter would tell you how hard it is to get even a
shred of exclusive information in such a sensitive case. However, the sheer
amount of leaked material, which Tehelka had somehow acquired, raised
serious questions.
Was this media group part of a larger design? Were Tehelka and its
journalists playing into the hands of the ruling class and spreading their
propaganda? At least, advocate Sharma seemed to believe in a deep
political conspiracy behind Tehelka’s so-called investigative journalism.
Sameer Kulkarni had blown the lid off the conspiracy to kill Mohan
Bhagwat and Indresh Kumar. The then Home Minister of Maharashtra, R R
Patil, had to issue a statement in Vidhan Sabha in this regard. But the
establishment of the day did not feel any need to communicate with RSS
in this matter. However, senior RSS functionary Suresh Joshi, aka

116. Bhaiyyaji Joshi, had written a letter to Manmohan Singh demanding a free
and fair inquiry for exposing the real perpetrators of the plot against two
of the top Sangh leaders.
The letter argued that the alleged masterminds of the conspiracies
against Bhagwat and Kumar could not have taken instructions from the
RSS. Joshi claimed in the letter that the former ATS Chief, Hemant
Karkare, had appraised the Sangh top brass in this regard.
However, the details of the entire plot became public only after
Tehelka released transcripts of some audio tapes containing an alleged
conversation between various accused in the ‘Hindu terror’ cases. It is
another matter that the magazine focused more on excerpts that implicated
Indresh Kumar. Nevertheless, one of the transcripts was related to the MI
report that had mentioned a threat to the lives of Bhagwat and Kumar.
While the rest of the media were carrying this news quoting the MI report,
only Tehelka had the tapes of these conversations like many other sensitive
documents and tapes related to the case.
Sample this transcript of the alleged conversation between Shyam
Apte and Dayanand Pandey as published by Tehelka:
‘Shyam Apte: Mohan Bhagwat doesn’t have a full grip on this issue.
The organisation, which he wants to build, is not happening. Hiring people
and training them doesn’t make an organisation. I told Col. Purohit that
people in the army shouldn’t know about his activities. He has already
been given a memo. I want you to warn him that he shouldn’t be court-
martialed. We can rebuild Abhinav Bharat on a big scale if we need to.
Dayanand Pandey: Now listen about the plans. I have called the person
with the chemicals, he will come to meet me... I will use the same guy to
do the work. He will reach by the 8th.
Apte: I am doubtful. On the 18th, Mohan Bhagwat will reach Delhi. He
is putting two plus two. Indresh must have told him, I may go to Yeshwant.
So, he must be waiting to discuss it with me. If he comes, then our job is
over. I am not worried. I am insisting because they [Indresh and Bhagwat]
are our enemies.

117. Pandey: I have another option. There is a guy in Varanasi, a
professional, who can do the work for us. He said he could do it. He will
take 50 per cent before killing and 50 later. I have used him earlier too.
Apte: You gave ₹ 5 lakh, is it still there?
Dayanand: That’s why I had mentioned about that chemical. The post-
mortem won’t show the chemical, there is no risk for me. I have told him
whatever time it takes, we are fine with it. I think this work will be done
within two months.
Apte: Nagpur, Jhandewalan and Pune are my domains. I asked him
when he was travelling by train. Mohan Bhagwat talked to me in Pune and
tried to convince me about Indresh, that he came from a good family. I
spoke to [BJP leader] Murli Manohar Joshi also and have asked him to
speak to Bhagwatji.
Pandey: We could have done this in Pune itself when he was here. I
know of a man called Yadav from Azamgarh who could have done this.’
The investigative agencies felt Apte and Pandey were discussing the
conspiracy to kill Mohan Bhagwat in this conversation.
This transcript seems credible because Tehelka reporters were enjoying
exclusive access to the investigative agencies at that time. One cannot
dismiss the possibility that the UPA government deliberately leaked
information to this magazine for political gains. It was necessary to
understand the relationship between the powers-that-be and Tehelka to get
to the bottom of the mystery of ‘Saffron Terror’.
Here is yet another excerpt from an important telephonic conversation
between Col. SP Purohit; Maj. Ramesh Upadhyay; former BJP MP BL
Sharma; Dayanand Pandey Colonel Dhar; and RP Singh, an
endocrinologist at Apollo Hospital, as published by Tehelka.
‘Col. SP Purohit: We have to fight for our Constitution and rights. If
Muslims can come down in huge numbers, why can’t we? We should have
some nuisance value on the national, political and international level.
Maj. Upadhyay: I am just proposing as to why are we doing this. Even
the BJP can’t be successful as we are fighting the Constitution. This is not

118. Hindu Bharat Desh, we have to fight the war. We can’t just keep talking
about Ram Sethu.
Col. Purohit: We have done two such operations earlier, which were
successful. I was the one who had got the equipment for all of them. On 24
June 2007, we were to have a meeting with King Gyanendra. Col. Lajpat
Prajwal, who is now a brigadier, was the one who made the meeting
possible. We have to make use of the fact that nobody in this country will
be able to figure out who is behind all this.
RP Singh: The BJP has a problem with the VHP. The VHP will be like
a headless chicken without Ashok Singhal and Pravin Togadia.
Col. Purohit: The BJP will be as effective as the Shiv Sena at the
national level if they remove the VHP. What do we expect from these
people? Major Saheb has 20 people, and we will train them.
Pandey: People from Israel came and asked us this; we don’t exchange
mails, we just save them as drafts. I had also told Pravin Bhai that these
Maoists will be dominant and that we have to do something about this. All
of us know what Islam is doing. Aggressive Hindutva is what we need
now.
RP Singh: King Gyanendra’s relative was with us in Gorakhpur. We
have been getting the Nepalis together and telling them the truth. Some of
the Nepalis have to come here. I have been telling Mohan Bhagwat about
this. I told police chief Subhash Joshi about this, and he was pained by the
fact that the BJP is helping the Maoist forces. I have also been in touch
with an old RSS man, but could not take it ahead. Maj. Prayag Modak was
the one who came to our meeting. Also helping us are Col. Raikar and Col.
Hasmukh Patel, who are commanding officers. Lajpat Prajwal is from the
side of Rani Aishwarya. By the way, Col. Dhar is here…
Col. Purohit: Namaskar Dharji. Let me introduce to the people here.
We are on the same plane… Hindu Rashtra.
RP Singh: Some like-minded Christians will also be helping us. I had
very good relations with Ashok Singhal. He is a great guy, but the Sangh
men did not let him continue. He agreed with me on the Nepal issue. But
Sangh has maintained its distance from him, and because of me, Indresh’s

119. entry is restricted from the VHP. Indresh is the same man who had
meetings with Mulayam Singh Yadav and sarsanghchalak. I have been told
that Indresh is involved with the ISI. At least Mayawati is better than these
RSS guys. But she is not loyal. I met Murli Manohar Joshi and LK Advani
and told Advani that he was making a bigger blunder than Jawaharlal
Nehru. He was being interviewed on TV; he is showing his tears and
Barkha Dutt is interviewing him. Ravi Shankar Prasad doesn’t know what
is happening in the BJP.
Pandey: I have been told that 54 people in the Sangh have been sold
out to the ISI.
RP Singh: No hope can be kept of people like Indresh who are already
neutralised. And till people like these are alive, there is no hope. In this
situation, traditional means won’t help. There is no point approaching
Indresh for help. They removed BL Sharma and Govindacharya. Indresh
gave a statement in Dhanbad appeasing Muslims, and the people getting
compromised are Indresh’s own men. The RSS should also pay a price for
their betrayal. They should say that Indresh made us pay a price for
ideological betrayal.
Pandey: It is a common sentiment that an organisation needs to be
brought in to counter the Sangh. People like Ram Madhav and Indresh are
being fed by the Sangh.
Col. Purohit: I have the population figures of Muslims in each state.
But I have only three AK-47 guns. We couldn’t buy more earlier because
we didn’t have the requisite funds.
Maj. Upadhyay: They sell AK rifles, but they are mostly jihadis.
Col. Purohit: You will get very expensive AK guns.
Pandey: Arrey, you get many AK guns.
Col. Purohit: The Israelis ask us to give them proof of our
involvement. What more proof do they need? We have completed two
successful operations.
Maj. Upadhyay: The Hyderabad blasts were done by our man. The
colonel can tell you who it was.
Pandey: What if this organisation is banned?

120. Apte: We will give it an international aspect and a covert name. We
have to fight. See, if you aren’t a Hindu, you are my enemy. I will be
unsafe if you are alive.
This conversation makes one thing clear; some people were so
dissatisfied with the RSS that they were planning to form a new outfit. If
these transcripts were genuine, then the conspiracy against Mohan
Bhagwat and Indresh Kumar is also substantiated. Bhaiyyaji Joshi had
alleged in his letter to the PM that some forces were working to engineer a
divide in Sangh Parivar and Col. Purohit was merely a pawn in this grand
strategy. In fact, Col. Purohit was planted within the Sangh circles
precisely for consolidating dissidents. The letter had repeatedly pleaded an
independent investigation. PM Manmohan Singh needed to come clean on
several allegations against his own party.
The Sangh leaders, on the other hand, were clueless about what was
going on around them. The possibility of a ban on the organisation was
occupying their minds. Many Congress leaders were indeed working
towards that end, bringing Sangh Parivar nearer to extremist organisations
like SIMI and the Indian Mujahedeen.
All the suspects of Hindu terrorism shared the vision of a militant
Hindutva. Most of them were already part of one rightist organisation or
another and were committed to the concept of ‘Hindu Rashtra’.
The meeting with the erstwhile king of Nepal is also mentioned in the
transcripts. In another astonishing claim, one of the suspects is heard
talking about help from Israelites. Col. Purohit seemed their ringleader in
terms of arranging for meetings and procuring weapons. The theory of
saffron terror falls flat on its face, if Col. Purohit’s assertion, that he was
working to gather intelligence for the army and kept his seniors in the
loop, is proved correct.
The NIA, as well as MI, have washed their hands off Col. Purohit.
According to them, Purohit was drawn towards militant Hindutva while
performing his duty. He misused his privileges as an Intelligence Officer
to procure weapons. Purohit is also alleged to have done this for money.

121. What motivated Purohit is a subject of investigation, but nobody can
contest that his role was dubious.

122. O
14
Piling up Dubious Evidence
n 22 January 2011, Tehelka magazine published a news story under
the headline, ‘Not just a confession. The Forensic evidence piles up
against Hindutva terror’. The report cited dozens of audio-visual clips
recovered during investigation as ‘crucial evidence’. Ashish Khetan, who
consistently reported against RSS and other right-wing organisations for a
long while, and later joined Aam Aadmi Party, filed the story. This so-
called crucial evidence was never officially released. Nevertheless,
Tehelka leaked some of the transcripts of the alleged conversations
between the accused. These were just a small portion of the clippings, yet
crucial ones. A glance at these transcripts is enough to reveal that they
were meant to implicate BJP and RSS.
There was no dearth of such reports at the peak of this controversy.
Yet, enough facts have emerged to conclude that the accused were
themselves not happy with the Sangh Parivar. In fact, they were alienated
to the extent of conspiring to murder RSS leaders like Mohan Bhagwat and
Indresh Kumar.
The question arises, where did these clips come from? Who was
recording them during the alleged meetings called to plan the attacks? Was
somebody deliberately snooping on these proceedings to gather proof? Did
someone among the conspirators want to pass the information to
somebody else?

123. According to Khetan’s report, ‘One of the accused Dayanand Pandey’s
laptop had led to the recovery of evidence in the shape of 37 audio and
three video clips.’ Tehelka claimed to be in possession of all the clippings.
The audio recordings purportedly contained damning details of the entire
plot. Pandey and Col. Purohit were reportedly present during all these
conversations. It was allegedly Pandey, who had recorded all these
proceedings of meetings in his laptop with the help of a webcam.
The recordings were presented as clinching evidence to prove RSS
involvement. It was repeatedly stated that there was credible proof that
RSS pracharak Swami Aseemanand was embroiled precisely because he
was in direct contact with RSS leaders. The investigative agencies
reportedly questioned the accused about these tapes, and this led them to
Sadhvi Pragya, who in turn, gave details about the involvement of Sunil
Joshi, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange.
The report further claimed that the Rajasthan ATS was searching for
five suspicious cell phones thought to be used in the blasts. ‘In July 2009,
the Rajasthan ATS detected that four of the five cell phones they had been
looking for were being used by a group of RSS workers in two villages—
Chapri and Khardaun Kala—of Kalapipal Tehsil in Shajapur district, MP.
The ATS discovered these phones with the help of their IMEI numbers,’ it
stated.
The report appeared to be part of a smear campaign against the RSS.
The way Tehelka was given access to the crucial evidence also suggested
that the investigation agencies wanted to augment their case against RSS
leaders and activists. The RSS workers under question were
Chandrashekhar Leve, Vishnu Patidar, Ravindra Patidar and Santosh
Patidar.
Leve was alleged to be a close friend of Sandeep Dange. He was RSS
zila sampark pramukh of Shajapur district between 2000 and 2005. Dange
worked as zila pracharak in the same district during this period. The
Tehelka report claimed over half a dozen RSS workers who were
interrogated by the Rajasthan ATS had admitted that Dange had handed
over all the four phones to Leve before going underground. Leve had

124. disposed of one of the sets as it stopped functioning. But he and his
associates continued to use the other three phones.
Were these alleged conspirators so naïve that they kept the most
straight-forward evidence with themselves? The cell phones were
considered as vital scientific proof against the RSS.
It is worth mentioning that Dileep Patidar, who had gone ‘missing’
from custody, belonged to the same Shajapur district. Many other
members of the youth of the Patidar community were picked up during the
course of the investigation. Dileep’s case is enough to imagine what would
have happened to them.
Only a detailed analysis of various related chargesheets could shed
light on their fate. It was not difficult to access these chargesheets through
the relatives of the accused and their lawyers. The most part of the ATS
chargesheet is filled with the record of call details. It has expounded on
the callers, the duration of calls made and cell phones accessed through
this information. The audio and video clippings were attributed to
Dayanand Pandey. But the ATS has failed to explain who was recording the
phone calls mentioned so extensively, in the chargesheet. If there was no
recording of the telephonic conversation, then did the ATS come to a
conclusion of ‘Hindu terror’ conspiracy merely based on call details?
One might also ask the purpose behind the selective leak of the
information regarding the probe. However, all of this information was
insufficient to prove the involvement of any particular individual or group
beyond doubt. The story was consciously muddled to confuse the public
mind. Such media reports give an impression of some ulterior motive. Far
from being an exposé, such reportage sought to convert a doubt into an
established fact.
Ashish Khetan’s report extensively refers to ATS sources, but nowhere
does it establish a clear link of the purported evidence to the actual terror
incident. It falls short of clarifying any vital fact and vaguely cites
confessional statements.
The report claims Devendra Gupta was nabbed in April 2010 after the
interrogation of Leve and Patidar. Originally from Ajmer, Gupta has

125. worked for RSS in MP and Jharkhand. Gupta had allegedly given detailed
information about Joshi, Kalsangra and Dange. As per this report, Gupta
told investigators that all three of them had visited Jamtada’s RSS office
between 2005 and 2007. He was the RSS zila pracharak of the district at
that time and helped these accused in procuring fake identity documents,
address proofs and SIM cards. All SIM cards were reportedly bought from
the border towns of Chittaranjan and Mhijham. While Chittaranjan falls on
the West Bengal side of the border, Mhijham comes under the Jamtada
district of Jharkhand.
This so-called elaborate information affects the psyche of the common
masses as people forget the real issue and tend to think of the accused as
the criminals. Such reports were clearly aimed at implicating RSS
functionaries.
In fact, this report is just a miniature model of a larger conspiracy. It
further mentions a ‘Hindu radical’ named Bharat Riteshwar. He was a
resident of Valsad in Gujarat and visited the Jamtada office during the
preparatory stages of the blast.
Devendra Gupta’s questioning led the police to Lokesh Sharma,
another RSS activist from Indore. Sharma allegedly confessed that he had
played a key role in the entire terror operation. Although none of this
information was officially released, the access of Tehelka to such sensitive
revelations proves its penetration in the establishment of that time, leading
one to believe that not all of this could be a lie. Even this selective
information focused more on the links of the accused to the RSS instead of
shedding light on their connection to the conspiracy.
Riteshwar found a special mention in Tehelka’s story because he had
named one of the top RSS leaders Indresh Kumar as a ‘mentor and
financier of Sunil Joshi—the man at the core of the conspiracy’. Perhaps,
portraying Indresh Kumar as the kingpin of the entire plot was the chief
purpose of the story. The same magazine had earlier published a story with
another audio transcript, claiming that Kumar’s life was under threat. The
report smacked of a political conspiracy because it sought to throw dirt at
the RSS headquarters at the pretext of statements of the accused. Khetan

126. mentioned at least thrice in this article that Indresh Kumar was funding
terror activities through Sunil Joshi.
It was not the only article published by Tehelka which was used to
malign Indresh Kumar and other senior RSS leaders. If the role of Indresh
Kumar was so obvious, then why was he never arrested? Why was all the
commotion limited only to the media?
On September 2010, the MP Police arrested a man named Shivam
Dhakhad in a murder case. Incidentally, Dhakhad was also accused of
being an RSS activist and a part of Sunil Joshi’s terror network.
The allegation that Sunil Joshi was leading a terror module seems far-
fetched. Sunil Joshi was facing trial for murder and all his accomplices
had a shady past. To ramp up criminal evidence against such people was
not a tough job. Joshi was indeed a Sangh Pracharak, but he was expelled
from the organisation, three years before the blasts.
Sunil Joshi’s close aide and murder accused, Shivam, was repeatedly
mentioned as an RSS activist in the Khetan’s report. It goes on to claim
that he was informed about a meeting in Jaipur’s Gujarati Samaj
Atithigrah in which Indresh Kumar, Sadhvi Pragya, Kalsangra, Dange and
Joshi were present.
ATS believed the testimony of an alleged murderer, and Tehelka had no
qualms in publicising it. Unfortunately, other sections of the media also
lapped up these claims. These unverified assertions soon acquired a
political colour triggering a war of words between political parties.
Curiously, the same report quotes Dhakhad to state that Indresh Kumar
told the participants of the meeting, ‘The RSS does not support your
ideology or actions. So you all can get associated with some other
religious organisation and carry on with your work.’ Now, this appears to
be a clever ploy to link RSS with Abhinav Bharat because there was not a
shred of evidence to directly implicate Sangh in the matter.
The motive of these concoctions becomes even clearer in hindsight.
The investigative agencies were apparently ready to dish out any story as
per the whims of their political masters. Khetan’s report itself makes it
clear that the RSS was not supporting the violence. Who was then behind

127. the alleged perpetrators? The same Tehelka report that claims almost every
accused connected to the RSS also quotes Dhakhad to say that Indresh
Kumar had refused to support them in any manner.
Rajesh Sharma, another crucial link of the ATS story, was picked up on
December 2010. He owned a small factory in Indore’s Pithampura and was
an associate of Joshi. He attracted the attention of investigative agencies
for three reasons—association with the RSS as an activist; being an
acquaintance of Sunil Joshi and, last but not the least, the fact that his
factory manufactured aluminum pipes. According to the ATS, he had
provided the pipes for the explosives. Sharma’s statement claimed
ignorance of the conspiracy. He admittedly never bothered to know where
the pipes would be used. It was only when he watched the news reports of
the failed terror strike at the Bhopal ijtema that he saw that the pipes used
in this incident had been supplied by him. Mishra reportedly confessed to
having given 15 customised pipes to Sunil Joshi. It is difficult to believe
the ATS claim that Mishra identified these pipes from a TV footage and
then called Joshi. Joshi, in turn, assured him not to worry.
It was not easy to prove the ATS theory in the court. Normally,
investigative agencies collect evidence, but they can also manufacture it at
times. The ATS was trying to connect the dots based on statements and the
links of the accused to one another. Tehelka magazine was reporting the
same.
The insinuations in the media were important to convince the public
mind how Hindu right-wing activists could manufacture bombs like other
terrorists. There is little doubt that most of the people targeted by ATS had
a dubious background. It was not difficult to prove their complicity in
other crimes. However, the trickier part was to prove their links to the so-
called big fish. A large number of people attend RSS shakhas in either MP
or Madhya Pradesh. All of them are broadly called RSS activists.
The Tehelka report tried to establish that the Hindu extremists had used
iron pipes in the blasts. To seize people of criminal background or the ones
with the know-how of making bombs or even to identify such black sheep
among RSS organisations was relatively easier; the real task was to

128. establish their ties to the top RSS leadership. The ATS needed such
scapegoats and Sunil Joshi seemed to fit the bill. He had been an active
Sangh member and shared some ties with prominent RSS leaders. But he
was expelled from the organisation for his illegal activities.
On 19 November 2010, a major breakthrough was claimed by the ATS
with the arrest of Swami Aseemanand. He was arrested from his ‘hideout
in Haridwar’ if the Tehelka report is to be believed. But this place was
frequently visited by Aseemanand. The magazine portrayed Aseemanand
like a hardened criminal. Barely a month after the arrest, Aseemanand’s
confession became public, at the behest of none other than Tehelka
magazine.

129. O
15
In the Words of a Zealot…
n 15 January 2011, Aseemanand’s statement was published by Tehelka
under the title ‘In the words of a zealot...’. As already discussed, it was in
clear contravention of Supreme Court orders. The article was yet another
proof of a nexus between the government, CBI and some media houses.
Like all other supposed exposés, this news item was also an attempt to
drag RSS leaders into the theory of Hindu terrorism.
The NIA chargesheet documents how Aseemanand had scoffed at Joshi
after the Samjhauta blasts stating Pakistani terrorists had once again
succeeded in their operation while he could do nothing. According to the
chargesheet, Joshi had responded by trying to persuade Aseemanand that
the Samjhauta blasts were the handiwork of their own men. This clearly
indicates the NIA knew Aseemanand had no idea about the conspiracy. He
simply believed what Joshi told him.
Besides, Swami Aseemanand has repeatedly alleged torture in custody.
Hunger and incessant beatings had pushed him to the verge of
derangement. This didn’t prevent police from taking him outside the state
for recording his confession. Aseemanand was brought before Delhi’s
Metropolitan Magistrate for confession. Ashish Khetan was the only
journalist to have accessed a copy of this statement. There were only two
of them, one with the court and another in possession of the CBI. All

130. probability indicated the ‘caged parrot’ was speaking for its master. The
CBI chose only a few media houses to shower its benediction.
A flurry of information was leaked, immorally, if not illegally as well.
The motive behind these selective leaks was indeed political.
Nevertheless, they proved helpful in understanding the deeper political
conspiracy involved.
With a byline accompanied by Ashish Khetan’s photograph, the report
at its outset self-proclaimed to be ‘the first legal evidence of RSS
pracharaks’ involvement in the Samjhauta Express and 2006 Malegaon
blasts.’
Khetan’s magazine boasted it had accessed the confessional statement
in a day. It was a 42-page document containing Aseemanand’s admission
of guilt. The alleged confession embroiled some significant leaders of
RSS.
The report noted that the statement was recorded two days after
Aseemanand requested the magistrate to record it. It highlighted the fact
that Aseemanand was speaking without any ‘fear, force, coercion or
inducement’. According to the report, Aseemanand was spent two days in
judicial custody—away from any police interference or influence—to
reflect on his decision.
The opening of Ashish Khetan’s story addressed an already contested
question over the treatment given to this 59-year-old man in custody. But
nowhere did it answer why only Delhi’s Magistrate Court was chosen for
recording the statement. If it was for secrecy, then how was it that the
statement itself was making headlines a day after it was recorded?
The Magistrate had asked everybody except his stenographer to leave
his chamber before letting Aseemanand speak. This means only three
people were privy to the confession; the Magistrate, stenographer, and of
course, Aseemanand himself.
‘I know I can be sentenced to the death penalty but I still want to make
the confession,’ the report quoted Aseemanand as saying in the beginning
of his statement. For the next five hours, Aseemanand spoke words, which

131. were to intrigue Indian politics for long. The statement was made a basis
for a tirade to enforce a ban on RSS.
Aseemanand’s confession can be termed as the connecting thread
between all the tenets of Hindutva terror theory. It had only managed to
encircle small fries of RSS before this explosive admission of guilt.
Aseemanand was indeed a big catch for investigative agencies, a link that
could enable take them to more names that are prominent. And his
deposition was a big shot in the arm for them. The statement was recorded
in Magistrate’s presence under section-164 of CrPC, implying it was
legally admissible as evidence. The investigative agencies believed it was
the clinching evidence they were looking for.
Tehelka, along with a coterie of intellectuals, have been at the forefront
of the criticism that mostly Muslims boys are rounded up after every blast.
The magazine argued that Aseemanand’s statement, as well as the arrest of
alleged Hindu terrorists, have proved this perception as misplaced.
‘The arrest of Sadhvi Pragya and Lt Col. Purohit dented this perception
slightly, but they were mostly written off as a small and lunatic fringe.
Now, Aseemanand’s confession tears much deeper through this prejudice,’
the news report read.
This part of Ashish Khetan’s story smacks of appeasement of Muslims.
The purpose of this leak was clearly not confined to the targeting of RSS
leaders. It also catered to a section of the minority community by
strengthening the impression that Hindus were equally culpable in terrorist
incidents. Digvijay Singh broke all limits of this petty politics by linking
the RSS to 26/11 attack.
According to this alleged confession, RSS pracharaks, not Islamists,
had exploded bombs in Malegaon in 2006 and 2008, on the Samjhauta
Express in 2007, in Ajmer Sharif in 2007 and Mecca Masjid in 2007.
Based on this claim, Tehelka made a sweeping assertion that the Muslim
accused were wrongly picked up in these cases and tortured in jail.
In fact, the reason for Aseemanand’s momentous change of heart
leading to this confession was also related to one such youth. Ashish
Khetan leads us through the lamentations over the plight of these wronged

132. Muslim youths to describe this ‘momentous transformation’ triggered by
Aseemanand’s coming across a jailed Muslim youth.
The same Aseemanand, who was portrayed as the lynchpin of Hindu
terror conspiracy, is quoted as saying, ‘Sir, when I was lodged in
Chanchalguda district jail in Hyderabad, one of my co-inmates was
Kaleem. During my interaction with Kaleem, I learnt that he was
previously arrested in the Mecca Masjid bomb blast case and he had to
spend about one and a half years in prison. During my stay in jail, Kaleem
helped me a lot and used to serve me by bringing water, food, etc for me. I
was very moved by Kaleem’s good conduct, and my conscience asked me
to do prayschit (penance) by making a confessional statement so that real
culprits can be punished and no innocent has to suffer.’
A touching story, if true. However, one needs to look through it. Who
was this Kaleem and why he was lodged in the same jail as Aseemanand?
Some believe he was deliberately planted. Was Kaleem’s courtesy a
conscious ploy to make ground for the confession? It is hard to discern
how a ‘mastermind’ of Hindu terrorism, with supposedly a pathological
hatred for Muslims, could risk walking to the gallows on the inspiration of
a Muslim man jailed on charges of terrorism.
This apparent repentance moved the magistrate to the extent that he
ordered even his stenographer to leave the room so that Aseemanand could
speak without any fear or pressure. The fact is mentioned in Tehelka’s
report without explaining how it came to know about it.
The circumstances at the time of recording this confession were
corroborating advocate JP Sharma’s claims regarding it. Nobody knew
what truly transpired between the magistrate and Aseemanand as it was an
emotionally surcharged atmosphere. Except of course the presence of the
invisible omnipresent Tehelka reporter, Ashish Khetan.
It was difficult to believe the melodramatic saga of Aseemanand’s
penance. It appeared Aseemanand’s confession was a result of an age-old
police gimmick. He was made to believe that all the other accused were
speaking against him and he must not remain silent to escape death
punishment. The same tactics were adopted in the case of others.

133. One cannot rule out the possibility of duress, considering several
reports alleging Aseemanand was starved and brutally beaten in custody.
Curiously, the claims of torture levelled by Aseemanand have not found
prominence in Tehelka’s reportage. The NIA has almost repeated the same
story in its chargesheet as narrated by Aseemanand. It was a damning
indictment of Indresh Kumar. He was clearly the next target for the
investigative agencies.

134. T
16
The Calibrated Confession?
ehelka published Aseemanand’s confession claiming it to be a ‘tell-all
evidence’. What the magazine wanted to tell was clear from the portions
of the testimony that it highlighted.
‘Indreshji met me at Shabri Dham (Aseemanand’s ashram in the Dang
district of Gujarat) sometime in 2005. He was accompanied by many top
RSS functionaries. He told me that exploding bombs was not my job and
instead told me to focus on the tribal welfare work assigned to me by the
RSS. He said he had deputed Sunil Joshi for this job (terror attacks) and
that he would extend whatever help was required to Joshi,’ Ashish
Khetan’s so-called exposé quoted Aseemanand as telling the magistrate.
Indresh Kumar had also shared details of the terror conspiracy
beforehand with Aseemanand, if Tehelka is to be believed. Reading
between the lines of Tehelka’s article makes its motive pretty clear in the
reader’s mind. This also puts into doubt the purpose of leaking this
statement.
The magazine claimed to be in possession of this 42-page statement,
originally recorded in Hindi. Aseemanand had allegedly spilt the beans on
his role in the plot. He also detailed how he motivated other RSS
pracharaks for perpetrating the terrorist plans.
In fact, the whole purpose of the testimony seemed to focus upon
linking RSS and its workers to the terrorist conspiracies, especially in

135. cases related to the 2006 Malegaon blasts and Samjhauta Express blasts.
But the ATS had earlier suspected SIMI’s role in Malegaon carnage. Even
the US Treasury Department report, UN report as well as other foreign
intelligence outputs had suggested Lashkar-e-Taiba was behind the
Samjhauta Express blast. All these strong indications were ignored to lend
credibility to the theory of saffron terrorism.
Tehelka’s reportage stressed that the RSS wanted to target Muslim
places of worship. This brand of journalism was opposed at that time as
well. Many people questioned Tehelka’s motive behind its attempts to
malign the RSS by linking to terror-related cases. The magazine was
accused of misguiding the Muslim youth and diverting attention from the
emerging threat of terrorism from radicalised Muslims. Khetan’s story on
confession had underlined Aseemanand’s alleged ties with top leaders like
K.S. Sudarshan, Narendra Modi and Shivraj Singh Chauhan. It was
indicated that the NIA investigation had already reached the doors of one
of the top RSS leaders. The real motive appeared to be banning the
organisation altogether by piecing together a frivolous theory of its
involvement in terrorism.
Khetan’s article mentioned the fact that Aseemanand first met Sunil
Joshi in 2003, but was initiated into the terror plot only in March 2006.
However, neither Khetan nor the NIA clarified how Aseemanand became
the ‘mastermind’ of the conspiracy in just six months from March 2006 to
September 2006. There are several such loopholes in the statement raising
suspicion whether Aseemanand was under some kind of pressure. He,
himself, later claimed torture on the part of the police. Many people
questioned how the statement of merely one of the accused could become
the basis for turning the entire probe towards the RSS.
Tehelka’s report gave a detailed account of Naba Kumar alias Swami
Aseemanand’s biography. It was perhaps necessary to tell the readers that
he had spent his whole life working for the RSS and shared close ties with
many of its top leaders.
Before delving into the contents of his statement, the news report
informed that he was originally from Kamaarpukar village in the Hooghly

136. district of West Bengal – the birthplace of the great saint Ramakrishna
Paramhansa. It was followed by a brief account of his early life, stating
that he became an active RSS member after completing his B.Sc (honours)
from Hooghly and graduated into a full-time worker with the RSS-run
Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram in Purulia and Bankura districts. He formally took
sanyas in 1981. It was his guru Parmanand who gave him ‘diksha’ and
rechristened him as Swami Aseemanand. He was a dedicated Pracharak
and served with the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram in Andaman & Nicobar
Islands in the period from 1988–1993.
After spending the next four years in touring across India, Aseemanand
settled down in the Dang district of Gujarat. In 1997, he started his own
tribal welfare organisation called Shabri Dham.
Who wouldn’t be impressed by this record of selfless service and
loyalty to the Sangh? However, Tehelka’s report ended its description with
insinuations.
‘Aseemanand was known in the area for his rabid anti-minority
speeches and his relentless campaign against Christian missionaries,’ it
claimed. But the report falls short of giving any detail of these purported
hate campaigns.
Then came the most explosive part of Tehelka’s revelations. Claiming
that Aseemanand was close to the RSS leadership, Khetan reported that
Narendra Modi (then the CM of Gujarat), Shivraj Singh Chauhan, former
RSS Chief KS Sudarshan and the current chief Mohan Bhagwat had
attended religious functions organised by him at Shabri Dham.
This appeared like an attempt to bolster the NIA’s efforts in
implicating some big fish in this imbroglio. Aseemanand’s arrest on the
pretext of his ties with Sunil Joshi was the first step in this direction.
Targeting Indresh Kumar was the next intended action.
But why would a saint adopt the path of violence? The question was
answered in this so-called confession itself.
‘The Muslim terrorists started attacking Hindu temples in 2002,’
Aseemanand said. ‘This caused great concern and anger in me. I used to

137. share my concerns about the growing menace of Islamic terrorism with
Bharat Riteshwar of Valsad,’ he added.
The report then extensively quotes Aseemanand giving details of the
alleged conspiracy.
‘In March 2006, Pragya Thakur, Sunil Joshi, Bharat Riteshwar and I
decided to give a befitting reply to the Sankatmochan blasts. I gave ₹
25,000 to Joshi to arrange for the necessary logistics for the blasts. I also
sent Joshi and Riteshwar to Gorakhpur to seek assistance from firebrand
BJP MP Yogi Adityanath. In April 2006, Joshi apparently held a hush-hush
meeting with the Adityanath, but Joshi came back and told me that
Adityanath was not of much help.
‘In June 2006, we, i.e., me, Riteshwar, Sadhvi Pragya and Joshi, again
met at Riteshwar’s house in Valsad. Joshi, for the first time, brought four
associates with him—Dange, Kalsangra, Lokesh Sharma and Ashok alias
Amit.
‘I told everyone we should answer bombs with bombs. At that meeting,
I realised Joshi and his group were already doing something on the
subject.
‘After the combined meeting, Joshi, Pragya, Riteshwar and I huddled
together for a separate meeting. I suggested that 80 percent of the people
of Malegaon were Muslims and we should explode the first bomb in
Malegaon itself. I also said that during the Partition, the Nizam of
Hyderabad had wanted to go with Pakistan so Hyderabad was also a fair
target.
‘Then I said that since Hindus also throng the Ajmer Sharif Dargah in
large numbers we should also explode a bomb in Ajmer which would deter
the Hindus from going there. I also suggested the Aligarh Muslim
University as a terror target. Everybody agreed to target these places.
‘In the meeting, Joshi suggested that it was basically Pakistanis who
travel on the Samjhauta Express train that runs between India and Pakistan
and therefore we should attack the train as well. Joshi took the
responsibility of targeting Samjhauta himself and said that the chemicals
required for the blasts would be arranged by Dange.

