Delhi Blast: Pakistan’s Retaliation After Op Sindoor? – Sushant Sareen & Ashok Chand (Transcript)

But for the younger generation, this was new.

It’s become this big web. And within 48 hours the police sources had told the media about how complicated or complex this whole thing was. Faridabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Kashmir, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Pakistan and then supposedly Mastermind in Turkey.

Explain to me this mind-boggling complex plot. And it was just two years, that’s all. And then Operation Sindoor, the connection with that, this woman Sadia who was in touch with this women’s wing of the Jaish. How do you see this?

Waiting for Complete Investigation

SUSHANT SAREEN: So, Smita, maybe I’m a little skeptical. I will wait until all the investigations are completed and the investigating agencies have properly pieced together the whole picture. What you are asking me right now has appeared in news media and what happens is it’s not a Mr. Ashok Chand who’s talking authoritatively and feeding the media with what is happening.

It is every two-bit person who has some knowledge, who has some. So who is the source of some news person is giving you some information. And that is why it now seems very, very confounding. What was the women’s cell, this, that. And a lot of times there are people who are clueless of what exactly the investigations are.

Because very often these investigations, and please correct me if I’m wrong, they’re very tightly controlled. A lot of people, they want to show that they know what the hell is happening. Then they try and piece together some information and they say, sir, some of it might be true. I’m not prejudging.

SMITA PRAKASH: Right.

SUSHANT SAREEN: But I don’t think we can link up all these straws in the wind until and unless we have a proper picture from an authoritative source, people who have actually investigated the thing.

So one is that, see, Red Fort is also a symbol. But was he actually trying to attack Red Fort or did he naturally gravitate to that area? Partly because it is so congested that you can get lost in that area. There’s just so many people out there. Or was it because, and we know it, perhaps he can corroborate it if he is in the mood to do it, a lot of times a lot of these characters have been found in that area or they’ve had links in that area.

And maybe this guy was going out there either to meet somebody or because this was a natural magnet for him. I don’t know. But I can imagine what might have been happening to him because I’ve studied some of this stuff. Not necessarily in India because we’ve not done enough studies, academic studies, but outside India, a number of people have done academic studies and studying the minds of terrorists, psychological profiling, all of that.

I can imagine he is sitting in a car and imagining certain things. What he should do, what are his options? And now whether he detonated the bomb himself. It exploded because it was badly handled.

The Symbolism of Red Fort

SMITA PRAKASH: Which we’ve heard again and again mentioning Parliament. Significant no to attack.

SUSHANT SAREEN: If you have the Prime Minister of India making Independence Day speeches from the Red Fort. And you have the Republic Day parade going from India Gate up to Red Fort. It is a national symbol. Why do you think when this farmer movement took place, those Khalistani characters tried to climb the Red Fort? Because that is the symbolism of Red Fort is there.

That is, there is no government which sits in the Red Fort anymore. That stopped about 200 years back. And the last government which sat in the Red Fort, Uskee to Sarkar Palam, Dangni Jaldi.

SMITA PRAKASH: Keep hearing this, right? All the Dark web is all about “Lal Kila, Pepna, Parchamira.”

SUSHANT SAREEN: Yeah.

ASHOK CHAND: Because that’s a symbol.

SMITA PRAKASH: It’s nothing more than when the Red Fort. When this blast happened at Red Fort, it’s like reflex action. We all knew that it’s got something to do with Pakistan. Even though nobody knew whether it was a terror plot. And we just knew it, that this is God. It is connected.

ASHOK CHAND: It was a terror blast.

SUSHANT SAREEN: And sure enough, the first time when the blast happened, the original, the first instinct was it could have been a CNG blast. But when you then start seeing CNG blast, just that vehicle catches fire. And if it’s in a very congested area, maybe a couple of more vehicles will catch fire. You will not have debris strewn all over the place. You won’t have all of that.

So those telltale signs then suggested that there was some explosive material. There was some explosive material in the. And then of course, within a matter of hours, the cops figured out and the information came up.

The Challenge of Policing Major Metros

SMITA PRAKASH: To stop something like this. I mean, major metros. How do you police major metros and make them foolproof? Is it an intelligence failure that we didn’t know, India didn’t know that so much of explosive material. I mean, ammonium nitrate. Again and again, everybody’s talking.

Just this year, 16,000 kg of ammonium nitrate was found in a truck in Birbhoom in West Bengal. 16,000. This was 3,000 or less than that, 2,900. So, how is it. It’s literally impossible to police, isn’t it?

ASHOK CHAND: It is difficult to police a city like Delhi. I mean, to say that we can prevent, I mean, any incident from taking place. See, basically what happens is you have to act on intelligence, whether it is human intelligence or whether it is technical intelligence or any other form of intelligence. So your intelligence network definitely has to be very strong.

But saying that in spite of the fact that we have a strong intelligence network, I mean the internal also, because I work very closely within. I mean the agencies, central agencies, we have a very strong network. But in spite of that, what happens is. I mean, see, you bust 10 modules. Like in my time also, we kept on busting modules. It was not that. I mean, we kept on apprehending terrorists. We kept on. And those were Pakistani terrorists. I mean.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah, not these homegrowns?

ASHOK CHAND: No, no, not these homegrown. Very rare. I mean, they were mainly Pakistani terrorists. Your Red Fort was Pakistani terrorism. Your parliament attack was Pakistani terrorist. So. But fact is that you bust 10 modules, the 11th module slips through.

Memories of the Parliament Attack

SMITA PRAKASH: I mean, what happened in the Parliament attack? They were all Pakistanis.

ASHOK CHAND: They were all Pakistanis. They were from Jaish-e-Mohammed. I mean. And the one of the. I mean, the five Pakistani terrorists that all were killed in the issue out there. I mean, one of them was supposed to be. I don’t know, I mean, it was never confirmed later. But one of them was called, was Mahmud. They all were what you call codenames Muhammad.

The. I mean, Afzal Guru told us that Mohammed was basically Sunny Elias Burger who was in the IC814 hijacking. But that could not be proved. And they had come well prepared. I mean, like they wanted to have a siege situation because we recovered not only what you call AKs and then hand grenades, rifle grenades and then explosives. But we also recovered dry fruits. So they had come for a long haul.

SUSHANT SAREEN: They didn’t trust the Parliament candy.

ASHOK CHAND: So in this aspect, I must put in two things here. One is the role of the watch and watch those days, they did an excellent job. They closed all the gates. I mean, the result was they couldn’t go inside. If they would have gone inside, they would have been total mayhem. Then we would be at the wrong foot.

And second was the CRPF that was there deployed in the perimeter. They were battle hardened. They had just come from the valley, so they just took them on. In fact, when I reached, there were shots being fired, but they were battle hardened. And all five were shot dead. Yeah, then and there.

Investigating Terror Attacks in Delhi

SMITA PRAKASH: Only you were part of the team which cracked the case of the Parliament attack. The Red Fort blast, the Jama Masjid blast. Was it the Jama Masjid?

ASHOK CHAND: I mean Indian Mujah, I think.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah. So these blasts which took place right in the middle of the city. Could you tell me a little bit when you heard about the Delhi blast, did it bring back those memories and say that there are similarities in what you saw out there?

ASHOK CHAND: See, I must tell you, I mean Delhi being the capital, has always been the target of militant and terrorist organizations right from that time, from the Khalistani, I mean, terrorist organizations, then the Kashmiri terrorist organizations, and subsequently the homegrown and local terrorist organizations.

So I mean there are definitely similarities between the blast, the recent blast at Red Fort and other terrorist incidents that has happened in the city. The main important of any terror network or a terrorist organization is to, I mean, cause maximum damage and strike at a place where it brings you international recognition. I mean people talk about it and the aim is to create fear. And that they have done in this Red Fort blast also and in the other terrorist attacks that have taken place in Delhi, like the Parliament attack, the attack on the Red Fort and numerous.

Why Red Fort?

SMITA PRAKASH: I want to know, do you think that this guy Omar, he specifically chose Red Fort? Because it seems he did recce of Connaught Place. He drove around, he didn’t know what. And then he goes and does it in Red Fort. Is there anything significant for terror groups, who are originating in Pakistan about Red Fort? Why Red Fort?

ASHOK CHAND: See, I’ll tell you basically, I mean this Dr. Umar Nabi, if I’m not mistaken, that’s his name. I mean his terror module had more or less been bust, had been busted by the, I mean, police. So he was basically, I would say on the run. I mean, and now the issue is whether the blast was accidental or it was actually a suicide blast.

See, profile of a suicide. What do you call, I mean, terrorist? Is that one of the factors is that when he is on the run, then he is not able to think properly or is able to. He is rudderless. He has no direction.

If you look at him also the Dr. Umar Nabi, I mean, after the bursting of the. I mean, of his arrest of his associates and busting of that module and the recovery of, I mean, large quantities of ammonium nitrate and other materials, he could have fled. Yeah, I mean, he didn’t flee. He was around. And then if you look at the, I mean, the chart.

SMITA PRAKASH: Do you think his trainers have indoctrinated him? You are not supposed to run. See.

SUSHANT SAREEN: No.

ASHOK CHAND: Basically, that’s why, I mean, he may have been. I mean, what do you call being interacting with his. What do you call the handler? Yeah, but decision is obviously yours. Is obviously yours. So if you look at him in the entire chart, I mean, entire course of his vehicular movement, he has visited different places.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah.

The Final Hours

ASHOK CHAND: And then he, I mean, as. I don’t know, I’m talking. Yeah. I’m talking media reports and all that. And he was for three hours sitting in that Sunari Masjid parking lot. And then in the evening, he moves. So by that time, in my opinion, I may be wrong because the investigators know better. They have all the facts.

SMITA PRAKASH: So obviously the timing is important.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Yeah.

The Red Fort: A Prime Target

ASHOK CHAND: So see, Red Fort. I don’t know whether you’ve been to Chandni Chowk, Red Fort and all that. I had been posted there earlier also. I was three years ACP, Kotwali there much before I moved to the terror outfit. Red Fort is always crowded. Always crowded.

SMITA PRAKASH: What he didn’t know, probably, is that Monday there is no. It’s closed for tourists.

ASHOK CHAND: No, it’s a question of not. I’m not of tourists. The road, it is basically the casualties that you can. I mean, what do you call by the blast that will happen? And that point of time, the Red Fort red light or wherever it is, it is always packed.

SMITA PRAKASH: Correct.

