A Massacre and a Cover up

Gautam Navlakha
There is a saying that 'pick up a stone and there is perhaps a story waiting to be told'. This is one such story of a massacre, compounded by suppression of truth. And all it required was the employment of the magic word, "militancy related", to cover up a massacre.
On 21/10/2003 one Muhammad Sharief R/o Pul Doda lodged a written complaint regarding massacre of seven persons, [Tariq Husain, Sajid Husain, Muhammad Amin, Riyaz Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed, Aijaz Ahmed and Aftab Husain] including his own son and a nephew.  The crime had taken place during the 'Mehendi Raat' of one Niaz Ahmed S/o Muhammad Abbas R/o Pul Doda at 10:15 pm of 21/10/03 on the roof of his bridegroom's house where more than 200 people had gathered. He alleged that one Javed Iqbal S/o Sumandar Naik  R/o of Pul Doda who is also a SPO with the STF and Ashfaq S/o Ghulam Rasool were present at the scene of the crime. He accused four sons of Sumandar Naik, namely, Mushtaq Ahmed, Abdul Latief, Manzoor Husain, Muhammad Farooq along with Muhammad Issaq, Muhammad Mushtaq S/o Ghulam Nabi Parrey R/o Beraru Pranoo and his other son  Javed Iqbal , Javed Ad Malik S/o Ghulam Muhammad Malik R/o Bharat for instigating this crime. He said a masked man who was involved in the massacre was recognized by Muhammad Amin, his nephew, in the hospital before his death and that person was Muhammad Issaq.
A FIR was registered # 162/03 at police station Doda, and the challan filed after five days on 26/10/03 before the additional sessions court. The Police then proceeded with investigation:
1.      Police recorded statements of witnesses.
2.      A site plan prepared giving details.
3.      They seized one service rifle AK 56 with three magazines (each magazine contains…bullets) and 200 live cartridges, one INSAS rifle with four magazines (each contains 30 bullets) with 100 live cartridges. INSAS Rifle # 16423163 was issued to PSO Javed Iqbal working with STF. Whereas 200 live cartridges had been issued to one Baldev Singh SPO (PW 31) for four years during which, he claimed that he participated in 10-12 operations in which he had killed 27-28 militants. Then he retired, however, took the bullets with him.
Police investigation suggested that the complaint, not the crime of massacre, could be the result of a factional feud within the 90-100 member strong Matador's Union of Pul Doda. Complainant Muhammad Sharief belonged to one faction led by Acting President Om Prakash S/o Chandu Lal Bhagat. Whereas the accused belonged to the faction led by Muhammad Latief S/o Sumandar Naik whose uncle was elected President but his election had been stayed by the Jammu bench of J&K High Court. Although at least one key witness (uncle of the bridegroom) spoke of a kidnapping and killing in 1992 by unknown militants as a fallout of the factional feud.  Why did they not pursue this lead?
Judgment was delivered on 2/4/05. The judgment released all the accused claiming that "prosecution has failed to produce any incriminating material and evidence against the accused persons". And ordered that "seized arms and ammunition be handed over to District Armoury after the period of appeal is over and the other articles be destroyed after the appeal period".
Yet, simple as it seems the entire case appears to have been 'fixed'. This is apparent from the magnanimity displayed by the Addtl Sessions Judge towards conflicting testimonies by police officers, seven witnesses turning hostile and  the partial acceptance of a testimony of the police officer who swore that statements under S 161 were written in his presence?  All these contradictions and omissions were reconciled through a simple stratagem of blaming it on militants.
So what was ignored. Take a look:  PW 34, Dy SP Hq,  Zahid Manhas says that Muhammad Issaq was posted on Mess Duty on the day of the massacre. However,  PW 37, retd police personnel, Raj Singh claimed accused Muhammad Issaq and Sanjay Kumar returned from an operation in Kurmal on the "next day of the massacre". He said entry and exit are entered in the Roznamcha. Which is to say that the operation must have taken place on 21/10/03 the day of the massacre? He insisted also that SPOs Muhammad Issaq and Sanjay Kumar shared one weapon during the said operation? So who is lying? Or indeed both were being parsimonious with facts?  In order to protect a SPO they went overboard?
Glaringly while the Court accepted retraction by 7 key witnesses and thereby rejected the contention of the PW 36 Sub Inspector Ghulab Chand Manhas that all these statements under S 161 were "recorded in his presence" yet they went out of their way to lend credence to one of his witnesses, Kafaitullah, who was not even present at the crime scene, but who had suggested that this massacre was "militancy related". On what basis did the Court see merit in this allegation?
