Kozhikode: They were branded as “terrorists” by both the media and the state. Their ordinary lives were shattered, and families harassed. They spent more than 40 months in jail after being convicted in a terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The Panayikulam SIMI case, as their case was widely known as, became a phrase, synonymous with terror. After the Kerala high court announced their acquittal on April 12, Abdul Rasik, Nizamudeen and Shammas are now preparing to return to normal life. According to the HC verdict, the NIA court’s 2015 decision to convict them was a “serious error”.
Talking to a packed hall at the K.P. Kesava Menon Hall in Kozhikode on Friday, they said their happiness will only be complete when the thousands of other innocent people kept in jail are freed. Their co-accused – Shaduly and Ansar – are still in jail in connection with other cases – which rights groups allege, are fabricated.
Abdul Rasik, Nizamudeen and Shammas, along with Shaduly and Ansar, were acquitted by the Kerala HC last week. In November 2015, they were convicted and sentenced by an NIA special court for organising what was called a ‘secret meeting of the SIMI’ (Students Islamic Movement of India), a banned organisation, at Panayikulam near Kochi, in 2006.
They were arrested with a handful of others on Independence Day in 2006, when they were holding an event at an auditorium. They were eventually charged with sedition (124A of IPC), criminal conspiracy (IPC 120B) and different sections of the UAPA, and were sentenced to 12-14 years.
Also Read: Why Wrongful Prosecution Should Become an Electoral Issue
According to the HC verdict last week, the event in question was a conference, convened at an auditorium, to have a discussion on the topic ‘Role of Muslims in Indian Freedom Struggle’. The conference was reportedly open for the public.
The NIA took over the case in 2010 from Kerala’s Binanipuram police station. It was the first NIA case in Kerala.
Our happiness is incomplete
Rasik, the second accused in the case, recalling the 2015 special court judgment that convicted him and sentenced him to 14 years, said that the verdict left him both shocked and pained. “During the trial, we had a feeling that the NIA court understood our innocence.”
Rasik, 39, said he could, however, see a positive change in the attitude of the public towards the injustice to Muslims. “Kerala public now understands that Muslim youth in the country are unjustly targeted and jailed,” he said, recalling the different experiences he had with jail authorities. “Are you sentenced with such a tough punishment for holding a meeting?” he remembered a conversation with an officer.
The audience at the K.P. Kesava Menon Hall in Kozhikode. Credit: Special arrangement
Rasik, a postgraduate in Malayalam literature, said he always wished for his country’s development and welfare and what he had to undergo was painful.
On the role of ‘approvers’ in NIA cases, Rasik said it has become a “common element” in cases that the NIA investigates. He said the NIA met several of the accused in the Panayikulam case to make an approver out of them, and succeeded with Rasheed, while the others refused.
Rasik, also a journalist by training, criticised the media coverage of the case. “You should remember the headlines and contents of the Malayalam newspapers on August 17, 2006 (the first time the case was reported).” “They said we planned a bomb blast, we have foreign funding, we had India’s map without Kashmir, and we targeted Aluva railway station”.
He specifically named Kerala Kaumudi and Mangalam newspapers for false reportage, adding that he has kept the copies of all the fake reports.
Also Read: ‘Our Only Mistake Was Being Born Muslim’: A 25-Year Fight Against Terror Charges
“Kerala Kaumudi reported that my wife, an IT professional, was in touch a terror accused. It was a false story that attacked my family and dignity. My wife and I went to the newspaper’s office and raised the issue. They replied that it was a news agency story, and offered to publish a correction. They did not care to contact me or my wife to verify the facts before publishing such a harmful story.”
Rasik said the most socially committed jail inmates he saw are the accused in the NIA cases. “We were very active in all the correctional activities inside the jail. I was sentenced for my speech. But, ironically, I spoke at various events in jail.”
He called for “comprehensive change” in the ways that the country’s investigation agencies operate. “Government investigation agencies should act with humanity and justice”. He demanded that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which is invoked selectively and discriminately, should be scrapped. He also demanded the revision of the sedition law in the country.
Rasik said his happiness upon his release is “incomplete”.
“We are happy that we are freed. But, our happiness is incomplete. It will be complete only when thousands of other innocent citizens, languishing in various jails, are set free too,” he said. In most terror cases, he said, the accused belong to less-privileged groups. “And most cases are fabricated”.
Nizamuddin, 37, another person acquitted, in his short speech, thanked everyone who “supported us and prayed for us throughout the case”.
Shammas, 33, compared prison life to “life in a grave”. “I faced terrible loneliness,” he recalled. Shammas alleged that jail authorities behaved “brutally” towards those who are involved in NIA or UAPA cases. “I have seen inmates who were not given adequate medical service”. He demanded that such discrimination end. “Thank you all who acted, wished, and prayed for our release,” he added.
‘Serious error’
The high court in its April 12 verdict noted that the special court “has committed serious error” in convicting the accused in the case. The judgment, quoting extensively from relevant verdicts in the past, also offered some progressive views on ‘sedition’. In the 32nd paragraph of the judgment, the HC noted:
“On a bare reading of S.124, it is rather clear that merely making a statement against Government of India or its military will not become sedition … the basic ingredient for an offence u/s 124A is to bring or attempt to bring hatred or contempt or excites or attempt to excite disaffection towards the nation”
The HC also stated that “there is absolutely no evidence” to prove the charges of conspiracy, for which the accused were convicted by the NIA special court.
Also Read: Samjhauta Express Case: Special Court Pulls Up NIA for Botching Prosecution
This is not the first time that the NIA has been exposed for its apparent non-professionalism and mishandling of cases. The accusations levelled against the NIA range from asking a public prosecutor to go “soft” against Hindutva terrorists to targeting a young Kashmiri journalist for being critical of the government.
Historic verdict
Advocate V.S. Saleem, who represented the accused, called the verdict “historic”. Speaking about the NIA court verdict in 2015, Saleem said he was “shocked” by the 12-14 years jail terms pronounced by the court. “What appeared even stranger was the court’s announcement that the sentences shall run consecutively, instead of concurrently. What was the real crime committed? A meeting,” he added.
A. Vasu, a veteran rights activist, speaks at the event. Credit: Special arrangement
He also criticised the denial of paroles to the accused after the conviction. “No parole was allowed (to the five men convicted). This should be compared to the easy paroles granted to the prisoners sentenced for brutal political killings”.
Advocate K.P. Muhammed Shareef, who also represented the accused, expressed alarm that the situation for Muslims and other marginalised communities will not change as long as laws like UAPA exist. Speaking about his experience of visiting the Bhopal jail and observing the conditions of Muslim inmates there – which he described “pathetic” and “terrible” – Shareef pointed out the need to secure justice for other innocent prisoners.
Also Read: Art of the State: Using Presumed Guilt to Prolong Jail Terms
A. Vasu, a veteran rights activist in the state, inaugurated the gathering, organised by the Minority Rights Watch, a rights group in the state. Vasu said Panayikulam case is a “small example” of the situations Indian Muslims are facing today.
“How can a meeting, organised on “Role of Muslims in Indian Freedom Struggle”, be an offence?,” he asked. “I grew up reading and hearing about the brave stories of Muslims, in and outside Kerala, in the freedom struggle, including the resistance in the Malabar region.”
Muhammed Sabith is an independent journalist and academic.