Arrested SIMI and Indian Mujahideen Islamic Terrorists Planned to Attack Ayodhya Case Judges

Bhopal, June 9, 2011

Arrested SIMI men planned to attack Ayodhya case judges

Mahim Pratap Singh

Terrorists arrested earlier this week by the Madhya Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad planned to attack judges who delivered the Ayodhya case verdict.

According to police sources, five terrorists of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India and three others belonging to the Indian Mujahideen, who were arrested on Sunday, confessed to researching the disputed land at Ayodhya and surrounding areas following the September 30, 2010 judgment.

“The terrorists told us that they had been researching the area around the site and were planning to target the three judges who delivered the judgment,” ATS Inspector-General Vipin Maheshwari told The Hindu.

Three of the arrested terrorists are reportedly connected to the July 2008 Ahmedabad blasts.

Sources in the Intelligence Bureau said the terrorists also confessed to having robbed five banks in the State to raise funds for organisational and propaganda activities and other operations.

Seven Critical Lessons From Ayodhya: Varsha Bhosle

Commentary/Varsha Bhosle
Seven lessons from Ayodhya

There’s excitement in the secularist air: The court’s decision to frame charges against senior BJP and VHP leaders in the Babri Masjid demolition case is said to have put the saffron brigade on a defensive. Apparently, the lust for power, along with the influence of the minorities, had moved them to soft-pedal Hindutva, and this raking up of old wounds wrecked all their plans of gaining wider acceptability.

I agree. Last week, BJP spokesman K R Malkani alleged that unknown, unruly elements had infiltrated the kar sevaks and destroyed the mosque to defame the Sangh Parivar. He said that there was celebration in the Pakistan high commission when the destruction occurred — thereby also implying an ISI presence. What a cop-out.

But somehow, [grin] nothing seems to affect Balasaheb Thackeray. For instance, Gulzar Azmi, chief of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema (which had opposed the creation of Pakistan on the basis that it would limit “the glory and sway” of Islam to one area when the whole subcontinent was a sitting duck) exonerated him with, “Bal Thackeray only tried to take credit for the demolition of Babri Masjid. The real culprits are the Congress and the BJP. The Sena leaders only talked about it, while the Congress succeeded in razing the shrine by inciting the BJP”. Tiger with 900 lives…

Mr Azmi almost inspires me to run into the Congress’s arms. Which obviously suggests that I approve of the razing: Typical, knee-jerk divisive-communalist-fundie. But, this is how I felt about it in December 1994: “As I write this on the eve of the second anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, I still do not comprehend the issue which gave the impetus to Hindus. As supposition, even if I take the VHP’s belief of the Ram Janmabhoomi as the gospel truth, how does it justify the destruction of a masjid? What has the common man gained, and what other ancient, historical monuments are to be brought down while invoking the names of gods? Is the Taj Mahal safe?”

Shocking, eh? What happened in the interim was that I made an effort to comprehend the core issue. Result: I sailed from knee-jerk Hindu defensiveness smack into an aggressive Hindutva awareness. I am not interested anymore if there was a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya or not — actually, I don’t care whether Ram existed or not. The question is not one of history or theology or archaeology or jurisprudence (but if you want me to expand on that, I can). To me, it’s a matter of psychology, period. This is a good time to revisit my mental processes and deliberate on the crime of Hindutvawadis: We will be awash in its ramification for years to come.

In an intellectual clash, it’s futile to be polite when the adversary is intractable; and if he also lacks ethics, it’s absurd to be virtuous. All defense and no attack never did win a war — and the Ram Janmabhoomi affair is nothing but a battle. In an ideological conflict, people must learn to wield the weapons the foe employs. Which, in context, are critiquing the systems of Islam and Marxism (just as they criticise caste, sati, etc), and using their tactics to expose the religious, political and social prejudices which motivate them. Lesson #1: Just as Muslims use the rod of feeling offended if Islam is challenged, it’s alright for Hindus to feel god-damn outraged when Hinduism is.

