RTI document reveals that Union HRD Minister asked the concerned officials to examine terrorist/Al-Qaeda link behind 2007 violence in AMU and there is no evidence that its VC objected to linking of the terror group with AMU.
By Md. Ali, TwoCircles.net,
New Delhi: In 2007 the issue of the presence of “Al-Qaeda/terrorist” elements in Aligarh Muslim University was discussed between Arjun Singh, the then HRD minister and AMU Vice Chancellor P. K. Abdul Azis.
This is one of the many shocking revelations made by the documents the AMU administration provided Md. Chaman, a former AMU Court member, in response to his RTI query about the security set up in the central university. TwoCircles.net has access to the RTI reply.
AMU VC adressing AMU Court Meeting in July this year[TCN Photo]
The 83-page RTI document gives one an impression that AMU is very much on the radar of the Intelligence Bureau and other security agencies of the country, disturbingly not for good reasons.
What adds fuel to the perception of alleged “terrorist/Al Qaida link” to the AMU is the 2007 report of Raghubir Lal, the then Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Aligarh about the coming of students from areas which are ‘notorious’ for their “separatist and terrorist” inclinations like Tamil Nadu, Kashmir in India and Palestine and other countries.
In keeping with the perception of ‘terror’ links in the University, the SSP report also recommended that IB should make a special unit just for AMU.
Ironically the very university, which the SSP had demonized in his report, passed the same report, providing legitimacy to the “baseless” perceptions and the disturbing stereotypes which it created about its Muslim students.
One of the important questions to be asked at this stage is: Now that these recommendations have been passed by the executive council of the University, should we expect a separate IB unit for AMU or does it already exist?
According to this RTI information about the ‘security Setup’ of AMU, the issue of “Al Qaeda/terrorist” elements in AMU came up in a meeting convened by the then Union HRD minister Arjun Singh on 29th of October 2007 at 17, Akbar Road which is the official residence of Arjun Singh in New Delhi.
The meeting was organized to discuss the ‘situation of emergency’ in the context of the ‘incidences of violence and arson after the murder of one student on 16th September 2007, which led to the closure of the university.
The participants of the meeting including Arjun Singh expressed concern and asked the issue of “terrorists” to be investigated in depth.
“The chances of terrorist/Al Qaida link on the incidence of violence need to be examined in depth,” says the minutes of the meeting according to the RTI report.
AMU visit by Pakistani journalist
Importantly, to give the whole issue of ‘terror elements’ in AMU a bit more solid basis, the meeting also discussed visit of a Pakistani journalist to the campus and asked the details about his meeting in the university.
“The visit of the Pakistani journalist and his meeting in the university be reported in details,” says the minutes of the meeting procured through the RTI.
This meeting was also attended by among others vice chancellor of AMU PK Abdul Azis, R.P. Agarwal, Secretary, Ministry of HRD (Higher Education), Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary of MHRD and Mr. Goel, personal secretary of the minister.
No basis to ‘Al-Qaeda/terror’ links
TwoCircles.net made several attempts to contact the VC of AMU Prof. P.K. Abdul Azis to confirm this revelation and also to get his perspective on this issue but he was not picking up the phone.
Then TCN talked to Rahat Abrar, the Public Relation Officer, AMU and asked him about the alleged terror links in the University, he said he doesn’t know about anything like this.
A section of students and faculty of AMU TCN talked to outright reject the theory of “Al-Qaeda/terrorist” presence in the campus.
Many ask: Why didn’t the VC, who was very much present in that meeting, protested against any such idea?
The fact that the VC of AMU didn’t ever protest on the report of police officer and views of the minister has led to a perception held by the large section of students and faculty: The VC has ‘surrendered’ the campus to the IB and other security agencies that are keeping a close watch over the campus because of its alleged extremist/terrorist/Al Qaeda links.
Many students and faculty members told TCN that AMU has been turned into a fortress by its present administration.
“You will find police chowkis (posts) all across the campus,” said Irfan Khan.
“What kind of campus is it where policemen are roaming across the campus very freely and a normal ordinary student is not free on the campus,” added Mr. Khan
Expressing his concerns, he further added that now it will be quite easy for the IB to put surveillance over the entire campus.”
“What is noticeable is the conspicuous absence of any protest on behalf of the vice chancellor P. K. Abdul Azis against the idea of AMU having ‘Al Qaeda/terror’ link,” said Md. Adil, a former Mass Communication student who was rusticated by Mr. Aziz’s administration because he used internet as a way to raise his voice against AMU administration.
