Intent to visit Iraq,Syria was humanitarian: Muslim team to HC

A member of a delegation which was refused permission to go to Iraq and Syria for protecting holy shrines there from ISIS activities, today told Delhi High Court that their intention was humanitarian aid and not to participate in a conflict as claimed by the government.
The submission was made in an affidavit filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha, who was part of the six-member delegation, in response to the government's claim that it had not allowed them to travel to Iraq as allowing them to take part in the conflict would have amounted to terrorist activity.
The government had also claimed that allowing them to go would have "repercussions on other sects in India", which could directly result in sectarian conflict here.

Opposing the government's claims, Pracha in his affidavit has contended that he and other members of Anjuman-e-Haideri (AeH) only intended to go to Iraq to extend humanitarian aid and their proposed visit was welcomed by officials of the Iraqi government as well.
Justice Manmohan, before whom the matter was listed, said the affidavit was not on record and listed the matter for further hearing on March 29.
Pracha in his rejoinder affidavit has also raised questions on the efficiency and competence of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), alleging that look-out circulars (LOCs) were issued against him and other members of the delegation, based on inputs of the agency.

He said the information gathered by the agency was inaccurate as it had classified him as a Shia muslim when he belonged to the Sunni community.

He also said that even the government's affidavit, defending its decision refusing to allow them to travel to Iraq, was "silent" on the legal status of IB and contended that there was urgent need to introduce a fool-proof statute- based mechanism to ensure efficiency and accountability of the agency.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had earlier told the
court that Indian citizens cannot be permitted to go to a foreign country with a declared objective of taking part in any conflict there, as safety and security of such persons would be at stake and it would adversely impact friendly relations with those nations.

"Allowing an Indian to go to another country to take part in a conflict would lead to the allegation that Indian government is promoting terrorism in other countries," it had said.
The contention had come in response to Pracha's plea questioning the government's decision to issue an LOC against him to prevent him from travelling to Iraq to do relief work and oppose ISIS activities there.
The MHA had also said the activities of religious organisation AeH, of which Pracha is a member, in "attempting to mobilise members of a particular sect of the community in India to participate in a conflict in a foreign country are in absolute contravention of the law and stated policy of the country".

Responding to the allegation, Pracha said that AeH had invited volunteers from all sects and religions. He also said that the visit of the delegation was welcomed by Iraqi government and would have only served to strengthen ties between the two nations and not amounted to terrorism as claimed by MHA.
He also said that the government was kept in the loop throughout and alleged that MHA's action of off-loading the delegation was not in accordance with law.
Seeking disbanding of the IB which had issued the LOC against him, Pracha in his plea has alleged that the agency has become an "uncontrollable all-powerful, extra- constitutional establishment in itself which runs parallel to the democratically-elected government".

According to the petition, Pracha got to know about the LOC when he and five other delegates were on their way to Iraq on November 24, 2014, but were stopped from boarding their flight and an endorsement 'offloaded' was made on their passports.
All of them were detained for several hours at the airport police station, the petition has alleged.
It said that passports of the five others travelling with Pracha were suspended with effect from November 24 last year, by a letter of December 2, 2014 and questioned how such retrospective action can be taken.