So, did Ram or the Mandir exist at all? Not if Muslims can verify the authenticity of Abraham’s having built the Qabah. Not if the Al Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem is built over a footprint in rock caused by the Prophet’s having landed rather hard on the ground — after having flown through the heavens on a winged horse. Not if it can be proved that the hair in Hazrat Bal belongs to Mohammed. Point is, the belief that the only true God is Allah is intrinsic to the Hindu-Muslim cleave. Just as Christianity (with its Shroud of Turin and Weeping Virgin icons) pickled the Greek pantheon into a mythology, Islam and Marxism would do the same to Hinduism — and hence their denial of Ram Janmabhoomi. Lesson #2: Take the fight to the opposite camp — let them first establish Islam’s credibility.

Now, did Hindus have the right to appropriate the Babri Masjid in 1949 if it was indeed in use? Once we accept the belief of pre-Parivar Hindus — eg, in an 1858 document, one Muhammad Asghar demands the removal of a platform outside the masjid, complaining that Hindus performed worship there — this is easy-peasy: Internationally (but excluding the pillage by colonial Britain), even stolen art is restored to its original owner, regardless of status quo; and if the buyer should be dead, his descendants are duty-bound to return it. If they don’t, the law forces a restoration — like the litigated ancestral property returned to Native Americans and Australian Aborigines. But if the State refuses to take cognisance, what then? If the original owner has spunk, he finds his own ways to repossess it — like Spain recovered its churches after driving out the Moors. Lesson #3: Reclaiming one’s heritage is normal, customary and desirable — claim the Krishna Janmasthan, too.

Next, couldn’t the dispute be settled amicably in a court of law? Easier said. In October 1990, Imam Bukhari of the Babri Masjid Action Committee declared that if a court ruling went against Muslim demands, an “agitation” against the verdict would be launched. Then, the Muslim Personal Law Board announced: “The Shariat does not allow the shifting or demolition of the Babri Masjid as it has not been built on a temple or illegal land” (Times Of India, 9 December 1990). Then, realising that they’d lose the debate, appended it with: “The law protects it even if built on a temple” (Syed Shahabuddin, Indian Express, 13 December 1990). Why V P Singh scuttled the agreement with the VHP, why the suit of possession was postponed, do Hindus have constitutional rights, is immaterial. Lesson #4: When secularism comes to mean different strokes for different folks, it’s time to cry, “Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain!”

The tricky question is, what justifies the destruction of a house of worship? In a word, nothing. But do not forget that masjids and mandirs are of the same genera — and the first stone was cast down by a Muslim. I once believed that two wrongs don’t make a right — but that was when I confused revenge with redressal and before I grasped the basis of the Mahabharat: Even after the Pandavs offered to cede the whole kingdom save 5 villages, the Kauravs refused to grant them “a speck of land the size of a pinhead”. Upon which, Krishna said that such self-righteousness and intolerance would brook no compromise, that war was inevitable… The VHP had been asking for just “three age-old sacred places” of the thousands converted to mosques — which were to be relocated, not destroyed. Lesson #5: Stop apologising for Hindutva — recognising, confronting and defeating Muslim fanaticism is practical and required.

So what has the common man gained from the demolition? Nothing that our pointy-headed intellectuals who can’t even park their bikes straight will understand. Nothing that our Leninists, for whom the solutions to ALL problems begin and end with roti-kapda-makaan, will grasp. After all, how can the ideologically servile be expected to know the psychological benefits from the effacement of the most offensive symbol of Hindu slavery? I attribute the Hindu society’s negative self-image and utter lack of self-respect to the moral damage wrought by Nehruvians and leftists who have distorted history by projecting marauding conquerors as protectors and Hindu nationalists as villains to, supposedly, “ensure communal harmony”. And look where it led us. Lesson #6: History is not the jahgeer of vested interests — no matter how inconvenient the Truth, it releases: Satyam muktye.