138. ‘Joshi said three teams would be constituted to execute the blasts. One
team would arrange for the finance and logistics. The second team would
arrange for the explosives. And, the third team would plant the bombs. He
also said that the members of one team should not know members from
the other two teams. So even if one gets arrested the others would remain
safe.
‘Joshi came to see me at Shabri Dham on Diwali in 2006. The
Malegaon blasts had already happened. Sunil told me our men carried out
the blasts. I said the newspaper reports had mentioned that Muslims were
behind the blasts and a few Muslims had been arrested. Sunil assured me
the blasts were carried out by him but he refused to reveal the identity of
our men who had executed the blasts,’ Aseemanand told the magistrate.
This so-called exposé on the part of Aseemanand reeks of political
conspiracy. The NIA founded its theory on the testimony of an accused
who was himself apprehensive whether Hindu fanatics had really carried
out the blasts. Aseemanand admitted he was informed about the same by
Sunil Joshi, and, at that too, Aseemanand had his doubts. Not only that,
Sunil Joshi refused to divulge the identity of his men who had conducted
the operation. This means Aseemanand had no link to the perpetrators of
the crime.
The confession lacked legal credibility but it was politically explosive
nonetheless. The vested political interests were the only motive behind
leaking this statement. It seemed as if NIA was too keen to lend credence
to its conjectures by putting words into the mouth of this hapless old man.
Incorporating the Samjhuata Blast conspiracy into the confession proved
to be its biggest loophole.
On 18 February 2007, just a day before the then Pakistan foreign
minister Khurshid Kasuri’s visit to India for peace talks, two powerful
bombs went off around midnight in two coaches of the cross-border
Samjhauta Express. The ghastly attack took 68 lives and injured hundreds
of people. The attack appeared in confirmation to the pattern in the recent
history of sabotage of every peace effort between two countries by
Pakistan-based radical groups. There are three power centres in Pakistan;

139. the outer mask remains the government of the day but the real authority is
vested in the army and the Jihadi groups reared by it.
Consolidating a democratically elected government is inimical to the
existence of the Jihadis as well as to the supremacy of army in the public
imagination. This is the reason why every attempt of the democratic
establishment of that country aimed at strengthening ties with India is
scuttled. This has been the trend from Vajpayee’s Lahore bus journey to
PM Modi’s impromptu visit to Lahore.
Kasuri’s visit was also hyped as an icebreaker and thus the blasts at
once raised suspicion on Pakistan-based terrorist groups. The preliminary
investigation, eyewitness accounts and sketches of the suspects based on
these clues pointed in the same direction. Even the US State Department
called the terror attack a joint operation of the LeT and HuJI. The US
intelligence agencies gave details of the funding of this operation.
Surprisingly, the same government whose ministers were tom-
tomming the saffron terror theory, held Pakistani-based groups as
responsible for the Samjhauta Express blasts in the 2000-page dossier
handed over to the Pakistani government. This illustrates that the official
stand of the government regarding the blasts has not changed.
It was easier to paint the Samjhauta Express blasts in ‘saffron’ as most
of the dead people were Pakistani citizens. However, the argument that
Islamic radicals would desist from killing their fellow Muslims is a self-
defeating one. The Muslims would not have been the biggest victims of
the menace of terrorism had it been the case. This logic can’t explain the
killings of school children in Pakistan by terrorists either.
Now, just look at the following part of Aseemanand’s confession:
‘Riteshwar and Joshi came on a motorbike to a Lord Shiva temple in a
place called Balpur. As we had fixed this place for our meeting, I was
already there, waiting for the two. Joshi told me in the next two days there
would be a piece of good news and I should keep a tab on the newspapers.
After the meeting, I came back to Shabri Dham and Joshi and Riteshwar
went their way. After a couple of days, I went to meet Riteshwar at his
Valsad residence. Joshi and Pragya were already present there. The

140. Samjhauta Express blasts had happened. I asked Joshi how he was present
there while Samjhauta had already happened in Haryana. Joshi replied that
the blasts were done by his men.’
‘In the same meeting,’ Aseemanand continues, ‘Joshi took ₹ 40,000
from me to carry out the blasts in Hyderabad. A few months later, Joshi
telephoned me and told me to keep a tab on the newspapers as some more
favourable news was in the offing. In a few days, the news of the Mecca
Masjid blast appeared in the papers. After seven to eight days, Joshi came
to Shabri Dham and brought a Telegu newspaper with him. It had a picture
of the blast. I told Joshi that in the papers it had appeared that some
Muslim boys had been rounded up for the blast. But Joshi replied it was
done by our people.’
It is clear that it was Joshi who had informed Aseemanand of the
Samjhauta Express blasts. The extent to which Joshi’s purported claim can
be trusted was a matter of discretion for the investigative agencies.
On 17 May 2007, about 4,000 Muslims had gathered at Hyderabad’s
Mecca Mosque to offer their prayers on Friday afternoon. A blast rattled
the Masjid complex at around 1.30 pm. The activists of an organisation
called ‘Ahle Hadees’ were taken into custody on grounds of suspicion.
Among the arrested men was Shahid Bilal, an alleged terrorist who had
even crossed the border. The police rounded up more than three dozen
Muslim youths during the initial stages of the investigation. The probe
later took a different turn after the CBI took over the investigation on 9
June 2007.
The Ajmer Sharif shrine became a target for the terrorists barely five
months after the Mecca Masjid blasts. On 11 October 2007, a bomb went
off at a time when devotees had gathered for Iftaar, claiming three lives.
The casualties could have been much higher, had another IED which has
been planted on the site gone off too. Luckily, it was recovered after the
blast. According to Aseemanand’s testimony, this blast had been executed
by Muslim boys provided by Indresh Kumar.
This is what Aseemanand had to say about Ajmer Sharif blast
conspiracy.

141. ‘A couple of days after the Ajmer blast, Joshi came to see me. Two
men named Raj and Mehul, who had also visited Shabri Dham on previous
occasions, accompanied him. Joshi claimed his men had perpetrated the
blast and he was present at Ajmer Dargah at the time of the blast. He said
that Indresh had provided him two Muslim boys to plant the bomb. I told
Joshi that if the Muslim boys get caught, Indresh would get exposed. I also
told Joshi that Indresh might get him killed and told him to stay at Shabri
Dham. Joshi then told me that Raj and Mehul were wanted in the Baroda
Best Bakery case. I told Joshi not to keep Raj and Mehul at the ashram as
it would not be safe for them to stay in Gujarat. Joshi, along with the two
men, left for Dewas the next day.’
There seems to be an attempt to cover every aspect of the story in this
statement. It looks pre-meditated right from the outset. Indresh Kumar is
repeatedly mentioned by Aseemanand, implying who the real target of this
whole exercise was. But if Aseemanand was so complicit in the
conspiracy, why could the investigative agencies not find a shred of
evidence against him? The entire deposition revolves around Joshi, a man
who was already dead.
Aseemanand appears to be indicating Indresh Kumar’s hand in Joshi’s
killing in the statement. Although, first Dewas police and then the CBI had
already cracked this mystery.
Joshi is seen doing most of the talking in Aseemanand’s narrative
while he is only a listener on most occasions. A close study of the
confession reveals that Aseemanand knew little about the purported terror
activities and simply believed what Joshi told him. In fact, the latter is at
pains to convince Aseemanand that his men had carried out the blasts.
Joshi even shows a newspaper clipping to Aseemanand in one instance. All
the characters who came to see Aseemanand in Shabri Dham are crucial
because they were important witnesses in establishing that the accused had
met there. Especially, the accused of the Baroda Best Bakery case as they
were present during the last meeting between Joshi and Aseemanand.
When politics over saffron terror was rife, the Tehelka reporter, Ashish
Khetan, had already made a name for himself through his coverage of

142. 2002 Gujarat riots. The then state CM Narendra Modi was especially his
target. The controversy surrounding the Ishrat Jahan encounter was yet
another effort in the same direction.
The confessional statement, as reported by Tehelka, raised more
questions than it answered, and the magazine sought to influence the
public mind by presenting it in a manner that vilified the RSS. This was
the reason the confessional statement was laced with comments and
subjective analysis. It sought to preemptively answer the questions
arousing in reader’s mind. For example, the question of the Muslim-
dominated areas being the prime target and tendency to inflict maximum
damage. It claimed that Indresh Kumar was the mastermind of an attack,
which was carried out, admittedly, by Muslim youths. It linked the Gujarat
riot accused to the blasts while doubting Kumar’s role in the Sunil Joshi
murder case. But the magazine has failed to convince why no proof was
ever found against the RSS leader.
It is because the probe agencies knew the case can’t rest merely on a
confessional statement. On the contrary, all proofs on ground pointed
fingers towards Islamic extremists. Lack of proof against Indresh Kumar
is an evidence of the political conspiracy behind these accusations. This
much can be said, at least about Swami Aseemanand’s statement.
The ‘twist’ in Tehelka’s story came on 29 December 2007. It was the
last day in Sunil Joshi’s life. The news report links pointed fingers at
Indresh Kumar on the ground that the slain man was Kumar’s ‘protégé’.
The magazine had sided on the wrong side of the law by leaking the
statement and slandering a fellow citizen. The MP police finally
concluded that Joshi’s own friends had committed the crime. Its admission
before the court came after three years’ of the investigation.
Joshi was no saint. He was accused of the murder of a local Congress
leader whose associates were not baying for Joshi’s blood. However, the
police has rejected this angle of murder.
Unfortunately, Joshi is the central character of this entire terror theory.
His mysterious murder has considerably weakened the story. Joshi’s end of

143. life made things convenient for NIA sleuths. Instead of searching for more
evidence, they connected every unsolved question to Joshi.
Joshi was alleged to be the ‘executioner’ of the conspiracy and
conjectures were built around his purported ‘handlers’. Aseemanand’s
testimony, as published by Tehelka, seems like a rehearsed performance.
One wonders if it at all belonged to Aseemanand. Every story told through
the seer builds with the motive to bolster the NIA’s chargesheet and ends
without climax at Sunil Joshi.
Where is the proof that Indresh Kumar was Joshi’s mentor, as Tehelka
calls him? Why couldn’t the story ever move beyond Aseemanand’s
confession? These questions may never be answered because the
confession was politically motivated.
Realising the statement ran thin on certain grounds, the report raised
some questions. ‘If he (Sunil Joshi) was one of the key figures in the terror
conspiracy, as many of those arrested testify that he was, why would his
comrades want to bump him off? If he was a protégé of Indresh Kumar,
acting on his orders and with his sanction, why would his mentor want him
dead? What could have created a rift or fallout between all of them?’ The
attack on Kumar came veiled in questions.
These questions leave scope for the possibility that the statement was
orchestrated for vested political interests. The motive could have been
two-pronged—to move a step further towards the ban on the RSS and
claim it to be in the league of Islamic terrorists.
The secrecy observed in such a sensitive document augments this
doubt. The crux of allegations comes out in the form of the dialogue
between Sunil Joshi and Aseemanand in the statement. But it fails to
account for the 2008 Malegaon blasts, one year after Joshi’s killing. The
flimsy claims made by the investigation agencies are enough to point
towards a conspiracy.
The portion of the statement that links Aseemanand to 2008 blasts is
given below. Bear in mind that Sunil Joshi, the man who was murdered by
his own friends, is the mastermind in the NIA’s eyes.

144. ‘I came into contact with the shadowy saffron terror outfit Abhinav
Bharat in January 2007. Col. Purohit was one of the founder members of
the outfit. I proposed more terror strikes in a meeting of Abhinav Bharat
held at Bhopal in April 2008. Sadhvi Pragya, Bharat Riteshwar, Col.
Purohit and Dayanand Pandey were also present in the meeting. I
participated in many Abhinav Bharat meetings and proposed to carry out
more terror strikes.
‘Sometime in October 2008, Dange phoned me and said he wanted to
come to Shabri Dham and stay there for a few days. I told him that since I
was setting out for Nadiad (Gujarat), it would not be a good idea for him
to stay there in my absence. Then Dange requested me to pick him up from
a place called Vyara and drop him to Baroda which was on the way to
Nadiad. I picked up Dange from Vyara bus stop in my Santro car. He was
accompanied by Ramji Kalsangra. Both were carrying two or three bags
stuffed with some heavy objects. They told me they were coming from
Maharashtra. I dropped them at Rajpipla junction at Baroda. I later
realised that it was just a day after the Malegaon blast.’
The statement jumps from one conclusion to other but without any
coherence. Joshi was dead, and two other crucial links, Sandeep Dange and
Ramchandra Kalsangra, were always dodging the long arms of the law.
This left Aseemanand as the only scapegoat. My NIA agent had told me
how Dange was missed by a whisker as a senior officer did not give arrest
orders on time. Does this not hint that the investigation was held under
pre-conceived notions?
The investigative agencies needed to present a coherent narrative with
a detailed account of the modus operandi. But none of the three principal
co-accused is around to tell the truth. The arrested Hindu accused have
only revealed hearsay so far. Even these disputed confessions proved that
Aseemanand knew about the blasts only through Joshi.
Aseemanand’s testimony could have been an attempt towards
implicating top RSS leadership in a terrorism-related case. The veracity of
the statement has not been proven so far and its circumstances are highly
suspicious. What was the secret behind Tehelka’s exclusive access to the

145. sensitive information? What was the motive behind leaking information in
media?

146. T
17
How the NIA Exposed ATS
Maharashtra
he deeper I was delving into the mystery of Hindu terrorism; more
startling facts were coming to light. It reeked of a conspiracy, but the
picture was not yet clear. Legally, it was a complex case and it was
difficult to form an opinion solely on that basis. One can understand the
politics behind the illegal leaking of Aseemanand’s deposition to Tehelka.
Were other characters of the story used similarly as stooges?
Prior to the NIA’s involvement, an ATS team led by late Hemant
Karkare investigated the case. The NIA inquisition moved on a similar
track. It is difficult to ascertain whether this agency faced political
pressure under the previous regime or if the present government is
currently tampering with its investigation. Nevertheless, it is clear that the
NIA investigators were well aware of the loopholes of the ‘Hindu terror’
theory. It knew these shortcomings would eventually come to the
forefront.
My research revealed several new facts. Meanwhile, an exclusive news
strengthened the doubt of a political plot behind the episode.
This was yet another indication, besides the biased approach of the
Tehelka journalists, that Aseemanand’s statement was made public with a

147. political motive. It also proved how the various agencies were passing the
blame to one another for loopholes in the investigation.
After giving the clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya, the NIA made an
important disclosure regarding another accused, Rakesh Dhawde, in its
internal report. One of my sources within the NIA provided this secret
information. It was different from Tehelka publishing Aseemanand’s
testimony because I was not disclosing a legal document. Breaking news
based on sources is a common practice in journalism. Moreover, unlike
Tehelka, I was not complicit in a political conspiracy. Rather, I was
unearthing the truth of the matter. The NIA’s volte-face has led to the
accusation that it is dancing to the tune of the Modi government. It was in
a precarious situation as it could not have said anything about its own
investigation in the past.
Whatever be the truth, facts were the biggest casualty in the political
tug-of-war in cases related to ‘Hindu terror’. When the NIA sought to
correct its past mistakes in the investigation, it was charged with working
for the political interest of the NDA government. I was continuously
writing on this issue. I published several blogs and presented many
exclusive news related to this matter. I was now in contact with many
important characters of the story. One day, a phone call from one such
person spurred my enthusiasm even more. It was the same NIA operative,
whose valuable help I had enlisted. It was as if providence was helping me
to reach to the bottom of this mystery. I had been toying with the idea of
speaking to him again and here was his number flashing on my cell phone
screen. I answered the phone with great elation. After the exchange of
pleasantries, he came straight to the point, ‘Are you in the office?’
I answered in the affirmative. This man wanted to share details that he
had known firsthand as an undercover agent but had kept to himself. Now,
he was in a position to disclose this information because his agency had
officially changed its stance. This spy was talking to me, not out of any
pressure, but because the pressure had been lifted with the change of the
government. ‘I have some documents that could of your interest. Nobody
knows this information so far. I am going to leave an envelope on the

148. reception desk of your office within next 15 minutes. Please ensure it does
not reach the wrong hands. I will see you later,’ he stated.
‘Let me come to see you yourself, we would be able to meet this way,’
I said, somewhat hesitantly. ‘No, we shall meet later. I will make a call
from the reception and leave as soon as you come to know that the
envelope has been delivered. Please make sure you take possession of the
envelope without delay,’ he requested. The style and manner of this man’s
functioning were thrilling to me. He made me feel as if I am really after a
big discovery. It was indeed the discovery of truth. My friend was fully
aware of what I was writing and what I wanted to know. I was convinced
that the information hidden inside the envelope would shed new light on
the shortcomings of the investigation. I assured him in brief words and
started waiting eagerly for the call from the reception desk.
The phone rang in 15 minutes. The sealed envelope had been delivered.
It contained an internal report of the NIA that mentioned some portions of
the supplementary chargesheet filed by the agency. Some of the points of
the chargesheet were marked, signalling that I should focus on them. I
clicked photographs of these documents and came out with an exclusive
news based on the content. The documents were related to Rakesh
Dhawde’s case. It was for the first time that the NIA has questioned the
probe conducted by the Maharashtra ATS. The opposition parties were
bound to cry foul over the change in the NIA’s theory. However, this
change was backed by solid facts mentioned in this internal report.
Was the NIA under pressure now or was it only whilst under the
previous government? This was an obvious question to ask. The NIA had
been pursuing a different course of investigation for the past eight years.
The case was handed over to the agency for a good reason. The
Maharashtra ATS had put the blame of the 2006 Malegaon blasts on
Islamic terrorists but its narrative changed after the 2008 Malegaon
bombings. Exclusive documents accessed from the NIA sources revealed
that the ATS had deliberately changed its theory. The NIA’s supplementary
chargesheet has exposed how the ATS tortured witnesses, slapped stringent
provisions of the MCOCA act against the accused on frivolous grounds

149. and forced them to comply with their whims. Given below is the
translation of the news item published on 26 June 2016, in
www.ibnkhabar.com on the basis of the contents of the supplementary
chargesheet.
‘The NIA has questioned the ATS probe in the case of the Malegaon
blasts. Some exclusive documents accessed from reliable NIA sources
expose differences between the two agencies over the matter. The
documents, comprising an internal NIA report with excerpts of its
supplementary chargesheet, points towards the manner in which the
Malegaon blast accused Rakesh Dhawade was arrested by the ATS. The
report questions the haste in filing chargesheet against Dhawade.
‘Similarly, another accused Sudhakar Dwivedi had refused to
corroborate his confessional statement before the magistrate. The Mumbai
DCP recorded the statement. Dwivedi unequivocally stated that the
statement was forcibly extracted out of him by the ATS. Several other
accused have retracted from their confessions alleging torture. However,
the NIA has raised this point for the first time in its chargesheet. There is
bound to be politics over the issue. Nevertheless, there are clear
indications that the probe was tampered, both by the Maharashtra ATS and
by the NIA. The way the NIA has exposed the ATS speaks volumes about
the style of functioning of the ATS and its officers in this case.
‘The NIA’s supplementary chargesheet also mentions the
disappearance of Indore’s Dileep Patidar. The ATS cops picked him up
about eight years ago. Not even CBI could trace him. It said in its closure
report that it was not possible to find Patidar. Indore’s special CBI court
ordered registration of criminal cases against ATS officers Hanumant Rao
and Rajendra Dhule. Dileep’s family suspects he had died from torture
inflicted on him during the ATS detention.
‘The NIA further indicts the ATS in the case of Rakesh Dhawade. He
was arrested on 11 November 2008, for his alleged involvement in the
Parbhani blast case. It took only two days for the ATS to file a chargesheet
against him. On 15 November 2008, Dhawade’s arrest was shown for the
Jalna mosque blast case, and chargesheet was filed on the same day!

150. ‘The NIA documents maintain that the ATS was in a hurry to book
Dhawade under the provisions of MCOCA. The urgency exhibited by the
ATS in filing chargesheets against Dhawade shows that the ATS
investigators were uninterested in conducting the probe in a logical
manner.
‘The documents point out there is no proof that any of the Malegaon
blasts accused knew Dhawade. It is also an established the fact that
Dhawade had not participated in any meeting of Abhinav Bharat. There is
no evidence of collusion between the Abhinav Bharat activists and
Dhawade in the Parbhani and Jalna terror incidents.
‘The NIA has noted that the court had acquitted Dhawade in the Jalna
blast case. However, the ATS persisted with its allegations and re-
interrogated all the witnesses to indict Dhawade.
‘Such bungling is not restricted to a few accused like Patidar and
Dhawade. This was not the first time the ATS was accused of custodial
torture. However, the NIA’s formal acknowledgement of these allegations
in its chargesheet was unprecedented. All the loopholes underlined by the
NIA’s supplementary chargesheet strengthen the doubt whether the bogey
of Hindu terrorism was raised solely to score political points. The guilty
must be held accountable in other cases of torture as well if there is any
grain of truth in the NIA’s chargesheet. Even if they are high-ranking
officials or senior politicians.’
This report raised many eyebrows. Some sections of the media
speculated that the present government influenced the NIA. But rumours
can never replace truth. The fact is Dhawade was not the only one to be
framed, Aseemanand being another. An unexplained hurry and a deliberate
design were evident in both the cases. My doubt was strengthened that
Aseemanand’s confession was taken coercively, and it was not hard to
ascertain the motive.
The ATS slapped MCOCA against Rakesh Dhawade in the Parbhani
and Jalna blast cases. The relevant court took cognizance of the dubious
circumstances under which this stringent law was invoked against
Dhawade. The Parbhani blast case was registered in 2003. The initial

151. chargesheet was filed against two accused, Sanjay Chaudhary and
Himanshu Panse. In 2006, Maroti Keshav Wagh and Yogesh Deshpande
were also named as accused in the supplementary chargesheet. It took the
ATS only two days to investigate charges warranting a law as serious as
MCOCA. This throws a serious doubt on the credibility of the case.
MCOCA has always been a controversial law. It has no provision for
bail in the first six months. Unlike other laws, a statement taken under the
supervision of senior police officers is admissible as evidence in MCOCA.
Ironically, Tehelka was publishing a series under the name ‘MCOCA
Madness’. Not even a single reference about the plight of the Malegaon
accused was found in it. The magazine was busy convincing the world that
Hindu terrorists were an equal reality. Dhawade, Patidar, Aseemanand
were pronounced guilty before the judgement. They were incarcerated for
years and statements were taken under duress.
Rakesh Dhawade’s case proved that the ATS was using MCOCA as a
tool to frame people. This would have been nothing more than a political
allegation, but for NIA’s revelation.
Tehelka had interviewed the then Maharashtra Deputy CM, Chagan
Bhujbal, as part of its anti-MCOCA campaign. Some of the excerpts are
worth mentioning in this context:
(Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 5, Dated 6 February 2010)
‘What amendments are you talking about in the law? Shouldn’t basic
investigation be made mandatory?
‘Not only investigations, there are many other things about MCOCA.
For instance, once MCOCA is used against a person, he is behind bars for
a year. He does not get bail; there is no provision for it. And after that, if
the court decides there is no case against the person and discharges him,
still a year is gone. His family life is totally ruined. What I feel is that
MCOCA is needed, but with a few changes, so that innocent people are not
implicated.
‘MCOCA is as draconian as POTA (2002) and TADA (1987) because
confessions to the police are accepted as evidence. As the TEHELKA
investigation exposed, most confessions are eventually retracted. The

152. innocent are harassed. Criminals escape prosecution. No proper
investigation is carried out. Instead, the whole case is based on forced
confessions.
‘The evidence is necessary, I do agree, but there are times the forced
confessions are the only weapon against a powerful member of the mafia
who has his tracks well covered. Today everybody rails against the
MCOCA, but if you go back to 1999, it was the government and the cops
that the people were cursing for being ineffective. Tell me, what do you do
then? Even now, is there any person who would dare to stand as a witness
against these goons, especially the feared underworld dons and their
henchmen? Even though they may have actually witnessed a criminal act,
they would not dare to give evidence.
‘But has the law really curbed the underworld? The police arrested
Dawood Ibrahim’s brother, but he was acquitted. If MCOCA is potent, why
do these people go scot-free?
‘I believe that in only a small percentage of cases the criminals
managed to go scot-free due to a lack of evidence. But as many would
know today, it’s because of MCOCA and the stern action that was taken by
the police officers that Mumbai, or rather Maharashtra, is a safer place.
When I was the Home Minister in 1999, many in Bollywood expressed
their desire to shift to Hyderabad, as they did not feel secure from the
underworld here. We asked for some time from the [film] industry and
brought the situation under control using the same MCOCA that you are
now criticising. Yes, some modification, I reiterate, is necessary to ensure
that it is not misused.
‘How would you ensure that MCOCA is not misused?
‘Unfortunately, there have been people who have had to suffer due to
the misuse of the law. I am not an expert on this issue and I may not know
of all the cases, but, yes, certain lacuna is there and some safeguards
should be maintained. Examples of misuse like that in the case of the cops
are before us. We need to learn the lessons, see to it that they are not
repeated and ensure that all precautions are taken while using MCOCA.’

153. This type of reporting was shielding atrocities under the same law in
some cases. It is not about the validity and desirability of MCOCA. It
seemed that Tehelka just didn’t want to see the agony of people like
Dhawade. The NIA’s documents have acknowledged that the ATS scurried
in imposing MCOCA against him.
The first chargesheet was filed in the Jalna blast case in August 2004.
It was against unidentified people. The next chargesheet, indicting Maroti
Keshav, came on 30 September 2006, more than two years later. First, the
supplementary chargesheet added Yogesh Deshpande, Gururaj Jairam,
Rahul Manohar Pandey and Sanjay Chaudhary. It was filed on 7 January
2008. The one against Dhawade was the second supplementary
chargesheet in the case.
MCOCA was later used in several other cases related to Hindu terror.
But Dhawade’s case was most conspicuous for the manner in which the
chargesheet was filed against him. Was the NIA in such a hurry to impose
MCOCA against him so that it could make him fall in line with its version
of the story? One cannot miss the fact that even a statement taken in front
of a police official can be admissible as a proof of guilt in MCOCA cases.
Dhawade was arrested for the Malegaon blast case on 2 November
2008. Four days later, the then ATS ACP, Sukhwinder Singh, wrote to the
Aurangabad ATS Inspector, informing that Dhawade had confessed to
having organised a training camp for the Parbhani blast accused at
Sinhagad near Pune in July–August 2003.
The NIA documents reveal that Mohan Kulkarni, the ATS investigation
officer for the 2008 Malegaon blasts, had also written a letter in this
regard to an inspector of the local crime branch at Jalna. Kulkarni
purportedly stated in the letter that Dhawade had trained eight people in
making explosives and had even conducted some blasts under controlled
conditions as experiments. All these eight people were new recruits if
Kulkarni is to be believed. Dhawade was entrusted with the responsibility
of logistics from receiving them at Pune railway station and
accompanying them to the training camp. It was based on this information
that Kulkarni had asked the Jalna crime branch to arrest Dhawade.

154. The NIA’s supplementary chargesheet mentioned these facts in detail
to highlight the fact that the ATS did not have enough time to gather so
much evidence against the accused. The only motive of the chargesheet
against Dhawade was to frame him.
Furthermore, the NIA pointed out that none of the accused of the 2008
Malegaon blasts knew anything about Dhawade. How could these people
have worked on such a deep controversy if they did not even know each
other? This fact raises suspicion over the claims of alleged links between
the other accused. It appears Dhawade was used to answer vital answers
like where and how the accused were trained and how they managed to
make the bombs.
In 2005, Rakesh Dhawade had met Col. Purohit in Pune. However, it is
a recorded fact that he had not participated in any of the meetings of
Abhinav Bharat held in Faridabad, Bhopal, Jabalpur, Kolkata, or Nasik.
According to the NIA, there is no proof that Dhawade had informed any of
the accused about the alleged training camp at Sinhagad. None of the
accused were found to be cognizant about Dhawade’s alleged past
involvement in terror activities.
Later, Dhawade retracted his confessional statement alleging his
testimony was taken out of context and turned into a confession. He was
finally acquitted in the Jalna blast case. The court had refused to believe
the prosecution witnesses in its judgement. The police theory on the 2008
Malegaon blasts rests on these same witnesses.
The NIA notes that the entire ATS probe is based on confessions. Of
the accused booked under MCOCA, had made these alleged confessions in
front of senior police officials while another 13 recorded statements
before Magistrates or junior police officers. Agency spoke plainly that
these confessions were extracted through coercion. It mentioned that one
of the witnesses had preposterously claimed to snoop on the secret
conversations among the accused. This witness was apparently serving tea
and snacks to the conspirators during their meetings at Bhopal, Faridabad
and Nasik. However, the NIA proved that this person had never been to
Bhopal and was not present in Nasik when the alleged meeting took place.

155. Now, what other evidence do we need for the NIA to suggest that the ATS
premise of Hindu terrorists was based on the flimsy ground?
The NIA’s chargesheet had demonstrated that the invoking of MCOCA
in these cases was uncalled for. No charge will remain against Sadhvi
Pragya if MCOCA is revoked against these accused. In addition, the NIA
had documented some fresh evidence to prove that the ATS had framed
certain people during its investigation. It alleged that the ATS went to the
extent of keeping RDX in order to implicate Sudhakar Chaturvedi and
another accused in the Malegaon blast.
However, the NIA does not emerge clean out of this saga either. After
all, it had also built its case based on the same witnesses and evidence.
Sadhvi Pragya had detailed how the NIA cops had tortured her. The
changed stance on the part of the agency has raised this question of which
way the NIA’s allegiance swung…on the side of the truth or on the whims
of warring political powers. Whatever might be the truth, at least, the NIA
has now exposed how the ATS had conducted its probe. But was the ATS
acting on somebody’s behalf? Why would it want to frame saints like
Sadhvi Pragya and Aseemanand? Was there a larger plot behind framing
senior RSS leader Indresh Kumar? There were indeed signs of a political
conspiracy in this entire matter.

156. P
18
Too Many Agencies Spoil the Case
olitics was at its peak on this issue. Certain political quarters cried foul
over the clean chit given to Sadhvi Pragya. Nobody had questioned the
acquittal of the eight SIMI activists by the NIA court. The learned judge
passed the verdict based on the evidence furnished by the investigation
agencies. The NIA had totally brushed aside the ATS supposition. The then
Union Home Minister, Chidambaram, had announced the decision of not
opposing the bail plea. His government drew a lot of flak for this. It was
seen as a move aimed at appeasing Muslims.
The release of these suspects was a direct consequence of
Aseemanand’s confession. His testimony proved to be the turning point of
this story. The NIA’s criticism of the ATS in Rakesh Dhawade’s case
attracted my attention towards an old news item. Before coming across the
NIA documents I was studying the ramifications of this confession to the
case and the politics involved in it.
Those raising fingers at the NIA’s censure of the ATS could not digest
the Malegaon blast investigation. It was clear they knew nothing and were
nothing more than stooges at the hands of political forces. Many people
viewed the change in the NIA’s theory through glasses which were tinted
with colours of communalism.
Terrorism had no religion but it breeds on the ground that is nurtured
by zealots like Hafiz Saeed. These masters of mayhem have lately tried to

157. sow the same venomous seeds in our land. Groups like IM and SIMI were
fruits of these efforts. All they needed was money, which was flowing
from across the border. This brand of terrorism has stated goals and
ideology, whereas forcing people to make confessions was part of a
political strategy by the government which controlled the ATS.
On 13 January 2011, India Today published a news item titled ‘CBI to
investigate the 2006 Malegaon blast case’. It gave a glimpse of how the
war against terrorism was compromised using Aseemanand as a pawn. The
CBI had filed a petition in Mumbai’s MCOCA court asking for permission
to reinvestigate the Malegaon blast case.
‘The CBI has moved the application before an MCOCA court in
Mumbai after the statement made by Swami Aseemanand under section
164 Criminal Procedure Code was presented before a magistrate in which
he claimed that Hindu groups had carried out the Malegaon blast in 2006
which left 37 people dead and over 100 injured.
Accepting the CBI’s arguments, special MCOCA Judge Yatin D Shinde
granted the agency permission under section 173 (8) of the Criminal
Procedure Code to investigate the case.
‘We need to conduct further investigation into the blast following fresh
disclosures made by one Aseemanand in his confession,’ CBI counsel Ejaz
Khan argued before the court.
It implied that the country’s premier investigative agency doubted the
confession.
It continues, ‘Aseemanand, alias Jiten Chatterjee, had declared in his
statement that his RSS’ murdered worker Sunil Joshi and others were
responsible for the Malegaon 2006 blasts.
‘The Maharashtra ATS, as well as the investigating team of the CBI,
had stayed away from re-investigating the case despite being handed over
the case by the Maharashtra Government on 21 December 2006.
‘Ironically, the ATS had filed a 2,200-page chargesheet in the special
court on 22 December 2006.
‘However, the then Maharashtra Deputy CM, R R Patil, had announced
the transfer of the case to the CBI for a fresh inquiry following pressure

158. from political parties.
The investigation was conducted by Subodh Kumar Jaiswal, the then
Joint Commissioner of ATS. He was later shifted to the Research and
Analysis Wing.’
It was clear that Aseemanand’s statement became the basis of fresh
scrutiny. One cannot miss the fact that the CBI itself wanted to take over
the case. Was the Maharashtra Police dissatisfied with the Maharashtra
ATS inquiry? Why was the government involved with the investigation
anyway? Was it because Malegaon was a Muslim-dominated area? Was
there a difference between the ATS and the government? Who were the
political leaders intervening in the case? Who was seeking to reap political
dividends from the Malegaon terror conspiracy?
The circumstances surrounding Aseemanand’s statement were
suspicious in itself. Changing the guard on the investigation front
deepened the enigma. Curiously, the ATS chargesheet came a day after the
news of the CBI petition was published. Were the ATS investigators afraid
that their findings may never come out? Was the state government under
some kind of pressure from the capital?
On 14 December 2006, PTI reported pandemonium in the Maharashtra
Assembly over this issue. The demand for a CBI probe resonated in the
assembly. Nawab Malik and Bashir Patel, the NCP leaders sitting on
treasury benches, raised the issue. The Congress MLA, Sayyed Ahmed,
entered the well of the house to demand a CBI investigation.
Later, Malik told journalists that the ATS was not the most competent
agency to look into this matter, especially in when it involved a foreign
spy agency. The NCP’s extraordinarily proactive stand on this matter
raised eyebrows. The party chief, Sharad Pawar, was accused of coining
the term ‘Hindu terrorism’, though he denied the charge. Are we to assume
then that the NCP was also preparing the base for this bogey? The real
question was not the competence of the ATS; it was the arrest of the
Muslim youth even though some politicians had already vouched for their
innocence.

159. The politics was keeping the issue alive even when the common person
had moved on. Wasn’t it yet another example of Muslim appeasement? It
is no secret that both the Congress and the NCP were eyeing Muslim votes
especially at a time when the Lok Sabha polls were not far away.
Predictably, the erstwhile government did not lose time in heeding to the
demand to remove the ATS chief from office. The ATS chief was
transferred after the chargesheet was filed, just a day after the CBI
petition. The state government pretended to oppose this so that it could
proclaim this probe as different from the ATS theory. The latter probably
realised that its work would go in vain once CBI took over the charge and
thus summed up its findings in the form of a chargesheet.
The CBI, in its turn, had supported the ATS theory until 2011. It was as
if the agency was waiting for a clinching evidence in the form of
Aseemanand’s statement. Yet, it had nothing else to corroborate the so-
called confession. The statement was reduced to a source of conjectures
and politics. It was used to the maximum in the tirade against the Sangh
leaders.
Now, let us come to the contents of the 2,200-page chargesheet filed by
the ATS in the special court on 22 December 2006. The India Today report
stated the following.
‘The ATS had stated in the chargesheet that the bombs were assembled
by two Pakistanis who stayed in Mumbai and Malegaon for over one-and-
half months. One of them was identified as Muzammil. (In his deposition
before the NIA, David Headley had also mentioned one Lashkar agent
Muzammil Butt as working in India.)
‘Four bombs planted in Malegaon, the communally sensitive
powerloom township had exploded on 8 September. The day happened to
be Shab-e-Baraat, considered auspicious among Muslims when they
assemble to pay respects to their dead kin.
‘The police claimed twenty kg RDX was smuggled to Malegaon and
around five kg was used to make six bombs,’ the report adds. Both ATS
and CBI confirmed the existence of forensic evidence against the accused
Shabbir Batterywala. According to the ATS chargesheet, samples of RDX

160. used in blasts matched with the soil samples taken from Batterywala’s
godown situated in Malegaon. This indicated that the RDX used in the
blasts was stored at this godown.
The other accused in the ATS chargesheet were Mohammed Zahid
Majid, Salman Faisa Abdul Latif Aimi, Faruq Iqbal Ahmed Majdumi,
Sheikh Mohammed Alim Alam Shaikh, Asif Khan Basir Khan, Noorul
Huda Samshudoha, Shabir Ahmed Masiullah and Rais Ahmed Razaq
Mansuri.
On 25 April 2016, all of the accused were acquitted by the court. They
had already been granted bail. Home Minister P. Chidambaram had
publicly declared that the NIA would not oppose their bail pleas. Our
jurisprudence works on William Blackstone’s formulation, which states
that ‘It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent
suffer’.
However, not all of them were released from jail despite the acquittal.
One of these nine men was dead while Sheikh Mohammed and Asif Khan
remained behind bars for their alleged role in 7/11 Mumbai train blasts.
This just proves that not all of the suspects nabbed by the ATS were
apostles of peace. Even the learned court noted that the ATS must have
acted against these men keeping in view their criminal record.
There was ample evidence to suggest that these accused were SIMI
activists. Not only had the ATS indicted SIMI, but even the NIA had
termed it as a major homegrown terror threat. This proscribed organisation
had pockets of influence in Malegaon and Indore. Interestingly, these
places are also closely related to the theory of saffron terrorism.
Nevertheless, CBI reopened the case. It was followed by the arrests of
Manohar Singh, Dhan Singh, Lokesh Sharma and Rajendra Chaudhary
among others while Ramchandra Kalsangra was declared as absconding.
Gradually, there were several follow-ups to the story after Tehelka
published the alleged confession of Aseemanand. At a time when Tehelka
was coming out with one exposé after another, a section of the media was
asking several probing questions.

161. One such report by Deeptimaan Tiwary published in The Times of India
on 25 March 2012, asked ‘Did Hindu radicals hire Muslims for Malegaon
blast?’ This report is an indication of the desperation of the investigative
agencies in linking Hindu faces to terrorism.
‘The NIA, now investigating the case, is beginning to suspect that
Hindu fundamentalists might have used Muslim hands to execute the
blast,’ the report states.
‘While a claim to the effect that Hindutva radicals behind the terrorist
attack may have used Muslim hirelings was made by Swami Aseemanand,
inputs gathered by investigators appears to have led the agency to wonder
whether what appeared to be an outlandish theory has some basis,’ it
further added.
‘Aseemanand had confessed before a magistrate not once but twice
that the group had been using Muslim hands for attacks. We are actively
pursuing this line of investigation,’ the report quoted a senior official as
saying. Although, Aseemanand had later retracted the statement.
Quoting an NIA official, the report argued it was not possible for a
Hindu, that too one from outside, to plant a bomb near a mosque. ‘It is
also a communally sensitive town. It is possible that Muslim mercenaries
may have been used to plant the bomb to avoid suspicion,’ the official was
quoted as saying.
The report also highlighted a hitherto ignored portion of Aseemanand’s
statement that appeared to establish the allegation.
‘Sunil (Joshi) told me that the blast in Ajmer (Ajmer Sharif dargah)
had been conducted by his men. He told me that he was also there. I asked
him who all were there with him. He told me there were two Muslim boys
with him. When I asked him where he got Muslim boys from, he said they
were sent to him by (RSS leader) Indresh Kumar,’ Aseemanand reportedly
confessed.
The NIA knew it would have to prove the involvement of the Muslim
youth in the story. It was difficult to establish their connection with the
leaders of the RSS. We see an attempt in the report to prepare a logical
ground for making this case. Indresh Kumar has mentored the Muslim

162. Rashtriya Manch, the RSS front to connect with the community. He was
the most vulnerable target for framing for obvious reasons.
This mystery of Muslim conduits has never been solved. The question
remains where those accomplices are. Even their names have not come
out. This statement, if true, also demolishes the prosecution’s assumption
that a Muslim is not likely to attack another Muslim. Handing over the
probe from the ATS to the CBI, the latter agreeing to the ATS version and
then Aseemanand’s statement—too many twists dented the credibility of
the probe agencies.
The documents given by the sleuth were part of the NIA’s
supplementary chargesheet in the Malegaon case. This disclosure grabbed
headlines. The NIA has contradicted the ATS in the past. But it is for the
first time that motives have been attributed to it.
In a chargesheet filed on 23 May 2013, the NIA alleged that both the
ATS and the CBI had ‘focused on a fake bomb recovered on 13 September
2006’.
A ‘fake’ bomb was found near Malegaon’s Mohammedia Mosque on
13 September 2006. The bomb did not explode and was successfully
defused. Noor-ul-Hooda and Raees Ali, two of the accused in the 2006
Malegaon blast case, were initially arrested. The CBI had failed to find
any additional evidence against the accused chargesheeted by the ATS.
‘It is revealed that from the perusal of available records, the CBI could
not find any additional evidence against the accused chargesheeted by the
ATS except the recorded conversation between accused Abrar Gulam
Ahmed, who had turned an approver in the case,’ the chargesheet read.
The NIA found similar loopholes in the ATS probe of the 2008 blasts.
It pointed out how Dhawade was framed under MCOCA. The NIA also
raised questions over Abrar’s statement and his decision to turn approver.
How could one believe Aseemanand’s case by the same logic? It was
recorded under Section-164 for a good reason. But the confession was
never corroborated by evidence. All that the Aseemanand controversy did
was to trigger a political war of words.

