Mumbai blasts aftermath: SP defends SIMI, Cong defers

Lucknow, July 13 (UNI) Even as the Samajwadi Party government in Uttar Pradesh defended SIMI from being termed a ''terrorist organisation,''the Congress slammed Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav for his statement and termed it against national interests.

Earlier today, the SP leadership came in strong defence of the organisation saying it was not a terrorist outfit.

But in a quick reaction, the Congress termed Mr Yadav's statement and his brother Shivpal Singh Yadav against national interests.

''There may be some with dubious distinction in Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), but it is wrong to dub the whole organisation as terrorist,'' SP general secretary Shivpal Singh Yadav told reporters here.

Earlier, the Chief Minister also expressed similar sentiments, saying no evidence about SIMI's involvement in two major incidents the Ayodhya attack and serial bomb blasts in Varanasi had been found.''The ban on SIMI is there, but it is vide order of the Centre,'' he added.

The state Congress, meanwhile, invoked the Right to Information Act to seek details from Uttar Pradesh home department about the correspondence and suggestions that state government made to the Centre between May 2005 and June this year regarding ban on SIMI.

''Earlier, the Chief Minister had written to the Centre demanding withdrawal of the ban on SIMI. Now, he is defending SIMI even as intelligence agencies have claimed that SIMI activists could be the possible suspects in the Mumbai serial bomb blasts which left several innocent people dead,'' said a party spokesperson.

At the SP state headquarters, Mr Shivpal Singh Yadav said SIMI's role was still under investigation in Mumbai blasts and it would be improper to call it as a 'terrorist organisation'.

The present stand of the ruling SP comes even as the role of SIMI is under scanner of the investigative agencies following Mumbai serial bomb blasts, which claimed about 200 lives.

The SP general secretary alleged previous governments in Uttar Pradesh had misused SIMI's name to target some politicians, and termed it as ''highly condemnable''. ''Even my name alongwith some other SP leaders was framed in the SIMI list,'' he added.

''We are extremely critical of the Mumbai incident, but at the same time stand against the propoganada against SIMI,'' he said.

Interestingly, Uttar Pradesh had opposed the ban notice of the Centre sent to the state government on May 22, arguing the organisation was not involved in ''any activities'' and neither had it (UP) received any complaint against SIMI.

The notice was part of the overall process to ban SIMI, which was issued by the office of the Registrar, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal at Delhi.

UNI NAB VS AK GC1724