And so to the present predicament: Who demolished the Babri Masjid? In 1990, when Mr L K Advani undertook the Rathyatra to amass support for the bricklaying of the mandir, everywhere, the common devotee’s response was enthusiastic. Meanwhile, in UP, chief minister Mulayam Singh had suspended all public transport, blocked roads, imposed curfews, sealed the borders and arrested Parivaris and kar sevaks after hounding them out from houses. On October 22, Mr Advani was arrested. But on October 30, thousands of kar sevaks defied police cordons and planted flags on the masjid’s domes. Eventually, the police overcame the crowds, arrested thousands and killed between 10 to 50. Human and religious rights exist only for minorities.

And yet, on November 2, the kar sevaks came back in droves. But this time, Mulayam’s police, greatly out-numbered and probably under specific orders, skipped the usual procedures of warning, lathi-charge, tear-gas, firing in the air and shooting in the legs, and fired straight into the crowds. Most of the dead, of whom many were sadhus, had bullet wounds in the head and chest. As usual, the death toll is a matter of dispute; Koenraad Elst writes, “many of the bodies have been carried off in army vans and unceremoniously disposed of in an unknown place.” Press figures vary from 9 to 25, Mulayam says 16, the home ministry claims 30, the BJP cites 168, the VHP alleges 400, and eyewitnesses quote thousands.

Whatever the number — logically, it has to be in hundreds — there has been no badgering for a probe à la the Srikrishna Commission from our tender-hearted intellectuals, who, of course, also support a government with Mulayam as its defence minister: Islamic bricks, too, are more precious than Hindu lives.

So Mr Malkani… who demolished the masjid? Were the people who congregated for kar seva, who faced bullets in the name of Ram, who joined the Rathyatra from Karnataka, all agents of the ISI? Also, unruly or not, the thousands who brought down the structure couldn’t all have been card-holders of the saffron brigade, could they?

Truth is, most were people without political affiliations, bairagis and sadhus too, who had followed their trust in the Ram Janmabhoomi. They were of the stock that had rioted around the Babri Masjid in 1934 when a cow was slaughtered in its vicinity. If at the first shake of the chair, the BJP is Congress enough to turn its back on all that *those* kar sevaks died for, then I turn my back on the BJP. A party without principles is no Hindu party — shape up or ship out. Lesson #7: It was just another election plank, after all.

Islamic terrorists strike Varanasi

Terror strikes Varanasi

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times

Varanasi, December 08, 2010

Terror struck the holy town of Varanasi on Tuesday — a day after the 18th anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition — as an explosive device killed a one-year-old child and injured at least 20 people. The blast

related stories
IM claims blast, says it’s retaliation for Babri verdict
Founder of banned IM main suspect
Big bang, smoke and cries for help
took place at 6.35 pm at the old Dashashwamedh ghat on the banks of the Ganga where one of the main tourist attractions, Ganga Aarati, was being performed.

related stories
IM claims blast, says it’s retaliation for Babri verdict
Founder of banned IM main suspect
Big bang, smoke and cries for help

Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility for the blast in an e-mail traced to Malad in Mumbai. It said, “Indian Mujahideen attribute (sic) this attack to the 6th of December that will haunt your nation of world’s ‘Greatest DemoNcracy (sic)’.” The mail also warned of more attacks.

The five-page IM email referred to the Allahabad High Court judgment on Ayodhya and the “manhandling and heckling of the Kashmiri leadership in Indian cities”.

Condemning the blast, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it was an attempt to “weaken” India’s resolve to fight the “evil forces of terrorism” and that the “terrorists will not succeed”.

The blast took place near the railing of an elevated platform. The explosion destroyed the railings and the stone stairs of the ghat and bloodstains could be seen all around the place.

“It was a powerful blast that shook buildings up to 500 metres away. We saw dismembered limbs being thrown about,” said Kishori Raman Dubey who organises the show at the ghat.