163. It appears as if justice was never the priority for the probe agencies.
When asked to bend, they were ready to crawl. The politicisation of the
issue began with the case being handed over to the CBI by the state
government.
Two days after the 2006 Malegaon blasts, the police had released
sketches of two of the accused. The then Maharashtra DGP, P S Pasricha,
claimed to have found important clues and assured positive results in short
time. The first breakthrough came on 30 October 2006, with the arrest of
the SIMI activist, Noorul Huda. The arrests of Shabbir Batterywala and
Raees Ali were declared soon after. On 6 November, the police alleged that
the ‘mastermind’ Batterywala was affiliated to Lashkar-e-Taiba whereas
Raees was a SIMI member. The ATS expounded on these initial findings
and came up with 2202-page chargesheet.
Lokesh Sharma, Dhan Singh, Manohar Singh and Rajendra Chaudhary
were arrested in 2013 after Aseemanand’s confession. They were alleged
to be Abhinav Bharat activists. The Abhinav Bharat was said to be the
organisation responsible for the blasts. The arrests in 2013 eventually led
to the release of the Muslim youths accused by the ATS.

164. A
19
Islamic Extremism, Politics and
Terrorism
seemanand’s alleged confession preposterously suggested that some
Muslims youth could have planted bombs in Malegaon at the behest of
Hindu conspirators. It was stated that it would have been difficult for a
Hindu outsider to hide explosives in a Muslim-dominated area. Media
even quoted the NIA sources when reporting this angle. The question was,
why wasn’t this assertion ever investigated? Was it because the focus of
the probe agencies and their masters was entirely on playing politics?
This brand of politics continues to plague the country, as was evident
while writing this book. Three important news related to the topic of
saffron terrorism occupied my time between 30 June 2016 and 1 July
2016. Thanks to my occupation, whatever I was writing, I could also
witness from close quarters.
On 30 June, I was the one to present a major news before the viewers.
The NIA had claimed to bust a major IS sleeping module in Hyderabad.
My colleague, Nitish Kumar, who has been covering the IB and the NIA
for a long time, broke the news first based on the information given by his
credible sources. Soon, the news was confirmed, and it dominated the TV
news screen throughout the day. The agency had raided Hyderabad’s old

165. city area and arrested five people. Another six people, including an IT
professional, were also taken into custody for questioning.
The NIA revealed that some of these accused were well educated. It is
important to understand that terror handlers were no longer brainwashing
‘rag-pickers’ but were infecting educated youngsters. The agency sources
said a cache of weapons; electronic items and chemicals were also
recovered from them. According to the investigators, the chemicals were
meant to prepare an explosive called Triacetone Triperoxide (TATP). ₹15
lakh in cash was seized as well. The module was allegedly controlled by
handlers abroad.
It is worth mentioning that TATP was also used during terror attacks in
Brussels and Paris. TATP is said to be most widely used explosive by IS
terrorists. The module in question had allegedly accumulated enough
TATP to ravage the entire city of Hyderabad. A senior NIA official
revealed they had clear inputs about suspected terror activities in the city,
following which, raids were conducted at ten different locations with the
help of the local police.
Sadly, the matter was politicised even before the NIA investigation
was over. The opposition parties accused the Telangana government of
overlooking the spread of terrorism in the old city area. Such accusations
were not new as the area had always been known to be communally
sensitive. All this was happening in the same Hyderabad where Hindu
terrorists were said to have perpetrated blast in the Meca Masjid.
The possibility of Muslim youth being hired to plant bombs arose from
the fact that it was difficult for Hindus to penetrate such an
overwhelmingly Muslim area. Was the NIA forced to overlook this aspect
because it sought to give the entire case a communal colour? Be that as it
may be, nobody can deny that Hyderabad is known to have a history
chequered with terror incidents. Masjids, dargahs and Muslim-dominated
areas were frequent locations of bombings and this fact was highlighted to
bolster the theory of saffron terrorism. The attempts at shielding terrorists
strengthened this doubt. The second major news of those two days
illustrated this.

166. On 1 July 2016, the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen (AIMIM)
chairperson Asaddudin Owaisi made a statement that was yet another
example of politics over religion. The whole nation was heaving a sigh of
relief that a large-scale terror network had been neutralised, but Owaisi
felt differently. Expressing sympathy with the suspects, Owaisi declared to
extend legal help to the five accused.
Owaisi’s brand of politics is well known. But, he is not the only one to
pander to the Muslim electorate. A score of Congress leaders have a
history of showing a soft corner for terrorists for vested interests. The
premise of saffron terrorism emanated from the NCP in the Maharashtra
Vidhan Sabha.
AIMIM’s brand of politics is also well known. Aseemanand’s
statement only emboldened these elements. Leaders like Owaisi are
entitled to espouse the cause of Muslims in a democracy but supporting
terrorism is service to no religion.
Owaisi claimed to have lined up a senior lawyer to defend the accused.
‘I spoke to the senior lawyer of Nampally courts, Abdul Azeem, and told
him that the families came to me. I told them that we will give them legal
help,’ the Hindi Daily Jansatta quoted Owaisi as saying on 2 July.
Addressing a gathering after Friday prayers in Mecca Masjid, the AIMIM
chief said, ‘Who will return the lives of these youths if they are proven
innocent in the end? We do not support any kind of terrorism. We would be
at the frontline if somebody attacks India.’
Owaisi further clarified that he was not supporting ISIS. ‘We are at the
forefront when it comes to criticising IS. They have nothing to with Islam.
I pray to God that their mentality is transformed,’ he stated. The fiery
leader was treading a thin line. He made it a point to put on record that he
was not backing ISIS. Then, what was he trying to prove by defending
suspects arrested with a haul of weapons and explosives? Nevertheless,
this news was yet another example of how politics played out in such
sensitive cases.
Owaisi also raised the spectre of saffron terrorism to justify his stand.
Accusing the Union government of adopting double standards, he alleged

167. that the centre had done nothing for the Mecca Masjid and Ajmer Sharif
blasts. He challenged Modi to speak against the persecution of Muslims in
Haryana by cow vigilantes. ‘They run the government in Haryana. Will
they dare to oppose it? Will they speak out against it? Will the Home
Minister make a statement? Will the CM denounce it? Will there be any
arrests?’ he thundered.
The agony of the people jailed in the Hindutva terrorism cases was no
less. We have come to know no matter how many sleeper cells are busted,
their masterminds remain unscathed. Nevertheless, people who condone
terrorist act as part of their politics are no less dangerous than terror
bosses sitting across the border.
Owaisi was challenging the government. Our Constitution gives this
right to him. However, the same Constitution also gives the accused
persons right to defend themselves. The same kind of politics was played
in the case of the SIMI terrorists arrested for the Malegaon blast case. The
issue resonated in at least two Lok Sabha elections and numerous
Assembly polls. The UPA government was consistently accused of going
soft on terror. At the same time, several prime suspects managed to slip
out of the security net. Only the law of the land should prevail in such
cases; anybody who is declared clean by the law would be considered as
innocent in this country.
How would Owaisi and his supporters his ilk explain the recovery of
explosives from the alleged IS terrorists in Hyderabad? Would such
leaders have taken the responsibility if these explosives had killed and
maimed people? Would Owaisi own up to the crime committed by these
youths if they are proved guilty at the end of the trial? We should enact a
law for punishing for the political supporters of terrorists.
The Hyderabad arrests are yet another reminder that the world’s most
dreaded terrorist group is knocking at the doors of India. The latest
revelations indicate that ISIS has trained a handful of youngsters which in
turn has dangerous designs for India. The attitude of leaders like Owaisi is
only helping its cause, knowingly or unknowingly. The suspects arrested
from Hyderabad were successful in procuring the dangerous TATP

168. explosive. Owaisi should understand that Muslims would never be happy
if ISIS terrorists are able to attack the country. An example of the danger
posed by such politics came from the neighbouring country on the night of
1 July.
I was enjoying the Iftar party with Muslim friends in my newsroom. It
was a Sunday prime time shift and the atmosphere was relaxed as
compared to other days. I was hoping to go home early after completing
my 11.30 p.m. bulletin. There was still some time before the bulletin. So, I
was utilising the spare time in writing on the rejection of Sadhvi Pragya’s
bail application. This had come as a setback to her after the NIA’s clean
chit. Some of the colleagues were engaging in zestful banter, questioning
my articles on the issue. I have been writing on the issue for quite some
time and facing the allegation of supporting a particular organisation. The
discussion was on when a sudden commotion started in the newsroom.
Usually, this is the first signal of a breaking news. I was the only available
anchor at that time so it was my duty to enquire from my colleagues on the
rundown. It was the news of a suspected terror attack in Bangladesh.
The news was confirmed at around 10.30 p.m. and I was live on air for
hours. It was clear from the beginning that this attack was on the lines of
26/11. Dhaka-based journalist Antu, was continuously talking to me while
reporting from the ground. He tried to line up the father of an Indian girl
who was being held hostage, but the man was understandably not in a
condition to engage in conversation. It came out the next day that this girl
was Tarishi Jain. It was ironical that the ISIS struck on the same day
Owaisi had declared to help its operatives in India.
It was the holy month of Ramazan, the auspicious day of Jumma. The
Holey Artisan Bakery in the affluent Gulshan Thana area of Dhaka was
teeming with foreign guests when five militants barged in, chanting ‘Allah
Hu Akbar’. Dozens of people were taken hostages on gunpoint and asked
to recite the verses of Quran. Those who could recite from memory were
spared in an effort to only kill non-Muslims. According to eyewitnesses,
the assailants clearly stated they would not harm Muslims. Those who did
not fit their criteria were slain with sharp weapons. People across religions

169. and nationalities were aghast alike. How could the minds of these educated
young men from well-to-do backgrounds be poisoned to such an extent?
What was the motive behind the attack? These questions have bothered me
after every such incident. I have been covering terror incidents in India for
some years now and the Bangladesh attack brought back all those unhappy
memories. Bangladesh is too close a neighbour to ignore such an attack
occurring there.
This incident once again highlighted how the impressionable young
minds are indoctrinated by extremist Islamic elements. Not too long ago,
the perpetrators of this attack were also innocent just like your next-door
neighbours. None of them had crossed the age of 20. Earlier, it was said
that factors like poverty, unemployment and illiteracy were responsible for
the radicalisation of youth. It was indeed the case with the terrorists
responsible for 26/11. But, these assailants defied this notion. These were
convent-educated youths from a rich background. One of them was the son
of a prominent leader of the ruling Awami League party. The intelligentsia
of Bangladesh is baffled at the phenomenon of these educated youngsters
getting attracted to the radical brand of Islam.
ISIS posts the pictures of such misguided youth after every major
terror incident across the globe and hails them as ‘martyrs’. The
Bangladesh government has been reluctant to accept the footprints of ISIS
in the country. Though, it is wary of the increasing radicalisation of
Bangladeshi society.
Meer Hayet Kabir, the father of one of the Fedayeen, works in a multi-
national company in Dhaka. He received a phone call from the police after
the blasts asking him to identify the dead body of his 18-year-old son
Meer Sameh Mobasheer. Mobasheer was missing for the last four months
and Kabir was in regular touch with the Dhaka police. Mobasheer was
studying in Scholastica, one of the most expensive schools in Bangladesh.
According to Kabir, his son could have been exposed to extremist
elements at the local mosque or his school. Two of the other suicide
attackers were Mobasheer’s schoolmates and were reported missing for
some time.

170. Kabir told The New York Times that his son had liked to play the
guitar but around three months before his disappearance, he stopped.
When asked for the reason, Mobasheer replied, ‘Music is not good.’ It was
a clear symptom of what was going through his mind as the hardline
strand of Islam denounces music and dance as bad influences.
Bangladesh Attack through Taslima Nasreen’s Tweets
The exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen lambasted hardline
Islamists on Twitter for the Bangladesh attack.
‘For humanity’s sake please do not say Islam is a religion of peace.
Not anymore,’ stated one of her posts. While Nasreen’s stand on radical
Islam is not hidden from anyone, it is true that an increasing number of
intellectuals around the world are now calling for an introspection within
Islam. The silence of the oft-cited ‘peaceful majority’ in Islam is
increasingly deafening.
The celebrated actor, Naseeruddin Shah, had played the part of a
maulvi in the famous Pakistani movie Khuda Kay Liye. This character
portrayed a better definition of Islam in front of the world, be it the issue
of recreations like music or respecting other religions. Predictably, the
movie was banned in Pakistan but applauded elsewhere. It is sad that such
characters are becoming increasingly rare in the real world. Perhaps,
because the plot in real life is always muddled by politics. The wisest of
Islamic scholars tend to fall prey to politics and choose to behave
otherwise. The AIMIM leader Owaisi being one such example.
However, Taslima Nasreen is a much-needed exception and she did not
spare Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina Wazed either. ‘Hasina mourning,
paying homage to victims of Dhaka attack? She was silent when secular
bloggers, gays, Islamic terrorists killed Hindus,’ read one of her tweets.
Her anti-Islamic rhetoric notwithstanding, what she stated was not
baseless. Many of Taslima’s tweets reflected the mindset of the assailants.
They allowed the women in hijabs to come out of the restaurant, declared
their intentions not to hurt Muslims.

171. ‘Tarushi Jain (19) hacked to death by Islamic terrorists. Her crime was
she couldn’t recite the Quranic verses?’ Taslima Nasreen asked in one of
her tweets even before the eyewitnesses had confirmed the same sequence
of events.
‘All Dhaka terrorists were from rich families, studied in elite schools.
Please do not say poverty and illiteracy make people Islamic terrorists,’
she rightly observed. How were these teenagers brainwashed to believe
that such heinous crime would land them in heaven? Taslima Nasreen
raised this question by citing the example of another Muslim youth named
Faraz.
Twenty-year-old Faraz was present in the same ill-fated café when the
attack took place. The terrorists let him off because of his religion. Yet,
the brave young man refused to leave his non-Muslim friends, among
whom was Tarushi. Faraz, who paid with his life for his heroic conviction,
was also a Muslim youth from a similar background. The only difference
was that his mind was not poisoned.
Taslima Nasreen hit the nail on its head by pointing towards the real
solution of Islamic radicalisation. ‘You’ll not be able to kill terrorism by
killing terrorists. You have to kill the root cause of terrorism. Stop
brainwashing children with religion,’ she tweeted. Only against this
rational notion are Taslima’s detractors. A fair criticism does not weaken a
great religion but only goes to strengthen its roots.
Taslima Nasreen is known as a heretic in orthodox Islamic circles. She
has been a vocal advocate of human rights, especially the rights of the
women in Islam. However, she has paid dearly for speaking out the truth.
There are still many fatwas against her calling for her killing. She is living
a life of self-exile outside her native country of Bangladesh since 1994.
Even the ISIS purportedly threatened Taslima recently on a Malayalam
webpage. However, this has surprised nobody in the Indian security
establishment since several ISIS sympathisers have already been arrested
from across the country. Most such persons are young gullible minds.
They begin by tacit support to ISIS cause, then slowly get inclined to its

172. activities and end up either dying in a foreign land or languishing in some
prison cell for their lifetime.
No religion preaches terrorism. Nevertheless, it could be a breeding
ground for venomous indoctrination leading to the path of terror. Such an
ideology is nourished by hatred and inculcated by inducing a false notion
of ghettoisation. The religious dogmas like virgins of paradise are used as
potent tools to misguide the minds of the youth.
The politics played in the name of the religion is no less responsible
for this process of radicalisation. Ceding ground to the hardline ideologies
only emboldens the merchants of destruction. People are misled by
propagating religious theories that are actually satanic in nature. I could
not have underlined this malice better than Taslima who comes from
within the Muslim community herself.
Not only India but also the entire civilised world, needs to find a
solution to counter this poison of radicalisation on an ideological front.
We need to understand the minds of the fundamentalists to get to the root
of the problem. The name or affiliation of a terror group is immaterial.
Yesterday, it was Al-Qaida, today it is ISIS. Tomorrow, it could be
something else. The mindset remains the same, only the flag of the
terrorist change. Their motive is only one; to establish the rule of Sharia
across the world and kill all those who refuse to bow to its dictates.
The liberal segments of Islam need to ponder why they are failing to
cut ice with the youths of Islam. What are they doing to counter the spread
of the fanaticism in their religion? Should the ones fighting in the social
media in the name of Hindu and Muslims not wage a joint campaign
against the menace? Should the electorate of this country not teach a
lesson to all those who mix politics with religion? Islam is bound to be
demonised if this does not happen.
Two days after the Dhaka attack, the Minister of Information &
Broadcasting of Bangladesh, Hasanul Haq Inu, alleged that ISI was the
mastermind of this conspiracy. The notorious spy agency is known to have
fomented trouble in what was East Pakistan until 1971. The Pakistani
authorities are especially miffed at the Bangladeshi government’s decision

173. to bring pro-Pakistani war criminals to justice. From Osama Bin Laden to
the recent killing of Taliban chief Mullah Mansoor Akhtar in a drone
attack; it is no more a secret that Pakistan is the nursery of global
terrorism. It has diverted money received from the US in the name of
counter-insurgency to fund terrorists of its choice. Leave apart India,
Pakistani connection is now found in almost every other terror strike
across the world.
Pakistan has sponsored terrorism in Punjab, Kashmir and other parts of
India. There is ample proof that groups like SIMI and the Indian
Mujahedeen are trained and sheltered by Pakistani deep state. The Indian
intelligence agencies have precise information about training camps still
operational in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir and the tribals regions of that
country. Even the foreign intelligence agencies have pointed towards ISI’s
involvement in the Samjhauta blasts. In the light of such overwhelming
facts, the theory of Hindutva terror smacks of a deep political conspiracy.
However, one should form an opinion based on facts. Factually speaking,
Owaisi’s stand after the busting of the ISIS module in Hyderabad is an
example of communal vote bank politics, the Dhaka attack was a fallout of
increasing Islamic radicalisation in that country. The same applies to the
terror attacks in India. How do people like Aseemanand and Sadhvi Pragya
fit into this equation? Had some of our leaders not attacked the very roots
of social amity for their stakes?

174. T
20
The Pressure Tactics: Now or
Then?
o borrow from the popular cliché, terrorism does have colour and
religion when it is mixed with politics. The world has fully realised that
those who are misleading the youth in the name of Islam breed this
monster. These zealots fill young minds with fundamentalism. Those who
cannot still understand the true religion become puppets at the hands of
these terrorists. Organisations like SIMI and the IM are products of the
same nursery.
Unlike the perpetrators of the Bangladesh attack, such pawns have so
far been intellectually as well as economically deprived. Some gullible
minds are handpicked by merchants of terror as self-proclaimed
commanders. These foot soldiers run the recruiting network. The tools,
targets and expertise of wreaking havoc is provided in Pakistan. Sadly,
such elements find support from some vested interests of the society.
The Dhaka attack was an opportunity to find and reflect upon many
aspects of this problem. I was writing on the refusal of bail to Sadhvi
Pragya just before the terror strike. I now had several factual points to
suggest that investigation agencies were used to divert the probe of
Hindutva Terrorism. It was the NIA that had challenged the ATS probe in
court. It was clear that both the agencies had messed up the investigation.

175. The clean chits given to Rakesh Dhawade and Sadhvi Pragya had triggered
allegations that BJP was siding up with Hindutva extremist elements.
It is not hard to discern who had actually twisted the NIA’s arms, the
UPA government or the Modi government. The ATS was made to eat its
own words in the 2006 Malegaon blast inquisition. The SIMI angle was
rejected altogether. It is futile to debate the motive of this reversal. The
real issue was what the NIA had to add to the findings to exonerate Sadhvi
Pragya and Dhawade. What the media called the ‘clean chit’ was actually
an analysis of the available facts by the NIA. The probe agencies do not
have the luxury of conjecturing. It is possible that the court was not
impressed with undue haste on the NIA’s part. Only a well-placed insider
could tell whether the NIA was acting on a particular agenda. But it cannot
be denied that the purported evidence had suddenly turned into a weak
link.
On 28 June 2016, the court rejected Sadhvi Pragya’s bail plea. The
NIA’s supplementary chargesheet, filed on 13 May, lifted allegations
imposed under MCOCA against Sadhvi and five other accused. The bail
plea was moved on 30 May. It also sought to remove Sadhvi’s name from
the list of the accused.
I dialled her lawyer JP Sharma to know more. He called back a day
after the petition was rejected. He was understandably disappointed. ‘Why
was Sadhvi Pragya denied bail?’ I came to the point after the exchange of
pleasantries.
‘I believe there was no need for arguments over the bail plea,’ said
Sharma. ‘The real question is whether the court would accept the
supplementary chargesheet or not. No ground remains for any allegation
against Sadhvi if the NIA manages to convince the court,’ he added.
It was also revealed that the team of defence lawyers was divided on
the issue. One of the factions felt they should focus on proving the
chargesheet right. According to them, it would automatically lead to
Sadhvi Pragya’s release, as her name would have to be struck off the list of
the accused. Another lot felt bail should be the first priority. This
difference of legal opinion also weakened Sadhvi’s bail prospects in court.

176. Her chances of breathing free air were greatly bolstered by the NIA’s claim
that there is no concrete evidence against her. The special court stressed on
Sadhvi’s purported links to the bike used in the blasts. This connection
could not be ignored in its opinion. The learned judge also pointed towards
the witnesses suggesting she had participated in the meetings in Bhopal.
These witnesses have apparently heard her discussing terror conspiracies.
The ATS, as well as the NIA, had been repeating the same story for the
past eight years. The NIA was in a precarious position in opposing the
bail. It had to refute its own theory.
Mr Sharma feels casting aspersions against its own evidence could
have worked against Sadhvi. The onus of evaluating the evidence rests
with the judges and not the investigation agencies. Was it a self-goal on
NIA’s part? The NIA was entangled in its own web. Several of its alleged
findings were now going to come back to haunt it. It was NIA’s claim that
this bike was registered under Sadhvi Pragya’s name, and another accused,
Kalsangara, had used it. The NIA was still standing by this version of the
story. The so-called evidence proving Sadhvi’s participation in the
conspiracy meetings was either a statement under Section 164 in front of
the magistrate or worse still, alleged confessions extracted by police
officials under MCOCA. The centrepiece of the Hindutva terror theory
was Aseemanand’s confession recorded under Section 164. The
investigation agencies could only boast of statements in the name of
clinching evidence. The depositions under Section 164 are admissible as
proof in the court. I enquired more about this legal provision from my
friend and senior lawyer, Vikas Gupta. He alleges that the investigation
agencies often use the accused as witnesses to put pressure on the main
accused. They are rewarded by pardon or reduced sentences.
Sadhvi Pragya’s lawyer says the NIA has only vindicated their stand.
They had been contesting the basis of the evidence presented by the
agency. Now, it was admitting there was not enough proof to establish
Sadhvi’s guilt beyond doubt. It raised the question of why the NIA was
singing a different song for the past eight years.

177. Sadhvi Pragya seems to have become a victim of a Goebbelian truth.
Hitler’s propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, prescribed, ‘Telling a lie big
enough and keep repeating it’ to make people believe it. The whole system
had turned against Sadhvi Pragya in this case. We need to look closely at
the evidence to conclude whether the NIA’s U-turn was prompted by
political pressure or not. One cannot help thinking there is more likelihood
of foul play when a person is implicated under serious charges on flimsy
ground. It is a more convincing proposition under any circumstances.
Pointing out that her bail was so far denied on the grounds of pending
investigation, Sadhvi Pragya’s lawyers had argued that the NIA had come
to a conclusion now by removing MCOCA against her and that she,
therefore, deserves to be set free. The bail application underscored that she
had already spent many years behind the bars.
The Maharashtra ATS had brought charges against Sadhvi Pragya in
2009. It alleged that the bike used in the blast belonged to her. However,
the supplementary chargesheet raised reasonable doubt on the grounds that
one of the other absconding accused was using the vehicle and mere
registration of bike in Sadhvi’s name was not evidence enough. The NIA
adopted a similar stance towards the second decisive premise against
Sadhvi—the claim that many witnesses had heard her discussing the
conspiracy in various meetings. It was infringing upon the exclusive
discretion of the court to interpret the evidence. The NIA officers
committed another mistake to cover their earlier ones. Accepting fault had
become the agency’s legal compulsion. However, politics had defaced the
truth by now.
The belligerence shown by the accused on the legal front was another
reason for the hype surrounding Hindutva terrorism. One doesn’t normally
see terrorists fighting such a keen battle in courts of law. But this was a
case of painting the terror in particular religious hues. It appeared that
even the victims were viewing the judicial process through rose-tinted
glasses.
Nisar Bilal, who was reportedly injured in the Malegaon blasts, filed
an intervention petition against Sadhvi Pragya’s bail on 17 June 2016. It

178. was admitted by the NIA judge, SD Tekale. The same person had also
demanded rejection of the supplementary chargesheet in a separate
petition filed on 8 June 2016. His contestation was that it was politically
motivated and that the government was favouring the accused. The
assumptions in both of his pleas indicated his disposition against Sadhvi
and the other accused. This bias was sad for a person who had himself
suffered the attack. It also made clear that the politics surrounding the
issue was far from over.
When asked about the grounds on which the court rejected the bail,
Avinash Rasal, the special public prosecutor told the Free Press Journal,
‘The court has noted that the bail plea of Sadhvi was rejected earlier and
this time too bail is sought on same grounds and there is no change in the
circumstances.’
‘The court has held that though the witnesses have retracted their
statements, the confessional statements of the other co-accused can be
taken as evidence against Sadhvi,’ he added.
Rakesh Dhawade was one of these witnesses besides Praveen Takkalki
and Shankaracharya. The atrocities on Dhawade for extracting a
favourable statement was also mentioned in the chargesheet. What Sadhvi
Pragya’s lawyer, Mr Sharma, told me concurred with the court’s
observation that the NIA had nothing new to say about the case. It had
merely changed its stance to favour Sadhvi without adding anything
substantial to the facts of the case. While rejecting the bail plea, the NIA
court noted that that the agency had only re-recorded the statements of two
witnesses who have detracted from their earlier statements regarding the
presence of Sadhvi in the meeting held at Bhopal.
‘At this prima facie stage, without going into the question of which
version of the statements is correct, a safe conclusion can be drawn that
the applicant was present in the Bhopal meeting and there was a discussion
about the Jihadi activities in Aurangabad,’ the court order stated.
Dismissing the NIA’s clean chit to Sadhvi, the court had also discarded the
No Objection Certificate (NOC) of the agency to Sadhvi’s bail plea.

179. These details did not grab headlines because the NDA’s Union Home
Minister had not gone on board to highlight it in the media. In contrast,
Rajnath Singh’s predecessor, P Chidambaram, had come out in front of
news cameras to declare that the NIA had exonerated the SIMI accused.
The two prime witnesses against Sadhvi, Rakesh Dhawade and
Sudhakar Dwivedi, were booked under MCOCA, a law that admits
statement in the presence of senior police officers as an evidence.
Dhawade’s is a glaring example of how the ATS framed him under this
stringent law. The ATS could not even establish his links with the other
accused. The case against Sadhvi crumbles once MCOCA is removed from
the equation.
According to the NIA chargesheet, Dwivedi had told ATS that Pragya
had instructed him to contact Col Purohit. It underlines that Dwivedi
retracted his statement in front of the magistrate. In any case, his earlier
confession loses relevance since the new chargesheet lifted MCOCA
charges against him.
It was an important point to understand as it exposed the ATS bid to
build its case on the weak ground of conspicuous statements. In reality, the
whole notion of saffron terrorism is built around these statements. In
contrast, the ATS line of the investigation until 2006 detailed the modus
operandi as well as the motive behind the terror incident. The NIA was
called in to investigate case further many years after the case has been
opened, and it only tried to build upon the dubious conclusions of the ATS.
The latter had changed track in 2006 when late Hemant Karkare was at its
helm. Many say this was due to political pressure. Later, Aseemanand’s
purported confession sought to validate the theory. The arrests that
followed were based on his supposed admission. But who wanted to paint
people like Sadhvi Pragya and Aseemanand in the colours of terror?

180. A
21
Saffron Terrorism for
Sensationalism?
bove the photographs of Yakub Memon, Dawood Ibrahim,
Bhindrawale and Bal Thackeray, Tehelka’s cover page asked, ‘Who is the
biggest terrorist?’ Mathew Samuel wrote the cover story published on 22
August 2015. In a manner most befitting to the magazine’s name, the
question ruffled up Shiv Sena’s volatile supporters. ‘Tehelka’ often
translates into panic in the news industry. Sowing anarchy for reaping TRP
defines the essence of the word. The Shiv Sena demanded closure of the
magazine and Samuel’s arrest.
I had the pleasure of working with Mathew Samuel in Live India. He is
a marvellous human being but belongs to a debatable school of journalism.
Samuel started his career from the world of stings. He has believed in
exposing the misdeeds of powerful people through hidden cameras.
However, he found more success in print and digital medium.
Sensationalism was his trademark and among the factors that propelled his
profession.
Tehelka magazine had pioneered this brand of reporting right at the
time of its inception. Mathew was a member of the founding board of the
magazine. The controversial cover page was just another reminder that it
still pursued the same philosophy.

181. Tarun Tejpal and Aniruddha Bahal conceived the magazine. Both had
quit Outlook magazine to launch Tehelka as a website in 2000. Samuel
Mathew was among the journalists who were roped in the initial stages.
His first claim to glory was Operation West End in 2001. A fake company
by the same name was formed in London for the sting operation. Bahal
and Samuel stumped the then BJP chief Bangaru Laxman by posing as an
arms agent. There is no doubt that it was a landmark sting in the
contemporary history of Indian journalism, which reiterated the power of
journalism. It not only successfully captured Laxman red-handed, but also
resulted in his conviction in the court.
The goodwill earned by this expose waned when successive sting
operations by Tehelka made it clear that it was tilted towards the Congress.
The matter was not limited to ideological affinity for some; the rightist
groups alleged the magazine was acting in the political interests of the
party. The accusations found supporters because of dubious sting
operations like ‘Operation Kalank’. Tehelka had chosen to rub salt on
Gujarat’s wounds for smirching ideological adversaries, but the taint stuck
on its own face. Five years after the 2002 riots, Tehelka’s journalists
camped in Gujarat to shoot some videos. The story was published in the
magazine’s 7 November 2007 edition with the headline declaring, ‘The
Truth: Gujarat 2002’. Some alleged workers of organisations like BJP and
Bajrang Dal were filmed talking about killing Muslims in the released
footage.
‘Operation Kalank’ sought to prove that the state police and the then
CM Narendra Modi managed the riots. CBI was made to acknowledge that
the video recording was genuine. But the factual errors made in the story
could not escape public attention. Such omissions raised doubts that it was
targeted at Modi. The Congress latched onto the issue, and the sting was
used as a political tool for many years.
The story came out just a month before the Gujarat Assembly
elections. It was the time when the demand for Modi’s PM candidature had
started to emanate within the BJP. However, the party fought the 2009

182. General elections under Advani’s stewardship, and we all know that it had
disastrous results.
The data cited in ‘Operation Kalank’ does not match up with that of
official figures. The timing and motive of the purported expose were also
questionable. This did not stop Ashish Khetan from presenting these
statistics as evidence in the court. He had made a reputation for writing
against BJP and other Hindu organisations by that time. Khetan was
unrelenting on the same line in his coverage of the Malegaon blasts. He
was the one to access and write about Aseemanand’s alleged confession.
These leanings were later vindicated when he joined the Aam Aadmi Party.
An FIR for inciting Sikh sentiments was filed against Khetan on the day
these words were written (6/7/2016). Ashish Khetan knew the tricks
Mathew had perfected. The experience had proved handy in his
professional as well as political career.
Khetan was booked by the Punjab police reportedly comparing the
AAP’s youth manifesto, released for the 2017 Punjab assembly polls, to
the Guru Granth Sahib. Politics and journalism share an umbilical relation
in democracy. But journalists with political agenda can mislead the
country. Bajrang Dal’s local leader, Babu Bajrangi, had flaunted his
purported role in the 2002 riots caught on tape in Tehelka’s sting operation.
It became the basis of insinuations against Modi and Amit Shah in some
sections of the media. Khetan’s reportage of saffron terrorism smacked of
similar motives.
However, Khetan was not the only scribe to capitalise on selective
bashing of a political segment. His colleague, Rana Ayyub, wrote
extensively on these issues. Later, she compiled her reports on Gujarat in
the form of a book titled Gujarat Files: The Anatomy of a Cover-Up.
Ayyub had also camped in Gujarat in 2010 and claimed to carry out sting
operations against many individuals. Her book carries transcripts of these
recordings. The book is basically an attempt to indict the then state
government for the riots. Ayyub also tried to muckrake Amit Shah through
purported conversations with some former ATS officers and other police
officials.

183. Tehelka’s coverage of the Gujarat riots left little doubt that it was
targeting Modi. Several inflammatory remarks by Babu Bajrangi were
leaked on social media with least consideration for communal amity in the
country. It was impossible to ascertain even whether Bajrangi had spewed
venom in his senses or not.
Senior journalist and BJP leader, Chandan Mitra, had questioned the
timing of the ‘Operation Kalank’. He described the motive of the report’s
release as being ‘so transparently pegged to the Gujarat assembly polls
that even breast-beating secular fundamentalists found it hard to defend’.
It was difficult not to agree with the veteran journalist as the so-called
exposé had come barely a month before the Assembly elections in Gujarat.
The late Bal Thackeray termed the report a ‘political conspiracy to defame
the Hindus’ by the ‘so-called secularists’. The critics refuted the
magazine’s false claims that Modi visited Naroda Patiya. BJP alleged
Tehelka had never conducted any sting operation against the congress. The
magazine was always accused of pro-Congress leanings.
Then a time came when Tarun Tejpal tasted his own medicine as he
himself became a sensational news. Senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj
indicated Tejpal’s close links in Congress circles after he was embroiled in
allegations of sexual misbehaviour. ‘Union Cabinet Minister who is the
founder and patron of Tehelka is shielding Tarun Tejpal,’ she tweeted.
Swaraj was referring to Kapil Sibal who was among the most
influential ministers in the Manmohan Singh cabinet. It was claimed that
Tejpal and Sibal were old associates and that the latter even owned Tehelka
shares. Some social media posts even claimed that Tejpal was the son of
Sibal’s sister. On 28 November 2013, The Times of India quoted Sibal as
refuting these allegations. ‘I have only one sister, Asha Nanda, and she
lives in Maharani Bagh,’ the Congress leader clarified.
Citing the shareholding details of Anant Media Private Limited—the
publishing company of Tehelka – as on 29 September 2012, the same news
report claimed that Sibal was allotted 80 shares in the company. Although
it amounted to only 0.04% of the total shares of the company, the claims
made by Sibal were, nevertheless, challenged.