ASHOK CHAND: So any blast at any area around Red Fort will cause you maximum casualty. And secondly, it’s a Red Fort is of national importance. Red Fort.

SMITA PRAKASH: You knew that. I mean, you’ve always known that Red Fort is something that the Pakistan terror groups want Kabza over.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, definitely. If I am. I mean, I was in the cell. I was DCP Special Cell and at that time there was an attack on Red Fort. December 22, 2000.

The December 2000 Red Fort Attack

SMITA PRAKASH: For viewers and listeners. Sorry to interrupt, sir. I’ll just read out this. It’s an extract from a newspaper. On December 22, 2000, terrorists including Ashfaq had entered an area where the unit of seven Rajputana Rifles of the Indian army was stationed inside the Red Fort. Three army personnel were killed in firing after which the terrorists fled the spot by scaling the wall.

The Delhi Police Special Cell unit which had probed the case had arrested Ashfaq, a Pakistani national. Retired IPS officer Ashok Chand, who we have in our studio who had supervised the probe said, and I quote, “The Red Fort attack was an attack on the country’s most important installations.”

Ashfaq was arrested from Ghazipur in East Delhi where he was living with an Indian citizen. When we conducted raids at his hideout in Jamia Nagar, one of his accomplices was also shot dead in a shootout. He was posing as a Jammu resident who had a shawl business. He’d also got married in India.

Mr. Chand said that the Red Fort attack was orchestrated by Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba. And Ashfaq was one of the main planners of the attack who conducted a recce, set up a sleeper cell to carry out the attack. The three militants, Abu Shahid, Abu Bilal, Abu Haider, who had also entered the monument were killed in separate encounters with security forces. So go ahead, tell us about this bust.

Ashfaq Ahmed: The Sleeper Cell Operative

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, basically I think you stated whatever I was going to say. But the Red Fort attack, as I told you, it was orchestrated by the Lashkar-e-Taiba. And the Ashfaq Ahmed is a actual name is Muhammad Arif Ashfaq Ahmed. He came about in beginning of 2000 and then set up a base here. He was a sleeper cell. He was asked by the Lashkar-e-Taiba to come and set up a base.

And he had the support of local elements whom he later arrested also. Then he set up a computer center in Okhla area by the name of Knowledge Plus. And then to give a semblance of fact that he was like an Indian citizen and all, he married a local girl and that through a matrimonial call. It was through a matrimonial column. And the money that he used to get was through Hawala transactions those days. Hawala used to be massive. All the money that. And in fact he was going to. He was planning to buy a flat also in the. You didn’t.

SMITA PRAKASH: There was no Aadhaar. There was nothing.

ASHOK CHAND: No, he had driving license.

SMITA PRAKASH: Driving license?

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, yeah, he had driving license and he had ration card.

SMITA PRAKASH: Oh, okay. Those days you could get.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, you could get a driving license and a ration card. He had all the requisites for to proclaim himself.

The Investigation and Arrest

SMITA PRAKASH: When you saw him, how did you catch him? What did you do?

ASHOK CHAND: See, basically what happened after the incident, these guys fled. I must tell you this, while they entered, I mean, they had recced the Red Fort. At that point of time, light and sound used to go on, but the checking was not that strict. So what they did basically was they. There were six of them. Out of the two of them were supposed to be Fedayeen.

Abu Shahid, then Abu Shamal, if I’m not mistaken. And they were supposed to be Fedayeen. So after the light and sound show was over, two of them, I mean, they carried the AK-47s inside the jackets. It was winter, so they had put on the jackets. Two AK-47s. Both the Fedayeen had carried it inside the jacket. And since there was no checking, they could get inside.

And then they attacked the army camp there. Rajputana Rifles. Three of the army men were killed. And then subsequently they scaled the back wall of. If you have seen the Red Fort. They used ropes, came down and while fleeing, one of their wallet fell down.

So after the incident took place and all that, and we searched the area then we found that wallet and that gave us the clue. There was a telephone number in that. And subsequently, after analysis and use of the technology and all that, and then we could identify this guy, Muhammad Arif Ashfaq Ahmed.

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay.

ASHOK CHAND: Then we picked him up.

SMITA PRAKASH: He’s a Pakistani national. Where did you pick him up from?

ASHOK CHAND: Ghazipur.

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay. He didn’t leave the country. He still stayed?

ASHOK CHAND: No, he was there. See, basically the entire investigation was over within three, four days, I think maximum. I think five, six days.

SMITA PRAKASH: It was so easy to get him.

ASHOK CHAND: See, I don’t think it was easy to get him, if you put it that way. Now, it seems very easy. But me and my team, I think we didn’t sleep for 72 hours. We were working continuously. And of course, I must. We had a support of the intelligence agencies. We worked.

SMITA PRAKASH: But you knew immediately it’s an LeT plot.

ASHOK CHAND: We knew it was an LeT plot because after committing this incident, they phoned up the BBC. BBC Delhi or BBC J&K, I’m not sure exactly which one. And that’s why we came to know it was an LeT plot, but we couldn’t. We didn’t know who were the perpetrators.

ASHOK CHAND: So that was a clue that gave us. And then obviously, with analysis and use of technology and all that.

SMITA PRAKASH: So you picked him up from Ghazipur.

ASHOK CHAND: We picked him up from Ghazipur.

SMITA PRAKASH: What was he doing? He was hiding.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, yeah. He was there in the house. It’s easy now to tell you, but we kept the house under surveillance. And then when we knew that he was there, we stormed in. Yeah, yeah, we stormed in and picked him up. Subsequent to his interrogation, there was a.

SMITA PRAKASH: You interrogated him?

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, yeah, obviously. These cases we had interrogated him. Me and my team. Subsequently, after the interrogation, we came to know that there was another one of the Fedayeen who was involved in the attack, was in Butler House. I’m talking about that. That’s a separate Butler. This is a separate Butler House.

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay.

ASHOK CHAND: This was the 2000. Yeah. So then we raided the place. There was a shootout, and he was shot dead.

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah. So, but this guy was in custody.

SMITA PRAKASH: He’s still in custody.

ASHOK CHAND: He’s in custody. He’s been sentenced to be hanged.

SMITA PRAKASH: But, yeah. And I think recently the president rejected his plea.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah. But. Yes, wait and see how it goes.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah. He said this is what it is. He’s just. He’s sitting in jail for the past 20 years.

SUSHANT SAREEN: I can name many others who are sitting in jail for the last 20 years.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah.

SUSHANT SAREEN: And the government, for one reason or another, hasn’t had the will to carry out the sentence.

SMITA PRAKASH: Spoken and true Sushant.

SUSHANT SAREEN: No, but this is a fact. There are Khalistani terrorists, people who have been involved in suicide bombings, killing of chief ministers, all kinds of heinous activity, and they are now becoming some kind of martyrs to the cause. And the government is just soft peddling the whole thing.

Interrogating Afzal Guru

SMITA PRAKASH: Did you interrogate Afzal Guru?

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah. I mean, I interrogated. We arrested Afzal Guru. We arrested Shaukat. We arrested the Delhi University professor who was later on released.

SMITA PRAKASH: Who?

ASHOK CHAND: SAR Geelani.

SMITA PRAKASH: Afzal Guru.

ASHOK CHAND: Afzal Guru was basically a Pakistan trained militant. If you remember, in the 80s, late 80s, half of the Valley had gone to Pakistan to get trained. In fact, it’s a very funny anecdote. We used to say that, look, you go to Azadpur Mandi, any third person you pick up will be a Pakistan militant.

SMITA PRAKASH: Because more or less Azadpur Mandi is Delhi.

ASHOK CHAND: The fruits and all, they all come to Azadpur Mandi those days. And all the fruits, apple and all that used to come by truck and all that. So if you go. Even those days, I’m not talking about now. So you used to say that you go there, interrogate. Any the people who are coming from the valley had been to Pakistan.

SMITA PRAKASH: Pakistan, got trained and.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, yeah, all of. More or less all of them got. Third person. Every third person was Pakistan trained. We used to call them PT.

SMITA PRAKASH: So when he was to talk to you, Afzal Guru, was he remorseful at all?

ASHOK CHAND: No, no, he. As such, he was not remorseful. I must tell very plainly he was not remorseful. But he narrated the facts.

SMITA PRAKASH: He said zaroori hai karna.

ASHOK CHAND: I mean, he says that he was motivated. Everybody says he was motivated. He had also gone over to Pakistan. He had also done the training in Muzaffarabad. He had come back. He was from that time JKLF. He was there in JKLF then subsequently he did some odd jobs here and there. He came to Delhi. He was working as a commission agent and all that.

And then he met a person by the name of Tariq in Tral area. And he says he motivated me to join Jaish-e-Mohammed. In fact, he says the camp of Jaish-e-Mohammed those days was in. Like you go to Pahalgam from Pahalgam, you go to Aru or somewhere, some other place. From there you walk, you go by horseback. And then you go and you walk around six, seven hours. Then you reach the camp in the jungle area in India. In India. In India, where the Ghazi Baba was there.

So he met Ghazi Baba. He met Ghazi Baba a number of times. And then it was decided, see, Jaish-e-Mohammed is a very potent militant organization. I must tell you that Lashkar is also a very dangerous militant organization. But Jaish-e-Mohammed is brutal. Yeah, brutal forever.

Jaish-e-Mohammed’s Brutality

SMITA PRAKASH: And they want mass killings. Jaish-e-Mohammed.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, yeah, they are. And they are very well planned. They plan very well. Like if you remember, before the parliament attack, they attacked the J&K assembly also. They tried to attack the J&K assembly where there was a major bomb blast and all that.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah, Farooq Abdullah was there.

Intelligence Operations and Terror Networks

ASHOK CHAND: I think so. They are very well organized here also. When they came here, I mean Mohammed Abdul came, he set up three hideouts. One in Christian Colony, one in, I mean, and two in Mukherjee Nagar area. Indra, we are in another area. And then slowly, slowly they, all of them came. The Pakistanis, they came. Those days it was, they came by train and you know, holdall. Those days people used to carry holdall. I don’t know whether.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yes, it’s a bedding which is for youngsters.

ASHOK CHAND: When we traveled also we used to carry holdall. So they got all the weapons inside the holdall. And then they came here. And then they recce the area. Then not only wrecked Parliament’s House, they record also this American Embassy and they record the Delhi administrator. I mean Delhi government, that Secretariat building also. But then they, I mean it was decided that they will, I mean take. What is the mindset?