The PM asked the union home ministry for a report on the incident. In fact, the home ministry had recently alerted the UP government against possible terrorist attacks around the time of the Babri demolition day.

Varanasi police chief RP Singh confirmed the death of one-year-old Swastika Sharma and injury to more than 20 people.

A local trader, Kuldip Beri, told HT that no policeman was present at the spot when the blast took place and there was total chaos for at least 15 minutes before the cops arrived.

ASI report clinched presence of Temple in Ayodhya issue: Advani

“In its report, the ASI concluded that the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure ”are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.”

ASI report clinched crucial aspect of Ayodhya issue: Advani
New Delhi | Sunday, Oct 10 2010

Terming as the ”crucial aspect of the Ayodhya issue” the question whether a Hindu temple existed at the site prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid, veteran BJP leader L K Advani today said the issue had been clinched by the Archaeological Survey Report which said the remains there indicated existence of a temple. Writing in his blog, Mr Advani said in 1993, the Central Government had sought an opinion from the Supreme Court, as part of the advisory role that Article 143 of the Indian Constitution has entrusted to the apex court. It was ”whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?” He said, ”This provision gives the Supreme Court the discretion, if it is so inclined, to decline giving an opinion. In this case, it actually did so decline. But in the process it became very clear what government regards as the most crucial aspect of this controversy.” Mr Advani said the Allahabad High Court took cognizance of the above mentioned Reference made by then President Shanker Dayal Sharma under Article 143 to the Supreme Court. The court felt it would be appropriate to ask the ASI to analyse the crucial question posed by the Centre first by a Ground Penetrating Radar survey and, thereafter by excavation.

After the radar survey showed up some anomalies, the High Court directed the ASI to undertake excavations.

In its report, the ASI concluded that the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure ”are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.” Mr Advani said, ”At least in so far as the High Court judgment is concerned the clincher has been the Report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This is a Report very painstakingly produced on the directions of the High Court itself.” His observations on the issue has come even as many parties like the Left and some sections of the minority community have alleged that the court verdict had given precedence to faith over evidence.

In his blog, Mr Advani said though the Supreme Court declined to answer the reference by the Central government in 1993, it recorded in its ruling that the Court had asked the Solicitor General ”to take instructions and put in writing the Central Government’s position in this behalf”.

”The Supreme Court has said: ”On 14th September, 1994, the learned Solicitor General made the following statement in response : Government will treat the finding of the Supreme Court on the question of fact referred under Article 143 of the Constitution as a verdict which is final and binding.

In the light of the Supreme Courts opinion and consistent with it, Government will make efforts to resolve the controversy by a process of negotiations. Government is confident that the opinion of the Supreme Court will have a salutary effect on the attitudes of the communities and they will no longer take conflicting positions on the factual issue settled by the Supreme Court.

If efforts at a negotiated settlement as aforesaid do not succeed, Government is committed to enforce a solution in the light of the Supreme Courts opinion and consistent with it, Governments action in this regard will be even-handed in respect of both the communities. If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely, that no such Hindu temple structure existed at the relevant time, then Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community.”

— (UNI) —

Disputed site in Ayodhya is Ram’s birthplace, high court verdict

Historical Basis Of Ramayana – Lokvani

Ayodhya Verdict: Read the full judgment  Link

High Court of Allahabad: Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid Judgement   Link

Disputed land in Ayodhya Ram’s birthplace, but split it: High Court

Umesh Raghuvanshi & Ajaay Singh, Hindustan Times

Lucknow, September 30, 2010

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built after razing the Babri mosque in 1992 was Lord Ram’s birthplace. However, it ruled that the land be split among three contesting parties equally.

U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma delivered a split verdict in 60-year old Ayodhya title suit filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The majority of the bench ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya was a joint property, held by all the three claimants namely Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Waqf Board.