184. A defiant Sibal, on his part, explained that Tejpal had approached him
for help in 2003 for fighting the legal battle in the aftermath of the
‘Operation West End’ and that he had given a donation of ₹5 lakh. That
was, however, not for shares in the company, he said. I don’t even have a
single share; no share has ever been allotted to me. I have never applied
for a share in Tehelka,’ he said.
Nevertheless, Kapil Sibal had admitted to providing financial help to
Tejpal in his legal fight against the BJP. This in itself was enough to
suggest that the former minister had some affinity for Tejpal. Some
Congress leader cried foul even when the law took its course in the case of
the sexual exploitation charge against Tejpal. The controversy was
politicised by insinuating that the BJP was conspiring against the Tehelka
Editor. This political backing left little doubt that Tehelka was closely
linked to the Congress.
Tehelka’s political moorings are beyond the subject of this book. The
moot point is that Tehelka’s whole premises of journalism can be defined
as being against non-Congress parties, especially the BJP and other Hindu
groups. Most of the hype surrounding saffron terrorism was created by the
magazine’s vicious campaign on this subject. Its reach within the power
corridors during the UPA regime was evident when Ashish Khetan was
able to get Aseemanand’s confession leaked within 24 hours of its
recording. Tehelka was the only magazine that was able to access the top-
secret tapes in the Malegaon blast case. These tapes should have been only
in the court’s custody.
The incessant media trial was among the reasons Sadhvi Pragya was
repeatedly denied bail. It is not my desire to point fingers at the media as
an institution—belonging as I do to the same industry—but a section of
the fourth estate is prone to be used as a political tool. Some media houses
also resort to journalism of a particular inclination in a bid to maintain
their distinct image. The only contingency in this process is the truth.
It is normal for an individual journalist or a researcher to get
intellectually absorbed in the subject of his interest. However, when an
institution adopts a tunnel vision, it is seen as the ideology of that

185. establishment. Slowly but surely, this ideology becomes internalised in the
functioning of that organisation as it happened with Tehelka magazine.
This tendency can have menacing consequences in sensitive cases.
Tehelka’s reportage damaged our country’s reputation and gave the
Pakistani intelligentsia the ammunition they needed to get off the hook on
the issue of cross-border terrorism. Sample the following excerpt from an
article by Pakistani commentator Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat published in
the Pak daily The News on 27 August 2015.
‘According to the weekly Tehelka, more seriously for India and its
armed forces, there was also a nexus between the Hindu terror elements
and Indian military intelligence officers. Both were involved in bomb
attacks on the Samjhauta Express and mosques in Hyderabad, Ajmer
Sharif and Malegaon.
Tehelka and other reports published in the Indian media stated that
RSS members, senior politicians, retired and serving army officers were
part of the conspiracy to subvert every institution in the country (sic).
It is important to remember that India had blamed Pakistan or
Pakistan-sponsored elements for the Samjhauta Express and Makkah
Masjid blasts in Hyderabad Deccan.
But Hindu extremist, Swami Asimanand, confessed that leaders of
different Hindu communal organisations had planned, financed and
supported these terrorist attacks.
The agenda of these Hindu terror groups was to end India’s democracy
and its secular status and create a conservative Hindu state in its place.
The terrorists wanted to target the Indian Muslims besides other
minorities, which are already sidelined by the majority (sic). These groups
had deep penetration in the Indian Army. In fact, there was covert support
for the saffron terror groups among the uniformed personnel. According to
Tehelka, the Indian Army seemed to rally behind them. It was also found
there was also some kind of support for these terrorists among Indian
politicians, officials and policemen.’
The Pakistani media quoted ‘Tehelka’ with glee to question India’s
high moral ground on the issue of terrorism. The same report even found

186. words of praise for Rahul Gandhi as one can see below:
‘There has been realisation among saner elements like Rahul Gandhi
that the growth of Hindu extremists presents a greater threat to India than
the Muslim militants. According to WikiLeaks reports, Rahul Gandhi told
the US ambassador, Timothy Roemer, the bigger threat lies in the growth
of radicalised Hindu groups, which create religious conflicts, political
tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community.
Essentially making the point, infiltration of Hindutva forces into the
Indian Army and intelligence agency is a serious development for the so-
called largest democracy in the world.’
There is hardly any surprise in vitriol against India in Pakistani media.
However, the bogey of saffron terrorism had given the Pakistani state a
chance to cover up its own sins. It now countered India’s charges of
harbouring terrorists by pointing at the reports published in Tehelka and
similar sections of the Indian media.
Abdul Zahoor’s article did not go unnoticed in Delhi’s political circles
for its political overtone. Its favourable disposition towards Rahul Gandhi
was seen as a proof of the UPA government’s pathological hatred towards
the Hindu groups.
The unsubstantiated Wikileaks report mentioned by Zahoor also
created a furore in Indian politics. When the media was debating the issue,
there was a grim silence in the Congress as protecting Rahul Gandhi’s
image was their highest priority. The Wikileaks claims suggested that the
saffron terrorism was a bigger threat than even Lashkar-e-Taiba in the
eyes of the then government.
This is what India Today’s Washington Bureau reported on this
Wikileaks exposé on 17 December 2010:
‘According to WikiLeaks, he (Rahul Gandhi) said Hindu groups were
more dangerous than LeT.
‘According to a secret US diplomatic cable from New Delhi released
by WikiLeaks, the Congress leader shared his views with (Timothy John)
Roemer on a range of political topics, social challenges, and electoral
issues for the Congress party in the next five years.

187. ‘The cable contained details of Rahul’s conversation with the envoy at
a luncheon hosted by PM Manmohan Singh at his residence in July 2009
in honour of the visiting US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
‘Responding to the ambassador’s query about Lashkar-e-Taiba’s
activities in the region and immediate threat to India, Rahul said there was
evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India’s
indigenous Muslim community,’ the cable notes.
‘However, Rahul warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of
radicalised Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political
confrontations with the Muslim community,’ it said.
The cable dated 3 August 2009, which described Roemer’s luncheon
encounter with Rahul on 20 July 2009, noted that the Congress general
secretary was referring to the tensions created by some of the most
polarising figures in the BJP such as Gujarat CM, Narendra Modi.
‘The risk of a ‘home-grown’ extremist front, reacting to terror attacks
coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India, was a growing
concern and one that demanded constant attention,’ it said.
The United States, which has accused WikiLeaks, of stealing its secret
cables, has refused to either deny or confirm the authenticity of these
cables.’
One cannot say whether it was a gaffe or whether Rahul was prompted,
but there are indications that the UPA government was working on an
agenda. Perhaps, he was not aware of the impact of his words. The
invisible ruler of that time was giving an opportunity to blame India. Was
he only taking the lead from Digvijay Singh, his supposed political guru?
We saw how Congress leaders lined up to get cosy to the Congress Vice-
President in those days.
Rana Ayyub wrote another article for Tehelka on 1 January 2011. The
piece titled ‘The Unturned Stone’ cited the same audio tapes to allege a
‘shocking’ nexus between Military Intelligence men and the Hindu far-
right outfits. Rana Ayyub also questioned why the military angle to the
conspiracy was not probed.

188. ‘Hate is one of the obvious and evident yields of the Hindutva
worldview,’ the article began. ‘Few had imagined it [Hindutva] could
spawn a terror network until investigations into the 2008 Malegaon blast
led to a series of startling arrests that included Sadhvi Pragya Thakur and
Lt Col Shrikant Purohit of Abhinav Bharat, an ultra-right Hindu group.
Since then, the issue of saffron terror has entered national discourse as a
fractious and heated debate,’ it continued.
‘Last week, the issue erupted once again, triggering livid responses
across the political spectrum. First, senior Congress leader Digvijaya
Singh claimed that Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) chief Hemant
Karkare—who had been investigating the Malegaon blast—had called him
hours before he died on the fateful night of 26/11, saying he was being
threatened by those opposed to his probes. Singh was speaking at the
launch of a book by Aziz Burney, controversially titled 26/11—An RSS
Controversy? (the name was quoted wrongly as the book was “26/11- RSS
ki Sazish” that should be translated as 26/11- An RSS Conspiracy?) and
both sections of his own party and the BJP were dismayed that his
‘irresponsible’ remarks would play into Pakistan’s hands.’
‘A few days later, in its ongoing exposé, WikiLeaks released a cable in
which US Ambassador, Timothy Roemer, claimed that Rahul Gandhi had
told him that Hindu Extremism was probably a greater threat to national
security than Islamist terror. In all the furious exchanges that have
followed, a crucial issue was overlooked. With the capture of Ajmal
Kasab, it is undoubtedly an absurd stretch of imagination to believe 26/11
was engineered by ultra-Hindu groups, but the truth is the saffron terror
story is indeed far from being a closed book.’
‘Tehelka has found that, in the two years since the Malegaon blast,
investigators have left many leads unexplored. Most alarmingly, they have
failed to pin down eight Indian Army officers allegedly involved with the
terror network. Why haven’t they been questioned by the army or
sufficiently tracked? How far has the network penetrated sections of the
army?’ Rana Ayyub asked in the article.

189. Rana’s journalistic line was music to the ears of Pakistani media. They
could now answer the criticism of their own radicalised army by throwing
muck at its neighbour. It again raises suspicion that the ‘Tehelka’ was were
fuelling the controversy of the Hindutva terror.
Tehelka’s bias was not limited to gimmicks like equating Bal
Thackeray with hardcore terrorists. At a time, when the dreaded footsteps
of ISIS were all too loud from Europe to Bangladesh, there was a threat of
Pathankot-like attacks on the border and a danger from fake preachers like
Zakir Naiks within, Tehelka was raking up issues like a cloth banner
proscribing Muslims from entering a religious place at Delhi’s outskirts.
‘Welcome To Saffron Corridor!’ was the title of the news published on
23 January 2016. Tehelka’s cameras had found a banner hanging outside a
temple in Ghaziabad’s Dasna village that read ‘Musalmanon ka pravesh
varjit hai (Muslims not allowed)’. The story featured a reporter’s
conversation with a person who is claimed to be an ex-serviceman and a
Hindu extremist. It is accompanied by a video footage showing some
teenagers engaging in swordsmanship at what appeared to be nighttime.
Tehelka had tried to prove that some Hindu groups were raising their own
militia to counter Islamic terrorists.
This preposterous news would evoke anger of any sane mind. The folly
of a handful of people was painted in pre-conceived perceptions with an
agenda to equate Hindu groups without terrorist outfits. Tehelka’s other
journalists’ followed the same line trying to imitate Khetan and Ayyub,
both of which had advanced their career by gaining popularity and
political patronage.
There is no dearth of people like those behind the banner found in
Dasna. Fabricating a sensitive story by finding a bunch of such follow is
by no means a serious journalism. It can only be termed as politics.
Narendra Modi has been maligned as a hardliner after the 2002 Gujarat
riots. Be it the allegations of ordering the riots or being in collusion in the
case of the Ishrat Jahan encounter. Both the instances have been found to
be a result of pre-meditated efforts. Rahul Gandhi’s purported
conversation with Timothy Roemer proves what the UPA’s attitude

190. towards Modi. In fact, the US refusal to issue visa to Modi also appears to
be a political decision.
However, the RSS-cadre was Modi’s strength. The issue of saffron
terror was over-hyped to attack BJP at its roots. The Congress was also
using it as a tool to stop Modi’s march towards Delhi at an early stage. The
party did not want to repeat Gujarat for itself at national level. However,
the great Indian public foiled all the conspiracies through its verdict in
2014.
The story published on 23 January 2016 proves how even trifles can
sometimes be presented as terrorism. Accusing Hindu groups for deadly
blasts hints at a broader design. Some people attributed even the 26/11
attack to Hindu right groups. Tehelka’s stories, nevertheless, helped gain
an insight into the truth of the matter.
Even the references used by Rana Ayyub hinted at a broader
conspiracy. The unverified conversation of Rahul Gandhi with a US envoy
and Digvijay Singh’s endorsement of a book that held RSS responsible for
26/11 attack were some such points.

191. O
22
Digvijay Singh and the 26/11
Conspiracy
n 16 July 2013, Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh wrote a
blog on his official website. Titled ‘Am I anti-Hindu?’ the blog began with
Singh claiming to be a victim of the social media.
‘I have the rare privilege to be the most abused person on social media
by the Sanghis and the paid professionals hired by Modi operating from
Sanskar Dham in Manipur Sanand near Ahmedabad.
‘I have been called Dogvijaya Singh, some time Pigvijaya Singh by the
above mentioned “Gang” who would probably be younger than my
grandchildren!
‘Sometimes I am supposed to have converted to Islam and some time
to Christianity. Blatant lies which the Sanghis are taught to spread during
their training as their Pracharaks,’ he wrote begrudgingly.
The blog then goes on to expound on Singh’s deeds that prove how he
was a practising Hindu. The Congress leader mentioned that Jagadguru
Shankaracharya of Dwarka and Joshi Math had initiated him in 1983 and
detailed how age-old religious rituals are still observed in his ancestral
home at Raghogarh in MP’s Guna District.
Why had the wily politician felt the need to enumerate his virtues as a
Hindu? Perhaps, the answer lies in the opening remarks of the blog that are

192. quoted above. Singh was responding to the trolls on the social media.
I am against infringing the limits of decency in the name of freedom of
expression on social media. However, one must realise that Singh was also
guilty of abusing this freedom enshrined in the Constitution.
Digvijay Singh’s pathological hatred for RSS is well known. But we
also need to understand why he had attracted the wrath of the social media
trolls. He had turned himself into a de facto spokesperson for the
Congress. From being in the topmost echelons of his party, he was reduced
to a leader perceived to be hogging limelight through controversial
statements.
However, Singh’s role in the Hindutva terror conspiracy appears
beyond a cheerleader. He was often privy to the sensitive information even
before the left-leaning media groups. He was a part of the government and
that gave him space to get away with making outrageous remarks. The
establishment could also distance itself from his statements at its
convenience. The hint given by the NIA agent that Singh’s phone was also
tapped in the course of the investigation becomes cogent in this respect.
There is little doubt that Digvijay Singh was active to strengthen the
theory of saffron terrorism. He had found support in colleagues like P
Chidambaram, who held powerful positions in the UPA government. Who
could have ordered to tap his phone in such circumstances?
I called the NIA agent for an answer.
‘Sir, I will not take much time as I understand your other engagements.
I only wanted to ask why the UPA government would have decided to spy
on its own leader. Especially, when he was only working to weaken the
opposition,’ I asked.
The sleuth replied after a moment’s silence. ‘As I said earlier, I don’t
know the reason. But the information is credible. Do tell us if you get to
know who was behind his phone-tapping because my colleagues and I are
as keen to know.’
I didn’t waste his time any further and began searching for an answer.
Incidentally, Digvijay Singh was once again embroiled in controversy
when I was researching on his association with the disputes surrounding

193. the saffron terrorism. Indeed, scandals seem to have become his other
name.
The controversial Islamic preacher Zakir Naik was under the spotlight
after reports that one of the perpetrators of Dhaka attack were motivated
by his speeches. There was an increasing demand for action against him
and the security agencies were probing his credentials. They were
scrutinising several of his online videos, one of which asked all Muslims
to become ‘terrorists.’
Meanwhile, a video of Digvijay Singh sharing the stage with Zakir
Naik became viral. The Congress leader was heard praising Naik as an
‘apostle of peace’ during a programme organised in 2012. However, this
‘apostle’ was now driving teenagers to slit throats.
Naik’s hate speeches attracted attention when Bangladeshi
investigation agencies revealed the role of his discourses in radicalising
terrorists. Surprisingly, the Indian security establishment was blissfully
ignorant of the kind of ‘peace’ spread through Naik’s Peace TV.
Digvijay Singh has been a chronic offender in backing the pro-terrorist
forces. The world is increasingly aware of the dangers posed by Naik’s
supremacist view of Islam. This is the reason countries, including Britain
and Canada, have banned his entry. Even the Muslim-majority Malaysia
has proscribed Naik. Nevertheless, he has a strong fan following in
Bangladesh. We have reason to believe that his teachings sowed the seeds
of the Dhaka attack.
One of my blogs ‘Islami vidwanon se jyada atankiyon ki kyun sunte
hain yuva (Why does the youth listen to terrorists rather than Islamic
scholars)’ attracted a flurry of reactions. A section of people, probably
political activists of some parties, accused that I was writing against
Islam. It is beyond comprehension how opposing a person equates to
spreading hatred against any religion. This is precisely where the politics
of leaders like Digvijay Singh come into play. When they term the likes of
Zakir Naiks as messengers of harmony, they are pandering to their vote
bank. Young people, who have little knowledge about Islam or any other

194. faith, often follow such leaders. This lot is most susceptible to radical
indoctrination.
Zakir Naik, on his part, refuted all the allegations and claimed that he
was misquoted. ‘I only said Muslims should be terrorists to anti-social
elements,’ the preacher explained. He was also accused of supporting
Osama Bin Laden during a speech in Singapore, where he reportedly said,
‘It is not wrong to become Fedayeen on orders from a cleric.’
But Naik insisted that the video of the speech was doctored. ‘I don’t
know him. How can they say I am supporting him when I simply say I
cannot comment on him because I don’t know him and I have not done any
research on him. The Quran does not allow me to speak about a third
person regarding whom I have done no research or study,’ he was quoted
as saying.
Intelligence agencies have also reportedly found a connection between
Zakir Naik’s Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) and Jamaat-Ud-Dawa
(JuD), the frontal organisation of Lashkar-e-Taiba. The JuD’s website
recommends IRF for donations from Muslims.
Zakir Naik has also been criticised for his anti-woman remarks. All
these aspects of the personality of Naik were intensely debated by the
media after the Dhaka carnage. Then why had Digvijay Singh called this
person an ‘apostle of peace’?
In reality, it was only one of the occasions when the Congress General
Secretary was found standing with misinterpreters of Islam. Readers might
recall Aziz Burney, author of the book with a provocative title 26/11, RSS
ki Sazish (26/11, RSS Conspiracy). It was unveiled on 6 December 2010,
the day India remembers for Babri Masjid demolition. Digvijay Singh was
the chief guest of the book launch function organised in Delhi.
The book speculated that RSS was behind the Mumbai attack in
collusion with the CIA and MOSSAD. Later, Burney offered a public
apology, which was rejected by the Sangh. One must not be surprised that
Singh was perhaps the only politician to throw his weight behind the
Burney’s book.

195. Hafiz Saeed used the same book to take potshots at India just after
David Headley’s deposition before the Indian court. ‘Reading Novel ‘26/11
– RSS ki Sazish’ which proves JuD and ISI has nothing to do with 26/11
Attack,’ the Lashkar head tweeted. Amusingly, Saeed had inadvertently
called this book a novel, and it was indeed nothing more than a figment of
the imagination. Sadly, Digvijay Singh had unveiled a book that found
appreciation from a UN-designated terrorist.
This was an indication that the Congress leader could stoop to the level
of supporting the terrorists for political gains. He was unrelenting even in
his clarification, connecting terrorism with Hinduism by stating, ‘I have
appealed for communal harmony and opposed religious fundamentalism
and terrorism by either Hindus or Muslims.’
The event of 26/11 was considered an act of aggression against India,
and Digvijay Singh was endorsing the most outlandish theory that could
only please terrorists like Hafiz Saeed. The Congress leader proved during
the book launch function itself that he was not doing so out of naiveté.
Singh said during the event that Karkare had called him two hours
before the 26/11 attack to say that his life ‘was blighted by constant
threats’ from those opposed to the ATS probe into the 2008 Malegaon
blast in which Hindu extremists were accused. Days later, Singh repeated
the comments to The Indian Express, which sparked national outrage.
Digvijay Singh was clearly attempting to mix facts with Burney’s
fiction. BJP termed his antics as ‘dirty politics’. At the heart of this dirty
politics was Singh’s political wounds which he inflicted after he lost
power in MP to Uma Bharti and undertook a self-imposed exile from the
state politics.
His own party understood his frustration and chose to ignore his
statements. Predictably, the Congress distanced itself from Singh’s
remarks on Karkare. The Congress leader, Janardan Dwivedi, brushed off
Singh’s remarks by stating, ‘There is no question of [one] agreeing or
disagreeing [with that statement]. It concerns a conversation between two
individuals. Unfortunately, one of them, Karkare, is no more with us.

196. Digvijay Singh will, therefore, be in a better position to comment on his
statement.’
Dwivedi further pointed out that Karkare and Singh shared personal
equation as both hailed from MP, and that was why the IPS officer had
called him. ‘Mr Singh has made that private conversation public in a
programme, and the party has no role in it. Hence, only he can comment
on it,’ he further added.
However, Hemant Karkare’s widow Kavita Karkare exposed both the
Congress and Digvijay Singh. Demanding a probe into the claims made by
Digvijay Singh, Kavita cautioned political parties from playing politics
over martyrs. Slamming Singh for suggesting that Hindu outfits could
have killed her husband, she stressed that such statements would only
benefit Pakistan, while the need of the hour was to punish the Pakistani
terrorists behind the 26/11 attacks. Kavita denied that Mr Singh and
Hemant Karkare shared a personal relationship.
Kavita Karkare’s statement made it clear that either Digvijay Singh
was lying or deliberately undermining the credibility of the ATS action
until then. While Digvijay Singh is free to express his opinion, he is not at
the liberty to make insinuations that could harm the country’s interests in
the international arena. The Congress could neither own, nor abandon him.
This was the reason the party was wary of giving him any high-profile
responsibility.
Digvijay Singh is hardly deterred by tough questions now. Before
losing elections in MP, he had vowed to abstain from any political post for
the next 10 years, in the face of his party’s defeat. Now, the situation is
such that he is unlikely to get such a responsibility even if he wants to.
They were duly rewarded with plum posts in the Union Council of
Ministers.
Digvijay Singh’s desperation could be understood because he failed to
win the confidence of Sonia Gandhi despite all efforts. His downfall
started when he took a saffron-clad woman lightly in the electoral battle of
MP. A close look at his statements of those times would reveal his
confidence of retaining power bordered on smugness.

197. Uma Bharti taught him the importance of statements in politics.
Digvijay Singh could never come out of the impact of that defeat, and his
political career has only limped through after losing power in MP. His
seniority might have earned him the distinction of being Rahul Gandhi’s
political guru, but Singh was no match for leaders like Chidambaram and
Shinde in power politics.
The roots of Digvijay Singh’s pathological hatred for Sadhvi Pragya
also lie in the story of his political decline.
Few people know that Sadhvi Pragya was one of the close lieutenants
of Uma Bharti in the assembly elections. With organisational experience
in ABVP, Pragya was successful in this role. Digvijay Singh, who was the
CM at that time, had underestimated the political power of RSS and
ABVP, and the result was disastrous for him.
Sadhvi Pragya was fast emerging as a popular youth leader and
considered Uma Bharti as her role model. The young sadhvi was a
ferocious speaker like her mentor and often needled the Digvijay Singh
government with her speeches. Several of Pragya’s speeches came under
the scanner during Singh’s rule. The latter, perhaps, never forgot her as the
symbol of his humiliating defeat.
Digvijay Singh became such a compulsive detractor of all things
saffron that soon he was found backing the cause of the terrorists. People
are no longer surprised at the level of his outrageous statements. One
cannot imagine anything different for a person who reserves his civility
for Osama Bin Laden and invokes human rights only for the terrorists
gunned down in the Batla House encounter.
Singh’s affinity towards terrorists could be traced to his ouster from
power by a Bhagwa-clad renunciate. While he never fails to remind his
seniority, he seldom remembers the example set by his words and conduct.
His vexation with saffron forces him to attack the Sangh Parivar at
every given opportunity. Singh faced unequivocal criticism on Zakir Naik
issue from all quarters, yet he was unfazed in taking Naik’s side. He is
known to stick to his stand even if the facts prove otherwise. We should

198. not doubt that he will continue supporting Naik even if he is convicted in
the courts. Diggi’s stand on Batla House encounter proves this obstinacy.
On 19 September 2008, Delhi police gunned down two IM terrorists,
Atif Amin and Mohammed Sajid, in the city’s Jamia Nagar locality. Two
of the suspects, Mohamed Sharif and Zeeshan, were caught in the
operation while one suspect Arij Khan managed to escape. Mohan Chand
Sharma, encounter specialist and Delhi Police inspector who led the police
action, was also killed during the incident. Several other arrests were made
in the area for harbouring these terrorists.
All of the terrorists hiding in Batla House were believed to be behind
the Delhi serial blasts of 13 September 2008, that took over 30 lives and
injured more than 100 innocent people. The police had reached at their
doorsteps a week after these bombings. Atif Amin, one of the slain
terrorists, was said to be involved in all major terror strikes from 2007 to
2009. The IM chief Yasin Bhatkal had allegedly fled Batla House, minutes
before the encounter took place. He was later arrested at the Indo-Nepal
border.
The doubts expressed over the encounter by leaders like Digvijay
Singh led to the demand for a judicial probe. On 21 May 2009, the Delhi
High Court found the encounter to be genuine. The NHRC gave a clean
chit to the Delhi police. The stand taken by Digvijay Singh on this issue
was entirely different from that of his party. It is difficult to say why he
was adamant but there is no doubt that he had become an embarrassment
for his own government.
Digvijay Singh has never ceased to demand a judicial probe into the
incident. He did not budge even when the escaped terrorist surfaced in a
propaganda video of ISIS. This led to Subramanian Swamy demanding an
NIA probe against Singh for ‘deliberately misleading the nation’.
‘It should be looked into as to why the Congress leader is deliberately
misleading the country and is doing it on whose behalf. Digvijay Singh
should be investigated, he should face the NIA. I think Mr Digvijay Singh
should agree to get himself investigated by the NIA,’ he added

199. This was, of course, a political statement meant to call Singh’s bluff.
The Congress yet again said it has nothing to do with Digvijay’s statement.
Chidambaram reiterated that the encounter was not fake.
Its senior leader Salman Khurshid also exposed the Congress
ambiguity on the issue. While addressing a rally in Azamgarh during UP
Assembly elections in 2012, Khurshid recounted, he had gone to meet
Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh to demand a probe into the Batla
House encounter.
‘I was not a minister at that time, but still took the issue of the Batla
House encounter to Sonia Gandhi. When we showed photographs of that
incident to Mrs Gandhi, she wept bitterly,’ he was quoted as saying.
‘She asked me to go immediately to the PM to discuss the matter. I
talked to the PM and it was decided that the matter would be further
investigated and even the decision to appoint some retired chief justice of
the Supreme Court to look into the matter was taken. Everything was
ready; however, due to election time, we could not do anything as some
people were of an opinion that at the time of the election, this thing could
not be done,’ added Khurshid, who was Union Minister at the time of the
speech.
This statement revealed that the Congress differed from Digvijay’s
demand for a judicial probe. Later, the party was forced to accept that the
encounter was genuine. Yet, it feared the backlash of Muslim voters on the
issue. This provided BJP with a chance to hit at the appeasement politics
of the Congress.

200. W
23
This Is How to Plan a Conspiracy
hile most people brush off linking RSS to 26/11 attacks as a
malicious abstraction, understanding its real motive could help us make
sense of the saffron terror theory. For people like Digvijay Singh, such
conjecturing was the result of their extra enthusiasm after the probe of the
Malegaon and Samjhauta Express blasts. The 26/11 attack took place just
before the general elections for the 15th Lok Sabha. These elections were
held from 16 April 2009 to 13 May 2009. One can find a long list of
statements by Digvijay Singh on saffron terrorism prior to this period.
Spreading canards over the issue had become his mission.
The Mumbai carnage underscored the menace of Pak-sponsored
terrorism, much to the discomfiture of Singh. Leaders like him did not
want the issue of Hindu terrorism to die down before the Lok Sabha polls.
They did not even refrain from attributing the Mumbai attack to the RSS
for this purpose. This lobby would have succeeded in its attempts to
obfuscate the truth, but for the arrest of Ajmal Amir Kasab. Many books
written after the 26/11 attack proposed some of the most preposterous
theories for Hemant Karkare’s killing. But they were not even worth the
paper they were written on.
RSS thinker, Rakesh Sinha, read two such books and wrote a scathing
critique under the title ‘Give a dog a bad name and hang him’. One of
these books was Aziz Burney’s RSS ki Sazish - 26/11 while another one

201. –
–
–
–
was Who Killed Karkare? by former Maharashtra police officer SM
Mushrif.
Sinha exposed the level to which some politicians had stooped to
malign the Sangh Parivar. Authors like Burney and Mushrif were
convenient and willing tools at the hands of such political forces. Little
did they realise the harm their writings had inflicted on true Islam.
Feeling that the theories propounded in the books did not merit a
serious rebuttal, Sinha enumerated some of the most preposterous claims
made in them
‘As a work of fiction, it probably has some amusement value,’ Sinha
wrote about Burney’s work before elaborating its salient points as
reproduced from the article:
The BJP and the RSS are responsible for the 26/11 attack in
Mumbai. The BJP did not raise its voice against the delay in the
probe (p. ll).
ATS chief Hemant Karkare was about to disclose many facts
regarding the Malegaon blast in which he was expected to expose
many sadhus and saints including the BJP and the RSS (p. 28).
Mossad and the CIA had assisted the Sangh Parivar in the attack
carried out in Mumbai. With the tacit understanding of the US,
Saudi Arabia’s Maulana Bedi had collected fundamentalists. Even
Gujarat CM Narendra Modi had helped in attackers’ arrival and
stay (p. 41).
Post 1993, all attacks in the country were the result of the nexus
between the RSS and Mossad. Karkare was about to make all these
disclosures to the media and was going to leave the country to
settle abroad. Karkare was not killed by AK-47 but by a service
revolver of the police. RAW and the Home Ministry are
investigating the role played by the Gujarat ATS in Karkare’s
murder case. Karkare was killed by pro-Hindutva police officials
and people from the Chota Rajan gang (p. 61).

202. –
–
–
–
–
–
–
The Congress is suspecting BJP involvement in the Malegaon blast
from factions other than the RSS and Bajrang Dal. The BJP decided
to give legal assistance to Sadhvi Pragya, the day Purohit told the
CBI that the VHP leaders had given special contribution toward the
formation of Abhinav Bharat. RSS leader Indresh Kumar took ₹3
crore from the Pakistan intelligence agency ISI. The same day,
Karkare received the threat call, and the very next day, he was
killed (p. 99).
The RSS and Israel are trying to make India unstable (p. 190)
In order to make India a Hindu nation, such blasts are being carried
out (p. 219).
Abhinav Bharat was getting financial aid from the VHP. Weapons
were bought using the money provided by Praveen Togadia to kill
Indresh Kumar (p. 232).
While the RSS is distributing ‘Trishul’ to youths and women, the
Bajrang Dal is providing training to people for making bombs and
causing blasts. The VHP had planted bombs in several mosques in
Maharashtra to explode them (p. 584).
The RSS and VHP are trying to defame Muslims by forming
terrorist organisations like the IM and ISF. The IM was not
involved in the bomb blasts in Assam. The Bajrang Dal is a
dubious organisation and IM is its code name. The editor of
Communalism Combat, Teesta Setalvad, mentioned in a report that
the CBI is trying to cover up Hindu terrorism and that the Batla
House encounter was fake (p. 597).
The Election Commission of India must consider banning the BJP
from contesting elections. From Nathuram Godse to Sadhvi
Pragya, violence is part of the RSS culture. About 100 Hindutva
organisations associated with the RSS are involved in violent
activities. The mentality of the police and the army in the country
is anti-Muslim (p. 606).

203. –
–
–
–
–
Noting that the author Mushrif had ‘privately’ published the book Who
Killed Karkare in Delhi, Sinha felt the book was ‘aimed at denigrating the
Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Police, in order to demoralize them’. To
prove his point, he highlighted the following assertions made by Mushrif
in the book:
From the very beginning, Brahmins started infiltrating the
organisation, and within ten years of independence, acquired near
full control over the IB (p. l9).
The Brahmin-dominated Indian intelligence agency (p. 19).
The IB had, thus, been taken over by the RSS; it set out to
implement the RSS agenda very meticulously as if it was an organ
of the RSS (p. 20).
The IB has, thus, gradually assumed the role of the real crusader of
Brahminism (p. 21).
Intention of the IB and RAW in engineering such ‘attacks’ or
‘encounters’ is only to create ill feeling among common Hindus
against the Muslim community (p. 40).
Rakesh Sinha has participated in several of my debate shows as a panelist.
The prolific speaker and thinker that he is, it must have taken great
patience on his part to read these books and then highlight the most
outrageous lies in a brief manner. Whimsical as it might be, this
information served a great purpose for me as it indicated that the
conspiracy to implicate the Hindu organisations ran deeper than merely
the Malegaon blasts or Samjhauta Express bombings. Burney as well as
Mushrif had mixed facts with fiction. Making these books bestsellers was
not their only motive.
Sinha claims that Burney had ‘managed to raise the funds to publish a
staggering 25000 copies, when the standard print order for a book is just
500 copies!’ It appeared as if Burney was writing a screenplay for a
director, and Digvijay Singh was only adding spice to it by making claims
of receiving Karkare’s call before his death. Many other allegations made

204. –
–
by Digvijay Singh were included in the book as facts, thereby indicating
that Singh had also contributed intellectually to the book. The martyred
officer’s wife Kavita Karkare unequivocally refuted the Congress claims
that Singh shared personal relations with her husband. Yet, the party only
disowned Singh’s assertions, never him.
Hemant Karkare’s appointment as the ATS chief, and the subsequent
U-turn in 2006 and 2008 Malegaon blast cases, appears as unbelievable as
the Burney book. The entire episode of saffron terror had also exposed the
Congress policy of Muslim appeasement. Besides Karkare, several other
brave cops had also laid down their lives in the attack. The attack had
stunned the entire nation. The revelations made by Kasab coupled with the
forensic evidence gathered by intelligence agencies proved that the
handlers of the assailants were rejoicing at the death of each police officer.
Yet, Digvijay Singh was raking up the issue to the advantage of our
country’s enemies. SM Mushrif’s book did the same with alacrity.
However, Sinha offered a strong rebuttal to some of the lies mentioned in
the book. Here is an excerpt from his article:
Mushrif made a serious allegation that the IB was under the grip of the
RSS. His allegation damages the reputation of both the RSS and IB. Is
there any grain of truth in his allegation? The following facts unravel the
truth:
Former Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra, SM Mushrif first
publicly made this sensational statement in New Delhi at a three-
day workshop in March 2007 on the subject, ‘Trends in
Intelligence and Law and Order agencies’ under the aegis of
Mumbai’s Citizens for Justice and Peace [controlled by Teesta
Setalvad and Javed Anand, editors and publishers of Communalism
Combat].
Mushrif exploded the lie that the RSS has penetrated the IB to the
extent that it is working as an RSS wing. He ‘substantiated’ his
allegation by stating, “BG Vaidya, brother of RSS leader MG
Vaidya, an IPS, spent his entire career in the IB”. He further stated

205. –
–
that “it was the reason that the IB always shielded the RSS”. BG
Vaidya, a retired IPS, who lives in Pune, has no relation with the
former RSS spokesperson MG Vaidya, whose younger brother, the
late BG Vaidya, was a bank employee in Amravati (Maharashtra)
and died in 2003 [It’s Hindu anger not terror, Rakesh Sinha, The
Pioneer, 1 November 2008]
This was repeated by Muslim journals and intellectuals. For
instance, Syed Shahabuddin-edited journal Muslim India
reproduced his statement without probing the fact. Milli Gazette
too prominently wrote the same story [Milli Gazette, 1-15 April
2007, BG Vaidya from Maharashtra remained in IB until his
retirement and reached the highest post of DIB, and interestingly,
when he was the IB chief, his brother MG Vaidya was the RSS
chief of Maharashtra state. See Who Killed Karkare? p. 20]
The unchecked and uninterrupted propaganda damages institutions,
misguides media and public and also encourages such elements to
continue with the similar constructed stories. Mushrif’s work Who
Killed Karkare? is its classical example. He repeated the lie in his
work in a more assertive manner.
Such malicious books were attracting people known for baking their bread
by fomenting the heat of communalism. On one hand, Digvijay Singh was
trying to lend credence to Burney’s outlandish theory. On the other, Teesta
Setalvad and her organisations were standing with Mushrif’s lies.
Politics can be a dirty game, as they say, but compromising national
interest is not permissible even in the most intense political battle. It is the
beauty of our Constitution that even the likes of Burney, Mushrif and
Digvijay Singh can express their whims and fancies. They could have
faced serious consequences by doing the same in some of the other
countries.
Rakesh Singh further rebuffs Mushrif’s book by quoting the following
points mentioned in it:

206. –
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
There is no reason to suspect that Ajmal Kasab was arrested by
Nepalese forces and was handed over to Indian intelligence
agencies...sounds quite logical (p. 198–199).
Mushrif’s imagination and sympathy for Kasab goes to the extent
that he unhesitatingly writes ‘as the terrorist was already in the
custody of IB, his photograph could have been taken either before
or after the incident‘ (p. 201).
IB behind conspiracy and preparation to kill Hemant Karkare (p.
220–223).
CIA could not be fully controlled by Zionists...as Brahmins could
not fully control IB and RAW (p. 239).
Brahmins have been hankering for Peshwa (p. 267).
Out of 48 incidents connected with terrorism as detailed in Chapter
II of this book, as many as 35 pertain to Maharashtra... a detailed
enquiry into them would reveal that the Brahmins have been their
masterminds (p. 270).
The IB connived at the assassination of the Father of the Nation by
willfully omitting to take action against conspirators (p. 276).
Under the pretext of ‘intelligence’, the IB intentionally spreads
rumours of anticipated ‘attacks’ by Muslim terrorist outfits on
VVIPs, vital installations and religious places, with a view to
create an anti-Muslim atmosphere in the country (p. 277).
Some of the so-called ‘terrorist attacks’, wherein all the terrorist
were killed, as in the case of Parliament or RSS headquarters in
Nagpur, were suspected to be the handiwork of the IB. Such cases
should be inquired into by fact-finding committees (p. 290).
Unless media is taken out of the Brahmins’ control, there is hardly
anything which the government and judiciary can do (p. 294).
TV channels knowingly promote the Brahminist ideology,
demonise Muslims, foment communal trouble... (p. 295).

