Earlier this week, the Gurugram police registered an FIR against a former Rajya Sabha member, and two others, under section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which refers to crimes causing "provocation with the intent to cause a riot."
Mohammad Adeeb, the said former MP, says this can “potentially tarnish the image” he has built for himself.
Adeeb, 76, was elected as an Independent to the Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh in 2008 with the support of the Samajwadi Party and the Congress.
Since his term ended in 2014, Adeeb has been residing in Gurugram with his family. He has recently been at the forefront of the Muslim community’s agitation against Hindutva vigilante groups' who have been disrupting Friday prayers in the city for three months now.
In December, Adeeb moved the Supreme Court against Haryana officials for “failing to take effective measures to prevent the continuously rising hateful campaign against Friday prayers in Gurugram”.
Notably, the FIR, registered in Gurugram’s Sector 40 police station, is based on a complaint by Dinesh Bharti – the head of the Bharat Mata Vahini, a body which has been leading the protests against Friday prayers.
Bharti has been arrested thrice himself in the last three months, and a video of him intimidating a man leading a prayer had gone viral in December, in which he was seen yelling “namaz nahi hogi yahan (there will be no prayer here)”.
Bharti’s complaint, in turn, is based on a news report published in Hindi newspaper Amar Ujala on 2 January 2021. In his complaint, Bharti has named Mufti Mohammad Saleem Qasmi, the president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind Gurgaon, a local maulana Abdul Haseeb Qasmi, and Adeeb, and has alleged that the three wanted to build a mosque in a ground in Sector 40, near Gurugram’s Jharsa village.
“There was a death of an old man from the Hindu community recently and a memorial was built for him there. These people are alleging that it is their graveyard, and they will build a mosque there. We will never let that happen,” Bharti told The Quint. “Adeeb filed the SC petition, but I will give him the reply to it here. I went to jail 3 times, now it’s their turn,” he said.
However, the news report that has become the basis of Bharti’s allegations, and subsequently the FIR, doesn’t name Adeeb at all.
The report, titled ‘Jharsa Kabristan Mein Masjid Nirman Shuru Karne Ka Ailaan (Announcement to build a mosque in Jharsa graveyard)’, was published on 2 January 2022, hours after which Bharti went and filed his complaint. It was turned into an FIR on 4 January.
"I don’t understand how they can register an FIR against me based on a newspaper report that doesn’t even name me. I have never even been to the Jharsa ground they are referring to. It’s so far away from my home, why would I go and pray there? This is clearly vendetta. They are trying to silence me."Mohammad Adeeb, former Rajya Sabha MP
AN SC PETITION ON POLICE'S FAILURE TO PREVENT HATE
Adeeb’s claim of vendetta, stems from the fact that just weeks back, he had moved the Supreme Court seeking contempt action against Haryana officials, including the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police (DGP).
In his petition, Adeeb had said that the SC, in the past, has passed orders about measures that must be taken to curb violent tendencies, and hate crimes, and that the Haryana officials failed to adhere to them.
He had further noted in his petition that: “While various complaints were given by different persons intimating how a certain group of unruly elements are creating such a hateful environment every Friday, no action was taken by the police. Even when the police remained present, little to no efforts were made by effectively controlling such elements by making arrests and prosecuting such persons as per the directions given by the Hon’ble court”.
The petition will be heard by the top court coming Monday. However, speaking to The Quint, Aman Yadav, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) of Gurugram Police denied the FIR having anything to do with Adeeb’s petition.
“Yes, his name was not in the newspaper report. But it was mentioned in the complaint by the complainant, and we filed the FIR based on tha"t.Aman Yadav, ACP (Gurugram Police)
“Now the investigation will begin. We will see what statements were made, and if any statement of any problematic sort was even made or not. Let’s see,” he added.
While Bharti says that he has filed "at least 12 police complaints" against the Muslim representatives involved in the Namaz row, this is the first one to be turned into an FIR.
Besides the section on provocation to rioting, the three individuals have also been charged under section 34 of the IPC. The section refers to “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”, that is, “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
THE GROUND AT THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY
While the Amar Ujala report doesn’t mention Adeeb, it does quote the local Maulana Qasmi as saying: “On Monday, we will start the construction of a building in the graveyard…where hundreds of Muslims will pray.”
However, Qasmi told The Quint he didn’t talk about building a mosque, but only using the graveyard as a prayer ground. “A mosque can’t be built in a graveyard, we all know that. I and 10-12 others had been using the graveyard to pray Jumah prayers for 2 weeks. But when the police came and stopped us, we agreed,” Qasmi said.
On 24 December, Gurugram police officials came to the spot, after a protest erupted there, and told the worshipers to halt the prayers until it is verified if the land is a graveyard or not.
Since then, no prayer has been held there, Qasmi said.
But Bharti, following the FIR, went to the ground and lodged saffron colored flags there. “Why should we not? We refuse to believe it’s a graveyard. It’s our land. So we can place any flag there we want,” Bharti said.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)