The majority also ruled that the central dome of the disputed structure, where idols of Lord Ram are presently kept in the makeshift temple, be allotted to Hindus. Justice Khan ruled that the mosque was built by Babar, not by demolishing a temple, but on the ruins of a temple.

Justice Sharma categorically rejected the claim of Sunni Central Waqf Board and has ruled that the ‘disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama’.

However, the entire bench was of the view that the central dome of the disputed structure goes to Hindu Mahasabha, where idols were installed in 1949 and again in 1992 after the demolition of the Babri Mosque. The sita rasoi and ram chabootara have been given to Nirmohi Akhara.

The judges said that none of the litigants would take any action on the land for the next three months.

“We are party disappointed. We will approach the Supreme Court,” Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jillani told reporters.

Lawyers K N Bhat and Ravi Shankar Prasad, who represented two of the Hindu litigants, announced to reporters that the bench had decided that Lord Ram was born where the Babri mosque was built.

“All the three judges, including S U Khan, are unanimous in accepting that the idol of Ram cannot be removed from the place where it is installed right now,” said lawyer and BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad in Lucknow after the court verdict.

The bench invited suggestions from all the parties for demarcation of the land.

The bench delivered the verdict in court no 21, where entry of only 47 persons including the litigants and their counsels was allowed. The High Court had been totally fortified. Uttar Pradesh almost came to a virtual halt at 3.30 p.m., when the historical judgment was being delivered.

WHAT THE JUDGES SAID

Justice S U Khan

“Disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belong to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque, but it was constructed on the ruins of the temple or some of its material was used in the construction of the mosque.”

Justice Sudhir Agarwal

” It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janma Sthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiff- Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman. and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants, Rajendra Singh and others.”

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma

” The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama. Disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain, but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus it cannot have the character of a mosque. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The ASI has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949.”

Muslim father throws acid on daughter for loving a Hindu

Man throws acid on daughter for love outside faith
Tuesday, 1 June 2010

Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh), June 01:In an alleged attempted “honour killing”, a man poured acid on his daughter and threw her into a canal for planning to marry a man from another religion Tuesday, police said. The girl is in critical condition in hospital.

Gulistan, 18, daughter of Asghar Ali of Charaura village in Bulandshahr district, 350 km from Lucknow, fell in love with Ravinder, 20, who ran a medical store in the village and often came to their house to deliver medicines.

The couple eloped 10 days back but were traced to Delhi and Gulistan was taken back to the village. Her parents then pretended that they had agreed to let her marry Ravinder and asked her to come with them to Delhi to buy clothes for the marriage.

The girl left with her father and brother. When they reached near the upper Ganges canal on Grand Trunk Road, they stopped and dragged her out. First they poured acid on her face, strangulated her and then threw her in the canal. Assuming that she had died, they left the place.

However, Gulistan revived in the water and shouted for help. Some local boys of nearby villages, playing there, rescued her and informed police, who admitted her to hospital.

Asghar has been arrested and a search is on for his son, Superintendent of Police (City) J.K. Sahi said.

“On the spot from where the girl was rescued, she said her father was annoyed over her love affair with the local Hindu boy but when her statement was recorded before the magistrate in the hospital, she shifted from her original statement made before the police and said after getting angry at her father’s objection, she poured the acid on herself,” Sahi said.

It seemed she was trying to mislead police with her declaration, he added.

Sahi said a case under section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code has been registered and investigations are on.

–Agencies

Thousands of Islamic terrorists riot in Bareilly

Muslim terrorists riot in Bareilly

Read here

Report on Modules of SIMI/IM Islamic Terrorists in 8 Indian States

Indian Mujahideen strikes deep

Mon, Feb 22 06:08 AM

Uttar Pradesh

SIMI was formed in Aligarh in 1977 and had thousands of members and offices in almost every district of the state before it was banned by the Centre in 2002. The group came under the radar of intelligence agencies after 1998 and the then SIMI president Dr Shahid Badr Falahi was arrested in Bahraich for an alleged provocative speech days after 9/11.