SMITA PRAKASH: Of people like that? Like when you, when you interrogate them, do you find them hardened that they come to die while they kill?

ASHOK CHAND: You see, Pakistani, I mean understand these, they are Fidayeens. They are willing to die. I mean otherwise you come all the way to India for what? They are willing to die.

SMITA PRAKASH: But Afzal Guru was, Afzal Guru was not a Kashmiri.

ASHOK CHAND: He was a Kashmiri. I mean he was basically Indian Kashmiri. Yeah, he didn’t want to. He didn’t want to die. You see, he never thought they’ll get caught.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Shu is.

ASHOK CHAND: I mean they’ll, none of them think that they will get caught. When you are doing these terror activities you feel that you are insulated. I mean nobody can catch me and all that. Who knows I am doing what I am doing. So he never thought he will get caught. But in the Parliament attack also he got the clues. And as usual we always work with the central intelligence agencies. And then we are able to nab Mr. Gilani first and then Afsan Guru and then after that Mahmud Afzal and this Shaukat Hussain Guru, they had fled. So we got them from the valley.

Intelligence Failure or Success?

SMITA PRAKASH: This whole, what Mr. Chand has told us about this whole intel operation is so important. Do you see the Delhi bomb blast of 10/11 as an intelligence failure or as an intelligence success?

SUSHANT SAREEN: See, it’s both. It’s a failure in the sense that there was a, there was a cell or a network which was being established and it slipped through the cracks. Now very clearly that happened. The fact that somebody could collect what, 3,000 kilograms of ammonium nitrate, and no alarm bells went off. That is also an administrative failure. Ammonium nitrate is a controlled substance. You just can’t sell it. You know, if you go tomorrow and buy it, it’s not controlled drugs. But the thing is, a controlled drug will harm an individual. Selling controlled substances like this, which are potential explosives, can be used for terrorism and will kill hundreds of people or potentially hundreds of people. So shopkeepers need to be sensitized about it. And frankly, if the shopkeepers have not followed the law, then I think they really need to be taken to task.

SMITA PRAKASH: If I’m to play the devil’s advocate. I’m a shopkeeper in Faridabad and I’m stocking under, you know, keeping all the security parameters in mind. I’m stocking ammonium nitrate. One farmer, another farmer, next day, same day, two kilos taken. Ten people come and take 5 kilos, 10 kilos, 8 kilos, because it’s needed for agriculture. It’s a fertilizer.

SUSHANT SAREEN: So here is how it works, which is where the intelligence guys come in. Now, when this information is being collected, there has to be a system that is being fed into the system. And that is where you have to start making sense. Why is there so much of offtake of this thing? It’s unnatural. For the last four years, there was only so much fertilizer. So, you know, then that is where analysis comes in. That is where, which is why Mr. Chand is saying that, you know, the intelligence agencies work very well, and I have no reason to doubt that. But from what I have also heard, they are severely starved for resources. They need to be much more, you know, in terms of personnel. They need more people. I don’t know, sir. Correct me if I’m wrong, because I had heard this. I have no other way of verifying it. There was a time when our counter intelligence department in the IB had 25 people.

ASHOK CHAND: For a population of IB, I cannot say. I cannot.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Okay, so, you know, so he’s a good old conservative. We’ll not talk about civil servant. Yeah. Which is fair enough. But the point is, I personally feel, given the kind of challenges we face, the kind of threats we face, you really need to beef up your domestic as well as external coordination between the states. Absolutely. I think a lot has changed from the past, but I think you can still improve. Which is why I say that one was the administrative failure, that nobody was maintaining those registers. And now suddenly everybody is saying, “I didn’t know.” “I didn’t know” is not an excuse.

ASHOK CHAND: Right?

SUSHANT SAREEN: And then even if these guys are sharing that information, somebody needs to start making some sense out of it. To that extent and to the extent that there were no alarm bells ringing about this particular network and they were able to operate below the radar is a kind of an intelligence failure.

The Question of Profiling

SMITA PRAKASH: Alarm bell should have rung immediately for Haryana when they realized that one university has 40 doctors from Kashmir in one place.

SUSHANT SAREEN: So that university should have never come up in the first place. And I can assure you there will be at least another hundred universities which are similar, which should have never come up in the first place. But then you come to the intelligence success part and good policing that.

SMITA PRAKASH: And here, when I’m saying Kashmiris, I don’t mean to stigmatize Kashmiris, of course. No, because you see what Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti are saying, that all Kashmiris are not terrorists. So don’t say, don’t do this, because now we will.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Omar Abdullah is saying the right thing.

SMITA PRAKASH: Correct.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Mehbooba Mufti is being disingenuous. And that is as simple as that. Now, what Omar Abdullah is saying, why, I agree with Omar Abdullah. Look, you know, you have the Jammu and Kashmir police, predominantly Muslims, right from the valley. They have been in the vanguard of this fight against terrorism. You cannot function. They are your eyes and ears. They, you know, the kind of sacrifices they made, a second to none. So when you start stigmatizing everybody, I think, I don’t think, you know, you are either being patriotic or being fair to.

SMITA PRAKASH: No, no, Sushant, what I’m saying is that there are 40 Kashmiri doctors in a hospital and a university in a remote Faridabad town in Haryana. Should the local Khabri network of Faridabad have kept them in focus a little bit? In one way, it is stigmatizing. But I would think even if there are 40 Bengali or 40 Bihari doctors just in one university, you think that, is there some connection?

SUSHANT SAREEN: Why this is an ex post facto. So I’ll say two things. One is on the intelligence success and good policing that you catch hold of some. We were talking about this earlier, that certain posters had come up. There was a local police officer who said, “Yeah, this is happening after so much time. Let’s investigate.” And then you start unraveling the whole thing. And then, you know, everybody comes together and the whole network starts unraveling, which is why it was a success. This bomb blast, in a sense, was an aberration. The success was that you seized everything. You, you, you ensured that that plot never could go through. So that was a, certainly, it’s a resounding success and I think kudos to everybody who was involved in that.

Now you come to the other thing of the Khabri network. Again, I don’t know how much he will talk. That’s the problem with these guys. You know, these guys come and they don’t talk. And this is my problem with Mr. Vikram Sood. I’ve known him for 25 years. He just doesn’t open his mouth.

ASHOK CHAND: So, you know, that’s.

SUSHANT SAREEN: I don’t like him because of that.

SMITA PRAKASH: Because there are enemies also watching.

ASHOK CHAND: Right?

Understanding Radicalization

SUSHANT SAREEN: Yeah, I know. But you know, for us, yeah, curiosity, exactly. What happened behind the scenes. But look, so here is the point and this is a question, sir, please. To the extent you can answer this. See, I have often asked this question and again, I’m not stigmatizing a community or anything. You could take it for any community in Assam. You could take it, you know, for people who might be ULFA inclined in Punjab, you could take it for the Khalistani lord in rest of India. If you’re looking at the Islamist networks or Islamist terrorism, jihadi terrorism, then you have to look at the Muslim community. And if there is some Hindu terrorist, by all means go and check that.

But the question which I ask is what are the conversations which are taking place in a particular society, in a particular area? So for example, if I’m talking about a university, there are kids, for example, in Aligarh Muslim University or Jamia Millia. Again, before people start throwing stones at you and me and him that you are stigmatizing by naming certain universities, you can talk about JNU for all I care. Right? And Delhi University, which is my alma mater. But my point is that when students in these places are sitting, what are the conversations when say 15 Muslim students are sitting in a room and they’re talking about politics, about geopolitics, about strategy, about economics, what are they talking? What is triggering them? Do we know those conversations? Do we know how the brains are functioning in a madrasa or in a particular locality? What are people talking about that will give you an idea of what is, what might be happening in a particular place.

And I know it’s much easier for me to say this, but it’s much more difficult when you have to start implementing it at the practical level. But until and unless you know this, you’re always going to be surprised. How come so many doctors have got involved, you know, like the entire media is labeling this white collared crime. What the hell do you mean by that? What was Shami Witness? You remember that guy who was, who was doing all the propaganda for the ISIS techie from Bangalore who was caught?

SMITA PRAKASH: Engineer.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Engineer. Working in Google or something like that. Some fancy bloody company.

SMITA PRAKASH: So it’s not new you’re saying so?

The Poverty Myth

SUSHANT SAREEN: Look, the very poor people don’t get involved in terrorism. They don’t have the time. They don’t have the luxury to get involved in terrorism. The people who get involved in terrorism are people of some means.

SMITA PRAKASH: The earlier thing was there is some education.

SUSHANT SAREEN: That’s the biggest I’ve ever heard. Poverty leads to terrorism. Poverty does not lead to terrorism. Was Osama Bin Laden poor?

SMITA PRAKASH: No.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Was Ahmad Al Zawahiri poor?

SMITA PRAKASH: I will.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Was this guy Omar Saeed Sheikh of Kandahar hijack. Was he poor? So this poverty business is utter nonsense, right? All of these excuses which are given is utter bullshit. These are covering fire. These are typical leftist way of looking at things, you know. They were very poor so they had no choice. So they took two guns. When Khalistani terrorism happened, was Punjab poor? At that time wasn’t Punjab the richest state in India? Was Kashmir poor? When Kashmiri terrorism happened, Kashmiri lives had improved by leaps and bounds. So terrorism is not about poverty. It’s not about economic factors. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Radicalization and Recruitment Networks

SMITA PRAKASH: Again, I’m quoting from media because we are only getting media reports right now. Dr. Shaheen Shahid, who was tasked with creating Jaish-e-Mohammed’s women terror wing Jamaat ul Momit, she’s supposed to have contacted the Delhi blast plotter. Dr. Shaheen was in touch with Saadia Azhar and Afeera Bibi.

Now, who are these people? Afeera Bibi’s husband, Umar Farooq, was the mastermind of the 2019 Pulwama attack. Saadia Azhar’s husband, Yusuf Azhar, was the brain behind the 1999 Kandahar hijack.

Now they get in touch with this woman who’s a doctor in UP. That lady supposedly leads a normal life. She’s with her husband, leads a normal life, has two children. She dumps her husband. She never used to wear hijab or anything like that. She used to be part of, you know, she was employed in a government hospital also.

She leaves her husband, divorces him, leaves the children with the husband, disappears. For some time she was living in the same gully as her brothers. Her brothers say we don’t know anything about her. She was living in the same area, locality, but nobody knew. She disappears, lands up, and then her husband, her ex-husband, says she wanted to go to Australia and was going to call us. “We want to go to Australia.” Very loose story.

