Since Sunday, Sambhal in western Uttar Pradesh has been on the edge. That morning, protestors clashed with the police accompanying officials conducting a survey of the town’s Shahi Jama Masjid. It had been ordered by the court to verify claims made in a petition that the mosque had been built five centuries ago on the site of a demolished temple.
At least four Muslim men – Naeem Ghazi, Mohammad Ayan, Bilal and Kaif – died of gunshot wounds during the violence on November 24. But there are two starkly differing versions on who was responsible for the deaths, reflecting the sharp divide between the administration and Sambhal’s Muslims.
Anger at the police
Families of the dead men and local community members alleged that the police had opened fire at people gathered to protest against the survey.
Lawyer Zafar Ali, the chairman of the mosque management committee, said that the protestors became anxious when a water tank inside the mosque was emptied out as the sub-divisional magistrate insisted that it should also be inspected. “As water flowed out on the road leading to the mosque, the protestors thought that the mosque was being excavated,” Ali told Scroll.
Moradabad Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh told journalists that the police only used tear gas and plastic bullets to disperse protestors, which was throwing stones at them and burning vehicles. The crows also fired at the police, he said, injuring a police officer in the foot.
On Wednesday, Singh told The Hindustan Times that autopsy reports suggested that the wounds on the bodies of the dead men did not seem to have been caused by ammunition used by the Uttar Pradesh Police. No bullets were found in their bodies, he said.
However, mosque chairman Zafar Ali told the media that he was present when senior police officials and the district magistrate held a discussion about opening fire at the crowd. Soon after his comments, Ali was taken into police custody for a few hours.
He refused to speak about the matter when Scroll asked him about it on Tuesday. But he dismissed the official version of the firing. “The police are claiming that shots were fired by the mob,” he said. “But why would the protestors kill each other?”
This argument was echoed by Muslims in Sambhal after the violence. They said that the seeming lack of logic in the police claims and the hasty manner in which the survey had been ordered and conducted was proof that the community was being targeted.
What sparked the violence?
The unrest has its roots in an order by a civil judge of the Sambhal district and sessions court on November 19 allowing an application asking for Hindus to be given access to the mosque. The petitioners claimed that the mosque had been built in 1526 by Mughal ruler Babar on the site of the “centuries old Shri Hari Har Temple dedicated to Lord Kalki”.
The plea is similar to those filed in relation to the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura. In those cases too, Hindu petitioners claimed that mosques had been built after temples were demolished centuries ago. Among the eight petitioners in Sambhal is advocate Hari Shankar Jain, who is also a petitioner and lawyer in the Varanasi dispute.
Matter moved with lightning speed after this. Within hours of the plea being filed on November 19, the court ordered a survey of the mosque. It said the report was to be submitted by November 29. The first round of survey was conducted hours after the court order. Ali told Scroll that the court order was issued in a hurried manner, without allowing Muslims the right to appeal.
The survey on November 19 passed without incident. Nothing untoward happened even on November 22, when Muslims gathered for Friday prayers in unusually large numbers amid tight security.
But on November 24, when a second round of the survey started soon after the morning prayers at the mosque, the area was tense. Local residents told Scroll that they did not know that the survey was being conducted even though a notice issued by an advocate commissioner appointed to carry out the process shows that Ali had been told about it.
Ishtiyaque Hussain, who lives in the lane where the mosque is situated, said that the police and district administration were insensitive during the second round of the survey. “When we came out after namaz around 7 am, there was a huge police deployment around the mosque, much larger than that on November 19,” Hussain said. “We were forced to stay indoors and not even allowed to open our windows.”
Hussain said that the lack of awareness about the second round of the survey, compounded by the high-handedness of the police, prompted a crowd to gather at the mouth of the road leading to the mosque. “All sorts of rumours spread when something like this happens,” he said.
Hussain’s neighbour Aamer Jamal said that during the survey on November 19, each side – the petitioners and the mosque committee – had four men and a cameraman present. But on November 24, around 20 persons representing the Hindu petitioners entered the mosque, Jamal claimed. From the Muslim side, only Ali was allowed.
