Jhiram Ghati attack: NIA court convicts 10, sparks political row

An NIA court in Jagdalpur convicted 10 accused in the 2013 Jhiram Ghati Naxal attack case. The verdict has ignited a political dispute, with Congress alleging the probe failed to uncover a larger conspiracy, a claim the BJP refutes.

A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jagdalpur has convicted 10 surviving accused in the 2013 Jhiram Ghati Naxal attack case, marking a significant development in the decade-old case that claimed the lives of several senior Congress leaders and security personnel.

The court found all 10 accused guilty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Arms Act. The court has reserved the announcement of the quantum of punishment for September 16.

Verdict Triggers Political Dispute

The verdict has, however, triggered a fresh political dispute in Chhattisgarh, with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) welcoming the judgement as a vindication of the NIA investigation, while the Congress has alleged that the probe failed to uncover a larger political conspiracy and ignored security lapses.

The case pertains to the deadly ambush on a Congress convoy on May 25, 2013, in Jhiram Valley in Bastar. The attack, carried out by armed Maoists, killed around 29-32 people, including several senior Congress leaders and security personnel. The leaders were returning from a 'Parivartan Yatra' ahead of the 2013 Assembly elections.

Congress Alleges Conspiracy, Inadequate Probe

Reacting to the verdict, former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and senior Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel questioned the depth of the NIA investigation. "We respect the court's decision, but the NIA's investigation has been controversial. The 10 people who were sentenced were not first-class Naxalite leaders. The leaders whose names were recorded in the FIR were removed by the NIA. There is no mention of any conspiracy in it," Baghel said.

He further said, "No action was taken against the officers who were deployed for security at that time. The NIA has covered things up; true justice has not been served."

Former Chhattisgarh Deputy Chief Minister TS Singh Deo, who was in charge of the Parivartan Yatra programme in 2013, highlighted what he described as an unexplained withdrawal of security on the day of the attack. "I will not be satisfied until the investigation into the Jhiram incident reaches those responsible for allowing the incident to happen. Nand Kumar Patel had made me the in-charge of the programme. In that capacity, I had provided information to the DGP, IG, and others in the police department that this was a six-to-seven-day programme in the Bastar division," Singh Deo said.

Recounting the alleged security lapse, he said, "On the first day, when we went to Bijapur, we were provided with full security. On the second day, when we went to Dantewada, Bakawand, and other places, we again had full security. But on the third day, when we were travelling towards Sukma, we did not see a single police or paramilitary personnel anywhere on the route. Why and how did this happen? How were the Naxals allowed the opportunity to carry out the attack? The firing continued for 45 minutes to an hour. Where was our police force? Until this comes to light, I will never be satisfied."

Congress leader Vikas Upadhyay also alleged that the then-BJP government under Raman Singh had failed to provide the security requested for the Parivartan Yatra. "The 'Parivartan Yatra' was going on. During the Parivartan Yatra, Nand Kumar Patel ji had requested sufficient security from the Bharatiya Janata Party government, which was the government at the time, the Raman Singh government. Security was not provided," Upadhyay said.

He alleged that those convicted were merely "foot soldiers" and that the larger conspiracy remained unaddressed. "Currently, the people who have been caught are just the ordinary ones who committed the murders. But where are those who hatched the political conspiracy behind these murders? Justice hasn't been served yet. I don't believe justice will be served until we get to the root of the matter. There are still many layers to be unfolded in this. It was a major conspiracy," he added.

BJP Welcomes Judgment, Defends NIA Investigation

The BJP, meanwhile, welcomed the court's verdict, with Chhattisgarh Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma and BJP MP Santosh Pandey stating that the judgment vindicated the investigation and brought an end to a long wait for justice.

Sharma said the court's verdict had established the correctness of the NIA investigation. "This NIA court has made a decision today. The punishment they will receive is still being kept confidential; it will be decided by the court around the 16th. All those people involved in the Jheeram incident who were arrested in 2014 and 2016—the NIA's investigation on them has been proved correct, and the court has found them guilty," Sharma said.

Recalling the transfer of the case to the NIA, the Deputy Chief Minister said the then-BJP state government had acted promptly to ensure an independent investigation. "When the case was given to the NIA for investigation, the UPA government was in power at the Centre. It was their government. In the state of Chhattisgarh, there was a BJP government. The BJP government immediately transferred the case to the NIA within two days so that no one would have any doubts," he added.

BJP MP Santosh Pandey termed the attack an act by "ruthless Naxalites" and welcomed the verdict. "The decision of the NIA court is welcome. It comes after a very long wait, as this massacre was carried out by ruthless Naxalites. Everyone was waiting for the truth to come out. Today, we all welcome it," Pandey said.

Taking a dig at Baghel, who questioned the NIA investigation and alleged that certain names were removed from the case, Pandey questioned why the former Chief Minister had failed to produce evidence during his five-year tenure. "Now, what can one say about Bhupesh Baghel... Bhupesh Baghel used to talk about having evidence in his pocket. He used to keep papers, take them out, put them back... he repeatedly said that he had evidence. So, Bhupesh ji, you couldn't present evidence in five years. Was it really evidence or something else? Was it some betting slip? That's what I keep saying. What was it that you couldn't provide in five years?" Pandey said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)