207. ‘Such is the laughable endeavour of those trying to give the RSS a bad
name, to equate it with Islamic terror and instill fear and hatred regarding
the organisation in the minds of ordinary citizens,’ Sinha concludes.
It is indeed difficult not to scoff at the assumptions made in the book.
The book Who Killed Karkare? is a befitting example of how intellect can
also be a potent weapon against the truth if misdirected. Zakir Naik is
another glaring example of this fact. People like Mushrif and Burney bite
the hand that feeds them. They are motivated either by some petty grudge
or by grand ambition. Digvijay Singh had gone above board to instigate
them. The Congress might have washed its hands of him, but the
government was certainly condoning his actions. It was a well-
orchestrated strategy that killed the snake without breaking the club for
the UPA government.
These books are classical examples of lies spread to link RSS with
terrorism and erect a parallel theory of terrorism to dilute the threat of
Islamic extremism. One might rightly ask why should we pay attention to
such rubbish when there is no dearth of people writing such trash.
However, one cannot miss the public personalities who were backing these
writers by sharing the stage and providing funds to them. Both Digvijay
Singh and Teesta Setalvad are known for their staunch anti-Modi
viewpoint. They were found supporting Burney and Mushrif at a time
when Modi was a strong contender to lead his party in the general
elections with the full backing of the RSS. Tehelka’s reporting, such
frivolous books and a spate of controversial statements by proven anti-
Modi leaders suggested a concerted effort to stop Modi’s march to Delhi’s
power corridors.
Salman Khurshid’s statement demonstrated that Digvijay Singh had
the tacit approval of his party. The party was merely playing safe for the
compulsions of the vote bank politics by issuing a statement distancing
itself from Singh’s remarks.
Such was Singh’s brazenness that he was not only raising fingers at the
Union Home Ministry headed by his own colleague but also trying to
influence the then PM’s view on the matter. The letter written by Singh to

208. Manmohan Singh on 29 July 2010 is an example of this fact. Here’s what
English paper Mail Today reported on the letter under the heading
‘Digvijay Singh takes the war on saffron terror to PM’.
Fighting the Maoist terror may be the home Ministry’s top priority, but
Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh is worried about another type
of homegrown terror. Digvijay has taken his campaign against saffron
terror to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
In a letter to the PM two and a half months ago, he wrote in detail
about various Hindutva outfits allegedly involved in terror activities.
He underscored the need for an agency like the NIAA to probe the
terror network of these groups masquerading as social and religious
organisations.
‘The former MP CM has, in fact, been waging a war against Hindutva
terror, which he alleged took roots as early as 1992, for the past two years.
‘He flagged the issue with the government when he wrote to the then
Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, on 16 September 2008.
‘In his letter to Patil, Digvijay gave the details of a spate of bomb
blasts involving organisations affiliated to the RSS between 1992 and
2008 in Maharashtra, MP and Haryana. He demanded the creation of a
special cell in the Ministry to monitor the activities of these outfits.
‘With no serious action from the Home Ministry, Digvijay, according
to sources, forwarded the details to the PM on 10 May this year.
‘He pointed out that the states and even the Centre had not been able to
bring the investigations into these blasts to a logical conclusion or keep
track of the activities of these outfits.
‘In his letter, he named Abhinav Bharat, Bajrang Dal, VHP, Hindu
Janajagruti Samiti, Dharmashakti Sena, Sanatan Sanstha, Guru Kripa
Pratisthan and a few others as outfits that are part of the Hindutva terror
network.’
Digvijay also brought the subversive activities of the Bhonsla Military
School to the notice of the PM.
‘The role of this school in training young recruits from the Sangh
brotherhood’s bomb making brigade has been revealed by the

209. investigations of the (Maharashtra) ATS. This school has two known
branches-one in Nashik and the other in Nagpur.
Its website reveals that Dr BS Monnje, one of the founders of the RSS
referred to as Dharmaveer, is the main inspiration behind these schools.
The institution gets regular visits from senior army officers,’ the letter
said.
Sources said the letter tried to impress upon the PM the need to set up
a separate cell in the Home Ministry to keep track of these groups that are
out to destroy communal harmony.
The Congress general secretary cited several cases of bomb blasts in
which people linked with saffron outfits were found to be involved.
He said the blasts were coordinated by elements in one or more states
and demanded that all such cases be investigated by the NIA. States ruled
by the BJP are not cooperating in the investigations, he alleged.
‘We have seen the Samjhauta Express investigation which led the
Haryana Police to Indore. But the MP police did not extend cooperation,
and as a consequence, the investigation has reached a dead end. Therefore,
it is important and necessary to give the investigation of terror-related
cases to the NIA,’ Singh said.
One can imagine from the letter that Singh was emboldened enough to
raise fingers at the Home Ministry of his own government. He also seems
keen to grab some official role in the probe by demanding a separate cell
in the Home Ministry to deal with the matter. Shivraj Patil, who had yet
again refuted Singh’s claims on the Batla House encounter in 2016,
appears to be his target in the letter. His frenzied letters, first to the Home
Ministry and later to the PMO, showed his desperation to secure a position
of power. One might deduce that he was hinting at his interest in getting a
role in some wing of the power corridors. He could have been eyeing the
post of the Home Minister as well. This could be the reason he was acting
as a shadow Home Minister for his own government. Not only Shivraj
Patil but his successors Sushil Kumar Shinde and Chidambaram could also
see through Singh’s intentions.

210. As the controversial books mentioned above, Digvijay Singh’s letter
also accuses the same organisations and the Bhonsla military school to
allege the presence of Hindu terrorism. He was only putting his
government and the military in the dock. The government, however, was
treading cautiously because the matter was such that even the slightest of
mistake could have proved it as working against the nation. The UPA
government should either have acted on Singh’s allegations or asked him
to mend his ways.
But Rahul Gandhi’s purported statement leaked by WikiLeaks suggests
Diggi Raja was successful in convincing the top leadership of his party.
However, leaders like Chidambaram and Sushil Kumar Shinde were
cleverer in hijacking this issue from the Raja of Raghopur. Chidambaram
had publicly demolished Digvijay Singh’s insinuations on Batla House
encounter. However, nobody can snatch the dubious distinction of being
the father of the theory of Hindu terror from him. His politics, never
ceased even when several inconsistencies in the probe were exposed.
The theory of saffron terrorism was erected on cheap politics through
third-rate books, Tehelka brand journalism and arm-twisting the probe
agencies. Some promising activists became the victims of this lie. Their
statements were taken out of context to equate them with Islamic
terrorists. Yet, the theory cut little ice because Islamic terrorism has
origin, motive and mentors, whereas, the so-called Hindu terror is nothing
but a political lie.

211. T
24
RSS Panics, Knocks the PM’s Door
he title of the chapter is borrowed from Tehelka’s news report dated 14
February 2011. The reader can take it as an acclamation of victory by the
reporter, Iftikhar Gilani. Team Digvijay was constantly at work and
showed some results. In what was arguably history’s first instance, RSS
was forced to write a complaint letter to the PM. The clamour for ban on
the organisation was growing. The Sangh leadership was increasingly
under pressure. The conspiracy had outgrown small fries like Sadhvi
Pragya and Aseemanand. Senior RSS leader Indresh Kumar was accused
of working for the ISI. Even Mohan Bhagwat’s name was tossed as his
name was found in Aseemanand’s purported confession.
In Leena Gita Reghunath’s reportage titled ‘The Believer’ (The
Caravan, 1 February 2014), Aseemanand’s apparently accused Bhagwat
and Indresh Kumar of sanctioning terror attacks. Reghunath claimed to
have approached both the leaders for clarification. In response, Kumar
reportedly asked why the government was not acting against him. This
valid defence is presented in the article as his arrogance. According to
Leena, she also called Mohan Bhagwat’s office and was told to send her
questions through e-mail. Leena claims that the reply to her questionnaire
never arrived.
The underlying melodramatic tone of the article suggests that
Aseemanand was used by the RSS and that terror was perpetrated with the

212. full blessings of the RSS Chief. The unbelievable propositions of ‘The
Believer’ was yet another example of misuse of freedom of expression for
petty gains and how some people are made scapegoats.
‘When I telephoned him to ask about the meeting in which he and
Bhagwat allegedly gave their blessing to the terrorist attacks, he went
completely silent,’ the reporter claims while accusing Kumar of adopting
an ‘aggressive tone’. Which law takes silence for admission of guilt? A
leader in position as responsible as Indresh Kumar is bound to think before
speaking on such a sensitive issue. This was a period when wild
allegations were all around. Especially, though the name of Indresh Kumar
was propped up repeatedly, no action followed. Earlier, investigation
agencies have claimed that the alleged Hindu terrorists posed a threat to
the lives of Kumar and Singh. How is it possible, if they were the kingpins
of the entire plot? Nobody has bothered to answer this contradiction.
Reghunath also quotes Aseemanand as saying that he had confessed
without any fear or inducement. Why did he retracte his statement later on
then, if this were the case? How could he have said two different things in
court and the media? More importantly, Aseemanand’s lawyer claimed
that this interview never actually happened.
‘Aseemanand said that he never gave any such statement implicating
Bhagwat. And if this was true, why does it not figure in the confessional
statements that the CBI and NIA extracted out of him? This is all a
political conspiracy,’ Aseemanand’s lawyer J S Rana told The Times of
India.
The article portrayed Aseemanand as an ascetic who believed in non-
violence, but was misled by the RSS through indoctrination. Even his body
language was vividly reported as a proof. The reader would find this
excerpt of the article particularly interesting for its mention of Narendra
Modi:
‘In January 2014, he (Aseemanand) asked if I (reporter) would like
some tea. Before I could answer, a lean teenage boy, incarcerated for petty
crimes, thrust a plastic cup filled with sweet chai into my hands.
Aseemanand pulled him close and said, “This is my boy. He will be

213. released soon.” He looked into the teenager’s face and added, laughing,
“This chaiwala might grow up to become Narendra Modi.” Was this
anecdote a subtle subconscious suggestion to implicate Modi?
Aseemanand has spent most part of his life in Gujarat. It is Gujarat
that appears to be the centre of this alleged conspiracy. Be it the Gujarat
riots, the Ishrat Jahan encounter or the Malegaon and Samjhauta Express
blasts. The connection of Gujarat with the alleged saffron terror is no
coincidence. These facts are, of course, not legally potent. Yet, they reflect
the politics behind the issue. Such interviews became a basis for anti-RSS
tirade in the media. It came to a situation when RSS leaders genuinely
feared a ban. The Sangh is known to maintain a distance from the
government. Still, a decision was taken to apprise the head of the then
government about its concerns. The letter also gave RSS an opportunity to
defend itself without facing media’s cacophony.
Iftikhar Gilani states in his 14 February 2011 report, titled ‘RSS
Panics, Knocks PM’s Door’:
‘Fearing a ban, the RSS knocked PM Manmohan Singh’s door
demanding a ‘fair, objective, impartial and independent’ inquiry into
attempts made to malign the organisation in cases of terrorism.
Senior RSS leader, Ram Madhav, on Monday met officials from the
Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and submitted a letter written by General
Secretary, Suresh Bhaiya Joshi, alleging a malicious campaign against the
RSS.
Madhav asked for an independent investigation into the ‘political
conspiracy’ to ‘destabilise the RSS’ following allegations of RSS
members’ involvement in cases of Hindu terrorism.
‘The accused can say anything. It has zero value. Such statements will
be contested in the court of law. Why are the agencies indulging in
selective leakage of statements?
‘They are supposed to be confidential. We have always said that Mr
Indresh Kumar or any other RSS member does not have any role in the
blasts,’ said Madhav, after submitting the letter.

214. Joshi’s letter urged the PM to take an objective view on investigations
into the Malegaon, Ajmer, and Hyderabad blasts in which RSS
functionaries, former and serving—including senior pracharak Indresh
Kumar—have been implicated. He stressed that the RSS should not be
clubbed with ‘Abhinav Bharat’ just because it is a Hindu organisation.
The letter refers to a chargesheet filed by the Maharashtra ATS on 20
January 2009 in the Malegaon blast case, in which a transcript of
conversation between the two accused—Col. Purohit and Dayanand
Pandey—shows their plot to kill RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and Indresh
Kumar with ‘chemical weapons’.
The letter alleges that the ATS deliberately suppressed this ‘explosive’
evidence in its submissions to the Bombay High Court because that would
have foiled its efforts to bracket the RSS with the Malegaon
‘conspirators’.
Joshi, therefore, stressed that the PM should set up an ‘impartial and
independent’ inquiry into the ‘hidden mission’ of Purohit and his
associates, and differentiate between the accused members and other RSS
volunteers.
The letter sent to the PMO on Thursday stressed on the ‘nation
building’ work done by the RSS volunteers for which the organisation has
been lauded in the past by former Presidents of India and late PM Lal
Bahadur Shastri.
It even mentioned Jawaharlal Nehru’s ‘endorsement’ of the
constructive role of the RSS despite his ‘serious differences’ with the
organisation and his invitation to ‘swayamsevaks’ to show up at the 1963
Republic Day parade.
Without naming the Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh, the
letter decries his ‘vicious’ campaign against saffron terror.
BJP President, Nitin Gadkari, also endorsed the RSS stand that its
volunteers are being acted upon with a revenge motive to divert attention
from the government’s corruption. In an interview, he said: ‘India will
disintegrate if Hindus do not remain in majority as Hindutva is a liberal

215. thinking ideology and all the government’s attempts are to browbeat those
pursuing this thinking.’
The letter reflects that it was bothered more about the vicious
campaign fed by selective leaks than the legal aspects. In hindsight, we all
know that no action was taken on this plea. Aseemanand’s alleged
confession was a shot in the arm for anti-RSS forces as he had been
associated with the Sangh for long. It was not difficult to prove his
connection with top RSS brass.
The RSS also expressed displeasure at linking it with the Abhinav
Bharat. I sought to find a distinction between Swayamsevaks and any other
Hindutva leader. It was an attempt to completely disown Abhinav Bharat.
Citing Aseemanand’s statement, the article published in The Caravan
states Indresh Kumar had ordered the terror attacks and Col. Purohit was
closely linked to him. The same Purohit was accused by the investigative
agencies of plotting to kill Kumar. These contradictions cast serious
aspersions on Reghunath’s report. Either Aseemanand’s confession is true,
or the conversation recorded by Dayanand Pandey that says Bhagwat and
Kumar received funding from ISI is true.
You read the reports published in Tehelka and The Caravan. Now,
sample the following news item published by Zee News (18 February
2009, ISI funded RSS leaders: Pandey’s confession):
‘RSS leader Shyam Apte has alleged that two RSS leaders, including
general secretary Mohan Bhagwat were funded by Pakistan’s ISI,
Malegaon blast accused Dayanand Pandey said in his confessional
statement to the police. “In August 2008, I had gone to Pune where I met
with RSS leader Shyam Apte who told me about (Indresh) Kumar (Muslim
wing leader of RSS) and Bhagwat taking money from ISI. Lt Col Srikant
Purohit, after learning about this, had asked one Captain Joshi to murder
the two,” Pandey said in his confession before a Deputy Commissioner of
Police (DCP).’
The self-styled religious leader, in his statement to the police, has said
that Purohit, who had formed the right-wing group Abhinav Bharat, had
directed one Captain Joshi to murder Indresh Kumar and Mohan Bhagwat.

216. The statement said that Joshi was, however, not able to execute the
murder which infuriated Apte. Pandey said that the entire Malegaon blast
conspiracy had been hatched by Purohit and co-accused Sadhvi Pragya
Singh Thakur, who wanted to take the lead in the cause of Hindutva and
‘avenge for the deaths of Hindus caused by Muslims across the country’.
‘In August 2007, I met Purohit in Deolali camp (near Nashik) where he
told me about forming a right-wing group by the name Abhinav Bharat for
promoting and safeguarding Hindutva,’ Pandey’s confession statement
said. In January 2008, Pandey attended a meeting of Abhinav Bharat in
Faridabad in which Purohit, co-accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi and retired
Major Ramesh Upadhyay were present,’ it said.
In the meeting, Purohit spoke extensively about the setting up of a
‘Hindu Rashtra’ with its own Constitution for the protection of Hindus, it
added. ‘Purohit had also said he would arrange for explosives which can
be used to blast Muslim-dominated areas. Upadhyay then said that he can
arrange for men to prepare the bombs,’ Pandey said. In June 2008, Pandey
had gone to Indore where he met Sadhvi who told him that she had asked
Purohit to arrange for explosives for the protection of Hindus. ‘Sadhvi said
that Purohit was not taking the cause seriously and asked me to convince
him to arrange for the explosives immediately,’ the statement said.
Of the 11 arrested accused in the case, 2—Pandey and Rakesh Dhawde
—have given confessional statements. Confession given before a DCP-
level officer is admissible in the court under MCOCA which has been
invoked in the Malegaon case.’
The Constitution and ‘Hindu Rashtra’ were dragged to consolidate the
terrorism-related charges and bring the RSS under the NIA scanner. It was
alleged to be an international conspiracy linked to Israel and Nepal, among
other countries. Why wasn’t a shred of evidence found to establish these
accusations? Why didn’t the security agencies go beyond taking
Aseemanand’s statement under Section 164, if his parent organisation was
waging a war against the nation?
The claim made by the Maharashtra ATS that Mohan Bhagwat was on
the hit list of the violent extremists led by Sunil Joshi, and its

217. confirmation by the then state Home Minister RR Patil indicate that facts
were fabricated to implicate the RSS leadership. The statements given
before the magistrate were given precedence over the forensic evidence in
a bid to target the Sangh.
Col. Purohit and Dayanand Pandey are the two most mysterious
characters of this story. While Purohit was uniting all the conspirators,
Pandey was busy snooping on them. The latter has accused Purohit of
issuing orders to kill Sangh leaders. However, it is established that he was
not a swayamsevak like Sadhvi Pragya and Aseemanand. Shyam Apte was
connected to Col. Purohit for political ambitions. We will discuss Col.
Purohit’s role in this story in the following chapter.

218. C
25
Accused No. 9: Col. Purohit:
Patriot, Conspirator or Terrorist?
ol. Purohit is the most curious character of the ‘Hindutva Theory’.
Known to his friends as PP, the whole premise of the accusations of the so-
called saffron terrorism revolves around Prasad Shrikant Purohit. Remove
him, and the whole theory loses credence. The claims made by the ATS,
the NIA, Tehelka, Digvijay Singh, Mushrif and Burney fall flat on their
face if this man is proven innocent. The biggest puzzle still eluding an
answer is why this capable officer of the MI is behind bars? Is he a patriot,
a conspirator, or as NIA’s chargesheet alleges, a terrorist?
A patriot, because he had decided to join Indian army at the age of 10.
Purohit had realised this dream by the time he was 22. He entered the
defence services as a lieutenant with the 15 Maratha Light Infantry
regiment and never looked back. Considered a promising officer by
superiors and peers, Purohit’s career took a decisive turn when he was
posted in the Uri sector of J&K. An injury to his knee while discharging
his duties led to his shifting track to the intelligence wing. Colonel Purohit
believed in aggressive strategies to tame the enemy, and this attitude won
him many accolades in within MI military intelligence. He had managed
to penetrate into dangerous organisations like the ISI, IM and SIMI
through a strong network of assets. This is not merely hearsay; several

219. annual MI reports have acknowledged Purohit’s performance as a sleuth.
These confidential reports are replete with words of praise for Purohit
from his seniors. While researching for this book, I also stumbled upon
some letters written by high authorities to ATS officers after listening to
Purohit’s lectures on national security. This is the story of Col. Purohit
who is still a patriot in the eyes of his family and friends and whose past
stands witness to this fact.
Yet, Purohit carries the stigma of a conspirator. He claims to have kept
his seniors in the loop about his activities. According to Purohit, he
reported to his bosses before and after every meeting with the people
associated with the Hindu terror conspiracy. His mission was apparently to
penetrate the Abhinav Bharat and Dayanand Pandey aka Sudhakar
Dwivedi, aka Chaturvedi aka Shankaracharya was a valuable conduit in
this regard. This man is reportedly mentioned as an informant in army’s
official documents. Col. Purohit entered the world of far-right Hindu
groups through Dayanand Pandey alias Sudhakar Dwivedi. The army’s
Court of Inquiry (CoI) has held that he used army’s surveillance
equipment to record sensitive conversations. However, the ATS claimed to
have found recorded clippings of meetings and conversations from
Pandey’s laptops. Later, these clippings were leaked to Tehelka magazine.
The CoI further mentions a hand-written letter sent by Purohit to his
senior officer Major Bhagirath De informing him about the alleged plans
of Sadhvi Pragya, Indresh Kumar and Sunil Joshi. Purohit had seemingly
gained the trust of these people and provided their information to his
superiors. Was he planning something sinister in collusion with Dayanand
Pandey? This is also one of the projected faces of Col. Purohit that shows
him as a sly conspirator.
Col. Purohit is also a terrorist to some people. He is languishing in jail
for over 8 years as the accused no. 9 in the Malegaon blast case. The NIA’s
chargesheet states that Purohit is a violent Hindu extremist who plotted
bomb blasts in Muslim-dominated areas. According to the chargesheet,
Purohit wanted to avenge the successive bomb blasts being perpetrated by
the Muslim terrorists in all parts of the country.

220. The chargesheet accuses his co-conspirators of supporting violent
Hindutva and nationalism. Col. Purohit had conceded during an interview
that he believed in Hindutva but clarified that this does not mean he was a
terrorist. Various testimonies and audio recordings indicate that Purohit
was planning something that involved blasts. This is also a version of the
story of Col. Purohit, which brands him as a traitor and a dangerous
fundamentalist.
There is no unanimity among the investigative agencies over the true
face of Col. Purohit, who is apparently the fulcrum of the entire plot. One
can imagine the credibility of the theory of Hindutva terror in such a
situation. Several questions regarding Col. Purohit merit an answer:
1. Why did Col. Purohit want to infiltrate the Abhinav Bharat?
2. Was the MI snooping on saffron groups?
3. Why was Col. Purohit apprehended when he had kept his seniors
informed about his activities?
4. What was the secret mission of Col. Purohit in MP?
5. How was a brilliant and a patriot military officer radicalised?
6. What was Dayanand Pandey’s role in the conspiracy?
7. Who was recording the meetings and the conversations in the
Abhinav Bharat group?
8. What was the secret behind the recorded conversation between Col.
Purohit and Major (Retd.) Ramesh Upadhyay?
One might find the last question slightly intriguing because it has not been
discussed so far. Here is the report that carried the transcript of this
alleged conversation (The Indian Express, 21 January 2009 ‘Cat is out of
the bag...we have to be meticulous...cautious’, Smita Nair and Sukanya
Shetty):
‘For Lt Col. Prasad Purohit and retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, 2 of
the 11 chargesheeted in the Malegaon bomb blast case today by the
Maharashtra ATS, news that they were apparently hoping would never
become public—and lead to their arrest days later—came on 23 October
last year.

221. It was the day The Indian Express first reported that the ATS was
believed to have cracked the 29 September bomb blast case and suspected
it to be the work of a Hindu extremist group based in Indore. Later that
day, the ATS also announced that it had arrested Sadhvi Pragyasingh
Thakur and two of her accomplices in connection with the attack which
killed six Muslims during the fasting month of Ramzan.
The news is believed to have triggered hectic telephonic consultations
between Upadhyay and Purohit, now named the main conspirator in the
chargesheet. The alleged conversations, however, were not private. Their
phones had been tapped by the ATS and all the chatter recorded.
Transcripts of the calls, among several others, now form a part of the
chargesheet, and the ATS expects they will play a big role in nailing the
case.
The Indian Express is in possession of transcript copies of some of
those conversations between Purohit, who was in MP, and Pune resident
Upadhyay. The duo frequently refers to a ‘Mr Singh’ in most of the calls,
which ATS sources said was their code for Sadhvi Pragyasingh, based on
the interrogation of the suspects.
The first of the transcripts are from a call made at 11.23 a.m., which
lasted 5 minutes and 38 seconds:
Purohit: Sir, have you read today’s headlines...
Upadhyay: I have read about the Hindu Jagran Manch of Indore being
blamed for Modasa and Malegaon blast.
Purohit: That is Singh sahib.
Upadhyay: OK.
Purohit: That means the cat is out of the bag now as far as Mr Singh is
concerned.
During this conversation, the two men discuss how much the police
might know from the information that has been shared with the media, and
Purohit goes on to ask Upadhyay to get a new mobile SIM card for
himself.
Purohit:...So what I am suggesting to you is, Sir...
Upadhyay: Yes.

222. Purohit: If you can kindly procure one more SIM for yourself.
Upadhyay: One more...
Purohit: SIM card.
Upadhyay: OK.
Purohit: Which may not be your own.
Upadhyay: OK.
Purohit: Woh karle turanth sir (Please do this immediately sir).
Upadhyay: Theek hai, dekhta hoon (OK, let me see).
Purohit: Yes, Sir.
Upadhyay: Anything you suspect?
Purohit: No sir, but let us be very meticulous now.
Upadhyay: Yes, we have to be...
ATS sources say the two men were also allegedly trying to find out
more information about the progress of the case and exchanging notes
through the dau. Excerpts from one such call which lasted 10 mins and 59
seconds and was made at 5:54 p.m.:
Purohit: Some developments, Singh has begun to sing.
Upadhyay: OK.
Purohit: Situation is tense. Your name is not figuring there.
Upadhyay: OK.
Purohit: My name is likely to figure.
Upadhyay: OK.
Purohit: This is the last phone call from this phone. I will give you one
more number, jo maine kal aapko jisse phone kiya tha (from which I had
called you yesterday).
Upadhyay: OK.
Purohit: Uske baad main switch off ho jaoonga (I will switch off after
that).
Upadhyay: OK.
Purohit: I tell everyone...not to talk to me.
Upadhyay: OK.
Later in the same conversation, Upadhyay tells Purohit that police
were also making inquiries about him.

223. Upadhyay: See, when the chap has come to me, my name has also
figured. There is no doubt about it because otherwise, why should anybody
come at my place.
Purohit: Yes, but Sir, aise hai na, ek to aapka naam aaya hoga (your
name must have figured) organisation head karke.
Upadhyay: Maybe, whatever be the reason, but checking has started.
Purohit: Yes.
Upadhyay: Checking has started means we have to be cautious.
Purohit: Very much, Sir.
Again in this conversation, the two men talk about Sadhvi and wonder
how much information she may have revealed, according to the
transcripts.
Upadhyay: My suggestion would be that she has taken your name, it is
confirmed now.
Purohit: It is confirmed now.
Upadhyay: OK, fine, she has taken your name but they will not be able
to trace you immediately, that is for sure.
Purohit: Sir.
Upadhyay: It appears that she might tell the location if she knows.
Purohit: Sir.
Upadhyay: That you are here and there or whatever, but then your right
name is difficult so immediately it cannot be done. He has changed his
number. Sudhakar. So it does not appear that they will be able to directly
contact you. So that much safety factor is there, and thirdly, you are not in
the organisation as such.
Purohit: Sir.
Upadhyay: So that much safety factor is still there, but naturally some
sort of problem cannot be avoided.
Purohit: Sir.
Upadhyay: Now, well, to tackle it, I suggested that we have a lawyer.
Because I was suspecting that something or the other trouble will get
created unnecessary, and we will have to sort it out.

224. In an earlier conversation during the day, during a call made at 4.12
p.m. which lasted 5 minutes and 18 seconds, the serving and former army
officer suspected the hand of the NCP behind the news. They thought that
the NCP, whose leader R R Patil was the then Maharashtra Deputy CM and
Home Minister, had leaked the information to divert attention from the
furore over Maharashtra Navnirman Sena activists attacking north Indian
migrants who had come to Mumbai to appear in railway job exams.
Upadhyay was arrested five days later on 28 October and Lt Col.
Purohit on 5 November.’
It is unclear whether the NCP had leaked the information or not, but
there was no doubt that the details of the ATS probe were reaching the
media. The NCP was the first party to raise the issue of saffron terrorism
in the Maharashtra Assembly. Col. Purohit, as well as Major Upadhyay,
were worried about the party’s role in the entire episode if the transcript is
true. The purported conversation also reveals they had not disclosed all the
details of their identity to Sadhvi Pragya. Major Upadhyay was perhaps
aware of what lay ahead as he was preparing for a legal battle. The
demeanour of this conversation also suggests that both the speakers were
wary of the possibility of surveillance. How could an MI officer be so
naïve to talk about such a sensitive matter over the phone? What led The
Indian Express to believe that ‘Mr Singh’ was indeed a code word for
Sadhvi Pragya? All these unanswered enigmas are mind-boggling, to say
the least. Had Col. Purohit deliberately prepared a case against Sadhvi
Pragya and other people with full preparation? Did the army’s informant
Dayanand Pandey help him?
Outlook had sought answers to some of these questions in Purohit’s
exclusive interview published in its 9 July 2012 edition. The man who is
the central character of the theory of Hindutva terror has languished in jail
without any solid evidence. Even the NIA has questioned his indictment
by the ATS. This interview titled ‘I Infiltrated Abhinav Bharat, Did my
Job, Kept Bosses in the Loop’, also puts forward the same doubts.
Here are the excerpts:

225. ‘The first-ever serving Indian army officer arrested on charges of
terrorism related to the Malegaon blast of Sept 2008, Lt Col. Prasad
Shrikant Purohit breaks his silence and answers a few questions.
Outlook: Has your ideology got you in the dock?
Purohit: What ideology are you talking about?
Outlook: Your right-wing ideology.
Purohit: This is a tricky question, involving both the army services and
subjudice matters. I won’t be able to comment on this.
Outlook: Can you explain to us the dynamics of Abhinav Bharat?
Purohit: I infiltrated Abhinav Bharat. I have done my job properly,
have kept my bosses in the loop, and everything is on paper in the army
records. Those who need to know, know the truth.
Outlook: What was your equation with Sudhakar Chaturvedi, your co-
accused?
Purohit: It is already on record in the CoI that he was my source. I had
cultivated him during my tenure in Deolali. Infiltrating a group works like
a force multiplier. If Sudhakar Chaturvedi is giving me all the crucial
information in one sitting, why should I run around for information? I
would just call Chaturvedi to my office, talk to him and he would give me
all the information. That’s how I was running the source.
Outlook: But Abhinav Bharat is a right-wing organisation involved in
the blast.
Purohit: Having a particular ideology does not make me a terrorist or
anti-national. I will reiterate that not even my enemy can doubt my loyalty
to my motherland. As to Abhinav Bharat’s involvement, the matter is
subjudice.
Outlook: At any point, did you interact with your co-accused Dayanand
Pandey, Sameer Kulkarni or Ajay Rahirkar?
Purohit: All I’ll say is, Rahirkar is a childhood friend. About others, I
won’t say anything.
Outlook: But there are explosive telephonic conversations between you
and Pandey where you are using abusive words and talking about ‘Hindu
Rashtra’. Do you deny this?

226. Purohit: Why should I deny it? Who is denying it? 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 about
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. Today it’s me, tomorrow it could
be someone else. It is a warning signal to all intelligence officers.
Outlook: Was it as part of the same job that you attended those three
religious meetings in Faridabad, Calcutta and Bhopal, which were also
attended by the other Malegaon accused?
Purohit: I have given the reports about the meetings to my seniors. It’s
on record. It depends on perception. These three meetings have got
nothing to do with Malegaon blast. Just because the chargesheet says so,
it’s not the gospel truth.’
As illustrated by this interview, Col. Purohit never denied his links
with the co-accused. The information he gave about Dayanand, is in
accordance with the army records. Purohit insists that he had kept his
senior apprised of the entire operation at all stages. What was this
operation? Why was the military suddenly spying on Hindu organisation
through its officer posted in MP? Was the army’s top brass preparing to
crackdown on these groups?
Interestingly, Col. Purohit never denied his inclination towards rightist
ideology. All he says is this should not be construed as a proof of his guilt.
Outlook also claims to have talked to the witnesses of this case, most of
which vouched for Col. Purohit’s patriotism and operational capabilities.
Purohit’s assertion that the alleged meetings in Faridabad, Calcutta and
Bhopal had nothing to do with the Malegaon blast indicates towards
another story.
What was Col. Purohit doing in these meetings with the other accused?
Was he really guiding some radical Hindus towards violence? Dayanand
Pandey is another shady character in the story. He is mentioned as a source

227. in army’s documents, on the one hand, and instigates people to carry out
blasts, on the other.
Was there an attempt to capitalise on Shyam Apte’s differences with
the Sangh? I was convinced that a right answer to all these questions could
expose a deep political conspiracy.
Col. Purohit’s wife Aparna fought bravely for justice to her husband.
She tried to bring out her version of the story through various sections of
the media. She knew her responsibilities as the wife of an army
intelligence officer and kept quiet in the beginning. However, she slowly
came to realise that her husband was neck-deep in this crisis. This led
Aparna to reveal several facts that raised serious questions on the military
investigation. The conclusions drawn by the army’s CoI failed to impress
critics. As Aparna points out, the CoI report cites enough evidence to
prove that Col. Purohit was keeping his seniors informed about every
activity. He had submitted reports of the meetings that were used to bolster
charges against him. The military’s departure from accepted means of
questioning from Purohit also raises several questions.
Tehelka had accessed this inquiry report to claim that Col. Purohit was
wrongly arrested and handed over to the ATS. The news report filed by the
magazine on 16 May 2016 stated, ‘According to the documents accessed
by Tehelka, the army CoI then deputy director general, MI, mentions that
Col. RK Shrivastav was sent to act as a medium between army, police and
sister intelligence agencies and to maintain the dignity of Lt Col. Purohit.’
The deputy director general had also apparently told the CoI that Col.
Shrivastav didn’t have any authority to interrogate or torture Purohit. Col.
Shrivastav was supposed to hand over a ‘movement order’ to Col. Purohit
for sending him from MP to Mumbai. He was officially missing in army
records from 29 October to 4 November. This was the period when serious
allegations of collusion between the ATS and Col Shrivastav surfaced.
Later, Aparna claimed Shrivastav had said that Purohit was required to
report to army headquarters in Delhi. But he was taken to Mumbai. Col.
Purohit had filed a complaint to his seniors alleging how Shrivastav and
the ATS cops tortured him during this ‘missing period’. Purohit was

228. allegedly threatened to admit his hand in the Malegaon blasts lest his wife
and mother would be brought naked before him. He recently wrote a letter
to PM Modi claiming, among other things, that he was arrested after
planting a cache of RDS at Dayanand Pandey’s residence.
His assertions cannot be dismissed easily considering that fact that the
ATS was dealing with an intelligence officer in this case, who was well
aware of the nuances of probe and evidence. And Purohit was no ordinary
intelligence officer as suggested by several citations he received from
senior police and military officers for training cops. I could access some
of these citation letters through my sources. They revealed that Purohit
knew many senior police officials and enjoyed a great reputation among
them.
Yet, Purohit continues to languish behind the bars. One cannot ignore
the fact that the army has still not taken action against him. Purohit
remains an army officer until this date. The entire theory of saffron
terrorism would crumble, if charges against Purohit were dropped. The
ATS, as well as the NIA’s investigation, relies heavily on accusations
against Purohit. Is this the real reason why he is still in jail? Can we
believe his claims that he was mingling with the Hindu hardliners as part
of a secret mission?
This was a crucial question. Only an undercover agent could have
thrown some light on it. The NIA spy had told me that it was not unusual
for him to carry out operations under the false identity. Deniability is the
trick of the spy trade and the Indian intelligence was no different. Could
this be the reason Col. Purohit’s truth is still shrouded in mystery?
The Pakistani establishment had raised fingers on the entire army after
Purohit’s arrest. As former RAW officer, RSN Singh wrote in one of his
articles, ‘It is a travesty to paint Purohit as the Indian Osama Bin Laden.’
He warned that the concerted bid to establish the presence of ‘Hindu
Jihadis’ could pose a challenge to India’s war against terrorism. RSN
Singh was not wrong as demands were made to give a clean chit to every
suspect in the terror incidents that followed.

229. The CoI report further states that Col. Purohit was sent to Army
Education Corps (AEC) in Panchmarhi, MP, for doing a course in Arabic.
This was to come handy in gathering information about terrorist
organisations based in Bangladesh.
It is not difficult to discern that people like Aseemanand and Pragya
could be good politicians, but do not appear to be capable of perpetrating
complex terrorist operations. Aseemanand’s deposition makes it clear he
knew nothing and that Sunil Joshi was his only source of information. The
same applies to Sadhvi Pragya who also had little idea of what these blasts
were all about.
Whatever one may believe, Col Purohit leaves no ambiguity in relation
to the fact that he knew the secrets of this conspiracy. He has shied away
from this fact neither in his statement nor in his media interviews.
However, what was the secret operation in which army’s personnel were
deeply involved with their equipment? In fact, they were purportedly
inciting Hindu right-wing groups to commit acts of terrorism. Or, could it
be that the supposed conspiracy of Hindu terrorism was concocted and
Col. Purohit was actually working in MP against SIMI? Had some people
falsely owned up to an attack carried out by somebody else for monetary
considerations? This question arises because there are allegations that
money was exchanged between Purohit and Shyam Apte.
The source of funding for this alleged conspiracy remains a secret until
date. Whatever sources of money were revealed could not benefit more
than a few individuals. This raises suspicion about whether money was the
chief motivator behind the blast conspiracy. It is unclear why Dayanand
Pandey would betray Hindu organisations? How did such a dubious
character become the army’s registered informer?
The investigative agencies, who had not the slightest hint to these
questions, still managed to rope in Indresh Kumar as a suspect. He was a
senior RSS leader, and activists like Sadhvi Pragya and Aseemanand were
in contact with him. Kumar was also the mentor of the RSS-affiliated
Rashtriya Muslim Manch. These factors made him an easy scapegoat for
the investigative agencies. Probably, Mohan Bhagwat was the next target,

230. as Aseemanand’s interview suggested. The final motive appeared to be
banning the RSS altogether. There were attempts to link it with 26/11
attacks. Several websites cropped up to propagate Burney’s outlandish
ideas and other such articles. Leaders like Digvijay Singh only helped
these forces at the cost of their nation. There was a clear attempt to
embroil senior RSS leaders in the charges of terrorism, and Indresh Kumar
was the most convenient target. Even some sections of the media were
apprehensive about him. Nobody could have shed better light on all these
aspects than Indresh Kumar himself. But it was not easy to reach out to
him.

