Үндістандағы террористік шабуыл

Terrorist attack in India

Bypassing the screening, the terrorists jumped over the 7 foot high fence and started firing their guns as they began their rampage through the complex.

The perpetrators rushed towards the central walkway of the complex while firing shots at visitors and pilgrims browsing a nearby bookstall and proceeded to the main temple while throwing hand grenades. NSG Commando Suresh Chand Yadav was awarded the highest peacetime military decoration Ashok Chakra (posthumously) for his indomitable courage and gallantry during the operation.

On 25 September 2002, then Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee said that the attack on the Akshardham Temple Complex was a well thought out conspiracy and that the central government would launch a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of it.

On 7 October 2002, 14 days after the terrorist attack, the Akshardham Temple Complex was reopened to the public. As advised by government officials, increased security measures were taken to ensure the safety of the volunteers and visitors, including stationing the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) of Gujarat at the complex, increasing the height of the boundary wall, installing CCTV's around the campus and requiring visitors to pass through a metal detector. The letters suggested that the gunmen carried out the attack "because they could not tolerate what happened to children, women and Muslims during the Gujarat riots." The letters were translated for the NSG by Maulana Dawood Kausar Ashrafi of the Jama Masjid of Gandhinagar. Raju Thakur explained that he transported the terrorists from Kalupur to Askhardham for Rs. 120. Initial reports suggested that the terrorists arrived at the Kalupur railway station between 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm IST. During this interrogation, Raju Thakur and Mansukh Acharya informed the Gujarat police that they would be able to identify the militants from photos. The identity of the two terrorists was also established on 27 September. The investigators claimed that the two terrorists, Mohammad Amjad and Hafiz Yaseen, were connected with terrorist groups Lashkar i Taiba and Jaish i Mohammad. A periodical published in Pakistan that included pictures of the two men in the obituary columns was a major lead in establishing the identity of the terrorists. Initially, the local crime branch was investigating the case; but after much deliberation, the case was transferred to the Anti Terrorist Squad. Consequently, approximately two weeks after the attack, the Forensic Science Laboratory received a set of articles collected from the temple premises and bodies. Over a month after the attack, the investigators claimed that they had no vital leads. Leena Mishra, a Times of India journalist, noted that there was "only conflict about their identity and confusion about their number." Furthermore, Kaushik stated that the conspiracy to attack Akshardham had been planned in Riyadh and hatched by militant outfits, Jaish I Mohammad, Lashkar I Taiba and ISI Inter Services Intelligence. Three days after the police claimed that there was no link between the Akshardham attack and Hyderabad, the Hyderabad police officials admitted that they were unaware of the investigations being carried out by the Gujarat counterparts. Even a year after the investigations began, conflicting reports continued. Although the Gujarat police claimed they solved the case in August 2003 by arresting five individuals involved in the Akshardham Attack Conspiracy, a senior officer of the Jammu Kashmir police force claimed that Chand Khan of Bareilly was one of the main individuals involved in the case. The Jammu Kashmir police arrested Khan on his way from Anantnag. This evidence contradicted the claims made by Ahmedabad police, who had arrested five individuals: Salim Hanif Shaikh, Altaf Akbar Hussain Malek, Aadaam Suleman Ajmeri, Mufti Abdulqayyum Mansuri and Maulana Abdullamiya Sayyed. D G Vanzara, DCP (crime), before leaving for Jammu Kashmir to interrogate Chand Khan, questioned the validity of his statements by stating, "Khan claims he reached Ahmedabad on 23 September 2002 and helped the two LeT terrorists accompanying him to attack the temple the very next day. This is next to impossible [without local support]." Dhruv submitted certain incriminating documents containing the details of expenses incurred in various activities that were found in Suleman's brother's house. Further investigation of Mansoori was required on the grounds that the handwriting experts confirmed that the two notes recovered from the terrorists were written by him. After gathering the afore mentioned information, the Joint Commissioner of Police, PP Pandey, informed reporters that "the temple attack was a joint operation conducted by several modules of Jaish I Mohammad, Lashkar i Taiba having their network from Riyadh in Saudi Arabia to Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and other cities." On 7 September 2003, Jammu Kashmir Agricultural Minister Abdul Aziz Zargar denied reports which claimed that his Manzgam residence had been a hideout from where the Akshardham Temple attack was masterminded. Media reports quoted Chand Khan as saying that two