Parvez Rasool’s ordeal may have ended, but the October 16 episode raises basic questions about security. The city police had alleged the following day that the Jammu & Kashmir cricketer had plastic explosives in his possession, making him a terror suspect.
On November 3, DNA broke the story about Forensic Science Laboratory’s clean chit to the cricketer. Now, forensic experts say the long-range explosives detector, which triggered the controversy on October 16 evening at Chinnaswamy stadium, may not be fault-free. In fact, DNA had raised doubts about the bomb-detection capability of the equipment in its October 20 edition.
Already, the city police have sent a letter to the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) president, Brijesh Patel. “From the report, it is clear there could be a problem with the machinery used, as it is meant to detect C4 type of plastic explosive (like RDX), which was not found in the kitbag,” city police commissioner Shankar M Bidari told DNA. He has asked the KSCA to ensure that no further goof-ups occur when they use such devices in stadiums.
But what exactly did the device detect? It did detect a plastic used in explosives. But the same plastic (diisooctyl phthalate or DIOP) is also used in protective cricket gear, like guards and gloves, say the experts.
A series of tests conducted by FSL, some of which were repeated, showed no traces of explosives, as the city police had alleged. The police now blame the KSCA and the organisers of the Champions League for installing a faulty device.
The detection device had a C4 smart-profile card reader for detecting RDX and other plastic explosives. But one question still remains unanswered: Why did it zero in on Rasool’s kitbag alone? If DIOP is used in protective cricket gear, why didn’t it pinpoint the bags of other players? Was there a bigger problem with the device? Or was it a human failure?
KSCA president Brijesh patel refused to comment on the about-turn in the Rasool case. All he said: “It is unnecessarily being made an issue.”
Comments