Probably will be interrogated by the police and we’ll get to know later. This is what he has said in media interviews. And then she gets in touch supposedly through the dark web and gets recruited to do this.

You know, you’ve interrogated so many of these people, these what Chidambaram calls “homegrown terrorism.” I don’t like the word “homegrown” because it seems as if some state intelligence organizations are growing them. These are people who are radicalized in some way, either self or through whatever networks.

Do you think that it’s so easy to recruit people to get them radicalized in this country? Was it so easy to get women radicalized also? One would think that it’s not easy to just get a woman to leave her job, leave her children.

The Role of Religion and Money in Radicalization

ASHOK CHAND: See, radicalization, I mean, the initial reason is religion. I think we all have to accept that any Muslim gets radicalized because of the religion. But most important thing is once you get radicalized, how do you sustain yourself? That is money.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Money, money.

ASHOK CHAND: I mean, both go together. Once you are radicalized, then the money factor comes into play and money sustains.

SMITA PRAKASH: How is the money coming into these people?

ASHOK CHAND: See, money, earlier on, when we used to investigate, used to come through hawala. I mean, most of the money used to come through hawala channel and sometimes it came through Western Union and some such agencies. Nowadays I think it comes through charities.

SMITA PRAKASH: And other NGO networks.

ASHOK CHAND: NGO networks.

SUSHANT SAREEN: I mean, charities were involved even then.

ASHOK CHAND: No, we actually, when we busted these gangs and all that, I mean, these terror modules and all that, mainly through hawala. They were all correct.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Otherwise big charities in the Middle East and in Pakistan, other places which used to, but maybe it was coming through hawala from those.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah.

SMITA PRAKASH: Do the families never get to know when this…

ASHOK CHAND: No, no, that is not…

SUSHANT SAREEN: They get to know.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, definitely they know. In fact, all of us are talking about a lady, I mean, who has been a doctor, has been radicalized and all that. Prior to that, although, I mean, I would name this, if you know Asiya Andrabi.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah, of course.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah. I mean, she was also radicalized.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah, but they threw acid on people.

ASHOK CHAND: Who went to beauty parlor. But she, I would say, I mean, there was no evidence to prove that she was involved in terrorism. But she was a total separatist. And she has been arrested a number of times. So it’s nothing new that women are involved in these type of activities.

Understanding the Motivations

SMITA PRAKASH: But that lady, Dukhtaran-e-Millat, Asiya Andrabi was about Azadi for Kashmir. What did this lady sitting in Lucknow want?

ASHOK CHAND: See, as I told you, I mean…

SMITA PRAKASH: She doesn’t want UP ki Azadi.

ASHOK CHAND: No, no, no. As I told you, the radicalization has taken place in whatever manner through online or through going to the mosque or all that. See, once your mind is radicalized, then what happens basically is, I don’t know, I mean about the lady, I cannot say.

Then you are, these people, I mean whom we had interrogated earlier, the terrorists, they used to be shown pictures of atrocities done on Muslims in India, atrocities done on Kashmiris in India. I mean the demolition of the Babri Masjid and then sermons and everything. So your mind was totally, I mean I would say the word, polluted.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Totally polluted. It’s not a one-off thing. It’s like relentless.

ASHOK CHAND: Relentless. I mean absolutely. You are there at it and then once your mind gets diverted and you are moving towards that end and then the money factor comes in. I mean you get paid for doing, I mean like as I told, Ashfaq Ahmed, he came here, set up a year, all the money used to come from Pakistan. Money, easy money coming in.

Family Awareness and Behavioral Changes

SMITA PRAKASH: So the neighbors, the family, they don’t suspect because most people who have been interviewed in the past week all say, the brothers and sisters…

ASHOK CHAND: It is not possible. I mean whatever they say, they may be saying to save themselves. But what happens is you have seen the person earlier and you have seen the behavior after he or she has been radicalized. So it’s a different set of behavior comes in.

SMITA PRAKASH: But sometimes these are very subtle changes.

ASHOK CHAND: I don’t think they are subtle changes.

SUSHANT SAREEN: They are not subtle.

ASHOK CHAND: They are not subtle changes. I mean…

SUSHANT SAREEN: So let’s take the case for example of many of the ISK guys who’ve been arrested in India. After they have been arrested, people will tell you, you know what, suddenly he had changed. He used to go to the mosque very often. He used to berate us when we used to watch television. He did not want to hear music.

Now these are red flags, right? But listen, if it’s your kid, what are you going to do? Go to the cop and say, “Listen, I think my son’s getting radicalized.” There have been some cases the parents have actually done that. But in most of the cases, you know, you will say, “I’ll take him to the local Maulvi to tell him that he’s going on the wrong path.” Now you don’t know if that Maulvi is also a smart dude or he’s a dumb ass who will probably buttress the radicalism.

SMITA PRAKASH: Most mothers of these OGWs or whatever say “spiritual path pe chala gaya.” There are words to use. I don’t want to use that word, but the word basically translates to spiritual path. So it doesn’t sound negative. But listen…

SUSHANT SAREEN: But what do you expect the family to do? Do you expect them to go to the local law enforcement? In many cases the local law enforcement will not be sensitive to it. So…

SMITA PRAKASH: Because radicalization is not an offense in the sense that unless a violent act has not been committed.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Exactly. Even otherwise. Look, even otherwise. So supposing I am showing, you know, signs of being radicalized. You notice it, you go to him. Now it depends on what kind of a person he is. If he is one of those more sensitive guys who know how this whole thing is working, he might say, “Okay, let me talk to this boy. Let me take him inside. Let me try some, you know, put him through some programs to de-radicalize him.”

If he is, on the other hand, one of those, “This guy is going to become a terrorist. Let me beat the f* out of him,” you know. Then you will say, “I don’t know what he’s going to do.” So you will say, “I hope this boy is just becoming spiritual, taking to the path of religion and you know, getting into some otherworldly nonsense.” Because I consider all otherworldly stuff is nonsense because I don’t know if there is any other world.

Anyways. So my point is that in many cases people will tend to keep quiet. And once the person is caught or found out or is found to be involved in something, denial is the natural defense system. So they defend them. What do you expect the guy to say? “I knew my wife is becoming a radical.” Then the cops will ask him, “Why didn’t you inform us?”

Operation Sindoor and Expected Repercussions

SMITA PRAKASH: You mentioned the Babri demolition that happened that spawned a number of terror cells, sleeper cells, attacks which were supposed to be revenge for the 1990s. When you saw the visuals of Operation Sindoor and the bombing of the headquarters there, where they had in front, there was the mosque and behind there was that they were doing all the activities out there. When you saw that, that the dome of that mosque had been bombed, did you sense at that moment that there will be repercussions from that end?

ASHOK CHAND: See, that was expected. If you’re not expecting it, then I think you’re living in a fool’s paradise. You have gone and attacked Jaish-e-Mohammed. And you must, as I told you earlier also, that Jaish-e-Mohammed is a potent militant organization. So that reaction was supposed to have come.

I mean, but I thought, but I don’t think the present module that has been busted, I think as far as I know from media reports it has been going on for quite some time, much before Operation Sindoor. So their radicalization must have been earlier itself.

See, what happened basically is the hinterland, we call this, I mean apart from the valley, everything else is the hinterland. Hinterland has not been affected for quite some time. I mean so the aim was basically to sort of target the hinterland. Last I think bomb blast we had was I think 2010, 2011, 2012, something like that, quite, I mean about a decade back.

So main aim was to target the hinterland and ammonium nitrate. If I, I mean ammonium nitrate has been the explosive material much in demand by all, I mean the terrorists. And it is right from the time of Parliament attack, much before that, ammonium nitrate has been used.

In fact, as far as I remember, I mean because of our efforts and all that, 2012 law came into existence where if you are selling ammonium nitrate, you have to maintain the data. Whom you are selling, whom you sell. That is the supply provision and that data had to be submitted to, I think, the administration, if I’m not mistaken.

Regulatory Failures and Administrative Gaps

SMITA PRAKASH: So even when the truck in Bijbehara was found, the sacks that had all been emptied. So you can’t…

ASHOK CHAND: You can’t do, I mean you can’t see it. But the fact is data, I mean there is at the end of the day…

SMITA PRAKASH: And was it shared with other states?

ASHOK CHAND: So…

SUSHANT SAREEN: So where the administrative failure comes, you pass the law. There would be some noodle person for example in Faridabad who has to ensure that this data is shared with him. What was he doing? Scratching his ass. Why isn’t he being asked what the f* were you doing? Why were you not keeping a check?

SMITA PRAKASH: Also, it’s possible it was bought in some other state and then transported.

SUSHANT SAREEN: No, no matter what.

ASHOK CHAND: No matter what. If I am selling ammonium, I have to maintain the data and I have to share the data or I mean somebody has to come and check whether the data is being maintained properly or not. So definitely, I mean I would say that that aspect is lacking. It’s not lacking in Sahil Dhabi, it’s lacking everywhere.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Also problem in every single department of government.

SMITA PRAKASH: Let me come back to the question which I was asking Mr. Chand about this. That when we attacked, it was Bahawalpur, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Bahawalpur attack. So when you saw, did you think that back then, or did you realize that it’s a matter of time before these guys do something to avenge that mosque being shattered?

ASHOK CHAND: No, no.

The Threat Was Clear

SUSHANT SAREEN: I think it was very clear. If you see the kind of statements that the Lashkar characters and the Jaish fellows have been making and there are videos, they have been going around all kinds of places making speeches, blood curdling speeches. It was very clear that they were going to try and do something.

The question was it is one thing to be threatening revenge and quite another that do they have the kind of capacity and capability that they’ll be able to do it? Number one. Number two, what will be the role of the Pakistani state? Because these guys cannot function without the Pakistani state.

So quite clearly I think the intentions of the Pakistani state was also very clear that they are not going to let go of this whole terrorism industry which has started in that country and they will continue to doing it. Now maybe they’ll do it at smaller level so that there is no big retaliation and maybe they’ll say okay India, bring it on. We don’t know.

Like I’ve been telling some people, if you are a Pakistani and you have bought all the bullshit which Asim Munir and his chaprasi Shabazz Sharif have been trying to sell people, what is the story they are giving? That we have beaten India. Right. None of them talk about the kind of beating they got. But we have beaten India. We have won the war. I don’t know which war it was but they’ve supposedly won a war. America is at our back. The Chinese are at our back. Of course the Turks are backing us completely.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yes, all of them.