Both Jamal and Hussain said that they had heard several shots being fired.
Jamal said that the police’s claim that they did not shoot at the mob was absurd. “How can four people die in firing from the mob’s side?” he asked. “One person can be shot by mistake, not four.”
A video purportedly shot on the day shows a policeman firing a gun. Scroll has not been able to independently verify the authenticity of the clip.
Scroll attempted to ask the circle police officer and police superintendent in Sambhal about this but they refused to meet this reporter even though they were in the police station.
A court order leaves Muslims distraught
On Tuesday, three days after the violence, Sambhal’s Muslim community was grieving for the deceased and worrying about those who had been detained by the police since Sunday for allegedly being involved in mob violence.
Laika Fathma, the mother-in-law of 35-year-old Naeem Ghazi, one of those killed, sobbed as she spoke to Scroll. “What will happen to my daughter now?” Fathma questioned. “She has four children, all of them are so young, how would she take care of them?”
She said she was also worried about her husband, about whom she has had no news since Monday night. On Monday evening, the police came to their home and asked him to appear at the police station, Fathma claimed. “He left soon after and I do not know where he is,” she said. “He cannot even walk properly due to a disability, how can he be involved in violence?”
Shan-e-Alam, who runs a tea shop next to Ghazi’s sweet shop in Sambhal’s Narottam Sarai locality, told Scroll he was struggling to come to terms with the fact that his friend was dead. “I spoke to him that morning before he went out to buy ghee for his shop,” Alam said. “I cannot believe he was involved in rioting. His death is on the police.”
Scepticism of the police account was also evident in the home of 18-year-old Mohammed Ayan, who died from a bullet injury in his chest. His elder brother Mohammed Kamil, told Scroll that Ayan had left home around 10 am on November 24 to go to a dhaba where he worked as a helper. “Around 11 am, someone called me to say that Ayan had been shot and was lying on the road,” Kamil said. “He was still alive when I picked him up but I had to admit him to a hospital in Moradabad because hospitals here denied taking him in saying a police case was involved.”
Ayan died of his wounds on Sunday night. Before his death, Ayan told Kamil that he went towards the mosque on seeing a crowd had gathered there. “As the police chased the crowd, he tripped and fell down,” Kamil said. “When he got up, he saw there was a team of policemen in front of him and he felt a bullet hitting him. Tell me now who else but the police could have shot him? And if it was someone else, why is the police not showing us the post mortem report?”
Shaheen Jamal, an advocate who practices in Sambhal, also raised questions about the manner in which the police had proceeded. “The police are saying shots were fired from country-made pistols, but then show us the ballistics report to prove that,” she said.
Jamal is part of a pro bono lawyers’ team that is defending the 27 persons accused in seven cases filed in connection with the violence. These cases involve charges of unlawful assembly, rioting, attempt to murder, causing hurt to public servants, damage to public property, use of explosive substance, robbery and disobeying orders.
For Jamal, the legal battle is also a personal one. Her sister, Farhana is among those who have been detained on suspicion of aiding the violence. Jamal showed Scroll videos on her phone to bolster her claim that the police vandalised her sister’s home, accusing her of allowing rioters to throw stones at them from the roof of the building. Jamal’s brother-in-law has made the same allegations on television channels.
Scarred by developments over the last week, Muslims in Sambhal do not believe they will be treated justly by the administration. “What hope is there when Jai Shri Ram is being chanted during the survey while the police are present?” asked Ishtiyaque Hussain, who lives near the mosque.
Hussain was referring to a video of the Hindutva slogan purportedly being chanted as officials walked to the mosque to conduct the second round of the survey. Scroll has not been able to establish the authenticity of the video.
Hussain summed up the pessimism of Sambhal’s Muslims: “Ayodhya happened, Kashi and Mathura happened, now it is Sambhal’s turn. Either we live with all this or get bullets.”
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!