– Dr. M. Iqbal Siddiqui
On 31 July 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah declared in the Lok Sabha that all accused in the Malegaon blast case had been acquitted due to insufficient evidence, reaffirming his earlier statement that “no Hindu can be a terrorist”. This claim, echoed by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, has reignited interest in Dr Suresh Khairnar’s nearly two-decade-old fact-finding report on the Nanded (April 2006) and Nagpur (June 2006) incidents. Supported by the Secular Citizens’ Forum and PUCL Nagpur, the report raises troubling questions about institutional bias and selective justice in terrorism investigations.
The Nanded Blast: Bombology or Cover-up?
On 6 April 2006, a powerful explosion shook the house of RSS sympathiser L. G. Rajkondwar in Nanded, Maharashtra, killing two youths and injuring three others. Initial police statements claimed it was merely a “cracker mishap.” However, the very next day, a live improvised explosive device (IED) was recovered from the site, along with a fully operational bomb-making centre, diaries detailing bomb fabrication techniques, and fake beards and skull caps –indicators of a deliberate plan to incite communal violence (https://www.oneindia.com/, Times Headline). The deceased were reportedly affiliated with the RSS, VHP, and Bajrang Dal, and were buried with condolences from their respective organisations. Despite the severity and ideological implications, no charges were filed under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA); instead, arrests were made under relatively minor sections of the Indian Penal Code. No probe was launched into the source of funding or the broader organisational support behind the operation. Reports even indicated that a BJP Member of Parliament had attempted to pressure police and suppress further investigation (https://www.oneindia.com/, Milli Gazette).
Equally troubling was the mainstream media’s silence, widely seen as criminal negligence. Leading English newspapers gave the incident no coverage, while electronic media either ignored it altogether or reported it belatedly and minimally. The discovery of a bomb-making centre was dismissed as a local mishap, stripped of national significance. Despite residents calling news channels and writing to newspapers to highlight the gravity of the incident, the media remained largely unresponsive.
This silence has sparked suspicions of a deliberate attempt to shield the perpetrators and confine the story to Marathwada. As Economic and Political Weekly observed in a sharply worded editorial, the Nanded episode is a chilling portent of deeper, organised conspiracies festering within Hindutva networks (JSTOR).
The Nagpur ‘Encounter’: Too Smooth to Be True?
While the Nanded blast exposed potential cover-ups, a subsequent incident in Nagpur further deepened suspicions of institutional bias.
On the early morning of 1 June 2006, Nagpur Police claimed to have foiled a major terrorist attack on the RSS headquarters in Mahal, a high-security zone located in the heart of the city. According to the official version, three alleged fidayeen, armed with AK-56 rifles and grenades, attempted to storm the premises in a white Tata Indica. Dressed in police uniforms, they reportedly opened fire at a police checkpost but were gunned down in a swift, retaliatory operation. None of the policemen were injured. The encounter lasted a few minutes and ended with the seizure of weapons and explosives.
The incident received immediate and widespread commendation. The then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh praised the police action as a “heroic success”. Several officers involved in the operation, including then Joint Commissioner of Police Bhushan Kumar Upadhyay, were awarded gallantry medals. Media reports described it as a textbook example of efficiency and preparedness (arabnews.com).
However, civil rights activists and independent investigators raised significant doubts about the official narrative. A fact-finding team led by Dr Suresh Khairnar, and supported by PUCL Nagpur and Secular Citizens’ Forum, uncovered a series of troubling anomalies:
- No independent eyewitnesses were found who could corroborate the police version. The entire account of the shootout rested solely on police statements.
- The bodies of the three alleged terrorists were hastily buried, and their identities were never independently confirmed. No DNA or forensic tests were publicly reported.
- The attackers were reportedly carrying hand grenades sealed in plastic, which they failed to use during the armed confrontation – an odd choice for supposed suicide attackers.
- No injuries were sustained by police personnel despite heavy gunfire allegedly directed at them by trained fidayeen. This raised doubts about the authenticity of the exchange.
- Bullet marks at the site reportedly indicated one-directional firing, suggesting the possibility of a staged shootout.
- The police team at the checkpost, according to insiders, lacked specialised training for counter-terror operations and was not equipped with standard operating procedures for such high-risk scenarios.
- Perhaps most bizarrely, the alleged terrorists, despite being well-armed and on a supposed suicide mission, appeared to have little knowledge of the RSS premises’ layout. Observers noted the improbability of seasoned terrorists attacking such a heavily fortified target without reconnaissance.