More than 1,200 SIMI members were arrested from the state after the ban. Police say they have evidence to prove that the SIMI was involved in the February 2005 blasts in Varanasi, the Shramjeevi Express blast in July 2005, the Varanasi blasts of March 2006, and serial blasts in courts in Lucknow, Faizabad and Varanasi in 2007.

Among the prominent members arrested in the state are Abu Bashar of Azamgarh, who is said to have first revealed the existence of IM and its role in blasts across the country, and Shahbaz Ahmed of Lucknow, allegedly involved in the Jaipur blasts. State anti-terrorism squad officials say they are still looking for seven key IM operatives belonging to Azamgarh: Dr Shahnawaz, Ariz Khan alias Junaid, Mohammad Sajid alias Bada Sajid, Mirza Shadab Beig, Mohammad Khalid, Asadullah Akhtar and Salman.

Maharashtra

Mumbai and Pune were the main IM hubs with an extensive network of operatives capable of providing resources for an attack anywhere in the country. The arrests made in 2008 in these two cities laid bare the backbone of the IM. The outfit grew out of the seamy underbelly of Mumbai’s gangland, with Riyaz Bhatkal dabbling in underworld activities before becoming involved in SIMI operations in the Muslim dominated areas of Kurla and Cheetah Camp.

In fact, Riyaz was a suspect in the bomb blasts in Mumbai in 2002 and 2003 and a manhunt was launched for him then. In Pune, IM had set up base in the Kondhwa area, with a control room in an apartment in an upmarket housing society. Mumbai police arrested 21 IM members, including IT engineer Mansoor Peerbhoy, and charged them of forming an organised crime syndicate for terrorist activities and hacking into WiFi accounts to send e-mails claiming credit for bomb blasts.

Among the key missing operatives from the state are Abdus Subhan Qureshi alias Tauqeer, the face of IM in 2008, Amin alias Raja Ayub Shaikh, Abdul Shakoor Khan alias Irfan, Abu Rashid.

Gujarat

The state has been more a target for SIMI-IM than a hub for the groups, with most men blamed for the 2008 blasts belonging to other states. The blasts were allegedly carried out under the direction, guidance and assistance of Harkat-ul-Jehadi-Islam (HuJI) operative Amir Raza Khan from Pakistan.

Gujarat Police took custody of senior SIMI leaders Safdar Nagori and Abdul Sibli from Madhya Pradesh and others were taken into custody from jails elsewhere. So far, 57 people have been arrested for the blasts and 38 named in the conspiracy are at large.

Madhya Pradesh

The strong SIMI network in the state helped IM recruit and train members the way it did in UP. In 2008, 13 SIMI leaders, including the outfit’s general secretary Safdar Nagori and his brother Kamruddin, were arrested following raids in Indore. The police described the arrested as active members from Kerala, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.

The arrested also included SIMI’s Karnataka unit chief Hafiz Hussain and Shibli, the mainstay of the group in Kerala. In April 2008, the police neutralised a SIMI training camp in Choral, a popular holiday spot, 35 km from Bhopal. Qayamuddin Kapadia, suspected to be one of the main conspirators of the Ahmedabad serial blasts, was arrested from the state in November 2008. Last April, IM operative Saif-ur-Rahman was arrested from a train in Jabalpur. The Azamgarh resident is accused of planting bombs in Jaipur and Ahmedabad.

Kerala

Although Kerala has not been an IM target, the state is home to some of its key members and several places hosted secret indoctrination, arms training camps after 2005. According to Gujarat police, 37 hardcore SIMI activists had participated in a bomb-making and tough-terrain training camp in Vagamon in 2007. Aluva, Paravoor and Perumbavoor in Ernakulam district, Erattupetta in Kottayam and old Kannur city are known to have been used by the IM while half-a-dozen men arrested for being linked to Lashkar are from Kannur city.