Md. Adil also pointed towards the CCTV cameras fixed across the campus after the violence of September last year.
“Who do you think are going to be benefited if not IB, security agencies and the VC himself?” asked Md. Adil.
Irfan Khan is a research scholar in Mass Communication, AMU who has been suspended thrice in a single academic year because of his voice against “corrupt and unconstitutional” practices of the VC.
This two time Gold Medalist pointed towards another meeting attended by Intelligence Bureau officials, Director General UP Police, DG (CISF), and the VC to ‘assess the law and order situation’ in the campus.
Students like Md. Adil and Irfan Khan and a section of teachers believe that using terror angle and allowing the IB surveillance over the campus might be disastrous for the academic reputation of the university and also that of the future of thousands of students.
It becomes very disturbing precedent particularly when thousands of Muslim youths are tortured on the name of terror, a faculty member told TCN on the promise of anonymity
He further said that terror angle was just being used to keep a check on AMU which the government and IB consider a “time bomb” because of the cluster of Muslim students in the university.
“There is no basis to claim that there was a terror element or Al Qaeda element behind the violence erupted on the night of September 16th 2007,” said Mr. Khan.
More importantly, even in this 83-page RTI answer, no evidence has been presented to substantiate the claims of “Al Qaeda/Terrorist” links in the campus which was discussed in the meetings of HRD minister and the VC besides several other officials.
Irfan Khan pointed towards huge sense of panic created by AMU VC post the violence on the night of 16th September.
Many argue that although there was violence and the large scale hooliganism on the campus but the way the VC raised entire bureaucratic order in the Home Ministry and the ministry of HRD saying that he needs force to control the university was probably “exaggerated” response.
The VC P. K. Azis took many measures which to many appeared rather “over reaction.”
For instance the VC proposed hiring a Chief Security Advisor. He also wanted internal vigilance cell under his direct supervision. He asked for several task forces in the Campus besides complete overhauling of the security set up of the campus.
Now the question which several critics of the VC including many faculty ask is: As per the VC himself the situation was back to “normal” as he had mentioned in his letters to the home Ministry and ministry of HRD, then why was there the need to bring in extra security measures?
Another important question asked is: What was the need for such large scale forces in the context of peaceful and normal situation?
Md. Adil and Irfan Khan besides some faculty pointed out that, that was the attempt by the VC to create fear psychosis in the mind of ordinary students.
Disturbing aspect of the SSP report
The report by Raghubir Lal, the then SSP, on the security set up in AMU recommended many controversial proposals and came up with rather highly objectionable ideas. For instance the report talks about J&K and Tamil Nadu as “areas where there are active separatist/terrorists organizations and students from these regions also come to this campus.”
Without substantiating its argument it further says: “therefore we cannot deny the arrival of these elements in the form of students or taking shelters.”
It also talks about Bangladesh, Palestine, and African countries and says that they need to be watched over.
The report recommends deployment of 12 platoons of PAC and 4 magistrates in the event of student agitation (chhatra andolan). Now the problematic aspect is that once VC makes the request and DM orders PAC then AMU has no control over them.
The report lists various incidents that can happen on campus and all are showing students or employees as threat. Interestingly the report also mentions “terror” threat but refers to its possibility as ‘negligible’.
Panicked VC
RTI document consisting of various letters and minutes of the meetings reveal a panicked AMU vice chancellor who seemed unsure of himself to take action and more concerned about his life.
In the night of September 16, 2007 soon after the murder of student Mazhare Naeem, in VC’s own words one student “began to talk in an emotionally surcharged manner.” Students’ Union president and general secretary got into the argument which prompted the police to escort him and house him at a government guest house.
Few hours later students vandalized VC lodge on campus. Prof. Abdul Azis promptly shut down the university sine die and students were ordered to vacate hostels and return home. VC did not return back to this official residence until September 18th when most of the students had left the campus.
On September 25, 2007 Prof. Abdul Azis writes to R. P. Agarwal, Secretary of Ministry of Human Resource Development asking for central forces deployment at the campus. He also asked to provide “special armed security cover to the Vice-Chancellor at his residence and office as there is threat to his life.”
But just five days prior to that, letter dated September 20, 2007, the VC writing to Madhukar Gupta, Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs informs him that “the University is calm.” What could have happened in five days, when most students had already left, that prompted the VC to feel that situation is so bad that he needs additional armed forces and feels that there is a threat to his life? Only Prof. Abdul Azis can answer. But his handling of the situation can encourage one to question about his ability to lead this central university in the time of emergency? Let’s just hope that this situation does not recur.