The immediate glorification of the event and the lack of judicial or independent inquiry drew sharp criticism. Prominent activists like Teesta Setalvad (in Sabrang’s Communalism Combat) called for an impartial probe, warning against the dangerous precedent of unverified “success stories” in sensitive communal contexts. In a region already rife with polarisation, a staged encounter – if proven – could have had devastating consequences.
In 2025, new information emerged when an alleged LeT commander, Razaullah Nizamani alias Abu Saifullah Khalid – killed in Pakistan – who was, reportedly, the mastermind of the Nagpur attack. While LeT’s involvement lends some credibility to the police claim of a planned attack, the lack of forensic transparency and procedural irregularities still raises doubts about the encounter’s authenticity. The absence of transparent investigation and forensic accountability at the time still casts a shadow over the entire operation.
As such, the Nagpur encounter remains a case study in how quick heroism can eclipse due process, and how even anti-terror operations must be subjected to democratic scrutiny and legal transparency – especially in polarised contexts like Nagpur.
A Pattern Repeating Itself: Malegaon as Mirror
The Malegaon blast case, especially the 2006 and 2008 episodes, offers a powerful lens to interpret the earlier incidents in Nanded and Nagpur. Although differing in time and geography, the common thread that binds them is the disturbing pattern of investigative bias, communal profiling, and institutional inertia. In all these cases, Muslim youth were the first to be targeted, detained, and charged – often without sufficient evidence, and later, in some instances, exonerated after years of incarceration and trial.
The Malegaon acquittals reveal how the machinery of justice can be swayed by narratives that frame terrorism in communal terms. This pattern also sheds new light on the underreported Nanded and Nagpur incidents, where the accused were linked to Hindutva groups, but where investigations were diluted, deflected, or derailed. The Malegaon cases thus not only underscore systemic failures but also reinforce the call for a non-discriminatory, evidence-based counterterrorism framework. Revisiting Nanded and Nagpur in this light is not merely retrospective – it is a constitutional imperative.
Why These Cases Matter Today
These two episodes (Nanded, Nagpur) are not isolated curiosities but crucial to understanding how terrorism, investigation and communal bias can intersect. In both the Malegaon acquittals and the older fact-finding report, one sees how political identities may colour inquiry and outcomes.
A statement such as “no Hindu can be a terrorist” risks obscuring the necessity of evidence‑based investigation, regardless of community. When allegations suggest a communally‑rooted terror infrastructure, dismissing them without inquiry undermines accountability.
Recent developments have shed light on real terror dimensions. Lashkar‑e‑Tayyeba operative Razaullah Nizamani – aka Abu Saifullah Khalid – recently killed in Pakistan, is now confirmed by our intelligence agencies to have been the mastermind behind the Nagpur plot (indiatvnews.com). This underscores that at least some elements of the police narrative had merit, yet the earlier scepticism was not unfounded.
Separately, Yashwant Shinde – a former RSS/Bajrang Dal activist – publicly claimed that members of Sangh Parivar were trained to carry out bombings disguised as Muslim perpetrators. His affidavit alleges involvement in the Jalna, Parbhani and Purna blasts between 2003-2004, consistent in several details with the Nanded case (The Caravan).
Recommendations for Clarity and Justice
Dr Khairnar’s team had urged a judicial inquiry led by a retired Supreme Court judge to revisit the Nanded and Nagpur cases. That call remains compelling:
- Apply MCOCA to the accused in the trial immediately. Not doing so could fuel suspicions that stringent laws like MCOCA are used to target minorities or settle scores rather than combat terrorism or organised crime.
- Raid suspected organisations, arrest their leaders, and probe the nationwide network linked to the Nanded centre, as such a sophisticated bomb-making facility could not operate in isolation.
- Investigate the existence of similar terrorist centres across India.
- Re-examine past terrorist acts in Maharashtra to uncover any communal conspiracy links.
- Launch a CBI probe due to the state police and intelligence’s failure to detect the bomb-making centre before the accidental blast.
- Urge the media to report detailed accounts of these events to inform the public about the true perpetrators.
Lessons for India’s Democracy
The re-emergence of Dr Khairnar’s report starkly exposes how terrorism investigations can be moulded by communal biases and political compulsions. The Malegaon acquittal episode and the older Nanded‑Nagpur mysteries serve as reminders: justice must be secular and procedural, not selective or performative.
Only by confronting uncomfortable truths – whether about evidence or institutional conduct – can India ensure terrorism is addressed consistently, ethically, and with respect for its democratic and secular foundations.
[The writer thanks Dr Suresh Khairnar, Secular Citizens’ Forum, PUCL Nagpur, and activist-chroniclers whose courage has brought these truths back to public attention.]