LeT militants had made Zargar's residence their hideout before leaving for the attack in Gujarat. While Zargar denied any connection with LeT, Chand Khan, claimed they started their journey for Gujarat from his residence. On the other hand, Hashim Qureshi, representing Chand Khan, stated that if Khan—who had been in police custody for over two months, first with the Jammu Kashmir police and now with the DCB, faced further interrogation—he might lose his mental balance. On 29 November, Bharuch police began investigating the alleged involvement of four individuals from their district in the Akshardham attack. The charge sheet filed in the case with the POTA court included the names of Gulah Laheri, Majid Patel, Iqbal Patel and a 35 year old unidentified individual. POTA Judge Gokani issued non bailable arrest warrants against Ibrahim and Shakeel, along with Mufti Sufiyan Rasool Parti and others who had allegedly conspired and aided in transpiring the Akshardham Temple attack. All the six accused individuals were present at the trial. Even though the trial began on 18 December, the matter was adjourned until 26 December. While the six accused were put on trial, 26 other individuals were still absconding. In January 2004, Chand Khan's confessional statement mentioned that the motivating factors behind his involvement in the terrorist conspiracy were twofold, a sum of Rs. 30,000 and "the wish to avenge humiliation meted out to him by a corrupt police official in Jammu Kashmir." This confessional statement clarified some of the discrepancies present in Khan's initial remarks to Jammu Kashmir and DCB officials. His involvement in the Akshardham attack had been primarily motivated by his desire to kill a police inspector, Basir Ahmad, who consistently failed to pay the appropriate charges whenever he sent his car to Chand Garage in Bareilly. Gujarat Police claim that Butt travelled separately to Ahmedabad with the two militants who carried out the attack and received the assistance of five associates, who had also been arrested by the police. On 27 May, Hamza was arrested before dawn in London by Scotland Yard. D G Vanzara stated that formal and informal inquiries related to Hamza's arrest and his links to the Akshardham case had been initiated According to the DCB's charge sheet, Hamza had planned the Akshardham attack in Saudi Arabia to avenge the communal riots, and that with co conspirators including Saudis Abu Sifiyan and Abut Talah and that 26 individuals were still hiding. The DCB had no pictures of them. Among the accused who left India for Saudi Arabia were Mohammad Hanif Shaikh, Abdul Rashid Suleman Ajmeri and Mohammed Kadri. Sudhir Brahmbhatt explained that the accused could not be brought to India because there was no extradition treaty among Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and India. Mohammed Salim Hanif Shaikh was sentenced to life imprisonment. Altaf Hussain Akbar Hussain Malek and Abdullahmiya Yasinmiya Kadri were sentenced to five and ten years of imprisonment, respectively. by finding Abdul Qayyum Mohammed Mansuri alias Mufti Saheb through studying the letters found on the two slain terrorists. According to Patel, the letters were written in Urdu and had an Arabic touch, while the letters and style clearly pointed towards Mansuri. He contended, "The investigating agency's approach towards the two chits was very casual even though it claimed that these letters were the only evidence available in the initial stage." Furthermore, Memon claimed that the handwriting experts did not know Urdu and that the prosecution had failed to mention when these letters were recovered before the POTA court. as the eighth person caught out of a total 26 accused in the Akshardham attack. He was accused of hatching the conspiracy, providing financial and logistical support and arms and ammunition to the two terrorists who stormed the temple. A bench of the High Court had already heard the appeal against the order of the designated POTA court sentencing the accused and reserved the judgment. However, the judgment was not delivered after a year and half. However, the Gujarat High Court rejected Ghauri's plea because the advocate for the State highlighted that under Section 50 of the POTA, which was applicable in the Akshardham case, the designated judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged involvement of witnesses in the attack. The Akshardham attack case was the first judgment of the designated court under the now repealed POTA that was affirmed by the Gujarat High Court. Nevertheless, the Gujarat High Court had affirmed the POTA court verdict. On their plea that challenged the High Court verdict, "the Supreme Court stayed the death sentence and issued notice to Gujarat." On 25 December, the bench of Justices AK Patnaik and HL Gokhale directed the trial court to speed up the proceedings, while refusing bail for one of the two accused, Shakuatullah Ghauri. Ghauri and Majid Patel were arrested after the POTA court completed the trial against six persons in the case and charged with hatching the conspiracy and providing financial assistance in carrying out the terrorist activities.

The 2021 direct to video film State of Siege: Temple Attack, directed by Ken Ghosh, is a fictional retelling of the attack.