Consider this, particularly, in light of the assertion made by Dy SP Hq, who claimed that since this massacre was "militancy related" so "the higher authorities handed (it) over to the Crime Branch". Although PW 36 Sub Inspector, Ghulab Chand Manhas, is on record as saying that while militant involvement was "worth investigation" but "as less time was given for investigation so the (Crime Branch) Team could not reach any conclusion"! Thus one prosecution witness says that the case was transferred to the Crime Branch because it was "militancy related". And the Crime Branch says that "less time was given" for investigation?  Why did the higher authorities give Crime Branch "less time" to investigate a massacre purportedly committed by the militants? Could it be that they knew it had nothing to do with militants? And they also knew that it may end up raising stink against them because the executioners of the massacre were working with the counter-militancy forces? In short it would put finger on the dirty war being fought by the Indian State and its fallout?
It is significant that un-retracted portions of PW 9 Hamidullah's testimony, who was uncle of the bridgegroom, were ignored by the Court. He said that one Bitta Bhagwan with his SPOs was present at his house few hundred metres from Niaz Ahmed's house. He confirmed that when people who had taken Muhammad Amin to the hospital returned with the news of his dying statement Niaz Ahmed and others attacked the house of the accused persons. He said that his brother had had a bitter fight with the mother of accused Manzoor, Farooq Ahmed and Javed sometime in 1992. That their brother was kidnapped by the militants and his body was found next day. He did not retract this part of the statement.
PW 10 Javed had said that he saw Mushtaq Ad S/o Sumandar Naik wearing "dark green jacket with white lining in the middle". He also saw a masked man with deceased Tariq Husain "just three feet away and (he) was talking with deceased Tariq". Then he saw Tariq try "to catch" the masked man who then "fired a burst upon him and his mask came down" he saw it was Muhammad Issaq S/o Ghulam Nabi parrey R/o Barraru, Pranoo. Thereafter both boys along with two other persons "ran away". At the Court he feigned he was unconscious through the incident and therefore unable to witness anything. But his first statement is lucid and provides details, only an eyewitness fully conscious could have given.
Another PW 35 Shafqat Husain stated that he attended the wedding of Niaz Ad and was accompanied by PSO's Qamar and Romesh. He told the police that "people in the house of the marriage party had told SP Doda that Javed Iqbal SPO was behind the firing". He feigned ignorance when asked if he knew Sumandar Naik or Muhammad Amin Malik Dy SP. In other words presence of armed SPOs/PSOs  is acknowledged.
The Court which was disbelieving of prosecution's case was also quite content to accept that an interim report submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police Crimes & Railways, Jammu had categorically claimed that the "opinion received from FSL Jammu showed" that spent cartridges seized from the scene of the crime did not match the AK 56 seized from Muhammad Issaq. But what about the INSAS service rifle? Were the spent cartridges tested for this link? And why was the ballistic report  shown only to the Judge?
With seven prosecution witnesses turning hostile, while Crime Branch stuck to their version, why did the Court not proceed against the police for fabricating evidence?  Would this not be the logical conclusion from the judgment? Or why was it necessary for the Court to say that unknown masked men who massacred were militants chasing the SPO's without  a shred of evidence? Indeed what does it imply when higher authorities of police did not feel this line of investigation merited any more of Crime Branch's time? Especially when this was no ordinary crime but a massacre in which seven persons died.
The Pul Doda case shows how easy it is to blame a crime on militants in order to suppress truth. In this case, in all likelihood, it was handiwork of SPOs linked to STF, killing a surrendered militant turned SPO working for the army along with six others! Presumably during his militancy days this surrendered militant Tariq Husain may have been part of the militant group or was the militant responsible in 1992 for kidnapping and killing a member of Matador Union of Pul Doda. That 2006 massacre was probably an act of revenge where SPOs attached with STF acted like mercenaries i.e. these SPOs for some consideration executed this crime. And then, received assistance of police so as to cover it up.
Now it was always known that where military rules the roost a 'catch and kill' policy translates into 'cash for kill' policy and can also become "kill for profit". One follows from the other. This is what this case illustrates. War directed against people (as opposed to fighting armies) engenders violent resolution of private conflicts too because it provides impunity to soldiers. Under the obtrusive presence of hostile armed forces delivery of justice runs according to the cardinal principle of the law of jungle, because everything must serve the Indian State's "national security" objective of suppressing a people. Those entrusted with the task of suppression are protected and patronized. By simply declaring a crime to be "militancy related" everyone can be silenced and killers can get away scott free.  Ponder over the ease with which a case of massacre could be covered up and evidence manipulated to the extent that in Pul Doda unless one pointedly asked no one was willing to volunteer any information. And even those who had lost their kith and kin in the massacre and who retracted their statements tried to fudge the issue. And then recall that these SPOs and renegades are intrinsic to the 'dirty war' being carried out in J&K by the Indian state.