231. S
26
As You Sow, So Shall You Reap:
Indresh Kumar
enior RSS leader Indresh Kumar was the man they considered the chief
kingpin of Hindu terror, especially after the NIA’s chargesheet and
Aseemanand’s deposition. Kumar had overseen the task of attracting
Muslim youth to the RSS for many years. This made him an easy
scapegoat to malign in the context of the Malegaon and Samjhauta
Express blasts. The statements and audio tapes indicating his involvement
were prominently highlighted in the media. Curiously, the same Indresh
Kumar was also said to be on the hit list of the same people who were
supposedly acting on his orders to perpetrate acts of terrorism.
The security agencies had ample material to establish Col. Purohit’s
links with the other accused. However, his relations with Indresh Kumar
were not clear. An article by Vicky Nanjappa published on rediff.com (23
October 2010, ’Ajmer case: Indresh Kumar is no ordinary RSS man’)
sheds some light on the matter. According to the article, Kumar’s name
cropped first when Purohit mentioned him during interrogation. The ATS
was handling the case at that time. Its sources revealed Purohit had plotted
to kill Kumar, as he believed that the latter was responsible for killing of
Hindus in Nepal. Nanjappa’s report also claimed that Purohit held Kumar

232. responsible for his arrest, as he was convinced that the latter had leaked
information about him and Sadhvi Pragya to the police.
Indresh Kumar is considered among the most dynamic leaders of the
RSS. His problems started only after Purohit’s interrogation commenced.
The news item further stated that Purohit had claimed to have met the RSS
Sarsanghchalak in Jabalpur in 2009 to complain about Indresh. Citing
investigators, Nanjappa reported that Col. Purohit had differences of
opinion with Indresh Kumar.
‘Kumar felt that democracy should be restored in Nepal while Abhinav
Bharat felt that King Gyanendra ought to be supported. Purohit felt that
supporting democracy meant supporting the Maoists in Nepal, which in
turn led to the death of many Hindus,’ Nanjappa writes. The purported
ideological differences between Purohit and Indresh Kumar are also
indicated by the alleged conversation between Shyam Apte and Col.
Purohit. The two can be heard scorning Indresh Kumar as an ISI agent
while discussing plans to kill him and Mohan Bhagwat.
It was inexplicable to implicate both in the same conspiracy, if there
was only hatred and differences between them. At one hand, agencies were
trying to link the involvement of Indresh Kumar in the so-called saffron
terrorism, while on the other hand, their investigation was trying to show a
conspiracy against Indresh by another accused. Was Purohit on a secret
mission against Indresh Kumar? Was it Purohit’s own mission or the
mastermind was somebody else? These questions have remained
unanswered till this day.
However, it is clear that the guns were targeted at Indresh Kumar.
Therefore, it was necessary to know his version of the story. Normally, he
is an easily accessible person, but to make him talk about saffron terror
was a challenge. He had some justification for feeling betrayed by the
media considering the way his name was vilified. The Caravan magazine
had even accused him of evading the questions and behaving in a rude
manner.
I discussed the matter with the VHP spokesperson Vijay Shankar
Tiwari after a debate show. Tiwari instantaneously dialled Indresh Kumar.

233. I was not surprised when Kumar answered the call immediately. Tiwari
informed him about my research on saffron terror. Kumar said he was
going to Himachal Pradesh and that the meeting would be possible after a
week.
Vijay Shankar Tiwari promised to arrange the meeting, and it was not
long before he made good on his words. On 30 April 2016, I was present in
a house that resembled a party office. Shoes and chappals were lined
outside the door. A large number of youngsters were sitting in the first hall
that led to a small room occupied by some people. Passing through the
room somewhat hesitantly, I entered the office of Indresh Kumar. It was
also a small and an unassuming room, but full of people. Vijay Shankar
Tiwari and I had to wait for some time. Soon, we were called inside the
room. My heart was pounding as I was standing in front of the person who
was one of the central characters of the saffron terrorism saga and who
perhaps knew the truth of this conspiracy.
We exchanged pleasantries as people kept coming and moving out of
the room. Meanwhile, a young man came near Indresh Kumar started
whispering something in his ears. Kumar maintained his smile, but his
words reflected a strict rebuke. ‘What do you mean by whispering in my
ears? Say what you will in loud and clear voice. If you want me to do
something that you cannot disclose before everybody, then I’m sorry, I
can’t help you,’ Kumar said in a stern voice. He reasoned to the young
man that such methods of talking gives rise to suspicion in the minds of
the other people. The man, however, learnt his lesson and presented his
case in front of everybody.
This spectacle raised doubts in my mind as I made mental notes about
questions to be asked. ‘Considering the number of guests who were
waiting to be heard, it might not be possible to talk for long,’ I thought.
More importantly, there was a little scope of privacy in the room. ‘Should
I ask for an appointment for some other day?’ I was asking myself. But
Vijay Shankar Tiwari had already informed about his busy schedule for the
next few days and also the fact that he might not want to talk repeatedly
about this issue. Therefore, this was my only chance.

234. Seeing off the last visitor, he turned to me and asked,
‘What do you want to know?’ He continued to talk to his other guests,
signalling with his hands to let those outside to come in. I had not been
able to take his permission for recording the conversation yet.
Nevertheless, I switched on the recording button as I needed to transcribe
the interview. It was an important opportunity, and I did not want to lose
any part of the conversation. Therefore, I also took out my pen and pad to
make notes. However, the presence of dozens of people around was a
constant distraction. To add to this, I had just heard a youth getting a
dressing down from the man himself just minutes ago. I could ill-afford to
ruin this interview and decided to begin with the most important
questions.
‘What are your views on saffron terrorism? Can you deny that that
issue became a subject of national debate because of the allegations
against some people associated with the RSS?’ I asked.
To my utter dismay, another man entered the room as Kumar was just
beginning to answer. I had to wait for another two minutes before he
departed.
‘It is not simply wrong but a sin to associate ‘Saffron’ with terrorism.
This colour is the symbol of sacrifice and spirituality. It is base to link
terror with this word. The terrorism has emanated from Pakistan and some
other Islamic countries where people were misled into this abyss. Jihad
does not mean the slaughter of innocent human beings. It is a battle for the
emancipation of society and self-purification. The sentiments of Muslim
youth are aroused, and they are fed into the fire of this menace. The term
‘Hindu terrorism’ was a result of dirty politics,’ came the reply.
The conversation had now picked up. However, visitors periodically
chequered it.
Q: Who was doing these dirty politics?
A: You should know as a journalist. Who was directing the investigation
agencies? Who was taking forced confession by torture and leaking their
selective portions to the media? Who was the brain behind turning the
earlier theory of these attacks on its head? What were the statements of the

235. then ministers and the leaders of the ruling parties? Find an answer to
these questions, and you will come to know who was behind this dirty
politics.
Q: Why were you targeted? After all, there were other RSS leaders as
well?
A: This also you should find out. I work consistently with the Muslim
youth. Those indulging in discriminatory politics cannot digest this fact.
They want to keep the divide open between the two communities. The RSS
has tried to reach out to the Muslim youth through Rashtriya Muslim
Manch, and we have been successful in doing so. We are working for the
upliftment of the Muslim community. The people you see sitting outside
this room are Muslims. Ask them who Indresh Kumar is. I have always
demanded an independent and transparent enquiry. Why were the arrested
people interrogated at separate locations and selective portions of their
statements leaked?
Q: One cannot deny that some of the accused believed in violence. Sunil
Joshi had a criminal background?
A: The answer lies in your question. I would like to add that the whole
conspiracy was weaved with lies and deceit. One always remembers the
truth. The witnesses could not have uttered forced lies forever. So, all
falsehood was eventually exposed and witnesses retracted from their
statements.
Q: How many times were you questioned?
A: Only once.
Q: You must be aware that you name figures in the chargesheet?
A: Which chargesheet?
Q: The one the NIA has submitted before the court.
A: A chargesheet is only that which is submitted before the court. All of
the rest are home sheets!
Q: Sir, I am talking of the chargesheet that was made public on several
news websites as well.

236. A: I say they are finding sheets, mentioning only the basis of facts to be
presented before the court. There is no chargesheet against me in any
court. The judiciary has never summoned me because my name does not
figure in any chargesheet. Go to the courts where these cases are pending,
and you will know the truth. It is ironical that the person who was
maligned the most was not even called as a deponent. I have never visited
any court. This proves the frivolous nature of the entire conspiracy. They
shouted themselves hoarse over my name.
Q: Yes, you were labelled as the mastermind of the entire conspiracy.
However, the US intelligence agencies indicated the hand of Pakistan-
based groups in the Samjhauta Express blasts. The question of funding the
alleged Hindu terrorism remains unsolved. Fingers were pointed at you in
this regard.
A: This is for the people to discern why my name was dragged into the
entire controversy.
Q: Still, what are your reflections on the issue?
A: The entire world has observed three things. One, I was never inactive,
despondent, confused, secretive or evasive. I was always visible on public
platforms and more so, in the media. I never refrained from articulating
openly on the issue. I cautioned the press to be careful. I told them they
were falling prey for half-truths and outright lies leaked deliberately while
not bothering to verify the same from government sources. I warned that
they would regret subduing a patriotic person and helping the malicious
intentions of the government. I told scribes that they would never be able
to tell themselves they were honest, even if journalism was merely a
business for them. The guilt of maligning an innocent and a patriotic
person, and working for the hidden agenda of the government, would never
leave them.
‘All the allegations made against me have proved to be false. They
accused me of perpetrating violence in Muslim-dominated areas.
However, I was working with the community, and they have always
supported me. Even the Muslims have rejected these false accusations.
Now, the question arises why the media was after me. The Muslim

237. community should have protested against me in such a situation. But they
came out on the streets in my favour. I was engaged in a dialogue with
them even during that period. I am probably the only person who has
championed the cause of Hindu-Muslim and Hindu-Christian dialogue.
The Muslims are not known to be RSS supporters. Yet, they stood in my
support. All these facts indicate a direction. The rest is for people like you
to find out.
(I said I was doing the same and that my pursuit had brought me face-
to-face with him. I told him that I would meet other persons as well. A
disaffection was palpable in his gestures when he was talking about the
media. Perhaps, this was the reason he stretched his response. My next
question only perturbed him further. However, my intention was not to
provoke him, but I can understand it was not possible for him to make a
distinction between those journalists who were reporting against him and
myself.)
Q: What were your relations with the people whose names have surfaced
in these cases? Were you well acquainted with them?
A: Let them come in...(Many people were standing at the door listening
attentively to the conversation. Indresh Kumar signalled somebody outside
to let other people in. He was visibly agitated). Only the ones with a wrong
mindset and intentions to report lies would ask such a question. Those who
are interested in the reality would not do so. You people are not interested
in knowing whether a person is innocent or not. You would commit the
same foolery as the previous government.
Q: I was only asking why you were linked to those people.
A: This is not what you call being linked. Would you link a father to the
sin of his rapist son and run trial against him?
Q: But, what do you feel…
A: (Interjecting) As I said, you would commit the same mistake.
Q: I would need to put it clearly, did you ever met with the accused or not?
A: Who are you to put things to the people? I do not think you would be
able to write objectively. The interview is over. (Signalling again to send
other people to meet him).

238. The room was now tense. I had just been called a fool, and other listeners
were as flabbergasted as I was. In hindsight, I feel he had answered my
question. However, I was not able to win his trust completely.
Q: Perhaps, you are misunderstanding my question. I only wanted to know
whether you knew the accused or not. This is the most important question.
(I tried to pacify him by convincing that my purpose was not to
sensationalise the issue, and he was probably upset at the mention of the
media. Or maybe, he was fed up with answering these uncomfortable
questions for the umpteenth time.)
A: It is like banning the RSS just because the government alleged
Nathuram Godse was its member. What kind of a logic is this?
Q: Yes, it seems illogical.
A: Yet, the government went by this logic, and you are trying to apply the
same in this case. Your book would only spread darkness this way.
I must say I was a bit unnerved. It was now imperative to bring the
interview back on track. I took a deep breath and tried a different way in.
‘See, I can understand your situation. You have reasons to be upset
with the manner of reporting that has already happened in this case.
However, my purpose was not to put you in the docks. Even I have come
to believe there are many loopholes in the theory of saffron terror. I do not
mean to insinuate anything against anybody. I think you are
misunderstanding my intentions. I want to be objective in my research. I
cannot say whether the book would spread darkness or be a source of light.
Nevertheless, I will only write what I feel is true.’ (This assuaged him and
picked up the conversation.)
A: Why don’t they blame the entire party when a Congressman is caught
in a corruption scandal? While the demand for a ban on the RSS is raised,
even if a finger is pointed at any of its functionaries. The Congress has
misled the nation to safeguard its political ground in the name of
secularism. A CBI officer had asked the same question. I told him I knew
these people. If they were criminal, I am also a criminal. Now, I know you,
and that makes you a criminal as well. (He went silent after this answer.) I

239. have no qualms in disclosing whether I knew the accused or not. However,
I do not quite agree with the mindset behind this question.
Q: Yet, you were singled out among the top RSS brass by the investigative
agencies. This makes it necessary to know the extent of your relationship
with the accused.
A: (After a silence of few seconds). The probe agencies could have picked
some other names and asked them whether they knew Col. Purohit and
Dayanand Pandey. However, they were only after me. Were they interested
in solving the mystery of blasts or implicating me? I feel that some
government agency was directing the probe and trying to link various
people with Abhinav Bharat. This aspect needs to be investigated.
Q: Were some members of Abhinav Bharat associated with the RSS?
A: An independent inquiry might as well reveal that some of these
activists were also linked with the Congress. Likewise, it is also possible
that a few Abhinav Bharat members were associated with the RSS. The
government committed the sin of giving a leeway to Pakistan by
embroiling our names in this case.
Q: You were even termed as an ISI agent.
A: The RSS has never believed in violence. And these people said I was
working for ISI. What could be more ludicrous? Just compare my bio-data
with that of Digvijay Singh, Manish Tiwari and Rahul Gandhi. You would
know who has worked more for the country.
Q: Was there any kind of disquiet in the RSS over the allegations?
A: The Sangh continued doing its work. Abhinav Bharat was accused of
carrying out the blasts. Which is this organisation? Who was its founder?
All these questions must be thoroughly investigated. If any of its members
have attended a shakha, that does not mean that the RSS is a terrorist
organisation. This was clearly a political conspiracy.
Earlier, SIMI activists were the prime accused in the Samjhauta
Express and Mecca Masjid blast cases. They even confessed during the
narcotics tests. The state of Pakistan was also named as the accused. The
Union Home Ministry pointed fingers at that country on several occasions.

240. The blasts were said to be in retaliation for a ban on HuJI and Lashkar.
David Headley’s wife deposed that her husband was behind these blasts.
Then, suddenly Col. Purohit and Dayanand Pandey came into the
picture, and the whole investigation was turned upside down.
Aseemanand’s alleged confessional statement suggested there was a
conspiracy to frame the RSS leaders. The Congress leaders used some of
the investigative officers for vested political interests. The issue of a
conspiracy to kill an RSS leader was swept under the carpet. They tried to
influence the public opinion through selective leaks. I believe the truth is
still hidden and that there were deliberate attempts to suppress it.
Q: What would you like to say about the allegations against you?
A: They must produce evidence to prove the guilt. Take legal action. To
run a smear campaign for political gain points towards a conspiracy. One
must remember—as you sow, so shall you reap. As I have stated earlier, it
is not merely a case of conspiracy, but a sin was committed for which God
will never forgive.
After this, Indresh Kumar bid goodbye with folded hands indicating
that the interview was over. I was satisfied, so I complied. The onus was
on me to read between the lines of his statements. I was now faced with
two new questions: Had the Union Home Ministry admitted that the blasts
were carried out by Pakistan? And what was the earlier theory of the
blasts? A convincing answer to these questions could have made things
clearer.

241. W
27
The Stories That Changed
Frequently
e have already discussed the period when the investigation had not
been influenced. The cops were connecting the right dots in the beginning.
The evidence left no doubt that these were acts of terror. It was also clear
that our neighbours had pulled the strings. The e-mails sent after the blasts
spilt the beans. The argument that the SIMI activists could not have
planted bombs in a Muslim-majority area does not cut much ice. Syria,
Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, and of late, Bangladesh, Turkey and Saudi Arabia;
the list of Islamic countries ravaged by terrorists is long. The real threat to
Islam comes from within its own house.
The radicalised dimwits or mercenaries cannot have compassion for
anyone. They are enemies of humanity. The fact that the majority of
people killed were Muslims cannot be a convincing reason to point fingers
at Hindu organisations. Pakistan also picked up the same reasoning to
malign India and Hinduism. Rahul Gandhi’s alleged volubility before US
diplomat Timothy Roemer harmed India’s interests domestically as well
as globally.
Our intelligence agencies chose to ignore the possibility of the
involvement of a well-established terror network. The set of people who
were viewed with suspicion even by the CBI were conveniently passed

242. over. Yet, the NIA could not look beyond Aseemanand’s dubious
confession. It was always on a weak footing for the want of credible
evidence. Political interference further eroded the reliability of probe
agencies in this case. The gaping loopholes could not have remained
hidden forever and eventually, they came out as soon as the political
dispensation changed. The NIA protected its image by pointing out
lacunae in the ATS findings, but the agency was itself not free of guilt
when it came to manipulation of the investigation.
There were enough reasons to suspect SIMI’s hand behind the
Malegaon blasts. The terrorists belonging to the proscribed organisation
had even confessed to their role in the Samjhauta Express blasts. The ATS
had gathered enough forensic evidence to establish its role in both these
bombings. Ignoring all these facts over Aseemanand’s confession raises
doubts. The questions flagged by Indresh Kumar also deserve attention.
The probe was directed more at maligning RSS leaders than catching the
real culprits.
BM Mohan’s statement and the narcotics test reports also point
towards the role of the SIMI terrorists in these conspiracies. The SIMI
chief, Safdar Nagauri, had accepted his outfit’s involvement in October
2008. Some Pakistani nationals were also thought to be part of the
conspiracy. All these conclusions were drawn from the proof collected
from blast sites and testimonies of eyewitnesses.
However, the Hindu terror theory is based on Aseemanand’s confession
recorded at Delhi’s Magistrate court in January 2011. It came from a man
who admittedly knew nothing about the blasts. The confessional statement
claims that Sunil Joshi had convinced Aseemanand’s that the Malegaon
blasts, as well as the Samjhauta carnage, were the handiwork of Hindu
groups. The rest of the deposition is nothing but an account of various
meetings and alleged claims made by the various accused. The confession
was hyped through selective leaks to the media. Let us closely examine
both the contradictory stories attributed to these blasts.
2006 Malegaon Blasts

243. On 8 September 2006, three bombs went off at Hamidia Mosque complex,
Bada Kabrastan and Mushawarat Chowk of Malegaon town. Another ‘fake
bomb’ was recovered from the staircase of the Mohammedan Mosque on
13 September 2006, which did not explode and was defused by bomb
detection officials. Shaikh Nasir Abdul Hamid, the police inspector posted
in Nashik district’s Azad Nagar police station, filed an FIR in the case of
Mushawarat Chowk (FIR No. 95 /2006/8.9.2006).
The constable, Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh Munir, filed another FIR in the
case of the Hamidia Masjid and Bada Kabrastan bombings (FIR No. 96
/2006/8.9.2006). However, the recovery of the fake bomb was reported at
Malegaon police station on 13 September.
By the time the Mumbai ATS took over the investigation on 23
October 2006, the police had arrested nine SIMI activists on grounds of
suspicion. The ATS confirmed their links with SIMI and found their
involvement in inciting Muslim youth against the state. Two of these
terrorists had even learnt bomb-making techniques in Pakistan.
Apparently, the purpose of these blasts was to trigger communal riots
in this sensitive region. However, when that did not happen, Dr Farog
Iqbal Ahmed Magdumi reconvened a meeting of the other accomplices.
It was decided they would make another attempt by planting a ‘fake’
bomb in the Mohammedia Mosque premises, a locality where Hindus and
Muslims lived together. The terrorists wanted to blame Hindus to incite
violence. On 21 December 2006, the Mumbai ATS had filed a chargesheet
against these people.
The state government transferred the case to the CBI on 5 February
2007. A case was registered against the SIMI accused after a week (case
no- BS 2200700001). The available evidence convinced the CBI and
Mumbai STF that they had caught the real culprits. The CBI filed a
chargesheet based on the detailed confessions of the accused. These
testimonies were corroborated by forensic evidence and other proof. The
CBI and ATS chargesheets congregated at this time on the issue of
culpability. Meanwhile, the politics on the issue continued unabated for
many years to come.

244. The turning point came when Swami Aseemanand was arrested in
connection with the Samjhauta blast case. His testimony became the basis
of a re-investigation. In 2011, the Centre transferred the case to the NIA.
The latter only co-related the facts already mentioned in the chargesheet to
Aseemanand’s statement and weaved a sensational account of events.
Ultimately, the agency decided not to oppose the bail of the SIMI accused.
P. Chidambaram gleefully announced the decision to the media. All of the
accused were later acquitted by the court in this case. The NIA only added
four names to the list of the 13 accused mentioned in the ATS chargesheet.
In a chargesheet filed in May 2013, the agency named Manohar Narwaria,
Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh and Lokesh Sharma. All of them are in
jail now, while the SIMI accused have been set free. None of the agencies
has been able to figure out who was the mastermind behind these blasts.
I have gone through all of the NIA’s chargesheets; however, the first
chargesheet of ATS is the most important one. It narrated a different story
altogether. Noorul Huda Shamsudduha, who was arrested a month later,
was accused of planting the bombs. Shabbir Ahmed’s arrest followed a few
days later. The ATS had accused Ahmed of masterminding the attacks
during the initial stages.
Ahmed Rajab Ali was named as co-accused in the first chargesheet
filed by the ATS. After Ali, Dr Farog Iqbal Ahmed Magdumi and Dr
Salman Farsi and several other accused were apprehended. The ATS
always maintained that SIMI had planned and executed the blast as it
wanted to foment communal trouble.
However, Hemant Karkare’s advent as ATS chief gave a defining twist
to the story. Now, Col. Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya Singh were claimed to
be the chief conspirators. The whole narrative of this blast now revolved
around these two characters. However, their names did not even figure in
the first chargesheet. There are questions galore on how the facts were
fudged and the real culprits went scot-free. But, we need to ask who stood
to gain from this change of track in the investigation. The answer was
made easier by leaders like Digvijay Singh, who flaunted allegations

245. 1.
2.
against Hindu groups as political groups. There was an increasing
possibility of a ban on the RSS.
Mecca Masjid Blast, 2007
On 18 May 2007, a blast in Hyderabad’s Mecca Masjid claimed 9 lives and
injured 60 others. Case Crime No. 100/2007 was registered in Hussaini
Alam police station of Hyderabad. The police filed the following FIRs
after due investigation:
FIR No. 54 of 2007/26.5.2007
The accused: Shaikh Abdul Naeem alias Nayyu alias Sameer The
accused named in the chargesheet: Shoaib, Naeem, Syed Imran,
Rafiuddin Ahmed. All of the accused gave confessional statements
under Section 161. These statements were further corroborated in the
narcotics tests.
FIR No. 75 of 2007/6.7.2007
Nine accused were named in the chargesheet including Sheikh Abdul
Karir, Mohammad Fasiuddin alias Arif and Mohammed Sijauddin.
Five other chargesheets were filed in the case, all of which implicated
members of prohibited Muslim organisations. Besides the confessions of
these accused, the investigation agencies also recorded statements of
several key witnesses. All the confessions matched the statements given
by the accused in narcotics test. The bombing was attributed to the
terrorist organisation HuJI during the initial stages of the investigation.
Bilal, who was one of the suspects, managed to flee to Bangladesh, where
HuJI had operational base. Around 110 people were taken into custody
based on different FIRs. All but 27 were released after questioning. Like
the Malegaon blasts, Mecca Masjid was also targeted with the aim of
vitiating the communal atmosphere.
According to the police chargesheet, the conspiracy was hatched in a
graveyard, where the terror recruits were shown the CD of the Babri
Masjid demolition. The CD was circulated in the sensitive areas to incite
communal passions. All of the accused were set free in the later stages of

246. the trial for the want of evidence. In yet another example of the politics of
appeasement, the Andhra Pradesh government provided compensation to
these suspects on the recommendations of the Minorities Commission.
Even those questioned for an hour were requited.
The angle of the investigation changed when the NIA took over the
probe. Seeking to establish the theory of Hindu terrorism, it arrested
Swami Aseemanand and some other suspects. The NIA chargesheet states
that Aseemanand came to know about the blast from Sunil Joshi. He also
gave the latter a sum of ₹ 25,000 for this job, if the NIA is to be believed.
Most people know about Aseemanand only as much they were told by
sources like The Caravan and Tehelka. He started to follow the ideals of
Swami Vivekanand at an early age and spearheaded a large campaign
against religious conversions in tribal areas. Aseemanand was deeply
committed to the ideology of Hindutva. He had no criminal record. There
is little surprise that the NIA succeeded in extracting a forced confession
out of him. But, one might wonder why only he was singled out.
A closer analysis reveals that Col. Purohit’s name recedes into
background wherever the role of Aseemanand or Sunil Joshi is alleged.
Even the supposed ‘Saffron Terrorists’ were apparently divided into
factions. One comprised Aseemanand, Sadhvi Pragya, Sunil Joshi and
others, while the other was formed by Col. Purohit, Dayanand Pandey,
Shyam Apte and Ramesh Upadhyay, among others. Seemingly, there was
another group constituting people with the criminal background who also
happened to be connected to the RSS at some level. The accused including
Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, Lokesh Sharma, Devendra Gupta fall
under this category. These people were shown as the ones who were
entrusted with the responsibility of planting the bombs. These were the
foot soldiers necessary to validate the NIA’s theory.
However, the theory also needed identification of plotters,
executioners and experts for the sake of credibility. The attempt was to
portray some of the top RSS leaders as the masterminds. People like
Sadhvi Pragya, Aseemanand and Sunil Joshi were painted as their
lieutenants. Col. Purohit and his associates were fitted into the role of

247. experts while the remaining accused were shown as the executioners of the
terror plan. The latter category of people included characters like
Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange who remained out of bounds
for investigative agencies. Perhaps, the top agencies were not even
interested in apprehending these accused, as their real motive was not to
reach the truth but to give shape to a fictitious theory to benefit their
political masters.
The people belonging to the first group were apparently close to the
RSS. Col. Purohit and his accomplices were never associated with the
Sangh. Sunil Joshi, allegedly the main executioner of the plan, was
murdered, and Kalsangra, as well as Dange, remain absconding. There
were no serious efforts to nab these accused as the real motive was to
frame the RSS leadership. The NIA touted Aseemanand’s arrest as a big
breakthrough in this context. He was taken into custody in the Mecca
Masjid blast case, and later, his testimony was linked to the Malegaon and
Samjhauta Express terror incidents.
Surprisingly, the NIA could only find Devendra Gupta and Lokesh
Sharma as the ones who carried out the conspiracy on the ground. Later,
allegations were lifted against Sharma in the Malegaon blast case leading
to questions about whether the Mecca Masjid probe was also flawed.
There is little doubt that the whole investigation was politically motivated.
It seems like a fabricated theory from the outset whose motive was pre-
meditated. However, it lacked the backing of solid evidence.
The hand of Lashkar and HuJI behind the blast had become clear
during initial stages of the probe. There was credible evidence against
HuJI commander Abdul Shahid in the Mecca Masjid blast case. He was
allegedly operating out of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Later, he was reported
dead in Pakistan.
These clear indications mattered little as a new direction was given to
the probe. However, as Indresh Kumar stated, a lie has no feet, and most of
the witnesses in the saffron terror theory backed out with time forcing the
NIA to admit that it lacked credible evidence.

248. Ajmer Dargah Blast, 2007
The Ajmer Sharif blast occurred on 11 October 2007, at around 6.15 a.m.
outside the shrine of Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer, Rajasthan.
The bombing claimed 3 lives while injuring 16 others. The media termed
the incident as an attack on liberal Sufi traditions of Islam by the ultra-
conservative Islamic extremists. The Ajmer Sharif shrine is equally
popular among Muslims and Hindus. The needle of suspicion was pointed
again towards HuJI and LeT after the initial investigation. Both of these
outfits are admittedly against Sufism as it preaches amity and coexistence
of all religions.
However, this obvious connection was not seen by those who were
seeking to give terrorism a different colour altogether. The NIA cited the
fact that the attack had taken place during the month of Ramadan to
suggest that Hindu groups were behind the incident. It ignored the initial
findings of the Rajasthan ATS that had named Syed Salim as the
mastermind of the attack. The police claimed that Salim belonged to
Hyderabad and reportedly worked for a Telugu newspaper. A copy of the
same newspaper was found at the blast site. Salim managed to flee before
the police could reach his location in Hyderabad. The ATS investigation
also found that he was in regular touch with HuJI operatives. The evidence
suggested he had also visited Ajmer before the blasts.
The investigation took a different turn with the change of government
in Rajasthan. Now, the ATS linked the accused in the Malegaon blasts with
this incident. The solid evidence, in this case, was obfuscated to the extent
that the reputation of the probe agencies took a beating.
Aseemanand’s alleged confession claimed that Hindu groups had used
Muslim youths for the Ajmer blast. Citing Sunil Joshi’s admission,
Aseemanand had reportedly stated that that Indresh Kumar had recruited
these people. Since there was irrefutable evidence to suggest the
involvement of some Muslims youths, the NIA had fired this salvo from
Aseemanand’s shoulders.
On 5 July 2008, The Times of India reported the arrest of another
suspect, Saeed Mota, from Kanpur. The special operations group (SOG) of

249. Kanpur city police nabbed him. Mota, a resident of Gammu Khan ka Hata,
was arrested following an encounter near Armapur canal in the city.
Several such arrests and encounters went in vain due to the political foul
play.
Another Ajmer blast accused, Bhavesh Patel, courted headlines on 25
September 2013, for his scathing letter to the NIA’s special court. In his
letter, Bhavesh had alleged that the then Home Minister, Sushil Kumar
Shinde, had forced him to implicate the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and
Indresh Kumar in the blast case. Patel also accused several other Congress
leaders, including Digvijay Singh, the then Minister of State (MoS), RPN
Singh and Coal Minister Sri Prakash Jaiswal for trying to frame Bhagwat.
The CNN-IBN claimed to have accessed the letter. Predictably, the NIA
rubbished these accusations.
From Shivraj Patil to Sushil Kumar Shinde and then Chidambaram, it
appears as if the portfolio of the Union Home Ministry was up for grabs
for any leader who could frame the RSS in terror cases. A whole lot of
leaders were also vying for the post of MoS in the North Block.
According to CNN-IBN, the government sources had refuted the
damning claims of Bhavesh Patel on the grounds that Indresh Kumar had
not been named in the FIR; therefore, the question of anyone putting
pressure on Patel into naming him did not arise. But the same logic applies
to the Aseemanand’s statement. No FIR was ever filed against any of the
RSS leaders. Yet, they were vilified in the media. Furthermore, there were
attempts to label the RSS as a terrorist organisation.
There were several weak links in the investigation of all these cases.
There was one striking similarity in all of them; the initial probe had
placed the needle of suspicion towards Pakistan-supported terrorist
groups. Arrests were made and chargesheets filed on solid ground. Yet, the
track of the investigation changed after Hemant Karkare presided over the
Maharashtra ATS investigation. Likewise, the Rajasthan ATS also changed
its earlier version with the change of government in the state. But nothing
proves the fallacy of saffron terror theory than the Samjhauta Express

250. blasts. The investigation into this case demonstrated how the powers of the
day compromised with the demon of terrorism for petty gains.

251. O
28
‘Samjhauta’ with Terror
n the midnight of 18 February 2007, bombs went off in two carriages
of the Samjhauta Express, a train service connecting Delhi and Lahore,
just after the train passed Diwana station near Panipat in Haryana. The
bombings claimed 68 lives. Like the 26/11 attack in Mumbai, there were
attempts to link this incident to the RSS. While the script in the former
case was written in the form of a book by a hardliner, this one was an
official version released by the NIA. Regardless of who the culprit was,
there cannot be two opinions about the fact that politics on the Samjhauta
Express blasts did immense damage to India’s fight against terrorism.
Our neighbouring country was hailing the Hizbul Mujahedeen terrorist,
Burhan Wani, as a ‘martyr’ at the time I was writing this chapter. The
Pakistani establishment, intelligentsia, its religious leaders and army were
mourning the justice delivered by the Indian security forces. Even they
declared it as a black day on the rememberance of this most-wanted
terrorist. Hafiz Saeed, who is himself an UN-designated terrorist, was
roaming across Pakistan, browbeating about the killing. Burhan Wani was
a radicalised youth, who was seldom seen participating in ground but used
social media to incite the youth of Kashmir. He was backed by Pakistan-
based terrorist group, Hizbul Mujahedeen. His death was a blow to
Pakistan and the Jihadi networks based in that country because they had
lost their poster boy of terrorism in Kashmir.

252. Pakistan tried its best to capitalise on the situation arising in Kashmir
after Wani’s killing. It extended financial as well as logistical support to
foment violence leading to an unfortunate cycle of violence. It has been
Pakistan’s pipe dream since its inception to see Kashmiri youth rising in
revolt against India. However, India has largely succeeded in calling the
Pakistani bluff on the international stage during the past one-and-a-half
decade. The internal bickering over the Samjhauta blasts came as a jolt to
India’s diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan.
The attack was part of a pattern that has seen every effort of
reconciliation between Delhi and Islamabad being foiled by Pakistani deep
state. The then Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri,
was to arrive in India to resume peace talks with Indian leaders, just a day
after the bombings.
The power structure of Pakistan is defined by what some people call
the ‘AAA’ (Allah, America, Army) theory. Although its nascent
democracy provides for an elected government, the real power is vested in
the hands of army generals. The country has been effectively ruled by the
army for over half of its period of existence. It has an overarching
influence even on elected governments and all other state institutions. The
army uses the third ‘A’ or Jihadists as a force multiplier. It has used
terrorists as an instrument of state policy towards India since 1948.
However, the recent killing of Taliban Chief, Mullah Mansoor, in an US
drone attack within Pakistani borders and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden’s
by US troops right under the nose of Pakistani army have proved that our
neighbouring country is also the sanctuary of global terrorism.
Rahmatullah Nabil, the former head of the Afghanistan’s main
intelligence agency, National Directorate of Security (NDS), released
documents in July 2016, which showed that the Pakistani intelligence
services had helped leaders of the Taliban and the feared Haqqani network
in 2014 and 2015. The US Defense establishment has also realised
Pakistani duplicity, albeit the harder way. The state of affairs in Pakistan is
a detailed subject, but we need to touch upon it to understand the
Samjhauta Express blasts in the right perspective.

253. The triple ‘A’ formulation has been modified in recent times as the
army has taken over key areas like foreign policy and defence strategy
from the civilian government without even declaring a coup. Any
government in Islamabad will have to cede to army’s dominance in all
decision-making if it hopes to survive the full term. We have seen the
Nawaz Sharif-led PML (N) government kneeling before the whims of
army General Raheel Sharif on matters of paramount importance.
This is the reason no Pakistani government has been able to commit
itself to a peace process with India, even if it sincerely wanted to do so. As
the attack on Pathankot air base demonstrated, every such effort is
invariably matched by a terror strike. The audacious attempt to storm the
base was a grim reminder of who the real boss in Pakistan was. It is not
that the Pakistani Premier was unaware of his real authority but just that
he has the dubious distinction of being overthrown in a coup, not once but
twice.
In 1993, the then President, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, attempted to dismiss
Nawaz Sharif on corruption charges like his predecessor Benazir Bhutto.
The Supreme Court gave a clean chit to Sharif, but both men were
ultimately persuaded to step down in 1993 by the then army chief, Abdul
Waheed Kakar. The infamous coup of October 1999 is well-recorded in
history when Sharif tried to relieve Pervez Musharraf from his duties after
the Kargil fiasco. However, the military instead ousted him forcing him to
take refuge in Saudi Arabia until 2008.
Although Raheel Sharif’s popularity had ensured that he didn’t need a
hard coup to pull the strings in Islamabad, one could not predict anything
about the fragile polity of Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif had no option, but to fall
in line with the army’s diktats over terrorism policy. This explains the
contradiction of him expressing the wish to normalise relations with India
while declaring ‘Black Day’ to mourn the death of a terrorist at the same
time.
The dichotomy in every Pakistani government’s intentions and the
actual situation on the ground exists because they seek political validity by
forging better ties with their larger neighbour. The successive governments

254. of Pakistan have tried to strengthen democracy, although surreptitiously
so, by seeking better relations with India. The Pakistani army uses its pet
Jihadis to foil every such attempt and remind the world of their nefarious
presence.
The Samjhauta Express blast was one such episode in this vicious
cycle. There was ample proof to suggest Lashkar-e-Taiba’s footprint in the
strike. The Indian Government had even prepared a 2000-page dossier
based on this evidence and handed it over to Pakistan.
Ironically, the attack took place on the train that symbolised the fight
against terrorism. As the name suggested, it was a mark of building trust
between the two nations. Targeting this train was a painful wound inflicted
upon India, but ascribing it to Hindu organisations only rubbed salt on the
injury.
The circumstances, as well as the experiences, pointed fingers at Pak-
based Jihadi groups. Haryana Police, who had managed to reach the source
of suitcases used in the blasts, conducted the initial investigation. The
attacks had clear imprints of involvement of SIMI recruits. The SIMI
chief, Safdar Nagori, was said to be the mastermind of the conspiracy. The
narcotics, brain mapping and lie detectors conducted upon him confirmed
this suspicion. Nagori was also an accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train
blasts. It was during the interrogation related to this case that he revealed
that some SIMI activists had colluded with Pakistani terrorists to carry out
the Samjhauta Express blasts. The advanced explosive used in the terror
operation indicated help from across the border.
All these compelling facts were thrown out of the window based on
Aseemanand’s statement. He went only so far as to state that Sunil Joshi
had boasted the hand of his own men in the blasts. This could never be
corroborated since Sunil Joshi was murdered. There was no change in the
modus operandi in the police’s version; only the characters were replaced.
BM Mohan had provided valuable information to this author about the
narcotics tests conducted on SIMI suspects in this case. On 10 April 2008,
he had briefed the media after Nagori, Amil Pervez and Kamruddin were
subjected to narcotics tests.

