"Agenda Was Not CAA-NRC But To Embarrass Govt In International Media": Prosecution Opposes Umar Khalid's Bail In Delhi Riots Case
Opposing Umar Khalid's bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the prosecution on Friday told a Delhi Court that the issue regarding the 2020 protests was not CAA or NRC but to embarrass the Government and to take such steps that it gets highlighted in the International media. "Issue was not CAA-NRC. The issue was you had to somehow embarass the Government. In the process of...
Opposing Umar Khalid's bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the prosecution on Friday told a Delhi Court that the issue regarding the 2020 protests was not CAA or NRC but to embarrass the Government and to take such steps that it gets highlighted in the International media.
"Issue was not CAA-NRC. The issue was you had to somehow embarass the Government. In the process of embarrassing the Government, you take steps which will reflect in the international media," Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad submitted.
In this regard he referred to a portion of Khalid's speech given in Amravati on February 20, 2020, where he referred to US President Donald Trump. Prasad emphasized the whole point of this was to some how draw the attention of the international media to the ongoing events.
"He says in his entire speech that the Prime Minister had gone to US and hum Donald Trump ko bataenge. Did he take an appointment with Donald Trump? What is the mechanism? You are definitely wanting something else. You want to create an environment which is reflected in International media and that is how you are going to tell Donald Trump. There is no other mechanism," Prasad submitted.
He further asserted that the protest sites were not organic in nature. He argued that while a public perception was created to show that the protests were organic involving women, chats revealed that the the same were far from organic and were in fact meticulously planned and tested.
"Article 370 has nothing to do with a particular religion. It is divorced from any religion. You are trying to make an issue out of no issue. You somehow want to color it."
Prasad also argued that Umar Khalid's concern over the issue of mob lynching, given in the speech, was selective as it was focused only at a particular community.
"...Our friend in speech is very concerned about mob lynching. What he refers to is all mob lynching of Muslims alone. He does not refers to Hindus. Mob lynching for him is selective and his concern is equally selective. It's only for one community," Prasad argued.
Prasad submitted that a facade of secular protest was created whereas the protest was planned, tested and after putting pressure. He added
"Reference to 9/11 episode is very relevant. There, the key conspirator never visited US. The person who was behind 9/11 never visited conspiracy meeting. It happened in Malaysia. He never visited US or Malaysia. At least today we have the documents where there is foundation to show that there is violence likely to happened."
During the course of hearing today, Prasad attempted to show close proximity between Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, to stress on the prosecution's claim that Umar Khalid was Imam's mentor.
"Peculiarity is, while Umar Khalid goes there, Imam is also going there. Public facade is that Imam is out of Shaheen Bagh and not part of Shaheen Bagh anymore. However, the chats recovered show that he goes to Khureji and gives all support which is required. Therefore the connect is there," Prasad submitted.
Furthermore, Prasad said that while Umar Khalida's public perception was to protect the Constitution and waving the Indian flag, his agenda was different. Referring to a secret meeting between Sharjeel Imam and Harsh Mander in Shaheen Bagh, Prasad argued:
"What is used there? Where the Constitution is missing, you keep the RSS book. In public display you want to say Constitution but (In secret meeting, you will not keep the constitution but keep RSS Book). Agenda is different. Public perception is different."
The matter will continued to be heard tomorrow.
Earlier this week, Prasad had submitted that the 2020 sit-in protests were carefully planned, picking strategic protest sites closer to 25 mosques. He argued that these sites were places with religious significance but were purposely given Secular names to give legitimate appearance to the allegedly communal protests.
The FIR against Khalid contains stringent charges including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984. He is also charged of various offences mentioned under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In September 2020, main chargesheet was filed against Pinjara Tod members and JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha and student activist Gulfisha Fatima.
Others who were charge-sheeted included former Congress Councilor Ishrat Jahan, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, suspended AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain, activist Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Salim Malik, Mohd Salim Khan and Athar Khan.
Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet was filed in November against former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to the alleged larger conspiracy in the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February.