Babri Masjid ghosts emerge from tale of Bolton terror suspect to be extradited to India

May 5, 2012

New Delhi, May 5: Early in 2010, detectives walked into a grocer's store in Bolton, 16 km from Manchester, looking for a man his closest friends called “Tiger.” For 17 years, police in Gujarat had been hunting for Muhammad Hanif Patel, wanted for his alleged role in a 1993 grenade attack on a train which left an eight-year-old girl dead and 12 people injured.

This week, the greying 54-year-old businessman lost a desperate legal battle to avoid extradition to India. His trial, when it begins later this summer, will exhume some of India's most painful post-independence history.

In December 1992 when Hindutva groups demolished the Babri Masjid sparking off murderous communal violence nationwide, Mr. Patel was a successful construction magnate. His United Kingdom-based father, Umarji Patel, belonged to an influential Muslim family, part of Surat's well-heeled business élite. Mr. Patel busied himself organising relief camps for the thousands of Muslims displaced in the violence, often carried out by police-backed mobs.

He also, police claim, participated in a plan to kill.

Babri Masjid to Black Friday

From evidence produced during the trials of several men already convicted for the bombing, at least some of Surat's besieged Muslims felt the need for more muscular kinds of assistance. The former State Minister and Fisheries Board Chairman Mohammad Surti — who received a 20-year sentence for his role in the bombing last year — called top ganglord Abdul Latif for help. In April 1993, Mr. Latif is alleged to have met with Mr. Surti, his son Farooq Surti, local Congress politician Iqbal Wadiwala, Husain Ghadiyali, Salim Chawal and Mr. Patel himself.

Later that month, Mr. Ghadiyali drove a Maruti van, with a dozen hand-grenades, two Kalashnikov rifles, and a hundred rounds of ammunition to Surat. The grenade thrown at the Gujarat Express on April 22, 1993 was intended to have demonstrated that killing Muslims would not be cost-free.

Nothing in the Gujarat Police's files, or the trial records, suggests Mr. Patel had a direct role in the bombing. Mr. Ghadiyali, whose wife tied a rakhi on the ganglord's wrist each year in a ritual gesture of brotherhood, was the central actor.

Mr. Latif — later to die in a controversial encounter — was no jihadist. Long, a key figure in Gujarat's lucrative bootleg racket, he had clawed his way into the State's élite by ruthlessly eliminating his rivals. He won support by acting as a source of patronage and protection — and bought impunity by building a close relationship with the local Congress. In 1987, then in jail facing trial on murder charges, he fought and won elections from five Ahmedabad municipal wards.

In the wake of the 1992-1993 carnage, ganglords like Mr. Latif came under pressure from communities torn apart by communal violence — and turned to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate for help. In February 1993, Karachi-based ganglord Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar ordered networks to stage reprisal attacks. From a confessional statement made by Dawood Ibrahim's lieutenant Usman Gani Merchant, we have some idea of what was discussed at the meeting, where the decision for ‘revenge' was taken.

Mr. Kaskar's operatives set off 13 improvised explosive devices in Mumbai on March 12, 1993, killing more than 250 people — the largest terrorist attack in India's history, known popularly as the Black Friday bombings. The explosives, grenades and assault rifles used in the course of the revenge operation were provided by the ISI, which hoped to set off a communal war in India.

The weapons used in Surat, investigators later discovered, were part of a larger consignment of 57 Kalashnikov assault rifles, several dozen grenades given to Mr. Latif by Mr. Kaskar, with instructions to carry out similar operations in Gujarat.

Led by a Latif gang member called Rasool Khan ‘Party,' his nickname derived from slang for businessman, the crime syndicate carried out strikes in a Surat marketplace, and at eight locations in Ahmedabad — killing 10.

Mr. Latif fled India for a time, dumping his remaining cache of 30 assault rifles and grenades in Jharnea, in Madhya Pradesh. Police allege the weapons were transported there by Sohrabuddin Sheikh, who was killed in a 2005 shootout with the Gujarat Police, now known to have been staged to settle a business-related feud. In 1995, Mr. Latif returned to India after a falling-out with Dawood Ibrahim, and was killed in a controversial encounter.

Following the murderous 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, elements of the group built alliances with jihadist groups, laying the foundations for a new phase of retaliatory violence. Rasool Khan ‘Party' hid out in Hyderabad, where he made contact with controversial Islamist cleric Maulana Mohammad Naseeruddin. Following the murderous 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, Rasool Khan is alleged to have funded the travel of jihad recruits to training camps in Pakistan. Mr. Khan, like other key figures in these networks, is thought to be in Pakistan.

Mr. Patel, though, appeared to want no part in the war he had been dragged into in the summer of 1993. He jumped bail, fled to the U.K., where his father has construction interests. Mr. Surti's son Farooq Surti, Salim Lala and Farooq Gajnabi, are also believed to be overseas.

Tiger_Hanif_copy

Tiger Hanif


Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 12,2024

ikramuddinkamil.jpg

The Taliban regime has appointed Ikramuddin Kamil as the acting consul in the Afghan mission in Mumbai, Afghan media has reported.

It is the first such appointment made by the Taliban set up to any Afghan mission in India.

There was no immediate comment from the Indian side on the appointment that came.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan has announced the appointment of Kamil as the acting consul in Mumbai, the Taliban-controlled Bakhtar News Agency reported on Monday, citing unnamed sources.

"He is currently in Mumbai, where he is fulfilling his duties as a diplomat representing the Islamic Emirate," it said.

The appointment is part of Kabul's efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties with India and enhance its presence abroad, the media outlet said

Kamil holds a PhD degree in international law and previously served as the deputy director in the department of security cooperation and border affairs in the foreign ministry, it said.

He is expected to facilitate consular services and represent the interests of Afghanistan in India, the report added.

Kamil's appointment comes days after the external affairs ministry's point-person for Afghanistan held talks with the Taliban's acting defence minister, Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob, in Kabul.

Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, the Taliban's deputy foreign minister for political affairs, also posted on X about Kamil's appointment.

The appointment of Kamil is seen as part of efforts to facilitate consular services to the Afghan population in Mumbai.

There has been almost negligible presence of diplomatic staff at the Afghan missions in India.

Most of the diplomats appointed by the Ashraf Ghani government have already left India.

In May, Zakia Wardak, the seniormost Afghan diplomat in India, resigned from her position after reports emerged that she was caught at the Mumbai airport for allegedly trying to smuggle 25 kg of gold worth Rs 18.6 crore from Dubai.

Wardak had taken charge as the acting ambassador of Afghanistan to New Delhi late last year, after working as the Afghan consul general in Mumbai for more than two years.

She took charge of the Afghan embassy in New Delhi last November, after the mission helmed by then ambassador Farid Mamundzay announced its closure.

Mamundzay, who was an appointee of the Ghani government, had moved to the United Kingdom.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.