255. 1.
2.
3.
4.
Following were the salient points that emanated from his press
conference:
Ehtesham Siddiqui and Abdul Subhan planted the bombs in the
train carriages.
The suitcases used in the blasts were bought from Indore’s Kataria
market by terrorists of Pakistani origin.
One of the SIMI members had helped the Pakistani operatives to
get the suitcase cover stitched in Indore.
Shamsul Iqbal and another SIMI member Abdul Razak had
provided the funds for the blasts.
Here is the report, published by India Today on 19 September 2008, that
gives an idea of how Nagori, Amil Pervez and Kamruddin sang like
canaries during the narcotics tests, exposing the Pakistani connection to
the blasts.
(EXCLUSIVE: Pak hand in Mumbai train blasts, Samjhauta Express
blasts, says Nagori, Sandeep Unnithan, 19 September 2008):
‘Narcotics analysis tests conducted on three key activists of the banned
Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) have revealed that its
activists had helped carry out the Mumbai train bombings of 11 July 2006,
and the Samjhauta Express blasts of January 2007.
The bombings were carried out with the help of Pakistani nationals
who had come from across the border.
The tests were carried out in Bangalore on Safdar Nagori, his brother
Kamruddin Nagori and Amil Parvez in April this year.
The ‘Nagori 13’ were arrested from their hideout in Indore by the
Madhya Pradesh police in March this year. Results of the narcotics
analysis tests exclusively available with India Today have revealed, for the
first time, SIMI’s direct links with not only the Mumbai train bombings
which killed over 200 persons but also links with the Samjhauta Express
blast of February 2007 which killed 68 persons.

256. While Nagori was not directly involved, his group was training for
individually targeted assassinations of VIPS. Two members of his faction,
Ehtesham and Nasir, were directly involved in the blasts.
Nagori says that Ehtesham Siddiqui, Abdus Subhan (Tauqeer, now
believed to be the mastermind behind the Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi
bombings) and Sharif left early before a two-day meeting of SIMI
activists in Ujjain (just days before the 11 July bombings) ended, ‘as they
might have got the message that some terrorist from Pakistan who had
come for the Mumbai blast might have landed at Mumbai.’
Mumbai police believe that the train bombings were carried out by the
SIMI acting in tandem with LeT terrorists from across the border. It
emerges that most of the SIMI activists knew about other bomb
conspiracies across the country.
‘The whole of the SIMI network in Maharashtra is involved in the train
blast. There are hundreds of members in SIMI organisations in
Maharashtra,’ Nagori told his interrogators. He named his friend Asif
Khan from Maharashtra as responsible for the Mumbai train blast.
In the Malegaon blasts, some Muslim members were involved, and he
was aware of it. He said SIMI members were involved in the Samjhauta
Express blasts as well, including his friend Kamruddin.
Nagori revealed that Nasir was involved in one of the blasts at
Hyderabad but had not revealed which of the blasts.
According to Nagori, Nasir said that ‘the owner of the Gokul chat stall
(where 32 people died in a blast on 25 August) was not a good man so they
had blasted it, but also said that ‘innocent people had to suffer.’
He said Nasir had completed his training in Pakistan and was afraid of
being arrested, so he had taken shelter in Hubli. (Nasir’s arrest in January
2008 led to the arrest of the entire Nagori faction in March this year).
Nagori also revealed the presence of sleeper cells in Hubli and that
‘the intelligence agencies are aware of them’.
In the Samjhauta Express blast, some persons from Pakistan had come,
and they had purchased the suitcase cover at Kataria market, Indore.

257. He said that one person from the organisation had helped them to get
the suitcase cover stitched. (In the Samjhauta Express blasts, firebombs
packed in suitcases and activated by timer switches were used).
According to Nagori, Abdul Razak had helped the Pakistanis in the
Samjhauta Express blast for which he had taken help from Misbah-ul-
Islam of Kolkata, who headed the SIMI’s Indore unit. He said that Abdul
Razak had lots of associates who would help him in his targets and also
had lots of relatives in Pakistan.
The forensic tests were not the only proof of the involvement of SIMI
and Pak-based terror organisations. The results of these tests matched with
the other evidence to present a clear picture of the conspiracy that
involved a network of Lashkar and SIMI terrorists. The Samjhauta Express
blasts were planned well in advance just like the 26/11 attack.
The narcotics test analysis had exposed a gaping hole in the Hindutva
angle proposed by the ATS and the NIA. I was astonished how the both the
probe agencies could have missed such an obvious point. A vital clue in
the investigation was two suitcases carrying bombs that did not explode. A
Pakistani citizen had thrown these suitcase bombs on the railway track.
The Haryana police had rounded up two people from Indore who had
stitched the covers of these suitcases. Their statement verified the findings
of the narcotics, brain mapping and lie detector tests of the SIMI suspects.
Whatever BM Mohan had told the press in 2008 regarding these
suitcases was replicated in the NIA’s chargesheet filed three years later.
The suitcases and shops where they were purchased and their covers
stitched remained the same, but the NIA replaced the buyers with Hindu
names. Even if we believe the chargesheet, it remains beyond
comprehension how Nagori, Amil Pervez and Kamruddin could have
named the same shops, that too under the influence of sedatives. Are we to
conclude that these SIMI operatives had some premonition that Hindu
group activists would be implicated in the conspiracy a few years later?
BM Mohan had clarified that the questionnaire in truth verification
tests is prepared based on inputs from the probe agencies. This indicates

258. that the investigators knew the truth. Politics support for the SIMI
suspects was indeed at the lowest ebb in the fight against terror.
I came across another startling piece of information that could be a
vital clue in this case. It came from Pakistani citizen Mohammed Usman,
who was travelling on the ill-fated train. He was taken into custody as a
suspect because he had thrown two suitcases out of the train. Usman
remained supine during the mayhem and smoked cigarettes at ease. That
he opened the suitcase and turned off a switch. These disclosures were not
part of witness testimonies, but Usman’s own statement. One would have
expected that to be reason enough for a thorough interrogation. He was
instead sent back to his native country after a show of hospitality.
The Haryana Police ASI, Raj Singh, recorded Mohammed Usman’s
statement on 21 February 2007. Below is an excerpt:
‘I had boarded the train at Old Delhi railway station. It started at
around 10.45 p.m. An hour later, it suddenly came to a halt. A woman,
aged around 28–30 years and travelling with two children, started shouting
that train had caught fire. She was frantically calling to leave the luggage
and escape from the carriages. There was a panic in the bogey as people
started debarking. The seat in my front was occupied by a woman of
around 70–75 years of age. Two other old men were sitting next to her. All
four of us remained seated during the commotion. There was
pandemonium all around. We decided not to move till the things settled a
bit. Then flustered voices began to scream that another compartment was
on fire. All the three senior citizens came out when the train was vacated. I
helped them deboard and went to sleep, as I was sick. Another jolt woke
me up, and I saw fire brigade wagons trying to overcome the fire.
Reassured that the crisis is over, I wrapped my blanket again and dozed
off. Around 3–4 hours had passed, when a railway official came to
announce that he was locking all the bogeys and that I should unload my
baggage. I implored him to help carry my bags as I was down with the
illness. He declined the request but came back after a while to shift a
suitcase to the main passage, which was lying 3–4 seats further from my
place. Seeing that I was still lying down on my seat, he started screaming

259. at me. As I was repeating my request, another man came and offered help.
This man also went away without actually touching my belongings. I had
just lit up another cigarette when I noticed another suitcase. I thought
somebody might have forgotten it in a hurry and started to drag it out of
the compartment with my luggage. However, it was too heavy for me to
lift and slipped out of my hands. I saw many bottles inside it. Most of
them were used mineral water bottles while few were green-coloured. I
picked two of them to find they had considerable weight. I surmised it
could not be personal luggage and threw out the bottles. When I tried to
lift it again, I saw a light blinking near the handle of the suitcase. The
suitcase was laid with a packing sheet, and there was a sign of cut at the
handle. This aroused my suspicion, and I tossed it out. I had some water
and lit up another cigarette when my eyes fell on another suitcase with the
same cut and a blinking light. I kicked it out of the compartment. Not
much time had passed when some people came to me. They took out my
luggage, and I deboarded with them. I could hear them saying ‘madam aa
gayi hai (madam has arrived). The ‘madam’ was SP Bharti Arora. She
asked every detail of the incident and ordered other cops to take me to the
PWD guesthouse. I am staying at the same guesthouse from that time.
Many people came to interrogate me. I told them the same thing. I had
also heard the SP instructing to call the Bomb disposal squad and dispose
of the bomb. Nobody has harmed me. I was given food and tea, and I slept
well. I have heard the statement and have nothing to add.’
(Signed by Usman) (Signed and Sealed by
officials)
21 Feb 2007
I am neither a cop nor an investigation specialist. However, the lawyers of
Sadhvi Pragya and Aseemanand believe that this statement is a proof of
police ineptness. They ask how the police could have let go of such a
crucial suspect. On the contrary, his stay was made cosy at the guesthouse.
Was there somebody who was covering the tracks of Pakistan in this plot?

260. Was something cooking up even before the blast? Can we dismiss the
above example as merely a case of oversight?
Mohammed Usman’s narrative was cross-checked with several
witnesses. All of them had noticed his composure that was in stark
contrast to the situation around. It was almost as if he knew what was
happening. Usman was reportedly heavily drunk. The two suitcases thrown
out by him led police to Indore where their covers were stitched.
According to Safdar Nagori and Kamruddin, the SIMI activists had
handed over these suitcases to the Lashkar terrorists. The attack appeared
to have taken place exactly as they had told the police. There appears to be
a link between the Samjhauta Express blasts and the Mumbai train
bombings. Nagori’s statement, as well as the modus operandi of the two
terror strikes, indicate the same group of terrorists were behind them.
These initial findings became the basis for Indian government’s
dossier against Pakistan. The dossier details how Pakistani territory is a
breeding ground for anti-India jihadis with solid evidence against LeT and
HuJI. The UN banned both the organisations based on the report submitted
by the Indian government. The reader can still find the letter on UN’s
official website claiming that the Pakistani terrorist Arif Kasmani was the
mastermind of the Samjhauta Express bombing. The website provides the
following information:
Arif Qasmani is the chief coordinator of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba’s (LeT)
(QDe.118) dealings with other organisations and has provided significant
support for LeT terrorist operations. Qasmani has worked with LeT to
facilitate terrorist attacks, including the July 2006 train bombing in
Mumbai, India, and the February 2007 Samjhauta Express bombing in
Panipat, India. Qasmani utilised money that he received from Dawood
Ibrahim Kaskar (QDi.135), an Indian crime figure and listed terrorist
supporter, to facilitate the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai, India.
Qasmani also conducted fundraising activities on behalf of LeT in late
2005.
‘Arif Qasmani has also provided financial and other support to Al-
Qaida (QDe.004). As of late 2006, Qasmani provided funding to Al-Qaida

261. members and facilitated the return of foreign fighters to their respective
countries. Between 2004 and 2005, Qasmani provided Al-Qaida with
supplies and weapons and facilitated the movement of Al-Qaida leaders in
and out of Afghanistan. In return for Qasmani’s support, Al-Qaida
provided him with operatives to support the July 2006 train bombing in
Mumbai, India, and the February 2007 Samjota Express bombing in
Panipat, India. Qasmani also facilitated the movement of Al-Qaida
personnel out of Afghanistan in 2001. In 2005, Arif Qasmani provided
Taliban leaders with a means to smuggle personnel, equipment and
weapons into Afghanistan.’
All these facts are mentioned in the official report of the UN Security
Council. Clearly, the world’s apex body was well informed about this
terror incident. The US intelligence agencies had also suspected LeT’s
hand in the carnage. The dossier is an evidence that officially India still
considers Pak-based terrorists as responsible for these blasts.
This statement came under severe criticism. All these statements
suggest how terrorism had become a political tool.
I came across minutes of a Home Ministry meeting held in 2007 where
the issue of terrorism was discussed. The documents make it clear that the
UPA government knew that the real culprits were terrorists from across the
border. Shivraj Patil was in charge of the Ministry at that time. He was
apparently sacked for failing to implement the Hindu terror propaganda in
an effective manner. Chidambaram was shifted from an all-important
Finance Ministry to do the job.

262. I
29
The Conspiracy against Narendra
Modi
n October 2007, the then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, chaired an
important meeting of his Ministry where he circulated an annexure. I was
fortunate enough to get hold of a copy of the annexure through a source.
The report shows that the UPA government was fully cognizant of the real
culprits behind all the terror incidents from 2005 to 2007. The official
information related to Malegaon and the Samjhauta Express terror
incidents is of particular significance in this annexure. It leaves no doubt
that the terrorists (supported by Pakistan) were the real culprits behind the
blasts. Terms like saffron terrorism find no mention in the document.
Therefore, we can safely deduce that the theory was nowhere on the
horizon till Patil’s tenure.
After detailing findings about blasts between 2005-2006, the Point
number VII of the annexure mentions the Malegaon blasts in three
columns. The information is as follows:
VII. Malegaon Blasts on 8 September 2006
12 A total of 4 bomb explosions occurred in Malegaon which resulted in
the killing of 31 persons and injuries to 312 persons. A total of 9 persons
have been arrested in this case, and 4 others are absconding. A chargesheet

263. was filed on 21 December 2006 by the ATS, Mumbai, against the accused
persons.
13 According to the confessions, the accused persons belong to SlMl, a
banned organisation. There were riots in Malegaon in 2001 and 2002, in
which the Muslim community suffered, and police allegedly acted against
them, as per the confessions of the accused. The accused, therefore,
conspired to avenge the police, the Government and the other community
and managed to source weapons from outside the country. After the
Mumbai blasts of 2006, RDX and other equipment for making bombs were
brought from Mumbai to Malegaon. The occasion for these blasts was
carefully chosen so as to incite communal riots in Malegaon. The two
arrested perpetrators, Shabir Masiullah and Sheikh Mohd Ali Alam
Sheikh, had been to Pakistan for weapons training in 2006.
14 The case is now being investigated by the CBI. The investigative
agency has one eyewitness to the case, and one of the accused has turned
approver. The CBI is seeking the sanction of the competent authority under
MCOCA and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as amended in
2004 (UAPA) for the special court to take cognizance of the case.
Vlll. Bomb blasts in Attari Samihauta Express 18–19 February 2007
15 On the intervening night of 18–19 February 2007, at about 11.40
p.m., there was a blast onboard train No 4001 Samjhauta Express (Delhi to
Attari), in which two bogies were burnt near Diwana, (Panipat), in
Haryana. As a result, 68 passengers died, and 12 others were injured. Only
48 bodies could be identified, out of which 39 were Pakistani nationals and
9 Indians.
16 A case (FIR No. 28) dated 19 February 2007 u/s 302/307/1 PC and
u/s 34/6 Explosives Act 150/151/152 Railway Act u/s 3 and 4 of
Prevention and damage of public property Act has been registered in the
Police Station GRP, Karnal.
17. During checking, two live time bombs were recovered in the
different suitcases, along with bottles of kerosene oil, which were disposed
off by the Bomb Disposal Team. The evidence from the blast site of the

264. Samjhauta Express led the police to Indore, MP, from where they detained
persons from whom the terrorists had purchased the bags/covers in which
the bombs were placed. However, these two detained persons could not
shed further light; hence they were released. Further investigation is in
progress.
18 Certain similarities between the Samjhauta Express blasts and the
Mecca Masjid blast have been noticed. In both cases, batteries of 6 volts
and cast-iron pipes etc. were used.
IX. Bomb blast in Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad on 18 May 2007
19. On 18 May 2007, a bomb blast took place in Mecca Masjid near
Charminar in Hyderabad where 9 persons were killed and 58 others
injured. The CBI is now investigating the case.
20. The CBI has reported that the inquiry vis-a-vis the SIM card found
in the mobile phone used in the unexploded device has revealed that it was
issued in West Bengal. The person in whose name the SIM card was issued
and the address given at the time of application for the SIM card were
found to be false. The driving license given as a proof of identity was also
found to be forged.
21. The investigation has also revealed that other SIM cards have also
been purchased using similarly forged ID proofs. The enquiry has also
revealed that the mobile phones were bought from Faridabad. The matter
is being investigated and a reward of ₹ 2 lakhs has been announced for any
information related to the blasts.
22. Further investigation has revealed that driving licenses issued from
Jharkhand and West Bengal were used to procure the SIM cards.
According to the available information Shahid Bilal, a resident of
Hyderabad, who has been associated with organisations like Lashkar and
Jaish, has perpetrated this blast. The explosives were stored with a
Bangladeshi resident named Hamza alias Kanchan alias Sharifuddin. He is
wanted by the Delhi police in another case.
23. The local police believes it is the work of Bangladeshi terrorist
organisations with the active support of some local operatives.

265. XI Blast at Dargah of Aimer Sharif.
26. On the evening of 11 October 2007, a blast occurred in the premises of
Ajmer Sharif at Ajmer. In this blast, 3 civilians were killed and 14 others
injured. The IED containing low intensity explosive and iron pieces was
apparently triggered using by a cellphone. One of the deceased, a passport
agent by the name of Sayeed Salim, reportedly from Hyderabad, who came
to Ajmer about 7–8 years ago, is said to be a suspect. There are a lot of
similarities between this blast and the blast at Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad
that occurred on 18 May 2007, in terms of the device/cellphone and
explosives used, the piece of the newspaper in which the device was
wrapped, the unexploded device etc. So far, no arrests have been made in
the case. No arrests have also been made so far in the investigation of the
Mecca Masjid blast, which is now under the CBI. Indications are that in
both these blasts, Shahid Bilal, an LeT/HuJl activist hailing from
Hyderabad seems to be involved. Bilal is suspected to be presently in
Karachi.
This secret document contained information about some other terror
incidents. The meeting was an important one where Shivraj Patil briefed
those present about the steps taken in various terror cases. These incidents
took place at a time when Pakistan had full backing of the US.
The Pakistani establishment has made every effort to make most of the
killing of the terrorist Burhan Wani in 2016 and its consequences. It was
perhaps for the first time that a country had observed a ‘Black Day’ on the
killing of an extremist. The terrorist, Hafiz Saeed, as deemed by the UN,
organized massive rallies on the streets of Pakistan to elicit support for
jihad against India. The US government has announced a $1 billion bounty
on his head. Though geopolitical realities have compelled the US to
rethink its bilateral relations with India, it took Washington D.C. a longer
time to realize the duplicity of Pakistan in the war against terrorism.
When blasts were occurring with alarming regularity across our
country, the world’s most powerful democracy was deliberately looking
the other way. Instead of speaking in one voice against the real source of

266. terror in the face of the global apathy, some of our politicians were found
scripting a false history of Hindu terrorism. The details of the previously
mentioned meeting revealed the line of investigation of the Indian probe
agencies. It also made it clear that there was enough proof against the
Jihadi elements. Anyone of consequence in India’s corridors of power
knew that Pakistan was recruiting elements within our borders and turning
them into mercenaries of death in various training camps. The role of LeT
and HuJI was evident behind these blasts. Obvious similarities in the
modus operandi of these incidents suggested the real masterminds were
the same. The evidence of the involvement of Pakistani Jihadi elements in
even a single bombing was enough reason to suspect the same in all
others.
On 30 November 2008, Patil resigned under immense public pressure
after the Mumbai terror attack. A secret US cable released by Wikileaks
on 18 December 2010 shed some light on the circumstances that led to
Patil’s resignation. David Mulford, the former United States Ambassador
to India, claimed in the cable, ‘The Congress Party realizes it is in deep
political trouble as a result of the Mumbai attacks. It is taking these steps
to try to show the Indian public that it takes terrorism seriously. It may be
too little too late, however, for the Congress Party to reverse its fortunes
before the May 2009 (elections)’.
Furthermore, Mulford assessed Patil to be ‘spectacularly inept’ and
felt that ‘In this environment, removal of the Home Minister was
inevitable.’
The task of ‘reversing the fortunes’ of the party was assigned to P
Chidambaram. Several eyebrows were raised over the decision to shift him
from the Finance Ministry to the North Block. The Congress argued that
he had the experience of working in the Ministry as MoS during the Rajiv
Gandhi government. His prowess as an ‘excellent strategist’ were
highlighted. Many experts felt it was just what the doctor had ordered for
the party after a spate of terror attacks.
The strategy adopted by Chidambaram to salvage his party’s electoral
prospects are reflected in the following news story published by the

267. Hindustan Times on 10 March 2016. It is a report about the Modi
government’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh, briefing the Parliament on
the ‘missing’ files in Ishrat Jahan encounter case:
‘Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Thursday told the Lok Sabha
that many documents related to the preparation of the Ministry’s second
affidavit in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case are missing and an internal
inquiry has been ordered.
‘Replying to a motion on the change in the Ishrat case affidavit, filed
in the Gujarat High Court on 29 September 2009, the Home Minister said
that the Ministry is conducting an internal inquiry on the missing
documents from the Ishrat affidavit file. The further course of action will
be decided later.
‘The Minister said two letters written by the then Home Secretary (GK
Pillai) to the Attorney General (AG) are not traceable. The draft of the
second affidavit that came from the AG in which the then Home Minister
(P Chidambaram) made changes is also missing.
‘On 15 June 2004, the Gujarat police shot dead three men and a
woman–19-year-old Ishrat Jahan – while they were allegedly on a Lashkar
mission to assassinate the erstwhile Gujarat CM, Narendra Modi.’
The first affidavit in the case was filed on the basis of inputs from the
police forces of Maharashtra and Gujarat. The IB claimed that the 19-year-
old girl from the outskirts of Mumbai was a Lashkar-e-Taiba activist, but
this information was ignored in the second affidavit, Home Ministry
officials said.
The second affidavit, said to have been drafted by the then Home
Minister P Chidambaram, said there was no conclusive evidence to prove
that Ishrat was a terrorist, officials said.
Former Union Home Secretary, G K Pillai, had claimed that as Home
Minister, Chidambaram had recalled the file a month after the original
affidavit, which described Ishrat and her slain aides as LeT operatives, was
filed in the court.

268. ‘Only after the affidavit was revised, as directed by the Minister, did
the file come to me,’ Pillai had said. Chidambaram had said the second
affidavit in the case was ‘absolutely correct’ and that he accepted
responsibility as a minister.
He had also maintained that while the intelligence agencies can only
get inputs, they cannot certify them. He said that the state police, which
has to file the chargesheet, has to investigate and get evidence before
filing the chargesheet.
Chidambaram also expressed disappointment over Pillai distancing
himself from the affidavit issue despite being ‘equally responsible’.
Meanwhile, Rajnath Singh also said in Parliament that no politics
should be done over terror.
‘There should be no politics on terror. Be it the Ishrat Jehan case or any
other case, no government should do flip-flops. Those who call themselves
secular, they tried to give a communal colour to terrorism, and coined the
term “Saffron Terror”. This happened for the first time in the world. We
will not accept it in any way in the country,’ Rajnath added.
Headley had clearly stated that Ishrat was a Lashkar Fedayeen. She
was allegedly sent to kill Narendra Modi, who was the CM of Gujarat at
that time. Lashkar’s mouthpiece ‘Ghazwa Times’ as well as Jamat ud
Dawa’s (JuD) official website had acknowledged that she was their stooge.
The admission had found traction in the Indian media. However,
Chidambaram was busy vilifying Modi as anti-Muslim.
However, all these antics boomeranged for Chidambaram. He could barely
manage a victory by 3000 votes in the 2009 elections from Sivaganga, the
constituency in Tamil Nadu he had represented for two-and-a-half decades.
This election result is still sub judice. Regardless, Chidambaram had
managed to score points where it mattered the most. The Congress high
command rewarded him with the North Block portfolio in the UPA-II
government as well.
Bolstered by this patronage, Chidambaram continued with his tirade
against Hindu groups with renewed vigour as highlighted by Rajnath Singh

269. in Parliament.
Chidambaram was the first big leader to give credence of the
hypothesis of Hindu terror at an official level. While chairing a meeting of
state police chiefs on 25 August 2010, he termed ‘saffron terror’ as a
major threat to the nation. He drew flak for giving prominence to left-wing
insurgency and the alleged Hindu terrorism over Jihadi terrorism during
the meeting. It was the time when the line of investigation of the NIA
investigation was completely changed and anti-Hindu propaganda was in
full swing.
While Rajnath Singh’s statement discloses how the Ishrat Jahan case
was used for political mileage, Tehelka’s attempts to malign Modi in the
2002 riots cases was also in the public domain. Worse still, there were
serious attempts to label the RSS as a terrorist organisation. Swami
Aseemanand was living in Gujarat as were many other alleged Hindu
terror suspects. It seemed to appear that every terror case under the
scanner was somehow thought to be linked to Gujarat.
There were political reasons for the smear campaign against Modi’s
state, as it had become a powerful symbol of economic progress.
Politically, it had turned into a strong BJP bastion with the party winning
elections at every level. Modi was a rising star on the horizon of national
politics. There was a clamour within the BJP to declare him a Prime
Ministerial candidate for the 2009 general elections. With seasoned
politicians like Digvijay Singh and Chidambaram, the Congress, perhaps
knew that Modi-led BJP would prove to be unassailable.
Modi was a popular leader in 2009. But he was still to gain hold of his
organisation. BJP’s allies were an added disadvantage as some of them
were openly opposing Modi’s candidature for the country’s top post.
Meanwhile, the BJP was still feeling the void left by Atal Bihari
Vajpayee’s retirement. His close associate, Lal Krishna Advani, was his
replacement in terms of seniority. The veteran leader had made history in
1991 by carrying out a rath yatra from Gujarat’s Somnath to Ayodhya. He
was seen as a hero of the Ayodhya temple movement, which led to BJP’s
meteoric rise in politics.

270. However, much water had flown under the bridge by 2009. Terrorism
was now the most important electoral issue. The BJP also hoped to gain
from an anti-incumbency factor. All it needed was a face to lead them
from the front. Advani emerged victorious in this internal rivalry, and
Modi had to pay for the malicious campaign against him after the 2002
Gujarat riots.
Yet, he was party’s biggest star campaigner in 2002 elections. He
succeeded in pulling large crowds to his rallies. But a sense of dejection
among BJP’s cadre due to Advani’s projection as the PM candidate took its
toll, and the party suffered a humiliating defeat.
Some surveys revealed that Modi was voted to power in 2007 Gujarat
elections with the hope that he would be projected as the BJP’s PM-
designate. In the beginning of 2008, the hoardings placed on many roads
showed the picture of Gujarat’s CNG station. The slogan below the picture
read ‘Maru swapna, hariyalu Bharat (My dream, an exuberant India)’. It
was an expression of the expectation that the Gujarat model of
development would soon be adopted at the national level. The leaders of
the business world had expressed their desire to see Modi at the helm of
country’s affairs during a programme held in Gujarat. They felt he had an
extraordinary capability to transform India and his leadership was what
India needed in this phase of her history.
On the other hand, a sulking Advani had made his wishes clear by
refusing to contest from the Gandhinagar seat. Later, Modi himself
persuaded him.
The origin of the fictitious notion of ‘Hindu terror’ and the Modi
phenomenon in politics are closely linked. He is popular among Hindu
saints and idolises Swami Vivekananda. Like the famous seer, Modi also
believes in ‘Akhand Bharat’ and believes in the power of youth. He had
entered the fray in 2014 with the same principles. There was wrangling
over his candidature this time as well. But the party had to bow down to
popular sentiment and the fact that it had no other leader of equal weight.
Advani was a spent force by then. There were attempts to raise the issues
of Ishrat Jahan and the 2002 riots in 2014 as well. However, the ruse that

271. worked for the Congress in 2009 was rejected by the masses this time
around.
The Congress had once used these same issues for a dangerous
political conspiracy. The secret annexure of the Home Ministry and
Chidambaram as Patil’s replacement in the North Block cannot simply be
coincidences.
The latter was also a Gandhi family loyalist. But the inability to frame
the BJP-RSS proved to be his nemesis. His performance to get political
mileage or raise an issue to benefit the party in the elections was also not
something to boast of.
He sought to stop Modi’s ascension to the top echelons of power.
Chidambaram might have succeeded for a short term, but at an immense
cost to his party and the nation.
Modi was unstoppable by 2014. The politics of terrorism was well
exposed by this time. The Congress strategists could not think beyond
undermining Modi and the BJP. The electorate could see the sheer lack of
vision in its leadership. Nevertheless, it was not my purpose to analyse the
failure of the Congress. I was searching for a person who could reveal how
the politics had influenced the war on terror. I did not have to look far
beyond. My spy friend had still not forgotten me.

272. M
30
Last Word on the Lie of Saffron
Terror
y friend, Shivendra Shrivastava, was one of the first persons I
contacted at the beginning of my research on saffron terror cases.
Shivendra has covered my blasts for many well-known channels. He had
some valuable inputs and he had promised to share them. I was in regular
touch with him over the phone. However, this call had a special purpose.
‘Can you come to my place now?’ he asked, as soon as I answered his
call.
I was at a distance of around two hours from his home. ‘Is everything
alright?’ I enquired in a worrying tone.
‘All is fine here. I have a credible source who could be useful for your
book. His interview would be a capital thing,’ Shivendra replied.
There was no question of missing this opportunity. Yet, I could not
suppress my curiosity and asked, ‘Who is this person? Why the suspense?’
However, friends often make most of any opportunity to tease you. He
kept me guessing, and with a confirmation that I was coming, ended the
call.
Traffic snarls made my journey longer, but musing on the subject kept
my mind occupied. It was during one such drive from Shivendra’s home
that I had received a call from the NIA agent. He had raised some

273. questions that gave direction to my pursuit. Now, I was an expert of sorts
on the subject that was increasingly important in the current political
scenario.
I found people who knew that the term ‘Hindu terror’ was politically
inspired but there were also another section of people who believed in this
theory. The truth lay hidden in the evidence files of the probe agencies.
However, the story of saffron terror was woven based on speculations and
half-truths.
I had succeeded in gathering enough facts to counter the leaked
information that gave an impression of the Hindu terror as being a reality.
It was a conspiracy to malign the BJP-RSS and to stop Modi in his ranks.
Not only were the witnesses tortured, but vital evidence was overlooked in
the Samjhauta Express blasts. While the government officially claimed the
hand of Pak-based groups, the focus shifted to the Hindu groups as soon as
Chidambaram took over the Home Ministry.
It felt as if my research had finally reached the conclusion, almost like
a thesis ready to be submitted for a PhD. I had deliberately avoided
meeting politicians as their opinions and statements would only have been
biased. They were not privy to the facts of the investigation. They were
only interested in its political mileage. I mulled over the idea of
interviewing those leaders who had any role to play in this saga. Then
again, one could seldom expect bare truth from politicians. Indresh Kumar
was the only exception because of the nature of the allegations against
him. He was also seemingly at the receiving end of this plot. Perhaps, the
probe agencies wanted to reach Mohan Bhagwat’s doorsteps through
Kumar. The nature of this script was evident from Aziz Burney’s book on
26/11 which was launched by Digvijay Singh. The pathological hatred for
the RSS was a parameter of capability in the UPA government’s Council of
Ministers.
The Gujarat riots, the Ishrat Jahan encounter, the Batla House
encounter and all these other blasts were aimed at the polarisation of
votes. The significance of caste and religion in Indian politics is well

274. documented. Religion plays an even larger role because it appeals across
regional politics. The communal politics played its part in the 2002
elections, and the BJP had to pay the price for ignoring Modi as its Prime
Ministerial candidate. There were attempts to flare up the same issue in
2014. An important regional ally like Nitish Kumar broke away from the
NDA and there was a rift within the BJP. Nevertheless, the results proved
that the UPA was not mistaken in perceiving the threat of Modi.
My mind was filled with all these thoughts, and Shivendra had piqued
my interest further. ‘It would be disappointing if he arranges an interview
with some political leaders,’ I thought. I had already come across the NIA
source who had raised more questions than he answered. I had already
reached my conclusions. All I needed was a stamp of approval.
I reached Shivendra’s home absorbed in this chain of thoughts.
‘So, whom have you lined up for me?’ I asked.
‘Just wait for a little while. I promise you won’t regret meeting him.’
He was still keeping me all agog.
‘See, I don’t think any leader would be of much use. Even you
wouldn’t like it if my hopes are belied,’ I replied with the exasperation of
a man who was being teased.
‘I promise you won’t rue the meeting. Let me say you won’t meet any
more reliable source than him. He knows enough secrets pertaining to this
issue,’ he said smiling. Shivendra is a journalist of some repute. The
suspense created around this source and Shivendra’s confident smile
further intrigued me.
At last, he told me to walk to the house of that source, which was not
more than 20 minutes away from Shivendra’s house. It was an unassuming
society. We took the stairs to the first floor flat. The nameplate outside the
door read, ‘Dr B D Pradhan, Ex. Director, Joint Intelligence Committee’.
This was not a highly cited name in intelligence circles by any means. Yet,
the designation aroused my interest. He had worked with the committee
that received reports from all the investigative agencies. He must have
been in direct contact with the North Block as the Joint Director of the
committee. The inputs given by this man proved his reach in the shadowy

275. world of intelligence gathering. I came to know later that I was meeting
with the former deputy NSA of the country.
It is necessary to give a brief profile of Dr B D Pradhan as he was the
most fitting person to ratify my work. He was the chairperson of the Task
Force on Intelligence Mechanism (TFIM) after retirement from 2008 to
2010. The TIFM reviewed the performance of intelligence agencies and
suggested improvements in their functioning. Pradhan was also closely
associated with the National Security Council (NSC). He was also linked
to the Kargil Review Committee (KRC) as a nodal officer as well as some
other committees formed to strengthen the security apparatus. He has led
delegations on security issues to several countries like the US, Russia,
Britain, Israel, Turkey, Mongolia and Poland. Pradhan has prepared short-
term courses for senior intelligence officers and trained several officers of
the armed forces, police, paramilitary and civil services. As the Secretary
of the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), he assisted in preparing
the draft Nuclear Doctrine of India and Strategic Review. Dr Pradhan also
worked as Visiting Professor in the Department of Arms Control and
Disarmament Studies, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
US. Currently, Dr Pradhan also teaches at the Department of National
Security and Defence Studies, Punjab University, Chandigarh.
He was a good resource to meet. We talked for a while about current
politics and then came to the main issue. I requested him for an interview
on saffron terror. He recalled his late friend B Raman who wrote
extensively on the subject. Pradhan said he had shared several facts with
Raman.
I had a premonition from the beginning of the conversation that I had
come to the man who could provide a perfect climax to my research. He
must have seen the truth from close quarters during his distinguished
career. Pradhan could not only shed light on the probe itself, but also on
the sudden change in the angle of investigation and also the speculation
about a rift between Digvijay Singh and Chidambaram. Luckily, he agreed
to go on record.

276. Pradhan started with the mention of his dear friend B Raman, who was
a senior intelligence officer himself. Before presenting Raman’s full
interview, I am quoting from one of Raman’s articles that had highlighted
shortcomings in the probe of Hindu terrorism.
‘So many obvious questions, which should have been asked by
objective opinion-makers, have not been asked. One of the suspects is
alleged to have lent her motorcycle to the perpetrators. Can one think of
any instance in the recent history of terrorism in which a terrorist suspect
created evidence against himself or herself by using his or her own vehicle
for planting an improvised explosive device (IED)?
‘A private military school, which coaches aspirants to a career in the
Armed Forces, has been sought to be condemned on the ground that some
of the suspects held a meeting on its premises. What is important is, what
was the purpose of the meeting? Was it to plan specific acts of terrorism or
was it merely to discuss how to counter anti-national jihadi terrorism?
‘Innumerable meetings and seminars are held every year in prestigious
training institutions of the government to discuss, inter alia, appropriate
strategies against jihadi terrorism, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Very often,
the speakers call for strong retaliatory attacks against the terrorist
organisations, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Are they to be viewed as
instigators of terrorism and are our training institutions to be criticised for
holding such discussions?’
Raman had obviously raised some pertinent questions. An intelligence
officer has to weigh his words even after retirement. Such officials are
always answerable to the system.
Dr Pradhan shared many details regarding the formation of the NIA
and the recruitment of favourite officers by the UPA government.
According to him, sycophants were given precedence in appointments
while honest officers like Raman and Dr Pradhan could do nothing. Only a
few bureaucrats dare to speak against the mighty politicians and Pradhan
was one of them. The following is the transcript of his interview:
Q: Is there anything like saffron terrorism?

