Hindu Terror Read online

  The myth of

  HINDU

  TERROR

  Insider account of Ministry of Home Affairs 2006-2010

  RVS MANI

  LET KNOWLEDGE SPREAD www.vitastapublishing.com

  Published by

  Renu Kaul Verma

  Vitasta Publishing Pvt Ltd 2/15, Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi - 110 002

  [email protected]

  ISBN 978-93-86473-27-1 © RVS Mani, 2018

  Reprint 2018

  MRP 495

  All Rights Reserved.

  No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means— electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise— without the prior permission of the publisher.

  The views and opinions expressed in this book are the author’s own. He is solely responsible for the facts and authenticity of the quotes and sources used for this work. The publisher in no way is liable for the same.

  Cover and layout by Somesh Kumar Mishra Printed by Vikas Computer and Printers

  vlrks ek ln~xe; relks ek T;ksfrxZe; e`R;ksekZ ve`ra xe;

  This book is dedicated to my parents Lakshmi and K R Ramaswamy and my father-in-law K S Venkatachalam who were my source of inspiration and support, encouraging me to stand up for the truth.

  vi

  Contents

  Dedication iii Acknowledgements vii Prologue ix

  Canard or a Sponsored Abhiyaan? 1

  Journey to the MHA 7

  Seeding of Hindu Terror 15

  These cases are not closed yet 27

  Night of 26/11 to Afternoon of 27/11 46

  The days following 26/11 76

  PC as Home Minister 83

  Ministers, some mandarins and the MHA 100

  Fallout of Special Secretary’s letter to Delhi Police 112

  The colour saffron 122

  The whispering rooms 134

  Eventful 2010: Charges, counter-charges 155

  Life after MHA 171

  Still under the MHA’s shadow 190

  Epilogue 199

  Annextures from the Indo-Pak Dossier 201

  viii

  Acknowledgements

  A

  t the outset I would like to place on record my thanks to Megha Prasad and Aditi Ananthnarayanan of Times Now, Prema Sridevi of Republic TV and Vasudha Venugopal of The Economic Times. The idea of writing a book came from Megha. Prema Sridevi guided me with her professional touch on how the work can be formatted. Vasudha reassured me that I am a good storyteller myself and do not require a script writer. This set off the beginning of this work. My thanks also go to Ms Papri Sri Raman, the editor of this book, for her meticulous efforts in polishing the final version of this book.

  My wife Sita has contributed to this in more than one way. She has painstakingly corrected the grammar and checked spellings. My son Aditya, during his home visits from Chandigarh, abandoned the internet and went through the style and presentation. His inputs were indeed valuable.

  My erstwhile seniors in the Ministry of Home Affairs have been extremely supportive during my times of tribulations. Special mention for L C Goyal, the then Joint Secretary and currently Chairman and Managing Director of ITPO; D Diptivilasa, IAS (Retd), formerly Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Urban Development during my tenure.

  x

  Pankaj Kumar Mishra, (IRS-IT), has been a friend, philosopher, guide and shield during my tenure in the MHA as well as after that, when I was going through troubled times. I will always be indebted to him for the support he has extended to me in a very critical phase of my life.

  I also thank my former colleagues, S S Das, then Deputy Secretary, MHA, Randhir Singh, former Under Secretary (Naxal Management), MHA, Virendar Kumar, a national-level football referee and my former colleague who was then the Under Secretary, Internal Security and M S Kalaania, also then Under Secretary, Internal Security.

  My thanks are also due to Rakesh Singh Nayal, former section officer in the Internal Security Division, as well as T V Paulose, Private Secretary to Director and Sudeesh Negi, PA attached to the office of the Joint Secretary (IS), MHA.

  Prologue

  T

  he Indian Constitution enshrines in its Preamble itself the principles of secularism. This is undoubtedly the basic tenet of our Constitution. I am restating the Preamble of the Constitution of India below:

  We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation;

  In our constituent assembly this twenty sixth day of November, 1949 do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.

  As a corollary this leads to neutrality. Religious and ethnic neutrality in matters of state and governance. It is meant to be understood that there shall be total neutrality both in perception and in action, in all that the nation does.

  xii

  But is it true?

  Does this happen in reality?

  The world over the dictum is: no cause can justify terrorism.

  Still, in India we have groups, political and nonpolitical, standing up justifying terror acts. They seek pardon for perpetrators of terror acts. They knock at the doors of justices of the apex court with curative petitions after even the President has rejected the pardon.

  In a democracy, nonpolitical elite groups doing this can still be tolerated as an anti-view. There is ambivalence on the Right to Dissent which is an offshoot of the Right to Freedom of Expression in such matters. According to Article 19 of the Constitution:

  All citizens shall have the right

  To freedom of speech and expression

  To assemble peaceably and without arms

  To form associations or unions

  To move freely throughout the territory of India

  To reside and settle in any part of India (and)

  To practice any profession, to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

  Clause (2) under this Article reads as under:

  Nothing in the sub clause (a) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the state from making any law, in so far such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by sub clause (a) in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign state, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

  In so far as this ‘freedom of speech and expression’ is concerned, several judicial decisions have confirmed and reinforced in spirit, the right to speech and expression and hence the right to

  xiii

  propagate an alternative or dissenting view through media and other sources.

