Shocking revelation in Haldwani violence, why was this not accepted? Who is responsible?
Questions were continuously being raised regarding the Haldwani violence. Despite being a sensitive area, why was there haste in taking action here? Haldwani MLA Sumit Hridayesh alleged that this violence was the result of negligence of the officials. A big revelation has come regarding this. Even before taking action on the encroachment, LIU had submitted a report to the DM and SSP, in which some suggestions were given, but they were not implemented. LIU had given inputs to the administration about such incidents happening not once or twice, but five times. But, no attention was paid to it. This has been revealed in media reports. However, this has not been officially confirmed yet.
LIU had warned of violence and uproar in Vanbhulpura area twice on 31 January, twice on 2 February and once on 3 February. On January 31, LIU had expressed the fear of being on alert in view of the talks by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind workers with the Commissioner Kumaon Mandal and in the event of demolition of the mosque and madrassa as Vanbhulpura is a Muslim dominated area.
On February 2, LIU had said that morning was the right time to carry out the demolition of encroachment. Along with this, before this action, it was said that a survey of the area would be conducted using a drone. Along with this, heavy police force was asked to be deployed in the entire area. Along with this, LIU had asked to find out whether there is a holy book inside the religious place or not. If there is a book then it was respectfully asked to be handed over to the concerned Maulvi.
On February 3, LIU had again warned that along with giving notice of action for demolition of encroachments, there was a possibility of opposition to the proposed demolition of religious places. Along with this, there was also talk of risking life by creating some kind of hindrance in this work. Not only this, on the day of the action, LIU had also suggested serving through drones. If this had happened then information about the activities taking place in the houses could have been obtained, but this was not done. Why after all?
Along with this, a warning was given that the movement would become violent in case of use of force if Muslim women and children were systematically kept at the forefront during the anti-encroachment action. Now questions are being raised that why did the administration and officials ignore these inputs even after consultation?
