Sambhal Violence Was 'Pre-Planned Conspiracy' Involving SP MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq: Judicial Commission

A Judicial Commission tasked to probe the 2024 violence in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal during the court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid was a “pre-planned” incident and primarily the result of "abetment by conspiracy", involving Samajwadi Party MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, Suhel Iqbal, son of local MLA Iqbal Mahmood, and members of the Jama Masjid Intezamia Committee.

The Commission, headed by former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Devendra Kumar Arora, reached the conclusion after visiting Sambhal, inspecting the disputed site, examining 199 witnesses, including persons in judicial custody, and examining documents obtained from the police and district administration.

The report was tabled in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly on August 5.

According to the Commission, those allegedly involved were unhappy with the institution of a civil suit concerning the Jama Masjid and the order passed on November 19, 2024 directing a survey of the disputed site. The Commission said an attempt had also been made to disturb the survey proceedings on November 19.

Barq's speeches allegedly made atmosphere 'highly volatile'

The Commission said those allegedly involved were unhappy with the civil suit concerning the Jama Masjid and the November 19, 2024 order directing a survey of the disputed site.

It noted that an attempt was made to disturb the survey on November 19, after which Barq addressed people outside the Jama Masjid. The Commission specifically relied on his statements to conclude that he created a hostile atmosphere and allegedly gave the impression that the mosque was in imminent danger.

In one of the statements reproduced in the report, Barq said: "ये देश संविधान से चलेगा कानून से चलेगा, किसीकी मनमर्जी से देश नहीं चलने वाला।" He also said: "मैं खुल रूप से कह रहा हूँ कि, मस्जिद थी, मस्जिद है, इंशा-अल्ला मस्जिद रहेगी कयामत तक।"

The Commission said Barq's statements, including his call for people to unite and gather to protect the disputed religious site, contributed to making the atmosphere "highly volatile".

Commission links alleged conspiracy to 'political dominance'

A significant finding in the report is that the alleged conspiracy was driven by political ambitions. The Commission said Barq and Suhel Iqbal wanted to maintain their “political dominance, power and the grip over the Muslim Community” and sought to defame the government and the district administration and police.

It also referred to political rivalry involving Barq and his late grandfather Shafiq-ur-Rehman Barq and local MLA Iqbal Mahmood, saying that political ambition and competition to emerge as a leader of the Muslim community contributed to the active role allegedly played by Barq and Suhel Iqbal.

Court order allegedly misrepresented to Muslim community

The Commission alleged that Barq, Suhel Iqbal, Zafar Ali and Mashhood Ali Farooqui concealed the true nature of the court's order and the relief sought in the civil suit.

According to the report, the Muslim community was allegedly misled into believing that Hindus were claiming the Jama Masjid and seeking demolition of the existing structure.

The Commission also referred to the alleged conduct of Suhel Iqbal, who it said remained at Farooqui's house near the mosque for several hours on November 24 and repeatedly went towards the crowd. It relied on police testimony that Iqbal had said: "मैं अपने लोगों को अपने तरीके से बुलाऊंगा। हम इस सर्वे को नहीं होने देंगे। अगर यह जगह आग पकड़ ले या कुछ भी हो जाए, अगर सर्वे हुआ तो अच्छा नहीं होगा।"

‘Well-planned conspiracy’; crowd raised ‘Gustakh-e-Nabi’ slogan

In its concluding observations, the Commission said the incident was the result of a "well-planned conspiracy and abetment".

It said the period between the incomplete survey on November 19 and the violence on November 24 gave political figures, criminal elements and Jama Masjid committee members sufficient opportunity to prepare and mobilise a crowd.

The Commission alleged that Barq, Suhel Iqbal, Zafar Ali and Mashhood Ali Farooqui conspired to withhold the true nature of the court-ordered survey, incited and mobilised a crowd, and that persons with criminal tendencies subsequently joined it.

It further recorded that the gathered crowd made efforts to enter the Jama Masjid and “threatened everyone” by raising slogans including "Nara-e-Takbeer", "Allah-hu-Akbar" and: "Gustakh-e-Nabi ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda, tan sar se juda"

The Commission translated the latter as: "The only punishment for the blasphemer is beheading."

The Commission observed that "No citizen has a right to threaten the other person even if he has committed some fault or guilt", adding that only a court of law has the authority to punish a person after trial and in accordance with law.

'Neither any threat to Jama Masjid nor plea for demolition'

The Commission further rejected the premise that the court-ordered survey posed a threat to the existence of the Jama Masjid.

It concluded that there was "neither any threat to the Jama Masjid/place of survey" in execution of the November 19 order "nor Plaintiffs had sought any such prayer in the plaint."

It noted that the plaintiffs had sought an injunction against obstruction of entry into the Hari Har Mandir/Jama Masjid in accordance with the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The Commission also noted that the Jama Masjid had been a protected monument since 1920 and referred to a 1927 agreement under which it was made open to the public.

Commission calls violence ‘grave and deadly threat’ to national security

In one of its strongest observations, the Commission recorded an "UNEQUIVOCAL CONCLUSION" that the Sambhal violence posed a "GRAVE and DEADLY THREAT" to national security and attracted stringent provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

It said the orchestrated violence, if proved, could attract severe penalties, including life imprisonment.

The Commission also termed the alleged acts of obstructing the court-ordered survey through force, misleading people about the court order and failing to abide by constitutional obligations as “anti-national”, stating that they attracted BNS provisions.

The Commission also concluded that the violence had a malicious intent to defame the Government and its machinery not only at the national level but at the international level as well.

Four killed; Commission says police exercised restraint

The report recorded that four persons died and 28 police personnel sustained injuries, including seven who suffered gunshot injuries.

The Commission noted that the four deceased had suffered gunshot injuries and that ballistic material indicated the injuries could have been caused by .315-bore weapons. It further noted there was no evidence that police personnel possessed .315-bore firearms.

It said police exercised “prudence and restraint” despite attacks on personnel and alleged looting of police weapons, and relied on the FSL Agra ballistic team's crime-scene reconstruction report in concluding that police did not use lethal firearms.

The Commission ultimately credited the district administration and police with preventing the violence from spreading into Hindu-dominated neighbourhoods and markets and taking a wider communal turn.

It also added that the Government and Law enforcement must ensure that those responsible for the Sambhal Violence are held accountable.