SUSHANT SAREEN: And now even the Arab world which had kind of pulled away from us is backing us so we can take on India. Because if Saudi Arabia has signed a deal with us, a mutual defense agreement, India cannot attack us anymore because then Saudis will jump in. This is the Pakistani narrative.

So add this to the kind of calls which the terrorists have been making. So it was, I think, I don’t think anybody in the government of India or in the security services would have thought that the Pakistanis are not going to do anything. I think that expectation would always be there.

SMITA PRAKASH: So this is an asymmetrical attack on India which is a continuation of retaliation to Operation Sindoor.

A Long-Standing Cell

SUSHANT SAREEN: Look again, in this particular case I think I’ll still wait till the investigations are complete and I’ll tell you why. Because I think Mr. Chand pointed this out. This cell does not emerge after Sindoor. This cell has been in operation for about at least three or four, two years, maybe even longer. Right?

So this cell has been there long standing and I think this cell was planning something big. Now were they planning something big because the Pakistanis had put them to it or were these guys who were radicalized in a different environment maybe having some Pakistani link? Because if again and it’s got nothing—

SMITA PRAKASH: To do with the 27th amendment and General Munir continuing, this is nothing to—

SUSHANT SAREEN: Do with all that.

SMITA PRAKASH: The attack.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Okay, you know this is the problem. When you start talking to me about Pakistan then I can’t stop. But on the 27th Amendment, just one sentence. What has the 27th Amendment done?

SMITA PRAKASH: Given him immunity, that’s all.

SUSHANT SAREEN: A general in Pakistan always has immunity. The only person it has given immunity is to that crook Asif Zardari. Okay, the press Musharraf could not be prosecuted. But the point is not that 27th amendment has only made official what was already there.

SMITA PRAKASH: Look, if Imran Khan comes back into politics he could do some stuff to Munir.

SUSHANT SAREEN: So when Imran comes back we’ll talk.

ASHOK CHAND: It’s like he’s not going to be, can I make a political statement?

SUSHANT SAREEN: It’s like saying Rahul Gandhi is a—

ASHOK CHAND: Prime Minister.

Radicalization Within India

SUSHANT SAREEN: So that’s not the point. So I would imagine that look, you know we have been in a bit of denial within India. There is a certain amount of radicalization which is also taking place in India. Some of it and a lot of it is probably inspired by terror groups outside India, international jihadist groups.

The kind of propaganda which is happening on the Internet, social media, all kinds of other chat rooms, all kinds of other things. All of that has been happening but in our, at least at the political level there has been a level of denial that there is radicalization taking place within Indian society among Indian Muslims and you see more of it among the educated and the half educated because they are the ones who are consuming the kind of trashy videos that you and I would not even look at. But they are consuming it. Right?

So I don’t know again because the investigations are still ongoing what were the links these guys had with the foreign fellows.

SMITA PRAKASH: Pakistani had Sushant. It’s become so big now. I mean, you were saying—

SUSHANT SAREEN: You would—

SMITA PRAKASH: See that these guys are mostly, have all of them gone or some of them have gone to Pakistan, got trained. Now it’s, they don’t even need to go across. It seems like they’re getting on Telegram, on any other—

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, a lot of apps now which we cannot monitor also. And these apps are being used. Why apps? Even the, what do you call, I mean, websites and all that are being used for these type of activities.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah. So it’s literally Bhagwan Bharose. How is one supposed to—

ASHOK CHAND: It’s not, I would say it’s not Bhagwan Bharose, you see, I mean—

SMITA PRAKASH: To me it seems like we’re sitting ducks.

Monitoring and Surveillance

ASHOK CHAND: I mean things are monitored. It’s not that everything is unmonitored. There is monitoring. There is monitoring of the channels and communications and everything. So how far it is successful and how far we get information or whether he is using that channel which we are intercepting or which we have kept under observation or not. So that is a time issue. But they are being monitored. Even at my time also we used to monitor. Now also they are being monitored.

SMITA PRAKASH: We are talking about doctors, engineers. You would think that these are people who are educated and have common sense that they would know that they could be—

SUSHANT SAREEN: That’s your presumption.

ASHOK CHAND: I mean, I just say that basically, as I told you, the motivation is religion. You must understand that irrespective whether he’s a doctor or software specialist, it’s not, it’s the first time these white collar people have come inside. It’s a very wrong denomination.

Earlier on also we have had white collared people like engineers being a part of the terror modules. And I agree with him totally that it is basically the educated and the half educated who are drawn towards these terrorist models. Because the poorer sections of society, they’re busy earning their livelihood. They have no time for these activities. These people who—

SUSHANT SAREEN: I would—

ASHOK CHAND: I wouldn’t use the class here, but you can have lower middle class, middle class. These are the—

SUSHANT SAREEN: I mean, these are the communist. Khan Bantasa, did you ever see a mazdur who was communist because the mazdur had to do mazduri. It was the communist was always either, you know, a really elite champagne liberal. He became a communist. Right. Somebody was roaming around in a Merc but was preaching communism or the middle class type, you know, it’s the same thing with a terrorist, but a doctor—

SMITA PRAKASH: A physician, it’s a little shocking. They take the oath to cure people.

SUSHANT SAREEN: And what about Ayman al-Zawahiri? Yes, but I’m sure many others who were like that.

SMITA PRAKASH: I should know an Indian doctor. I would—

The Mindset of Educated Terrorists

SUSHANT SAREEN: Yeah, look, this is your class bias, okay? This, I’m accusing you of a class bias, okay, that look, these were people like us, educated. They are, you know, university going etc. etc. because you are not understanding what’s happening in their brains.

When that, you know, when that Mentos moment comes in their brain and the switch suddenly flips, you have no idea which way they are going to go. Which is why, you know, this nonsense which has always said, you know, we should educate people that terrorism is a very bad thing. You think people don’t know terrorism is a bad thing, but they don’t think they’re doing terrorism.

What these guys think is that they are serving a larger religious cause, the cause of the community. They don’t understand that they’re damaging the community, that they are creating a kind of a resentment against the community which will, you know, normal, ordinary people who are doctors among the Muslim community will also now be tarred by a certain brush.

These assholes don’t think like that. They think that they are doing this for the greatness of the cause, for the community, for Allah, etc. etc., which is nonsense. But that is what they believe in. You don’t seem to understand this is what is sticking in their head. It is not the other stuff, the earthly or the worldly stuff that you and I are bothered about. That is not what is sticking with them. That is where the problem is.

Interrogating Family Members

SMITA PRAKASH: I have to ask you this, that you know, you interrogated these terrorists. There’s no other word for it. They are mass murderers. They want to kill and maim people who are lawmakers, general public. They want to create chaos in this country. You interview them, you interrogate them, you also meet with their family members. How is it that some politicians are saying that it is unethical to take family members in custody?

ASHOK CHAND: See, it’s not a question of taking them into custody. They are basically examining them. It doesn’t mean that you have to arrest them and then interrogate them.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Them.

ASHOK CHAND: The law gives you the powers to examine and that is what is basically been done, being done. See, you examine the family members, find out whether they’re involved or not. If they’re not involved, they are free to go. But if they are involved then obviously the law will take its own course.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Or can they give you some information which otherwise their cell phone records and things like that—

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, obviously everything is then because now—

SMITA PRAKASH: It’s all electronic communication, right?

ASHOK CHAND: See, electronic communication, even there is human communication, everything. It’s not that like if you look at the left, the Maoists, they don’t use any electronic communication, correct? Yeah, I mean we have, I mean in fact during my time also we arrested some of the, there is a lady called, I forget the name Sureain or something like that. We had arrested. So all the communication of the Maoists are by mouth. It’s person to person. No, they don’t use any channels.

SMITA PRAKASH: So these educated terrorists—

SUSHANT SAREEN: Were you the person who arrested that guy? That Parsi fellow, very senior in the Maoist ranks?

ASHOK CHAND: No, no, no.

SUSHANT SAREEN: From Faridabad, I think he was also arrested from Faridabad.

ASHOK CHAND: Doesn’t come under jurisdiction. Delhi.

SUSHANT SAREEN: No, no.

ASHOK CHAND: But your special cell—

SUSHANT SAREEN: So special cell is, special cell—

ASHOK CHAND: Used to be earlier.

Breaking Down Terrorists

SMITA PRAKASH: So when you meet with these white collar terrorists, when you interrogate them, do you find them as hardened as the others?

ASHOK CHAND: See, I’ll make a distinction now. When you interrogate criminals, I’m not talking about terrorism, I’m talking about real criminal gang. I mean low criminals, small time criminals, big time criminals, they are harder to crack. Okay, these people are not very hard to crack.

SMITA PRAKASH: Why?

ASHOK CHAND: See, basically I would say, I mean they are, they’re not hardened criminals. They, you see, their minds have been, as Mr. Sareen put it, in their minds they want to do something for the sake of the community of a larger cause or whatever it is. So when they are confronted, I mean with all the evidence that we have available, then they break down.

It doesn’t take much time to tell very frankly. I mean, breaking down an ordinary criminal takes much more time than breaking down these people. So we have never had any issues.

SMITA PRAKASH: You know, this Zawahiri and the others whom you’re mentioning, they were doing recruiting, planning, plotting suicide bomber. But this doctor who blew himself up in the Red Fort bombing, he’s a doctor himself. But for a doctor to become a suicide bomber, it didn’t shock you?

SUSHANT SAREEN: No, it didn’t entirely shock me because I study Pakistan and I’ve seen a lot of this happening in Pakistan, although that has not happened so much by the Islamists. But for example, there have been cases where there have been Baloch freedom fighters, women who are PhD scholars with kids who have decided because of the operation of Pakistanis to go and blow themselves up. So there have been number of cases like that out there.

So it doesn’t really surprise me that somebody like him, if he actually was a suicide bomber. I’m still holding out on that judgment. Was it a suicide bombing? Did he actually blow himself up or just panicked? He panicked or some. I wouldn’t call it an accidental explosion.

SMITA PRAKASH: Unless he has left a phone message somewhere. Do they do that?

SUSHANT SAREEN: Normally they do. Especially the jihadist lot. They normally leave this last testament kind of a thing and a kind of a will which is then given to their families. Happened mostly with the Pakistani group.

SMITA PRAKASH: Three hours he’s sitting inside a car.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Yes.

ASHOK CHAND: Okay.

SUSHANT SAREEN: So let’s imagine we are making a movie. I think he would have. Let’s imagine we are making a movie.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah.

