A new “fact-finding” report, taking a line similar to that of Union home minister Amit Shah, who has termed Delhi riots “pre-planned” and “part of a conspiracy”, has admitted that “the police and law enforcement agencies were on a back-foot” during the riots which have claimed more than 50 lives, rendering hundreds injured and thousands homeless.
Suggesting that the police failed to respond effectively because they were faced with “large number of rioters who were also armed”, the 51-page “Delhi Riots 2020 - Report from Ground Zero: Shaheen Bagh Model in North-East Delhi, From Dharna to Danga”, says these were planned riots by “Left-wing jehadis”, who were using “seemingly imposed” and “totally out of context” language” and “idiom, picked up from “some revolutionary manual from some university classroom.”Claiming to have seen “a range of locally made arms were used by the rioters” in North-East Delhi, and suggesting this points to “expertise in Guerilla warfare”, the fact-finding team says, “Riot weapons were stockpiled over a period of time. There are evidences of use of high rise buildings in the areas as sites for launching petrol bombs, Molotov cocktails”. Also, there were “huge sized catapults capable of launching bricks."
Further claiming that “armed jehadi mobs targeted the Delhi police and civilians alike”, the report says, as a result of this “life of common citizens was “endangered”, one reason why the latter too “had to resort to self-defense in the face of rioting mobs.”
Prepared by “group of intellectuals and academicians" – Supreme Court advocate Monika Arora, and three Delhi University assistant professors – Dr Prerna Malhotra, Sonali Chitalkar, Dr Shruti Mishra, and Divyansha Sharma – the report contends that the riots were also a planned in order to implement the theoretical framework of a pro-poor American community leader Saul Alinsky (1909-72), urban Naxal and CPI (Maoist) “strategy and tactics”, and the Dantewada “model”, even as using “grievances of communities to engineer revolution.”
The crowds of rioters were very well prepared to conceal their identities with many wearing helmets and had blackened their facesTerming Shahin Bagh protests “anti-Hindu, anti-India, anti-police and anti-government”, the report says, the sites where protests took place had “revolutionary slogans” painted on the wall, even as “azadi, anti-government rhetoric, dangers of fascism slogans” were raised on public address systems.
Explaining the anti-Hindu nature of the slogans and posters, the report claims where were images of the Holy Swastika and Om depicted in a “derogatory manner”, adding: “Ma Kaali, the Hindu goddess, and women wearing bindis were shown in burkhas”, adding, “While on the one hand Islamic slogans were raised repeatedly, locals also reported Pakistan zindabad slogans being raised.”
“All this was being done with the Constitution and the Indian national flag in the backdrops”, the report asserts, even as blaming, like the Union home minister, the outsiders for rioting, but wonders who these were. Suggesting that the outsiders came from Uttar Pradesh, the report says, “In North East Delhi some gallis open out into what is technically Uttar Pradesh. There is no sealed border.”
Stating that the crowds of rioters were “very well prepared to conceal their identities” with many wearing “helmets and had blackened their faces”, the report says, “The outside influence is most palpable when one visits the sites of anti-CAA protest that have now been removed.”
Blaming the outsider influence on the “involvement of a revolutionary network that engineered and managed the riot situation”, the report particularly names the feminist organization Pinjra Tod for “instigating violence”, as also “women students from the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)” for “constantly instigating crowds over a period of weeks before February 23.”
 |
| Front cover of the report |
Questioning the democratic nature of the anti-CAA, NPR and NRC protests, the report says, “In a democratic protest the organization leading it can be clearly identified. Such protests are conducted within the rule of law. They respect the right of persons who are not engaging in debate. Democratic protests cannot deliberately target and provoke a particular community that is largely peaceful and respects diversity.”
Armed jehadi mobs targeted Delhi police and civilians, one reason why the latter had to resort to self-defense in the face of rioting mobsContradicting itself about the planned nature of the protests, the report at another place says: “We found that these protests have no single identifiable face or organization. Thus everyone in the protests is an independent voice. Shaheen Bagh protesters are at pains to deny any association with Sharjeel Imam who is a major face in anti-CAA protests since its inception.”
Yet, it blames Popular Front of India (PFI), said to be an extremist and militant Islamic fundamentalist organization, and the All India Students' Association (AISA), a left-wing student organisation of the Communist Party of India Liberation, saying, they together “specialize in violent, one-sided irrational, disruptive and undemocratic movements that are based on fear-mongering.”
Stating that all this is happening “under the under the cover of Constitutional values and democratic right to protest”, the report also indicated involvement of those who have “captured” campuses of major institutes like the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Hyderabad Central University (HCU), Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Chennai, JNU, Osmania University, Jadhavpur University and Delhi University.
---
All photos screenshots from the report
Comments