Prominent among the key SIMI-IM operators from Kerala are C A M Basheer, an aeronautical engineer from Aluva and the former national president of SIMI. Other SIMI leaders from Kerala are Peediyekkal Shibili, his brother Shaduli and Ansar Maulavi. They were arrested in Indore in March 2008. Sarfraz Nawaz, secretary at the SIMI Delhi office, was picked up by the RAW from Muscat last year.

The police had found that Nawaz financed the Bangalore blasts and knew Basheer. Sainudheen alias Satharbhai of Malappuram designed the explosives for Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Surat in 2008. Tadiyantavide Nazeer, who had played a key role in recruiting youth for training at Lashkar camps, was nabbed last November and is suspected to have been with the IM in 2008. Key players absconding from Kerala are C A M Basheer, Ayoob, Ummer Farook and Subaih.

Karnataka

While the Bhatkal brothers, Riyaz Shahbandari and Iqbal Shahbandari, used their coastal hometown of Bhatkal as an IM hub, the activities of the group elsewhere in the state were restricted largely to the northern districts of Bijapur, Bidar and Gulbarga. A spurt in SIMI activities occurred in 2007 when various senior members from Karnataka and Kerala tried to reorganise a hardline version.

While the core group had 25-30 members, the effort to revive the SIMI in 2007 saw training camps being held on the Karnataka-Goa border, in the Hubli-Dharwad region and at Ernakulam in Kerala through 2006-07. Much of the network that emerged during this period was busted by Karnataka police through 2008. The IM members blamed for the Hyderabad and Ahmedabad blasts were trained in a remote village in Chikamagalur district.

Although the IM is not held directly responsible for the July 2008 blasts in Bangalore, Riyaz Bhatkal and the perpetrators of the attack a small group of men from Kerala led by former Kerala SIMI activists obtained integrated chip timers for bombs from a common source. The Bhatkal brothers and the Bangalore bombers used a Hyderabad house as a hideout. Besides the Bhatkal brothers, key IM members from the state on the loose are bomb expert Yasin Bhatkal and Mudassar.

Andhra Pradesh

Mufti Abu Bashir, arrested for the Gujarat blasts, Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi, a SIMI sympathiser who runs a madrasa in Hyderabad, Raziuddin Nasir and Safdar Nagori were involved in setting up the SIMI-IM network in the state. The SIMI set up several religious institutions to continue its activities after it was banned and police suspect Darsgah-e-Jihad-o-Shahadat and Tehrik Tahfuz-e-Shair-e-Islam were two among them.

Maulana Naseeruddin of Tehrik was arrested by Gujarat Police in 2004 for his involvement in the murder of former minister of state for home Haren Pandya. Scores of SIMI-IM members were picked up during the crackdown after the twin-blasts of August 2007 and the Mecca Masjid blasts. They included Raziuddin Nasir, Mohtasin Billa, Mohammed Nissar, Mohammed Muqeemuddin Yaser, Mohammed Sohail, Maulana Naseeruddin and Jaber Naseeruddin.

Police claim that they have managed to “finish off” SIMI-IM in the state after “tightening the noose around a few madrasas whose activities were suspect”. Vikar Ahmed, who shot at two policemen in Hyderabad last August, is the only one absconding, besides a few sympathisers against whom police say they do not have evidence.

Delhi

The Delhi module of IM was led by Atif Ameen and is blamed for the serial blasts of 2008 in the Capital. After the blasts, the Delhi Police cracked Ameen’s module in Batla House and killed two Atif and Mohammad Sajid. Five IM members were also arrested from Delhi: Mohammad Saif, Zeeshan Ahmed, Mohammad Shakeel, Zia-Ur-Rehman and Saqib Nisar. Two others, Shahzad Ahmed and Ariz Khan alias Pappu managed to flee but Shahzad was arrested from Azamgarh this month. The Delhi Police continues to look for 12 SIMI-IM members, including Amir Raza Khan, Riyaz and Iqbal Bhatkal, Mohammad Khaild, Salman, Asadullah Akhtar, Dr Shahnawaz, Mohammad Sajid and Ariz Khan.