SUSHANT SAREEN: And I am making a movie on this particular plot. And I am an ace director and I say so here is this guy who now sees the world closing on him. Right? He has no option left. There is nothing. There’s only darkness in front of him. Even if he wants to run away, where the hell will he run? The world is not big enough for him to run. Right. There is nowhere. He’s a rat who is caught in that rat trap.

What does he do now? For three hours he’s getting agitated. He has been to a mosque, he has been to other places and he realizes there’s nothing left for him. Now he is suddenly even trying to figure out what he needs to do. Now in that state of mind he might actually decide that he’s going to blow up the car. Again, what do you mean by a suicide bomber? That means that the bomb was rigged in the car and he had to press a button to explode it.

SMITA PRAKASH: But they haven’t found a detonator yet.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Maybe there was a. I don’t know. So I’m not prejudging that.

SMITA PRAKASH: Correct.

SUSHANT SAREEN: If he has to blow up, the one is a suicide bomber who’s wearing suicide jacket. The other is that there was a bomb which was rigged in the car. Was a bomb actually rigged in the car which means that it was a car bomb which was all set to go off? And here is a guy who triggered it. Once they investigate they’ll be able to find out whether there was a triggering mechanism or something which did this.

Otherwise it could be something that you’ve kept that explosive in a way that now you’re hearing something about Kashmir. That some explosives were taken out there.

SMITA PRAKASH: Today, this morning.

SUSHANT SAREEN: What exactly happened? Whether that was. Again, the reports are that it is an accidental blast, but I don’t know. We’ll wait for more information on that. But the point is that it could be just this guy trying to figure out a way, and this thing suddenly blows up or he blows it up.

But for him, in his desperate state, to become a suicide bomber is one thing, and to become a suicide bomber who knows that he’s going to a certain place and going to go and blow himself out, there is a completely different thing.

The Mindset: Fedayeen vs. Suicide Bomber

SMITA PRAKASH: The mindset between a fedayeen and a suicide bomber, because I mean, the definition is interchangeable.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Depression or suicide bomber.

SMITA PRAKASH: That he saw the plot. He saw it all coming in.

ASHOK CHAND: See, because ammonium nitrate itself is not an explosive.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah.

ASHOK CHAND: It has to be mixed with certain chemicals. Then you have to.

SMITA PRAKASH: So maybe it was a process of becoming a bomb.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, I mean, you have to have a timer and then you have to have a charging. It has to be. I mean, sort of a current has to pass through the detonator for triggering mechanism and all that. So until that means he has an IED in his vehicle or the vehicle itself was an IED. So one doesn’t know.

SMITA PRAKASH: So the 2000 blast, which. Those guys who ran away or scaled the wall, they were fedayeen because they were not suicide. They didn’t want to die.

ASHOK CHAND: No, no. Fedayeen. See what happens. See, when you are attacking in what you call an army camp, there may be retaliation and you may die. But the fact is, at that point of time, there was not that much of a retaliation because no one was expecting it. So that’s why they could escape.

SMITA PRAKASH: Escape. But they were ready to die.

ASHOK CHAND: So obviously, when you are attacking an army camp, logically you may be. You can be shot.

SUSHANT SAREEN: So theologically, suicide is haram for these guys. So they never call themselves suicide bombers. So sir, just as a word of caution, please don’t call them fedayeen. They would love to be called fedayeen, and they should be called suicide bomber or a suicide attacker because suicide is haram for them. So you should. They are haramis. So call them suicide bombers. Right.

Number one. Number two, the idea, the theology is that once you go into that army camp, as Mr. Chand is saying, and he’s absolutely correct, there is maybe a 1% chance that you can get away with it. Right. You assaulted and something has happened, and you. So there is. He has not. He has gone with the intention that if I die, I die. But there is a possibility that I might even escape. Right? And there have been a number of cases where they managed to escape.

So the term which they use for themselves, even the guys who go and blow up a particular place and where death is assured, there is a particular term. I think it’s called ishtihadi or something like that. That’s the term they use. They never call themselves as a suicide bomber. That is a term which the others give to them. The term which they give to them, say either a fedayeen, right, which gives you a certain religious connotations to it, or it is this ishtihadi or I’m forgetting the exact pronunciation, it’s that.

But I think because they’re committing something haram. They’re haramis. So call them suicide bomber or suicide attack or haramis.

The Jama Masjid Attack and Indian Mujahideen

SMITA PRAKASH: Tell me about Jama Masjid.

ASHOK CHAND: There was a bomb and there was a firing also. 2010 was done by the Indian Mujahideen. See, the Indian Mujahideen has a number of modules and they were spread over I think, number of states. We name it Delhi, UP, Bihar, then Gujarat, then I think Karnataka. I mean, different, different states. They had the different, different.

SMITA PRAKASH: There was that huge bombing which happened in Kerala also. That Indian Mujahideen, they were all over the.

ASHOK CHAND: They had modules all over the what you call country. I mean all one number of states. So this 2010 blast that was done, that was done by Yasin Bhatkal and I mean his other associates. Yasin Bhatkal was basically, if you remember, the Indian Mujahideen is headed by Riyaz Bhatkal and Iqbal Bhatkal. And Iqbal Bhatkal were basically from Karnataka. And then subsequently they were ex SIMI students. Islamic Movement of India.

After that, after it was banned, then some, I mean the members of the SIMI, some members of the SIMI made this organization called Indian Mujahideen which had the support of Lashkar. That basically, I mean, had the support of Lashkar, but not trained by Lashkar, not trained by Lashkar. They were all what you call local boys. All local boys who had been recruited. And see, making an IED nowadays is not a great thing.

SMITA PRAKASH: But I remember that time these CDs were found with these Indian Mujahideen people where they’re training.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, yeah, training. I mean, basically it was not. I mean, you didn’t go to a camp to get trained. Correct. But they were trained in the sense that you can learn from the CDs and all that. In fact SIMI had training camps. I remember still in Madhya Pradesh and all that they had training camps. I mean I’m not exactly sure. Yeah, he was the chief of. Yes, SIMI had training camps.

So when the SIMI got what you called out, I mean became outlawed, then these people started Indian Mujahideen and then these two guys and Iqbal Bhatkal, I mean they started this Indian Mujahideen and they set up modules everywhere. And subsequent to that they did blast all over the. I mean around seven to eight states they did number of blasts and number of lives were lost. Large number of lives are lost.

SMITA PRAKASH: So why did they attack do you think a Jama Masjid, I mean if it was a Batla House thing which.

ASHOK CHAND: Anniversary of that was done basically to create communal threat and blame India. Yeah, blame. I mean the Hindu terrorists have done it and all the. Basically that is what their intention that they had done.

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah. And this Yasin Bhatkal, he had married a local girl in Delhi only.

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay.

ASHOK CHAND: Okhla or Jamia. Jamia. And he had already, he was settled there. So when we busted this gang, I mean that was called the Darbhanga module, we arrested a Pakistani also and number of people from Darbhanga were arrested.

SMITA PRAKASH: You went to Darbhanga?

ASHOK CHAND: No, no, I didn’t go to Darbhanga. The teams were there.

SMITA PRAKASH: Teams were there.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah. And then subsequently, I mean this module of course being busted, I mean they again after another some months, again some parts of the module had been left. They again committed some blasts. Then subsequently they were also arrested.

Handling Terror: The Police Mindset

SMITA PRAKASH: You’re talking about a time when Delhi was continuously facing these blasts. 2010, 2005, it was a period where Delhi was facing all these terror incidents which were happening. Tell me, how is the mindset of the police at that stage when these blasts are happening? Do you feel overwhelmed? How is it?

ASHOK CHAND: No, I mean we never felt overwhelmed to tell you very frankly. I mean even the Red Fort attack, Parliament attack, these blasts and all that. See since we had been handling terrorism for quite some time, I was in the cell for more than seven and a half years. I mean so we were sure that somewhere or the other they’ll slip up. It’s not that. I mean they will be able to get away with it.

And then what happens? I mean it’s when an incident takes place, it leaves you some clues. It’s not that it’s totally blind. Some clues are left and then we work on those clues. I mean we are. I mean if you get overwhelmed you lose it. And I mean, and if for the, if I was heading the unit and if I sort of gave it up, the team would have given up.

The Problem with SOPs and Evidence Collection

SUSHANT SAREEN: Sir, tell me something. I want to ask you this question. You know, suppose this Red Fort blast took place, and we suddenly see that around the world. We see that people sanitize the area. Out here we see that it becomes a tourist spot. Journalists picking up pieces, showing it on camera, you know, people walking in that area.

Why is it, and this is not the first time a bomb blast has happened. We’ve been facing bomb blast throughout the country. You yourself said we don’t have any SOPs. I even see cops for example. You know, outside India you will see very standard operating procedures. When they’re collecting evidence, they’re using gloves, they’re being very careful. Out here we see people picking up stuff with their hand. All kinds of things are happening.

Is it a question of training, resources, what? Just try to figure out why we do what we do.

Evidence Collection Challenges in Blast Cases

ASHOK CHAND:

See, SOPs are there. SOPs are therefore like, this is a crime scene. How you secure the crime scene and how you pick up evidence, all the SOPs are there. But at that point of time, the person who is there at the spot or who is the senior officer at the spot, he has to ensure that the scene, the scene of crime is totally barricaded and then subsequently that the investigation starts.

But maybe it was such a crowded area and it was difficult to sort of, I can say, secure the scene of crime and maybe, and maybe the scene of crime was scattered over quite large area. But I think subsequently it was done initially, you see, initially what happened, the local police reaches. Then isn’t this training to be given.

SMITA PRAKASH:

To everybody, to the local police too?

ASHOK CHAND:

What happened initially? Local police reaches. So see first though, once an incident has taken place and if it is a bomb blast, you need to sanitize the area and then move in. But what happens is the local police reaches and then we are asked to tell the details and all that even.

SMITA PRAKASH:

When the forensics had not reached. And then subsequently we saw forensic guys also when they reached, we saw that they didn’t have shoe covers on. And then somebody picks up something with the hand, gives it to another constable, kind of, he’s dressed like a constable. That guy looks at it like this and puts it in his pocket. No, no, these are all things which seem to us a little odd.

ASHOK CHAND:

Yeah, definitely. I mean, it depends on, as I told you, the.

SMITA PRAKASH:

And then the media person that is taking and moving.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

Yeah, I can understand that. You know, if there are casualties and you’re trying to rescue them, that of course that is understandable. But tourist spot, you know, making it a tourist spot where everybody is going around. Okay, people can take whatever, you know, camera shots they want to take. But going inside, spoiling that area, I don’t know it.