  Some of the prominent judicial verdicts have been: i) Virendra versus State of Punjab, AIR 1958, SC 986 ii) Express Newspapers versus Union of India, AIR 1958, SC,

  578

  iii) Bennett Coleman versus Union of India, Union of India,

  1973, SC 106

  iv) Prabha versus Union of India, AIR 1982, SCR 6 v) Indian Express Newspapers versus Union of India, AIR

  1986, SC 515

  vi) Sakal Papers versus Union of India, AIR 1962, SC 305 vii) Indian Express Newspapers versus Union of India, AIR

  1986, SC 872.

  In respect of even imposing or introducing any reasonable restrictions by the state also, the government’s hands are tied by several judicial prono
uncements even if some anti-view (as in these referred-to cases) challenges the objectives set out in the Preamble like challenging the sovereignty and integrity of India. In the following prominent cases the judicial pronouncements are that the burden of proof for imposing these restrictions rests with the state:

  i) Vrijlal versus State of MP, AIR 1970, SC 129, 135 ii) Sagir Ahmed versus State of UP, AIR 1954, SC 728 iii) Chintaman Rao versus State of MP, AIR 1950 SCR 759

  Further reaffirming and reconfirming this omnibus position— that with further caveat that this Right is unbridled—is the judicial pronouncement which in spirit upheld that reasonable restrictions in the context of this Right applies to both substantive and procedural reasonableness.

  Thus, in ordinary circumstances, it is unreasonable to make the exercise of a Fundamental Right depend on the subjective satisfaction of the executive.

  i) Khare versus State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 519, and ii) Gurbachan Singh versus State of Bombay, 1952 SCR 737

  At the same time, I personally hold the view that there are no shades of grey.

  But for a sitting government to take sides, abandon neutrality, to ignore facts, to twist facts, to act in oblivion of facts gathered out of painstaking investigation does ring alarm bells in the minds of concerned citizens.

  In the process, the government of the day had engineered facts, vitiated the legally-established institutional mechanism to ensure that their narrative gets validated and propagated. However, this is not what the framers of the Constitution ever envisioned.

  The so-called ‘secular’ narrative attempted to be propagated between 2004-2013 had the potential to tear India’s social fabric to shreds. In order to reap political benefits, one religious section was projected as overbearing bullies and blamed for certain unfortunate occurrences. To this extent, a nation hostile to the country was partnered. The global narrative was reversed and the victim religious grouping was projected as the oppressor, the perpetrator.

  This attempted narrative acted against the very Preamble of the Constitution in letter and spirit. The actions of the then government in power (2009), elected only by virtue of the same Constitution, vitiated the Preamble’s objective to ‘promote among them all fraternity assuring Dignity of the Individual and the Unity and Integrity of the Nation’.

  My tenure in the Union Home Ministry (2006-2010) and the period after that were filled with interesting experiences. In this book I have captured some of these for the people of this

  xv

  country to get a glimpse of how governments work.

  Documentation of these events and incidents do exist. In case some are not readily available with the ministry, they can be confirmed from the coordinate institutions like the courts of law, the State government secretariats, police headquarters, books on 26/11, one by the noted journalist Sandeep Unnithan.

  In retrospect, my experiences may look ‘dire’ but I had the inner strength to face the various challenges. My parents had instilled in me this strength. In my younger days I believed that my father, who too was a Home Ministry official, had a tyrannical streak in him. But experiences in my working life made me realise the benefit of rigour which he had insisted we follow while growing up. This rigour, both physical and intellectual, does endow us with capabilities to face challenges.

  One lovely and memorable episode I would like to share with readers to reinforce this. One day, I was driving my father through Delhi’s Outer Ring Road and was to take a left turn towards Vasant Kunj, near Vasant Vihar Depot. People familiar with the topography will recall that there is a famous south Indian all-purpose store at the turn. My father, at eighty plus, wanted to buy some small utility ware and so I stopped the car before the store. When he returned and my driving resumed, he noticed that I was not wearing a seat belt. He wanted to know why I was not wearing the seat belt? I replied that officers of the Home Ministry are generally not hauled up as the cops identify them from the parking label. He asked me to stop the car, got out in a huff stating that, whether one broke a traffic rule or took some one’s life, both were crimes, and he wouldn’t travel with a criminal! That is the set of values we have been imbibed with.

  Hence, whatever might have been the narrative being authored, engineered, lobbied during my tenure in the Ministry of Home Affairs, I decided that I would stick to the truth. Only the truth. And the interest of my motherland would be paramount and I would not compromise on this. I cannot compromise on this. I have been programmed since childhood to stick to my position, especially in matters that concern my country.