With inputs from Bhupendra Pandey, Johnson T A, Sreenivas Janyala, Shaju Philip and Neeraj Chauhan

From Azamgarh, Islamic terrorism shifted base to Pune

“It was here that I learnt that most of the boys had gone to Delhi, Mumbai and Pune to pursue studies or work. It was in these cities that they came in touch with terror modules and were indoctrinated.”

From Azamgarh, terror shifted base to Pune
By: Ketan Ranga Date: 2010-02-16,  Midday

Ketan Ranga remembers the time in 2008 when Azamgarh was under the terror scanner, but all evidence hinted that the real terror hub was elsewhere

The serial blasts in Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Delhi and then the Batla House encounter in 2008 cleared up one thing.

Azamgarh had become the hub of terrorism in India.

Most of the terrorists whose names cropped in relation to these incidents were from Saraimeer, Sanjerpur and villages of Azamgarh.

On September 22, 2008, I went to Azamgarh to cover the arrest and deaths of some of the terrorists. In Saraimeer, I spoke to the families of the alleged terrorists. It was here that I learnt that most of the boys had gone to Delhi, Mumbai and Pune to pursue studies or work. It was in these cities that they came in touch with terror modules and were indoctrinated.

I was still in Azamgarh when the Mumbai police broke up the media wing of Indian Mujahideen (IM), which used to send terror mails before blasts. All those who were nabbed belonged to Pune, including Mansur Azhgar Peerbhoy, the software engineer who was responsible for hacking into unsecured WiFi connections to send terror mails. However, a number of people, including Mohsin Chowdhary, an accused in the Ahmedabad blasts and now a suspect in the Pune blast, went absconding and continued their work.

Further investigations revealed that many students and professionals came in touch with terror modules when they went for Arabic classes in Pune. Arif Bashir, another accused in the Ahmedabad blast, was the IM man who would identify candidates for indoctrination into terror activities at these classes.

The area in Pune where most students from Azamgarh were staying also came under the police scanner.

The police finally realised that the IM had its headquarters in Pune. It was discovered that IM modules from all over India came to Pune to hold meetings and recruit. In fact, even after various IM modules were broken and a number of terrorists were caught, the recruitment in Pune continued unabated.

This was 2008. Even then it was clear that the work on sleeper cells in Pune was progressing at great speed. The Azamgarh module was broken up, but Pune was fast becoming the next hub of terror.

Saturday’s blast at the German Bakery just sealed that conclusion.

Indian Muslim arrested for man plotting 9/11-type aerial attack on educational institution in Uttar Pradesh

Cops arrest man plotting 9/11-type attack in UP

Deepak Gidwani / DNA

Mumbai: Shahzad Ahmad, the Indian Mujahideen (IM) terrorist arrested in Uttar Pradesh’s Azamgarh district on Monday, was planning a 9/11-type attack with a small chartered aircraft.

The Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) of the UP police said Shahzad alias Pappu had targeted an educational institution in the state for the aerial attack. The assault was scheduled for May, when the place is normally crowded with students attending counselling sessions.

Shahzad, 21, had learnt flying at a private aviation academy in Bangalore for the purpose. Sources, however, said his aerial terror module could be aiming at more sensitive targets like the disputed Ayodhya structure, the Taj or the Narora atomic plant in west UP. The ATS is probing Shahzad’s links with Pakistani-born American terrorist David Coleman Headley. The National Investigation Agency had shared inputs on these lines with the stateagencies.

“Shahzad was wanted in connection with the September 2008 Delhi serial blasts. He is also an accused in the killing of Delhi police inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, who was killed during the Batla House encounter,’’ ADG Brij Lal told reporters.