You know, I would have thought that it’s like decades now that we’ve been combating this. It started in the 80s if you remember, you know, when these Khalistani scumbags used to blow bombs, transistor bombs and what have you.

ASHOK CHAND:

And then the audience cinema may be blast. That was also then Majestic Cinema in.

Terrorist vs. Criminal: Understanding the Difference

SMITA PRAKASH:

I’m going to come back to the mindset of these terrorists. How, how does the. How is a terrorist different from basic question? How is a terrorist different from a militant, different from a mafia guy, from an ordinary criminal? What is the difference in these.

ASHOK CHAND:

As I told you, terrorist is committed to its cause. Absolutely committed to its cause. I mean, irrespective of whatever happens. I mean there’s not much of a difference between a terrorist and a militant. I mean, I at least don’t make any distinction between a terrorist and a militant. They are more or less same.

Now you come to the mafia. Mafia is not interested in creating chaos and terror. Mafia is interested in extortions. They are interested in money. And that is why they do active. They act only because they want to create terror, to extort money. Like they will not target any crowded places or they will not target any, what do you call, place of national importance. They might target anyone whom they want to extort money from.

SMITA PRAKASH:

But this Dawood and all that did it. No, in Mumbai that was separate because.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

By then he had transformed from a terrorist mafia to a terrorist.

ASHOK CHAND:

That is different. See, we have. I’ve been. In fact there are criminal elements also who have joined terrorism. I mean we become, we have become terrorists in that one of the, I mean Indian Mujahideen Dharanga module that he had busted, the leader was a criminal and he was a criminal but he got involved in this, what do you call, terror activities. I felt that his motivation was not religious.

SMITA PRAKASH:

They want mercenaries sometimes.

ASHOK CHAND:

His big motivation was not religion. His motivation was money.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

It was the same with this guy. You remember one of the. There were three people who were released in Kandahar. One was this comeback Masood Azar. The other was this Omar Saeed Sheikh. And the third guy was a Kashmiri fellow by the name of Mushtaq Latram. Latram was his nom de guerre or nom de plume or whatever you want to call it. He was basically a local thug who then took to terrorism.

SMITA PRAKASH:

He was very hardened. We interviewed SP where he interrogated Latram.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

Yeah, but Latram later on became a terrorist. He started off as a criminal, later on became a terrorist. And that was his revenue model. So at the end of it he retained the name of. He was always referred to as Latram. Yeah, right.

So that transformation very often happens between these criminals can transcend into terrorism. Sometimes it’s for ideological reasons, sometimes because it’s a nice veneer which you take on. You know, you get some respectability and make lots of money. It happened a lot during the Khalistani movement. A lot of these characters, they were criminals basically even today.

SMITA PRAKASH:

We saw that era also.

ASHOK CHAND:

Yeah, I mean overlap. Yeah, yeah, it was overlapping.

SMITA PRAKASH:

But in the 80s.

ASHOK CHAND:

Yeah, in the 80s. I mean at that time I was not in the anti terror unit. I was basically in the field duties.

SMITA PRAKASH:

Okay, yeah.

The Evolution of Terrorism in India

ASHOK CHAND:

But we saw, I mean would you call Khalistani activities also? In fact, I must tell you this. They were involved in two major incidents. One was the kidnapping of Livio Radu, the Romanian diplomat. I mean, and the other was the kidnapping from New French colony. He was industrialist. There were major incidents in Delhi and they were kidnapped and taken and subsequently released after payment of ransom money.

So we had seen that era also Khalistani movement and the blast Satyam Cinema and all that were done by Khalistani terrorists. I have seen the era of Khalistan terrorists. I’ve seen the era of Kashmiri militants. I’ve seen the era of what you call now this Indian Mujahideen.

I have seen the terror of and see during our period, I mean the major action that was done this Fidayeen. I mean, sorry, the suicidal attacks were done by the Pakistanis. I mean there was a lot of infiltration of Pakistan. That was the height of terrorism. And we fought terrorism. It was at its height.

And I must, I mean, what do you call compliment the intelligence agencies and all the organizations that were fighting terrorism at that point of time. That time we didn’t have NIA or anything. It was a state. I mean police organizations having their own separate specialized units for handling terrorism. Okay, yeah.

Public Awareness and Warning Signals

SMITA PRAKASH:

One thing which is you feel is that everybody has to be now sensitized towards this. What has happened now is making everybody aware that they are amongst us, that people like us. It’s not restricted to conflict zones somewhere in the northeast, somewhere in Kashmir, they are spread out or somewhere in Kerala or Karnataka or Naxal area within. They are not in hinterland or Mofosil India.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

They are among stereotypes are different.

SMITA PRAKASH:

Everybody stereotypes are dead. So now they are amongst us. One way is that we all educate ourselves as to what are the warning signals. Keep our antenna up. If we are seeing amongst us somebody is getting radicalized in some manner which we now know as radicalization. They are becoming quieter, they are becoming more spiritual to say watch out for these signals. How does, how does one educate oneself to see the warning signals?

ASHOK CHAND:

See, basically if you educate the public, you have to educate the police also. At the same time whoever is coming to the police station, he’ll come to the local police station. He should have that confidence in the local police. That look, if I tell something, it will be kept secret. It’s not that you go and tell the other person against whom I have told that look.

So that sort of sensitization has to be done and then this has to be done at an. What you call at the top level. See, all the instructions have to come from the top level. So if that that is done and then we have education of the public, maybe we might get information from the public. But sensitization of both are important.

The Challenge of Prosecuting Blast Cases

SMITA PRAKASH:

That 2006 Mumbai blast, all 12 accused were released from after so many years. They’ve all come out. I’ll come to that was the case.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

No, please, I’d love to hear you.

ASHOK CHAND:

Because see, I’ll come to that. What happens basically is like blasts. I’m not talking about direct attacks and all that. I’m talking about blasts. See, it is very difficult to collect evidence linking the perpetrator with the blast. I tell you the reason why he comes. Anyone. I mean I’m taking plants the. What do you call, IED or whatever it is and then slips away blast takes place.

If you have a sort of a CCTV there they are captured. And our CCTVs, you know, it’s all grainy pictures. I mean it is very difficult to recognize. So even if you have a CCTV, most of the places you do not have CCTV. If you have a CCTV that if the picture comes then only have some sort of evidence linking the perpetrator with the crime.

Otherwise the court demands to prove that this person A was there at the spot at the time when the blast took place. It’s very difficult. You will you take a. I mean you can do the statistics. I’m telling you very plainly in most of the blast cases, they come out.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

Yeah.

ASHOK CHAND:

They are released only because of this. Because it is very difficult. See, I arrested her. As he says, I have committed blasts in this places. That is only a disclosure statement. It has to be substantiated by evidence. Evidence, concrete evidence. It is very difficult. It is easy.

SMITA PRAKASH:

Abhiya Blastware. Now this whole doctor network has come out. Everybody is saying 10 years from now these guys will come out.

ASHOK CHAND:

So this what happened. Basically this Dr. Network that has been blasted. They will be held liable for the recovery of the explosives, arms and ammunition.

SMITA PRAKASH:

That act.

ASHOK CHAND:

I mean this doctor network for the arms and ammunition but not the blast. Blast. It will be difficult. I mean there may be a disclosure. They may say that we also knew about the blast.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

We knew about this.

SMITA PRAKASH:

And there’s electronic evidence or some evidence, some eyewitness.

ASHOK CHAND:

I mean that we say that. Look, I’ve seen this guy here in the. At the spot. And yeah, I was also there at the spot. And then the. He left this IED and went.

SMITA PRAKASH:

Or if they have some plans, paper plans or that they were planning.

ASHOK CHAND:

Plans are also not. I mean they are all what you call corroborative evidence. I mean like I. It corroborates the fact that he has stole something. But.

SMITA PRAKASH:

Was paper.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

But was paper.

SMITA PRAKASH:

But they all got acquitted.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

They all got acquitted.

ASHOK CHAND:

Whether he was there or not.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

How do you prove?

ASHOK CHAND:

I make. I can make something on paper. It’s on paper. But I executed it or not.

SMITA PRAKASH:

If this lady, this Lucknow lady doctor if she has a plan that Babri Masjid K Anniversary.

ASHOK CHAND:

Tell you one more thing. See, under the UAPA Unlawful Activities Prevention Act a statement made in. In front of a Shaheen Saeed statement made in front of statement recorded by a Deputy Commissioner of police or a superintendent of police is evidence in court. But the question is whether the courts accept that evidence or not.

Otherwise we have in the like. In the. What do you call PMLA Money Laundering Act. There is in UAPA also. But it depends on the court whether he accepts that what he has told the police officer is he or she.

SMITA PRAKASH:

Human rights organizations will come up with rights of these.

SUSHANT SAREEN:

There are two issues. You know, Mr. Chand talks about CCTV cameras. Let’s take the case of which to my mind is a very clear case of terrorism. The Udaipur beheading case. Right. The guys were on CCTV. Their mugshots are captured. They have been what? They’ve at least been given bail or something?

SMITA PRAKASH:

Yeah, they’re out on bail. Yeah.

Judicial Challenges in Terror Cases

SUSHANT SAREEN: You know, that’s a miscarriage. That’s a very clear miscarriage of justice. And somebody should be asking the judges or the local cops. Either the cops did not, because, you know, we are looking at only the headlines that they’ve been given bail. Maybe the local cops didn’t make the case properly. I don’t know. It is entirely possible.

So there is a case to be made for the local cops when they are making the case. I don’t know, sir, whether you do have the prosecutors.

ASHOK CHAND: Yes, yes, that process is there. So that is what goes through judicial scrutiny, legal scrutiny.

SUSHANT SAREEN: No, but that is when you are filing the case.

ASHOK CHAND: But when you’re building the investigation, you have prosecutors helping you in major cases. Not in all cases. Yeah, but this is a major case.

SUSHANT SAREEN: This will be one. I think the second problem is that, you know, it’s very easy and sometimes it’s probably correct to blame the judges. But look, if you are a judge, you have to rule. Sometimes it’s bias of the judges which enters the thing. Sometimes it is influencing the judiciary either through bribes or through threats. We know that that has also happened.

SMITA PRAKASH: And media trials.