277. A: The spy agencies are not for apprehending the criminals but
anticipating the crime itself. The shift in the probe occurred at a much
later stage. We were able to gather several pieces of information before the
blasts. We had reasons to believe that these blasts were coming our way.
The US intelligence agencies had shared inputs with us. They had already
pointed fingers at Arif Kasmani whose name figured much later. The
change in the angle of the probe came as a surprise to me. It happened
after the formation of the NIA. It only followed orders from its political
masters. Raman kept writing on the subject after retirement, as he knew a
great deal. Our agencies were aware of Kasmani’s role in the blasts.
However, everything was changed in the investigation. This arbitrary
change of angle was even more evident in the Samjhauta Express blast
probe.
The same happened with the Ishrat Jahan encounter case. The files that
were prepared in August 2009 were completely changed in the next two
months. It was done with a specific purpose. I had seen all the related
reports in 2004 as Additional Secretary of the Joint Intelligence
Committee. We had even visited Ahmedabad during the time because we
already had clues about the activities of these people. The intelligence
agencies were tracking the suspects for a long time. Ishrat was even
mentioned in Lashkar’s website.
A closer analysis would reveal the reasons behind the volte face. In
July 2009, Manmohan Singh met his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza
Gilani in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh. The joint statement issued after the
meeting was widely criticised. Balochistan was included in bilateral
agenda for the first time after these negotiations. This development came
as a shock to us, as Balochistan was never on our agenda.
This joint statement put India and Pakistan on an equal pedestal by
claiming that both the countries were victims of terror. Even the then
Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon later admitted that it was a badly
drafted statement. Menon rose to the rank of country’s NSA. M K
Narayanan, who was the NSA during the time of the Sharm-el-Sheikh

278. meeting, had opposed this part of the joint communique. Menon replaced
him in December.
The Congress had managed to win the 2009 elections. However, its
leaders were aware that repeating the same performance in the next
elections might not be easy. They began preparing ground for the hat-trick
in power from the beginning days of the UPA-II government by raising the
bogey of saffron terrorism. Chidambaram was condemned for using the
term on the floor of the Parliament. The paradigm shift in the Samjhauta
Express and the Ishrat Jahan cases came after this statement. Nevertheless,
the probe agencies could prove nothing. I used to discuss the matter with
my colleagues in the Home Ministry, IB and other departments. They
would say openly that there was nothing to prove the involvement of
Indians in the Malegaon blasts, the Samjhauta Express bombings and the
Ishrat Jahan case.
Q: But some Indian citizens were found to be involved in the Malegaon
case?
A: You know there are always some black sheep among us. These people
are part of sleeping modules that are activated by terror agents. The terror
masterminds use this module system to transfer explosives from one place
to another. These modules are highly secretive, and members are kept in
dark about the conspiracy. Some Indians might have been the part of the
sleeping modules that carried out Malegaon blasts. However, it is wrong to
say that some Indian organisation had carried out the bombings.
Ninety per cent suspects, in this case, were Pak-sponsored terrorists.
However, we had enough information to prove that the Samjhauta Express
incident had the cent percent hand of Pakistan. The US intelligence inputs
corroborated our reports in this regard. I have left one percent scope for
the involvement of Indians in the Malegaon case. Their role was probably
restricted to logistics. When we questioned such suspects, they failed to
give the full details of the conspiracy. All they told was that they were
asked to transport the RDX. Many suspects were added to the list in the
beginning of 2009. Although, there was no clinching evidence against
them.

279. Q: The alleged meetings between the saffron terror suspects were cited as
a major proof. The alleged statements made during these meetings were
considered as a solid ground for prosecution. Did intelligence agency
know about such meetings?
A: Abhinav Bharat was a far-right group that engaged in hyperbole and
rhetoric of retaliating bombings with bombings. There are several such
organisations across the country. However, there is a difference between
issuing threats and actually carrying them out. Such outfits talk of a
violent retribution but lack the means to do so. We were aware of the
existence of such groups, but there was no proof their actual involvement
in acts of terror. The statements were taken as proof in the absence of solid
evidence. Suspects were forced to depose against each other and the whole
theory was erected.
As far as the Samjhauta Express blasts are concerned, there is no
question of the involvement of any homegrown terror group. Its probe was
influenced entirely by political considerations. Some locals might have
helped in shipping explosives in the case of the Malegaon carnage.
However, it is entirely wrong to implicate people like Sadhvi Pragya and
Col. Purohit in the Samjhauta Express case.
Q: There were allegations that the probe agencies wanted to reach to the
top RSS leadership by slapping charges against Indresh Kumar?
A: The SIMI suspects were again subjected to narcotics test recently. They
have clearly narrated how Samjhauta Express blasts were carried out.
However, they had confessed of the same guilt soon after the blasts. But
the probe was scuttled for political gains. The Samjhauta Express blasts
and Ishrat Jahan cases were used to frame the RSS. The then Home
Minister had coined the term ‘saffron terrorism’ to the utter dismay of the
entire country. He did so as the government feared Modi’s rise. I have
closely seen Chidambaram’s style of functioning from 2004. He is very
sharp and intelligent. However, he has misused these qualities. He is also a
lawyer and used his legal knowledge to build up this case. He was brought
to replace Shivraj Patil. A straightforward person like Patil would have

280. never become a part of such conspiracy. He believed in balance. His
handpicked persons were appointed in the NIA.
Chidambaram personally selected every single NIA officer. Those who
were ready to dance to his tunes were given precedence. There was
discontent as Chidambaram has superseded seniority in many
appointments. Several NIA officials were also rewarded later with plum
posts. This indicates a quid pro quo.
Q: Why were these specific terror incidents chosen for the theory of Hindu
terrorism?
A: Proving Ishrat Jahan’s encounter as fake would have undermined Modi.
As I stated, the UPA had sensed Modi as a threat in 2009. Later, the ambit
of allegations against Hindu groups was widened to the Samjhauta Express
blasts. Even Rahul Gandhi told the US diplomat that Hindu terrorism was
a greater danger than the cross-border threat. The motive behind picking
up these cases was raking up the communal politics and maligning Modi
as well as the RSS.
Q: Why was a strong Pakistan ally like the US helping us in the fight
against terror?
A: You must remember the Central Intelligence Agency facility inside
Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan was attacked on 30
December 2009. A Jordanian suicide bomber, who was working for Al-
Qaeda killed seven American CIA officers and contractors, an officer of
Jordan’s intelligence service and an Afghan working for the CIA.
The investigation into this case revealed the ISI’s duplicity before the
US establishment. The US establishment was aware that Pakistan was the
nursery of terrorists. But it had no idea that it could backstab in such a sly
manner. It came out in the probe that the ISI had provided $2 lakh to fund
this attack. A secret cable leaked in January 2010 revealed that US had
knowledge about the involvement of ISI agents in this incident.
Maintaining working ties with Islamabad was a compulsion for the US
war in Afghanistan despite its doublecross. However, the US intelligence
agencies were now keeping a close eye on ISI’s activities. The CIA has a
strong intelligence network in Pakistan. The US agencies started sharing

281. intelligence inputs with India after realising the true nature of Pakistani
establishment. The US government has apprised India of the ISI’s
conspiracies from time to time. The Samjhauta Express blasts were one
such case. Moreover, our own agencies had inputs about an impending
attack. We knew a great deal about Kasmani, especially the funding aspect.
The RAW officials had told me about the funding sources in this incident.
The US agencies have penetrated deep into Pakistani security
apparatus and they work together in Afghanistan. Therefore, the US has
vital information about Pakistani intelligence agencies. The US
intelligence network is supported by a strong electronic surveillance
system. The US spies often know about meetings between important
terrorist leaders. They shared information that could concern us. The
exchange was mutual and we also shared information with them on many
occasions.
There were two important meetings between Al-Zawahiri and the
former Taliban Chief Mullah Omar in 2006-07. The latter died in Pakistan
after some years. These people would go up to Rawalpindi after such
meetings and then went out of radar. It strengthened our suspicion that
Osama Bin Laden was sheltered around Rawalpindi. We have shared this
apprehension with our US counterparts. This might have helped them track
Laden.
Similarly, they had told us about Kasmani’s activities. The US
intelligence agencies have recruited many Pakistani citizens. Therefore,
they have a better intelligence network in that country than ours. We had
an inkling of the Samjhauta Express bombings, but the US agencies
provided specific inputs regarding Arif Kasmani’s role. Attributing this
incident to Hindu groups by ignoring such overwhelming evidence was
shocking to my mind.
It was clear Dr Pradhan was aware of the political conspiracy behind
the allegations of Hindu terrorism. But he was just a part of the system.
The powerful leaders would have muzzled his voice easily. Often, such
whistleblowers are labelled as the agents of opposition parties. Pradhan
had almost confirmed that the whole system was rotten in this case. India’s

282. war against terror was weakened for political gains. Now, I came to the
question that was also flagged by the NIA agent.
Q: Was Digvijay Singh’s phone tapped? If so, why?
A: (Laughs for a few seconds) I am not personally aware of this matter.
But it is possible. We often discussed in our circle, the power tussle
between various leaders. Digvijay Singh was sidelined despite being a
political heavyweight. He had failed to secure a place in the Union Council
of Ministers as the other leaders had caught the better of him in lobbying.
His politics was restricted to controversial statements. Still, he was close
to Rahul Gandhi. Some people even called him Rahul Gandhi’s political
guru. There is little surprise if Chidambaram was suspicious of Digvijay’s
intentions. Digvijay Singh was in constant touch with Hemant Karkare.
You must remember he had alleged that Hindu groups were behind his
killing. Kakare’s wife had refused to meet Singh after this statement.
Chidambaram had adopted the same line, but there was a power tussle
within the ruling party. Chidambaram wanted to know what inputs
Digvijay Singh gave to Rahul Gandhi. There were speculations about
Digvijay Singh’s phone being tapped as Chidambaram was wary of the
threat to his post.
Pradhan seemed to have a point because Digvijay continued with his
ways despite the Congress distancing itself openly from his statements.
Chidambaram outrightly contradicted Singh’s allegations on the Batla
House encounter. Chidambaram knew Singh was a seasoned politician and
eyed the top post in the North Block. The defeat at the hands of Uma
Bharti had almost ended Digvijay Singh’s career at the state level. He still
managed to hog the limelight, but the party gave preference to several
junior leaders in assigning important responsibilities. Meanwhile,
Chidambaram was occupying the post Digvijay Singh so desired. It was
clear before the 2009 polls that the one to stop Modi and the RSS would
take the laurel. Digvijay Singh tried his best to make good on this
expectation. However, Chidambaram found favour with the Congress high
command. The worst fear of the Congress came true in 2014 when Modi

283. was declared as the BJP’s PM-designate despite all the bickering within
the NDA camp. The same fear had prompted the Congress to portray Modi
as anti-Muslim and polarise the voters on communal lines.
Dr Pradhan further revealed differences between the police and the
ATS. According to him, all was not well between the ATS and the NIA.
These probe agencies were not supporting each other. The police would
refrain from sharing intelligence inputs with the ATS and the lack of
coordination mechanism was cited as an excuse.
Pradhan had first-hand knowledge of this purported lack of
coordination among the intelligence agencies as the head of the Joint
Intelligence Committee. This was used as an excuse by the probe agencies
to hide information from one another. Dr Pradhan claimed the ATS has
inferior intelligence capabilities as compared to the police. The latter has
information regarding the terror conspiracies that is more elaborate.
It would not be an overstatement that ‘a ghost’ was the main
conspirator in this story! The whole plot revolved around Sunil Joshi who
had died long ago. Joshi was a former RSS activist and an accused in a
murder case. There are different explanations about his killing. One theory
says Sadhvi Pragya’s staunch followers killed him for casting an evil eye
on her. Some people claim Joshi lost his life as he knew too much in this
case. The probe agencies were either incompetent or too clever to name an
already dead person as the main accused. The whole premise of the
allegations against the Hindu groups was based on Aseemanand’s reported
confession naming Sunil Joshi as the source who told him the entire story.
All the people associated with Aseemanand, who believed in violent
retaliation to Islamic Jihad were roped in as accused in the case.
There is still suspense over Sandeep Dange and Ramchandra
Kalsangra, the two other main accused. The NIA claimed to have seen
Dange while nobody knows whether Kalsangra is alive or not. Were probe
agencies not interested in finding them or did they already know their
whereabouts? The case of Dileep Patidar makes it clear that the probe was
more directed at implicating the Sangh leaders than coming out with the
truth.

284. Similarly, the role played by Dayanand Pandey and Col. Purohit also
remains shrouded in mystery. Was Purohit a patriot army man who was
working with his conduit Pandey to expose a terror conspiracy? Or is he a
terrorist who was bringing extremist Hindu groups together through
Pandey? We have already elaborated on these two questions, but the third
aspect still remains undiscussed.
Was Purohit part some special mission aimed at searching for
extremist organisations linked to the RSS? Did some Congress leaders
know that some disgruntled RSS elements wanted to kill Bhagwat and
other senior Sangh leaders? Was Col. Purohit working to prove the theory
of saffron terrorism? All his activities were reported to the army’s senior
officers. The theory falls flat on its face if Col. Purohit is removed from
the equation. Was Purohit aware that he could be made a scapegoat in the
conspiracy? Had Dayanand Pandey recorded the proceedings of various
meetings of Abhinav Bharat for the same reason? Col. Purohit was aware
that his phones were under surveillance. Does this mean he knew about the
entire conspiracy? Was he himself a part of the same conspiracy and later
became its victim?
It is difficult to answer all these questions. It is for the courts to decide
the truth. However, a story based on 10–12 shadowy characters seems
nothing more than a political conspiracy. The guilty must be brought to
book. However, there cannot be a more shameful example of using the
issue of terrorism as a political tool. This was a period in India’s
contemporary history when the politics of religion and terrorism was at its
peak.
The debate over the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist, Burhan
Wani, was raging when I was finishing this book. The Lashkar Chief, Hafiz
Saeed, was all in praise for some Indian journalists who were casting
aspersions on Wani’s encounter. This has further proved that politics over
terrorism is here to stay in our polity. It is a dangerous trend that would
always fuel the fire of terrorism. Pakistan succeeds in spreading terror
across India only because it finds support from within our borders. It is the
virtue of Indian democracy that allows the questioning of even the killing

285. of terrorists. However, the same liberty was misused to perpetrate a
blatant lie for political purposes. While terrorists can never have any
religion, it is an undeniable fact that Pakistan remains the nursery of this
menace. Unfortunately, some in India are sympathetic to Pakistan’s cause.

286. A
Epilogue
source is sacred to every journalist. Facts become news for many
reasons. Often, the reason is disillusionment from the existing system. The
art of spying is also a journalistic tool, if within the purview of law. I don’t
claim to have acted secretly for the purpose of this book. I did, however,
meet some interesting people, who were likely to know the truth. It was
either an interview by mutual consent or a meeting to get some relevant
documents. I was determined against interviewing any accused or their
families. Their interest would have dictated their statements. People
within security agencies, who wanted the truth to be told, became my
sources. I was fortunate to have inputs from an NIA officer and former
chairperson of the Joint Intelligence Committee.
The NIA was born out of the painful aftermath of the 26/11 attack. It
was formed to serve as a a better response to terror threat. The cream of
Indian security establishment was seemingly picked up to make it the
country’s best evidence-gathering agency. Yet, there were questions
regarding Chidambaram’s role in its inception. The agency’s conduct in
the face of government pressure was also criticised. It is believed that
Chidambaram had gone to the extent of flouting the rule of seniority in
some of the NIA’s initial recruitments. Motives were attributed to
Chidambaram’s action at the early stage. I began writing this book after
meeting an undercover agent, who had worked closely on cases of Hindu
terrorism. According to him, the conspiracy was weaved around a ‘ghost’.
Strange as it may seem, but it is indeed true. In fact, his name even
figures in the NIA chargesheet. Sunil Joshi was a former RSS activist, who

287. was expelled for criminal activities much before the blasts. Joshi was also
a murder accused. There were several attempts on his life. Aseemanand,
one of the central characters, had confessed under dubious circumstances.
The disputed confession claims Aseemanand was told about the blasts by
Sunil Joshi. It was strange that the NIA built its case upon an accused who
was already murdered! To this question, the NIA spy had retorted, ‘Only
the dead become the bridegroom in such murky inquisitions.’ Questions
have been raised galore on Hindutva terror. Sunil Joshi’s past association
with the RSS and criminal background exposed him to the NIA’s radar.
The matter is sub judice and law operates on evidence. Probe agencies
presented statements extracted under stringent MCOCA law and the
alleged use of Sadhvi Pragya’s motorbike as incriminating proof. Later,
the NIA accepted that the latter was a piece of weak evidence. The
proponents of Hindu terror theory insist upon hyphenating two distinct
sets of religious beliefs.
Col. Purohit has nothing to do with the RSS. His only link to Sangh
was Dayanand Pandey, who was officially an army informant. The
Malegaon blasts occurred despite Purohit’s claim that his seniors were
updated on all developments.
Who killed Sunil Joshi? Perhaps, we may never know. Was it a revenge
killing, a consequence of Joshi’s criminal act? Or, was he murdered by
Sadhvi Pragya’s followers, who were angry because Joshi was fanatically
obsessed about her? Did those who felt he knew too much about saffron
terrorism eliminate him? More mouths talk more, yet the truth remains
hidden. One cannot deny that his death only helped the prosecution as the
whole premise rests on this dead person. Still, all we have in the name of
evidence against Joshi are just dubious confessions.
One might whether Joshi was not a small fry for those who were
reportedly attempting on Mohan Bhagwat’s life. Several characters,
including army officers, have come under the scanner, but we see no
investigation against them. The probe agencies have hardly bothered about
real evidence and witnesses in this case. It is not without reason that two
crucial witnesses, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, remain

288. missing until date. There are several unsolved mysteries in this case. One
of the NIA’s agents claimed to have seen Kalsangra. But he was never
found. Kalsangra was a tenant of Dileep Patidar, who also remains
untraced. The aggrieved families fear the worst at the hands of ATS
officers. Even the CBI probe underlines this doubt.
Mysterious killings and disappearances indicate an attempt to muddle
the picture. Otherwise crucial witnesses would not have died, nor suspects
gone missing. The discussions that occurred during the purported terror
meetings raise eyebrows. However, one is also amazed at the facts that
proceedings in all these gatherings were surreptitiously recorded. All these
audio recordings were retrieved from Dayanand Pandey’s laptop. The army
inquiry reveals the defense equipment was used for snooping. These
meetings were spied upon as part of a plan. But what was the plan and who
were behind it?
We cannot ignore the possibility that some disgruntled Sangh elements
were incited for terrorism. The inflammatory statements of Aseemanand
and Sadhvi Pragya, Shyam Apte’s grudges with Mohan Bhagwat and links
of these suspects to RSS leader Indresh Kumar, all these facts seem part of
a pattern. It was never a question of guilt or innocence of the accused.
Otherwise, some of the vital witnesses would not have disappeared.
The NIA placed moles in Aseemanand’s ashram, VHP and BJP offices
among several other places. But it jumped into the probe at a later stage.
The bungling had started with the ATS and subsequently, the CBI’s probe.
The investigation appeared focused on framing certain individuals from an
early stage. At a time when the whole world was uniting against terrorism,
Indian spies were employed in ashrams and party offices.
Pakistan-sponsored terrorism has become a global headache. Even the
US has realised the true nature of the Pakistani establishment. But there
remains a black chapter in our struggle against cross-border terrorism. The
insinuation of saffron terror weakened India’s diplomatic position against
Pakistan on a global stage. It gave our neighbour an opportunity to point
fingers at our homegrown extremists after every blast. The false
allegations diluted the truth that Pakistan was training groups like Lashkar

289. and Jaish in occupied Kashmir and elsewhere in its territory. The media
frenzy played a part in giving undue hype to the issue. The whole purpose
of the theory of Hindu terror seems nothing more than maligning a few
individuals.
Usually, such probes are top secret. Yet, the frequency of exposés in
Tehelka and other magazines raised doubts about whether these were
deliberate leaked. Indresh Kumar was never listed as an accused. He was
not even summoned as a witness. But he seems to be a dreaded terrorist, if
a section of the media is to be believed.
This is an enough reason to smell a rat. Mohan Bhagwat’s name was
also tossed in the controversy. Some media outlets made every effort to
link the BJP and the RSS with terrorism. The notion was a direct assault
on the secular fabric of our country. A signal was sent that the so-called
saffron terror is more dangerous than the Jihadi threat. Many intellectuals
warned against this dangerous politicking. The term ‘saffron terrorism’
was only helping the cause of the real terrorists. This phenomenon has
deep roots, one which we can ill-afford to overlook.
The book also attempts to give a chronological sequence to the events.
Research on the alleged Hindu terror led to the 2002 Gujarat riots. In fact,
some news magazines coined the contentious phrase after the Gujarat
carnage. It was politicised after the Malegaon blasts. The attacks were
communalised because they took place in Muslim-majority areas.
There was a time when India was facing one terror attack after another.
It was clear that our neighbour was conspiring to weaken the nation by
proxy war. This is the reason almost all the blast conspiracies were
similarly scripted. All the strings invariably led to the familiar names like
Lashkar, Jaish, Indian Mujahedeen, SIMI, HuJI and ISI. Some Indians
were misled to become members of sleeping cells who carried out the
blasts on ground. This modus operandi still remains a challenge.
Pakistan has falsely tried to brand SIMI and the Indian Mujahedeen as
homegrown terrorist organisations. In reality, Pakistan is their only
mentor. Some compelling facts were ignored to exonerate the SIMI terror

290. suspects. Even the 26/11 attacks were not spared by the vested political
interests.
On 26 November 2008, India faced the most audacious terror attack in
its history. It was launched from Pakistan without the help of local
conduits. The terrorists had meticulously chosen a sea route to enter
India’s commercial capital. The attack was big enough to wake up world
powers from slumber. The global consternation forced Pakistan to admit
that Kasab was its citizen. It was the first admission of guilt from
Pakistani side that exposed it.
The 26/11 Mumbai attack shook Indian conscience. The internal
politics of terror loosened its grip around Pakistan’s neck. He inaugurated
Aziz Burney’s book that claimed the RSS was behind the 26/11 mayhem.
Little wonder that Burney found an admirer in Lashkar Chief Hafiz Saeed
who used Twitter to shower praises on the book. Such irresponsible
behaviour on part of some leaders signals it Hindu terror could also be a
political strategy.
The NIA gave a clean chit to Sadhvi Pragya in a supplementary
chargesheet. There were doubts that the premier investigative agency was
buckling under political pressure. However, a closer look reveals the probe
has become free of political interference under the Modi government. This
is why many skeletons are now tumbling out of the closet. The NIA has
highlighted several loopholes in the ATS probe, even though the NIA’s
own handling of the case is not above board. It is now faced with the
situation of admitting its shortcomings. It is walking on a thin rope, as far
as legal proceedings are concerned. The questions were bound to be raised.
The exclusive interview with BM Mohan raises some serious questions
as well. He was the Director of Bengaluru’s FSL. Forensic tests of the
SIMI suspects were conducted under his supervision. According to him,
the result of the tests was the confession of the crime. The accused not
only admitted their guilt but also gave other details. Mohan clearly
suggests that the investigation agencies knew the truth. We can imagine
the level of political interference from the NIA’s sheer contempt to facts.

291. Politics over the Samjhauta Express blasts proved to be an
international embarrassment. It was indeed a ‘Samjhauta (compromise)’
with terrorism. The probe agencies ignored various Indian as well as
foreign intelligence reports. They turned a blind eye to forensic evidence
because they were told to believe in the guilt of only two persons.
Neither Sadhvi Pragya nor Aseemanand knew anything. The NIA has
officially acknowledged that Pragya saw the news of blast on TV while
Aseemanand was informed by Sunil Joshi. The notion of saffron terrorism
existed only in the minds of the conspirators. It took some persuasion to
bring BM Mohan on record. The reports of forensic tests, acquired through
another source, confirmed Mohan’s startling revelations. Curiously, we did
not see any Pak-sponsored attack when these so-called saffron terrorists
were active. And they resume soon after the hype is over. The sequence of
events itself reveals a lot.
The alleged Hindu terrorism appears to be a chain of bomb blasts
mostly targeting Muslim-majority areas. Were the selection of bombing
sites deliberately anti-Muslim? The answer to this question would expose
many. It was a political conspiracy aimed that polarisation of votes and
maligning the BJP-RSS.
The hobnobbing of officials with the party leaders was evident. Some
leaders were unusually familiar with the top secret information for some
reason. The ATS lost its credibility after the disappearance of Dileep
Patidar. He is still missing and likely to remain so. The CBI had
questioned the ATS with reference to this case. It expressed doubt that
Patidar was dumped after a brutal murder. It is difficult to imagine what
police custody in this country could be. Both Pragya and Aseemanand
have revealed horrific stories of torture. Aseemanand claimed his
confession was coercively extracted. This appears to be the story of every
alleged confession in these cases.
The fact of security danger to Mohan Bhagwat and Indresh Kumar was
suppressed. The truth could have foiled the conspiracy. Probe agencies
wanted courts to believe that Indresh Kumar was backing the terrorists
who wanted to kill Bhagwat. This contradiction could never have been

292. explained. Therefore, the documented threat perception was silently
dumped and attention diverted to saffron terrorism. The references made
in dubious confessions were used as a political tool to attack the
opposition. Tehelka’s mole within the system also needs to be identified.
Who was leaking information to a few selected media outlets?
An independent probe can also reveal how some people used the probe
to settle political scores. Tehelka ignored all journalistic propriety to work
like a government PR agency.
Aseemanand’s confession was an official secret. Yet, it was on
Tehelka’s desk in 24 hours. This book sheds some light on the leak. This
statement had shaken Indian politics. The credibility of the RSS was at
stake. What happened to allegations against Indresh Kumar and Mohan
Bhagwat? Why were the concerned people questioned? Why weren’t these
allegations proved seriously? Indresh Kumar himself pointed out he was
never summoned or listed even as a witness. It proves Aseemanand’s
confession was published for political mileage. This brand of journalism
not only damaged domestic policies but also weakened India’s fight on
terror.
The probe lost its way as it changed hands. Facts were lost from the
police, the ATS to the CBI and the NIA. All of these agencies played to the
tune of their political masters. They could only prepare a list of alleged
confessions in the name of evidence. The NIA had nothing in the name of
credible proof. It was also because it came on the scene at a much later
stage. However, the ATS had forensic evidence in the case of the 2006
Malegaon blasts. Yet, it overturned the findings. The NIA trashed the ATS,
as well as the CBI, probes and came up with a hitherto new theory.
This book is written in an era when Islamic terrorism is raising its
head yet again in India. A sleeping module of ISIS terrorists was busted in
Hyderabad on 29 June 2016. Its members involved young and educated
Muslims. Religious merchants like Zakir Naik were under fire to
instigating people into Jihad. A Bangladeshi Union Minister went on
record to blame him for radicalisation of attackers in Dhaka. Preachers
like Naik and followers like ISIS terrorists present a dangerous mix. The

293. previous government ignored these grave challenges to promote the self-
defeating theory of Hindu terrorism.
Radicalisation is at the core of this global menace. Even the seemingly
efficient systems of the western world has failed to contain it. Terrorism
has spread tentacles across large parts of the world. Only politicians seek
to link it with religion because it serves their interests. Asaduddin Owaisi
has declared to provide legal help to alleged ISIS suspects arrested from
his own city. Such elements always argue Muslims were wrongly arrested
in the Malegaon blasts.
Terrorists live among us. They are the misguided youth, stung by the
venomous snake of extremism. There are Burhan Wanis outside Kashmir
as well. Such youths are becoming fodder for petty politics. The Pakistani
deep state uses them as its stooges. A bankrupt nation like Pakistan diverts
aid for enmity against India.
India kept reasoning with the US, but Washington was tied to its
obligations in Afghanistan. It was eventually backstabbed by Pakistan.
Slowly, it realised that it is filling the pockets of its enemies. Now,
Pakistan is turning into a colony of China. A secure neighbourhood is in
India’s interest. However, increasing Chinese influence in South Asia has
forced Indian policy makers to rethink their strategy.
Internal politics on saffron terrorism added to the alienation of a
handful of youth. The state had to address the spreading gangrene of
radicalisation while dealing with challenges on the diplomatic front. A
fundamentalist mind is the breeding ground of terrorism. Indian
democracy is governed by the rule of law. The Constitution gives
fundamental rights to all citizens. The problem arises when some people
seek to supersede it with some other system. There is no dearth of hate
preachers inciting people in the name of another governing system.
Politics divided Hindus and Muslims in 1947. The country was broken
into two. The partition has not ceased yet. Hindus have been almost wiped
out in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Minorities are on the verge of extinction.
And the persecution continues. Afghani Hindus and Sikhs have faced even
worst circumstances.

294. The world’s largest democracy is among the safest places for
minorities in the world. Although, some political parties continue to
exploit their fears for votes. They promise antidotes for their own bites.
Riots, extremism, insecurity are some of the symptoms of this virus.
Fundamentalism becomes a false remedy against fear.
This mind game is played on both fronts. India has its own Hafiz
Saeeds, running shops of terror. The hate network has a real presence in
the virtual world. This trade of terror runs on money doled out by
countries like China, South Korea and the US. Politicians thrive on
religious discord.
Communal politics, mentors like Pakistan, and ISI and hate preachers
are pillars of terrorism. Such a sophisticated phenomenon was equated
with unsubstantiated allegations. There was neither a motivated
organisation nor a clear motive in Hindu terror theory. Incidents in
Muslim-dominated areas were chosen to malign the Hindu groups.
None of the chargesheets has so far solved the question of financing of
these acts. Earlier, it was claimed that Dawood’s henchman Arif Kasmani
had provided money for the Samjhauta Express blasts. The SIMI suspects
had revealed Pakistani hand behind the Malegaon blasts. The ISI had even
sent Jihadis for this mission. It is difficult to believe the allegation that
Aseemanand had given ₹ 25,000 to Sunil Joshi on two occasions and Joshi
carried out his orders. The NIA has not added to our knowledge about the
financers of Hindu terrorism.
The probe is always likely to remain inconclusive in these cases.
Kasab and his fellow operatives came well-disguised into our borders.
Nobody noticed them before such a major operation. What could a mass
murderer gain by trying to look like a Hindu or a Muslim? The truth would
have come out, if Kasab were not caught alive. His own country tried to
disown him while the rest of the lot remains well-nurtured across the
border. A country like Pakistan either denies them or accepts them as
‘martyrs’ like Burhan Wani.
Would the wristbands of terrorists have told a different story for the
Mumbai attacks and Karkare’s murder, if we had not captured Kasab? Not

295. only had we caught an assaulter alive, but intelligence agencies also
recorded conversations between terrorists and their handlers. This was an
irrefutable evidence exposing Pakistan.
The police had reached the same conclusion in the 2006 Malegaon
blasts when it arrested the SIMI activists. Then, we suddenly saw
Aseemanand’s confession after several years. These accused were
eventually acquitted. Chidambaram unabashedly declared not to oppose
their bail. This was a glaring example of communal politics. The mud
could not stick in the 26/11 attack case, but some serious terror operations
were painted in saffron.
The assumption that only Hindus could have planted bombs in
Muslim-majority areas endangered social amity. Now, the same probe
agencies are giving clean chits to the accused of saffron terror cases. The
NIA is exposing the loopholes of the ATS investigation. However, will the
real masterminds go scot-free? Should the manipulators of the Samjhauta
Express bombings not be held accountable? Should we not investigate
those who had exonerated Pakistan of its guilt?

296. Reference
Chapter: 2
(17 December 2010) Rahul Gandhi told US, Hindu extremists are a bigger
threat to India
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rahul-Gandhi-told-US-Hindu-
extremists-are-a-bigger-threat-to-India/articleshow/7115703.cms
(28 December 2010) RSS & 26/11: Digvijaya flags it off again,this time in
Mumbai
indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/rss-26-11-digvijaya-flags-it-
off-again-this-time-in-mumbai/
Chapter: 3
(27 July 2016) ‘ ,
’
hindi.news18.com/news/politics/former-nsa-sd-pradhan-interview-
501859.html
(15 January 2011) In the words of a zealot…
www.tehelka.com/in-the-words-of-a-zealot/
Chapter: 5
(8 October 2007) 35

navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/-35-/articleshow/2439302.cms

297. (14 May 2016) NIA decision in Malegaon case vindicates Salian’s claim:
Congress
www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-mumbai/nia-decision-in-
malegaon-case-vindicates-salians-claim-congress/article8598855.ece
(20 February 2013) Myth of Hindu terror
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/headon/myth-of-hindu-terror/
Chapter: 6
(19 January 2011) India must face up to Hindu terrorism
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/19/india-hindu-
terrorism-threat
(21 December 2006) Pradhan Committee finds serious lapses on Gafoor’s
part
www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Pradhan-Committee-finds-
serious-lapses-on-Gafoorrsquos-part/article16854533.ece
Chapter: 8
(20 January 2013) Shinde blasts BJP, RSS for “inciting Hindu terror”
www.thehindu.com/news/national/shinde-blasts-bjp-rss-for-inciting-
hindu-terror/article4325767.ece
(25 August 2010) Chidambaram warns against ‘saffron terror’
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Chidambaram-warns-against-
saffron-terror/article16144675.ece
(14 May 2016) How motorbike-riding tomboy became ‘Sadhvi’ Pragya
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sadhvi-Pragya-A-tomboys-path-to-
prison/articleshow/52263956.cms
(20 April 2016) ATS forced me to implicate Lt Col Purohit: Samjhauta
blast case witness

298. www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ats-forced-me-to-implicate-lt-purohit-
samjhauta-blast-case-witness-319035-2016-04-20
Chapter: 10
(23 April 2016) Malegaon charges due to UPA’s prejudice, says BJP
www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/230416/malegaon-
charges-due-to-upa-s-prejudice-says-bjp.html
Chapter: 15
(28 December 2010) RSS & 26/11: Digvijaya flags it off again,this time in
Mumbai
indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/rss-26-11-digvijaya-flags-it-
off-again-this-time-in-mumbai/
Chapter: 17
(Date not Available) Exclusive : NIA
ATS ,
, ?
hindi.news18.com/blogs/dr-praveen/malegaon-blast-4-493586.html
Chapter: 18
(1 November 2011) ‘NIA won’t oppose bail for 9 accused in Malegaon
blasts case’
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/NIA-wont-oppose-bail-for-9-
accused-in-Malegaon-blasts-case/articleshow/10562035.cms
(28 June 2014) Antony attacks Congress’s minority appeasement
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Antony-attacks-Congresss-minority-
appeasement/articleshow/37353720.cms
(3 July 2016) Owaisi Offers Legal Support to ISIS Suspects in Hyderabad
www.news18.com/news/india/owaisi-offers-legal-support-to-isis-suspects-
in-hyderabad-1265057.html

299. Chapter: 21
(27 April 2012) What’s the Bangaru Laxman Tehelka sting case?
www.news18.com/news/politics/whats-the-bangaru-laxman-tehelka-sting-
case-469103.html
(30 May 2016) Gujarat Files: Sting claims political pressure in Gujarat
riots
indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sting-claims-political-
pressure-in-gujarat-riots-narendra-modi-govt-2822765/
(27 November 2013) Why Tehelka scandal has put Congress strategists in
a dilemma
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/why-tehelka-scandal-has-put-congress-
strategists-in-a-dilemma/20131127.htm
(28 November 2013) Tehelka case turns into combat for Kapil Sibal and
BJP’s Sushma Swaraj
www.ndtv.com/india-news/tehelka-case-turns-into-combat-for-kapil-sibal-
and-bjps-sushma-swaraj-542540
(24 November 2013) Sibal’s stake in Tehelka: Whom do we believe –
minister or data?
www.firstpost.com/india/sibals-stake-in-tehelka-whom-do-we-believe-
minister-or-data-1246199.html
(16 December 2010) WikiLeaks cables: Rahul Gandhi warned US of
Hindu extremist threat
www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-rahul-gandhi-warned-
us-hindu-extremism
(17 December 2010) Rahul Gandhi told US, Hindu extremists are a bigger
threat to India
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rahul-Gandhi-told-US-Hindu-
extremists-are-a-bigger-threat-to-India/articleshow/7115703.cms

300. Chapter: 22
(15 July 2016) ,
:
navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/state/maharashtra/pune/digvijay-backs-
controversial-islamic-preacher-zakir-naik-attacks-
bjp/articleshow/53229716.cms
(25 May 2016) Shivraj Patil rejects Digvijaya’s claim, says Batla
encounter was ‘genuine’
indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/shivraj-patil-rejects-
digvijayas-claim-says-batla-encounter-was-genuine-2818413/
Chapter: 23
(29 July 2010) Digvijay Singh takes war on saffron terror to PM
www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/digvijay-singh-takes-war-on-saffron-
terror-to-pm-79503-2010-07-29
Chapter: 24
(18 February 2009) ISI funded RSS leaders: Pandey`s confession
zeenews.india.com/news/nation/isi-funded-rss-leaders-pandeys-
confession_508735.html
Chapter: 26
(28 January 2011) Congress asks RSS to come clean on Kumar’s suspected
ISI links
www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/congress-asks-rss-to-come-clean-on-
kumars-suspected-isi-links-127494-2011-01-28
(1 September 2017) 2008 Malegaon blasts case: Did Hemant Karkare ‘fix’
Lt Col Purohit?
www.hindustantimes.com/columns/2008-malegaon-blasts-case-did-
hemant-karkare-fix-lt-col-purohit/story-HDsBC2F032jjdAui8leABJ.html
Chapter: 27

301. (25 September 2013) Shinde forced me to name RSS chief: Ajmer blast
accused
www.news18.com/news/politics/dargah-blast-accused-swati-phoner-ram-
madhav-byte-641129.html
Chapter: 28
(31 July 2015) Congress coined term ‘Hindu terrorism’: Rajnath
www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/congress-coined-term-
hindu-terrorism-rajnath-roundup-115073101642_1.html
Chapter: 29
(18 December 2010) Shivraj Patil spectacularly inept: David Mulford
economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7120374.cms?
utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
(10 March 2016) Documents in Ishrat Jahan case missing, probe on, says
Rajnath
www.hindustantimes.com/india/documents-in-ishrat-jahan-case-missing-
probe-on-says-rajnath/story-imsat9DJykzs5ikPIuHYeO.html
Chapter: 30
(27 August 2010) PC remark on saffron terror stalls both Houses
www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/pc-remark-on-saffron-terror-stalls-
both-houses/story-cl7PG9vAT9UThcBV1POnwJ.html?isab=true&meta-
geo=----

302. About the Author
Praveen Tiwari is an acclaimed television journalist, anchor, motivator
and an author. Recently he has anchored the shows ‘Innovate India’ (Zee
Business) and ‘Awakening India’ (DD Bharti). Spanning a career of
eighteen years, earlier he was associated with Network 18 as an anchor and
was the executive producer of the channel Live India. He was also the
Editor-in-Chief of Live India magazine and newspaper.
Tiwari holds a Ph.D. in mass communication from Devi Ahilya University,
Indore. His thesis is registered in the World Book of Record, London, as
the first ever Ph.D. on political cartooning. He is also a regular faculty
with numerous renowned media institutes and universities. His most
recent book, along with his wife and television journalist Archana
Kharkwal Tiwari, is News Anchors: The Face of the News.