Seven months ago (April 2), just as the Alappuzha-Kannur Executive Express was about to pass over the Korapuzha river near Elathur in Kozhikode, 27-year-old Delhi resident Sharukh Saifi, who was travelling in the D1 coach, sprinkled some inflammable liquid on the passengers and set the bogey on fire.
Three people, including a child, were found dead outside the tracks, suggesting that they had desperately attempted to jump the burning bogey. Nine were injured.
What connects the Elathur train arson case and the Kalamassery bomb blasts is the nature of the crime. Both were lone wolf attacks. And like with Dominic Martin in the Kalamassery case, it was hard to believe that Saifi had acted without help.
Unlike Saifi, who escaped the scene and was nabbed by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad, Martin willingly surrendered before the Kerala police. Martin has also provided copious evidence -- videos, internet history and even bills of all the purchases he had made to assemble a remote-controlled Improvised Explosive Device (IED).
Cautious probe, reckless rumours
Even then, the Kerala police have not ruled out the possibility of hidden backers for Martin. Since Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) has also been invoked by the police against Martin, the National Investigation Agency can come in any time and take over the probe.
This has, however, not satisfied rumour-mongers. With no evidence to back their claim, certain BJP leaders have said that Martin had followed radical Muslim clerics in India and Pakistan on social media.
A top police officer said that certain elements had taken advantage of a police protocol, the taking down of Martin's Facebook page for investigation purposes, to spread rumours. "Since the page is down, they can gleefully spread wild rumours," the officer said.
Elathur's big bang plot
In Saifi's case, because of the community he belonged to, it was easier for right-wing forces to peddle the theory of him being a 'jihadi' controlled by a terror network.
Initially there was a rumour, spread from right wing circles, that Saifi had not come alone to Kerala. It was said the plan was far more sinister than just setting to fire a single bogey. A massive explosion that could blow up a large and populated area was the intention. By setting the bogey on fire, it was said the terrorists were targeting the oil tanks of Hindustan Petroleum nearby.
Many questions were asked. Why was Kerala, and the particular location, chosen? Which terror network was behind Saifi? Who were Saifi's handlers? How many sleeper cells the terror network had in Kerala?
NIA's conclusion
All this was before the Ministry of Home Affairs asked the National Investigation Agency to take over the probe. It did so on April 17, fifteen days after Saifi’s attack. Four-and-a-half months later, on September 30, the NIA submitted its chargesheet in the train arson case.
The NIA conducted searches in 10 locations in Delhi, as Saifi belonged to Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, and seized digital devices even distantly connected with Saifi. Several witnesses were questioned and CCTV footages from the Railway Station in Kerala were also seized.
The NIA could not find a shred of evidence that could even remotely prove that Saifi acted on anyone's behalf. Still, the BJP leaders continue to say that it was the Kerala government that concluded that Saifi's was a lone wolf attack. Fact is, it was the NIA's conclusion.
The NIA chargesheet called Saifi a self-taught 'jihadi'.
Here is what the chargesheet said: "The accused was self-radicalised through various online propaganda material available on social media in favour of violent extremism and Jihad, as propagated by radical Islamic preachers of Indian and foreign nationalities. In this process, he followed radical and hardline Islamic preachers, including those who are Pakistan-based, on social media platforms. He had committed the arson as a Jihadi terror act in pursuance of the online radicalisation."
Why Kerala?
Why Sharukh Saifi chose Kerala was also answered.
"NIA investigations show that Saifi had chosen Kerala for the act involving terror and arson as he wanted to commit his Jihadi act in a location where he would not be recognised. He had intended to return to normal life after the commission of the act, aimed at creating terror in the minds of the general public," the chargesheet said.