SUSHANT SAREEN: And media trials. Okay, that has also happened. But let us assume that none of those factors are operating. A judge is sitting without any influence on him and he is looking at a case. Right. He has to rule on the basis of the law.

Now, if, as Mr. Chand is saying, if, you know, the law does not provide for certain things, how can the judge say, just because Mr. Chand is saying that Smita Prakash was there, you know, she is responsible for a bomb blast, does not make you responsible for a bomb blast.

ASHOK CHAND: Right.

SUSHANT SAREEN: What is the other evidence which nails her involvement in this bomb blast? That is where the problem starts coming in now. But again, maybe I’m being presumptuous. He has more experience. He’s been there, done that.

Maybe there needs to be, and beyond simply making a statement before a police officer or a magistrate, maybe a magistrate still. All right, but you can turn hostile despite having made a statement to the magistrate. Absolutely right.

SMITA PRAKASH: That’s not perjury then.

ASHOK CHAND: But I mean, no, you say.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Have you known of anybody who’s been booked for perjury in this country?

ASHOK CHAND: See, basically what they do is, basically, I’ll just interrupt. I mean, they say it is coercion.

SMITA PRAKASH: Ah, okay.

ASHOK CHAND: I mean, although there are what you call rules, are there, that they should be kept separately and all that, but they say it’s coercion. And so what you need is apart from a statement in front of a police officer and subsequently it is accepted by the judge at that point of time is corroborative evidence, other evidence. Judge asks, I mean obviously the legal.

The Need for Corroborative Evidence

SUSHANT SAREEN: So maybe there is a case to be made and this is where certain imaginativeness needs to come in in the law of what constitutes corroborative evidence. Right. It cannot be just a statement.

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay.

SUSHANT SAREEN: I don’t know how practical and feasible it is, but maybe there could be certain other things which you can come up with on what might constitute corroborative evidence in a particular case like this. So in this particular case, the fact that these guys and in many cases are conspiracy may be a problem.

ASHOK CHAND: It’s very difficult.

SUSHANT SAREEN: The same problem.

ASHOK CHAND: I mean like trial court upheld our parliament attack case. I mean he convicted all of them. But in the High Court, see we, regarding Gilani, I will just say we could link him with the mobile calls at that point of time that the time when the incident took place. Afzal was in contact with Gilani, but Gilani was not at the spot.

So, but High Court says, I mean High Court was clear that look, just having this, what do you call, but this evidence on record, mobile evidence is not enough.

SUSHANT SAREEN: But sir, tell me something. At that point of time maybe today that kind of evidence might still be upheld in the court. But back then when the parliament attack happened, it wasn’t going. There was no provision in law to accept that.

So while you had nailed the guy and which is my beef with most of these third rate bloody human rightists, you know, these so-called activists, most of them are terrorists, you know, the overground phase of the underground. These people, they started giving these glowing certificates to this bastard Gilani, right? He’s an innocent fellow, has been nailed by the police, etc. etc.

He got away on a technicality. He was hand in glove in that entire plot. And in many cases people who get released after 10, 12, 14 years in jail, they are not picked up simply because, you know, not because of.

SMITA PRAKASH: That sorry part of the plot.

ASHOK CHAND: But then evidence before we didn’t know who was Gilani or who was Muhammad, who was Shaukat. I mean and they all come out.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Pretending that they are, you know, very innocent lambs in the wood who have been done. That is going to happen in this case.

ASHOK CHAND: It was already started back when we went on appeal to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court, although didn’t overturn the High Court judgment, but remarked that the needle of suspicion also points towards, I mean that was an indication. But you are not above.

SUSHANT SAREEN: But you got away on a technicality. Right. So maybe in the law, people need to rethink the law a little bit and see what other things can constitute to be corroborative evidence which will be upheld by the courts.

India’s Response to Terror Attacks

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay, final question. Sushant, I’ll begin with you. Now, this has been now established that it’s an act of terror and needle of suspicion, Pakistan, right. Do you see Operation Sindoor in some way happening? Do you think that India is going to have an asymmetrical reaction to Pakistan or do you see attack again? What do you think happening?

SUSHANT SAREEN: Difficult, very difficult to say, let’s wait and see. I think part of the problem is that there are expectations that every attack, see again, people did not understand what the Prime Minister was saying. I think when he says that every attack will be seen as an act of war, it was in a sense a political statement, but it was a statement of policy. But that policy was not very well defined.

Now, an act of terrorism, say, by a Maoist is not a, you know, you’re not going to go and attack the Pakistanis for it.

ASHOK CHAND: Right.

SUSHANT SAREEN: If supposing something happens in Manipur because there is some Myanmar militant group involved, if there is a Bangladeshi terrorist who comes in, you are not going to go after Pakistan. So partly it’s become a political football, this statement, but I think purely in terms of intent of the state of India to take the war into, you know, Pakistan, I think that is an unexceptional policy. I completely agree with it.

The question is, when do you operationalize it? Because, look, you are then talking about, you know, it’s not the same thing as Israel going against some of the other countries around it. You know, we keep talking about Israel, but look at the overwhelming superiority that Israel has. The countries around, there are no comparisons. Right. So we have to be very, very careful about the environment. And we are.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Which means that there will be certain things on which you will take the war out there and there’ll be other things in which you will probably retaliate in a different way. So I would imagine it will be a combination of measures if indeed the Pakistani hand is very clearly established.

I think the one good thing which the government did this time, they did not, again, this is a tricky thing, you know, that they did not jump to the conclusion and immediately point a finger. Right. The problem with that is that if you don’t have some kind of automatic tripwire, then you are back into that. Not 10 days, 15 days, then the pressure will.

SMITA PRAKASH: You don’t need to blast. Ogya simultaneously.

SUSHANT SAREEN: But that is their problem. That is not my problem. Right?

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah.

SMITA PRAKASH: But they immediately blamed India for it.

Pakistan’s Use of Third Countries

SUSHANT SAREEN: They can go to hell. They can’t do all about it. But the fact of the matter is that, so there is this dilemma. Do you have a tripwire or do you have a deliberated kind of a retaliation? And when you have a deliberated retaliation, then you know, maybe 15 days later, when the hand is finally established, if at all it is, things have moved on. Okay? So there is that problem.

The second issue is going to be that what about the involvement? Because again, these are reports still to be confirmed. You know, other countries, the Pakistanis have been known that they will certainly sponsor terrorism into India, but try and hide behind certain veneers.

So now Turkey is one of their favorite destinations from where they plot. The Turks can deny till they go blue in the face. It has absolutely holds no water. Their denials. They are third rate people who have been involved with Pakistani terror groups. They have been involved in indoctrination. They have been involved in disinformation and misinformation campaigns.

There’s an entire industry based in Turkey and there are a whole lot of Kashmiris who are seduced to go to Turkey where they are indoctrinated. Okay? And it’s not happening recently. It’s been happening for over a decade now.

SMITA PRAKASH: Also this thing of doctors from Kashmir who have gone to study medicine in Dhaka.

SUSHANT SAREEN: See again, why are they going to Dhaka? Because they’re not getting admission in India. Why do they go to Ukraine here? Why would anybody go to Ukraine?

SMITA PRAKASH: I would still say Ukraine.

ASHOK CHAND: Moldova.

SMITA PRAKASH: But shouldn’t they be under some kind of watch? Because you know, Pakistanis are now landing up in Dhaka.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Listen, give me a break. Dhaka for 15 years was a safe area.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yes.

SUSHANT SAREEN: One second, one second, one second. But do you know something even more ridiculous? We have allowed Kashmiri students to go and study in Pakistan. Can you believe this? This is government of India. The suicidal nature in government of India sometime because it wants to do virtue signaling is astounding.

It was only, I think maybe around last three, four years back where they cracked down on it and they said, we will neither, we will not recognize any degree coming from Pakistan. Not even if you take an exam, number one. Number two, they stopped, you know, giving, allowing these people to go out there.

But until then, there are still students from Kashmir who are studying in Pakistani universities. Can you believe this? So forget Bangladesh, Pakistan, which is an avowed enemy, declared enemy state, which leaves no stone unturned to hurt us, damage us, kill our people. We allow our citizens to go to Pakistan to study. Can anything be more brainless?

Terrorists’ View of Pakistan

SMITA PRAKASH: You’ve interrogated so many of these terrorists. Do they see Pakistan as Dushman Mulk or not?

ASHOK CHAND: Who?

SMITA PRAKASH: These terrorists, do they ever.

ASHOK CHAND: Definitely not.

SMITA PRAKASH: Definitely not.

ASHOK CHAND: Definitely not. Because all the funding comes from there.

SMITA PRAKASH: Funding.

ASHOK CHAND: No, no. They know.

SMITA PRAKASH: They don’t see.

ASHOK CHAND: They see it as the ally. Definitely not. They never see. But I would just add on to it since the change of regime in Bangladesh, so Bangladesh will now become the hotbed of, what do you call, I mean, what do you call indoctrinating Indians in the earlier, what you would.

SMITA PRAKASH: Have seen Huji and the others who used to come in from there. Sim cards have come in and things. So now you’re going to, you’re saying that that network is going to again get.

Bangladesh as a New Terror Hub

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, it’s going to get activated. But Bangladesh, I mean, the border is very porous. Very, very porous.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah. We can’t.

ASHOK CHAND: Yeah, it’s very difficult to police that border. And there is a lot of infiltration also. So that has to be taken care of. And apart from that, we have a.

SUSHANT SAREEN: Lot of Bangladesh also. There are problems in that area.

ASHOK CHAND: And apart from that, we have Bangladeshis all over the country living here.

SMITA PRAKASH: Yeah.

ASHOK CHAND: So that aspect has to be now taken care of by the agencies, central agencies.

Closing Remarks

SMITA PRAKASH: Okay. Big challenges towards the country. Thank you so much, sir, for sparing the time. Thank you, Sushant, always, for coming and explaining things to us. Thank you.

Thank you for watching or listening to this edition of the podcast with Smita Prakash. Do like or subscribe on whichever channel you have seen this or heard this. Namaste, Jai Hind.

Related Posts

• Transcript: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Intelligence: Sam Harris
• Transcript: Producer Dan Farah on Joe Rogan Podcast #2416
• Transcript: 9/11 Widow Kristen Breitweiser on Tucker Carlson Show
• Transcript: Ryan Montgomery on Roblox, Minecraft, Discord & the Darkest Online Cult – Shawn Ryan Show (SRS #255)
• Transcript: Ryan Montgomery – #1 Ethical Hacker on Shawn Ryan Show (SRS #56)