  My mother, whom I miss even today, died in the build-up of these challenges, a much-shaken woman fearing for her son’s life. I feel a culprit when I think of what she went through. Anyone who had had an opportunity of meeting her will vouch that she was a darling. She had the capacity to shower unlimited love and affection, even on those who might have betrayed her or failed her. This is one value she inculcated in her children. Her memories haunt me, especially when I spill food on my shirt while eating. She would with care wipe it with a wet napkin even when I was 54 years old.

  Her loss is unbearable. But I try to console myself that it was all for a cause. For a national cause. For the cause of humanity. What happened to me was perhaps for an ultimate and larger good. I am sure what happened was an aberration, a break in the norm of good governance. I wish no one has to face police harassment in front of his mother like I had to from a CBI DSP called Jayant Kashmiri for standing up to the truth.

  My parents always knew I stood up for truth on this particular occasion. They knew that I had the courage of conviction. But the CBI DSP, bent on pleasing his bosses, was blinded by ruthlessness and could not see a 87-year-old woman witnessing the mental torture he dished out to her son. Although, today I hold no rancour against Kashmiri, at the same time I wish he was brought up with values like those my parents had brought me up with.

  My values have also taught me: Janani Janmabhoomischa swargadapi gariyasi, meaning, Mother and Motherland are equivalent to heaven.

  It’s not only in the words. It is in our deeds that each one

  xvii

  of us need to prove ourselves. Even now, when the National Anthem is played, I do stand up. On 30th January, when the siren is blown I stand still as a mark of respect to the Father of the Nation. I have been taught in my school to do so. I have seen my parents, teachers respecting the icons of the nation, respecting the rule of law.

  My plea to politicians of this country is that let not such distortions be repeated by any political order just looking for a few votes. Let the law of the land prevail in an environment of justice, good conscience and equity. That’s what the fathers of our Constitution envisioned. Let’s pledge to actualise their vision of a fair and democratic nation. Whatever may the truth be, let’s have the courage to face it and get on with the correction mission.

  For this endeavour to really succeed we at first need to know what really happened during those days.

  Many observers would have noted a very unique trend in the build-up to the General Elections 2014. Quite a few officers who had served in the security establishments had joined the political group which stood for implementing the objectives of the Preamble to our Constitution. There was R K Singh, former Home Secretary, Satyapal Singh, the former Commissioner of Police, Pune at the time of the German Bakery attack, General V K Singh, the former Chief of Army Staff, Hardeep S Puri, a seasoned diplomat and India’s former Permanent Representative to United Nations and many others. On the Economic front also Bibek Debroy, one of the country’s leading economists, who, as Director of the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies under the aegis of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, had acknowledged the success of the Gujarat Development Model had to resign for that. Although this book proposes to detail only the happenings in the security

  xviii

  scenario of those days, this example of even the economist being victimised is reflective of the endemic rot that had set in during 20
04-2013 in India’s governance space.

  The dictum to be followed those days was similar to Tennyson’s famous poem, The Charge of the Light Brigade, that’s ‘Not to question why, Not to reason why, But to do and die’. It was not just six hundred but many more who were victimised during the Congress-led UPA regime’s rule.

  It was a Hobson’s choice for bureaucrats of the time. You question or change the course, you are doomed, so is your career. If you pursue with loyalty the then-ruling politicians, your country is doomed. Your professionalism is affected. You will be branded as the ‘committed bureaucracy’ with all the values you have always stood for, you were given in training institutions, vanquished. It is a process where the civil servants’ self-esteem gets demolished bit by bit.

  Article 309-311 provides protection and safeguards to the civil servants. But that’s only with regard to service matters. There is no protection for your family members, no protection against ostracism by your colleagues, no safeguards against victimisation, no safeguards against delay in career progression etc.

  Unfortunately victimisation of this kind happened. That’s the reality. I do not intend to wreck vengeance on anyone, whether an individual or a sociopolitical group. I just want to share some of these experiences with the public.

  I was ostracised, victimised, chased by the government agencies for standing up for the truth. Some of my lesscourageous colleagues avoided me. Some had even stopped taking my phone calls, even official ones. Some suspected my integrity and suspected me of furthering a political agenda.

  My impressions about intelligence agencies changed completely after the posting in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Earlier, like a common man, I did not hold the agencies in high

  xix

  esteem, but after being a user of their inputs in my professional life I began to appreciate the quality of inputs they really generate and I, as a citizen, was extremely thankful of their endeavours, efforts and results.

  Likewise, after meeting Prema and a few other media personnel my impression about the media professionals changed. They are really good and thorough. At least the media personnel I have met like Prema, Megha Prasad, Aditi, Geeta Mohan, Priyank, Bharti Jain, Manish Shukla and several others.