New Delhi: General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Sitaram Yechury criticized the Delhi police investigation into the February riots, in which several students and civil liberties activists have been arrested.
Friday evening, The wire reported that intellectuals and political party leaders, including Yechury, Swaraj leader Abhiyan Yogendra Yadav, Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand, Jawaharlal University Professor Nehru Jayati Ghosh, lawyer Mahmood Pracha, Army Chief Bhim Chandrasekhar and documentary director Rahul Roy, they’re under the Delhi police scanner.
On Sunday, the Delhi police tweeted an alleged clarification regarding the inclusion of the names of Yadav, Ghosh and Yechury.
In response to the accusation that he gave a speech to “provoke and mobilize” protesters against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at the Jafrabad sit-in, Yechury tweeted: “The Delhi Police report to the Ministry of the Interior and the Center. Their illegitimate and illegal actions are a direct result of the policies of the main leaders of the BJP.
The Delhi Police report to the Ministry of the Interior and the Center. Their illegitimate and illegal actions are a direct result of the policies of the top leaders of the BJP. They fear legitimate peaceful protests by major political parties and are misusing state power to attack the opposition https://t.co/8uGr4x1ylC
– Sitaram Yechury (@SitaramYechury) September 12, 2020
Dipankar Bhattacharya, general secretary of the CPIML (Liberation) party has also issued a statement denouncing the “witch hunt” of teachers and students in the investigation into the violence in February.
Noting that the Delhi police investigation “is getting more vindictive and ridiculous with each passing day,” Bhattacharya added that the appointment of academics and activists is taking place when, “the government is in the dock: accused for the people of India to make India the worst country in the world affected by COVID-19; to destroy the economy and people’s livelihoods; to violate the rights of workers and farmers; and to seek to destroy the constitutional democracy of India “.
“The government itself is trying to divert attention from its own crimes, fabricating accusations against its critics and using the police and investigative agencies to arrest and imprison innocent people under draconian laws,” he added.
Meanwhile, Delhi police tweeted to say that Yechury, Yadav and Ghosh have not been “indicted as defendants” on the supplemental charge sheet.
It is clarified that Shri Sitaram Yechury, Shri Yogendra Yadav and Smt Jayati Ghosh have not been indicted as defendants in the supplemental charge sheet submitted by the Delhi police.
– #DilKiPolice Delhi Police (@DelhiPolice) September 13, 2020
However, it is not clear why, despite the fact that the accused person clearly refused to sign the disclosure statements, the Delhi police included them in the charge sheet. In addition, the police have also failed to clarify on what basis they have linked intellectuals and leaders of different political shades to their “conspiracy” theory that anti-CAA protesters worked as a group to precipitate community violence in Delhi.
Asking the news agency PTI To withdraw a tweet notifying without further details that the Delhi police named him and others as “co-conspirators”, Yogendra Yadav said: “This is a factually incorrect report, I hope @PTI_News remove it. The supplemental charge sheet does NOT list me as a co-conspirator, not even as a defendant. A passing reference to me and Yechury, in an unauthenticated (not admissible in court) police statement from a defendant. “
This is a wrong report I hope @PTI_News remove it.
The supplemental charge sheet does NOT list me as a co-conspirator, not even as a defendant. A passing reference to me and Yechury, in an unauthenticated (not admissible in court) police statement from a defendant. https://t.co/QurXmQdOr2– Yogendra Yadav (@_YogendraYadav) September 12, 2020
He also tweeted a page on the charge sheet where his name was mentioned.
This is the only reference to me on the supplemental charge sheet. hope @PTI_News remove misleading informational flash. pic.twitter.com/MlrX2Q8Fx4
– Yogendra Yadav (@_YogendraYadav) September 12, 2020
The names of these personalities emerged in the disclosure statement of Gulfisha Fathima, who had recently partnered with the Pinjra Tod women’s collective. The statement is part of the supplemental charge sheet that the Delhi Police filed in FIR 50/20, against Fathima and two founding members of Pinjra Tod, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal.
The supplemental charge sheet, which largely investigates the role of activists in the Jafrabad community violence on February 23, draws a series of wide-ranging connections between politically diverse groups and individuals to illustrate their alleged complicity in the violence of February in Delhi.
Attached are two identical disclosure statements from Kalita and Narwal, in which the police claim that Ghosh, Apoorvanand, and Roy advised them to militantly protest against CAA to defame and evict the Union government. Curiously, On some pages of these “disclosure statements”, it can be seen that Kalita and Narwal have written “I refuse to sign.”
Screenshot of Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita’s so-called disclosure statements. Narwal has written “I refuse to sign” and where Kalita has written “I refuse to sign” it has been crossed out.
Fathima’s disclosure statement, on the other hand, alleged that leaders such as Yechury, Yadav, Bhim Chandrasekhar’s army chief, and others planned their speeches at the Jafrabad sit-in to provoke a “feeling of discontent” among Muslims against CAA.
Apoorvanand, responding to the accusation, had told him The wire Earlier, the Delhi police investigation into the riots is eerily similar to the Bhima Koregaon case, in which several intellectuals, professionals and public activists who have criticized the Union government have been arrested. He said the investigations were an ideologically charged, unprofessional and ‘written’ exercise to “Criminalize anti-CAA protests and protesters.”
Later in a statement, he said: “These names are mentioned in unsubstantiated statements attributed to defendants who are in custody, where it is claimed that they provided support in organizing protests against the CAA.”
“Although FIR 50/20 was registered in relation to the death, by gunshot wound, of an Amaan, the investigation seems to have focused on delegitimizing the protests and trying to indirectly hold the protesters responsible for Amaan’s death.
He said that while he has not been identified as a defendant, he expressed surprise that Delhi police should even charge three young women with murdering a 17-year-old, Amaan. He further said that young women have been accused of instigating a shooter, but the investigation has not revealed who shot Amaan, but insists that “whoever it was, it was instigated by the defendants’ anti-CAA stance.”
Apoorvanand also cited the Delhi high court hearing on Kalita’s bail request on September 1, when he detained Delhi police for failing to provide any evidence of an incendiary speech from her. “The court also said that the witness statements were delayed, as an afterthought by the police,” said the Delhi University professor.
Note: This article has been updated to add responses from the Delhi Police and Dipankar Bhattacharya, along with Apoorvanand’s statement.
.
