Secret meeting of four top police officials before Thrissur Pooram; any connection to Pooram disruption?

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Intelligence has received information that four top police officers, including the ADGP, held a secret meeting at the Thrissur Police Academy six days before Thrissur Pooram. The intelligence wing has recommended to the government to investigate whether this has anything to do with the Pooram disruption. This comes after ADGP M R Ajith Kumar submitted an inquiry report in connection with the Thrissur Pooram disruption.

Apart from the ADGP, the meeting was convened by the IG, DIG and police commissioner. They held a secret meeting for eight hours, delaying by five hours the meeting of police officers convened to explain the security arrangements in view of Pooram and the prime minister's arrival. It was at this meeting that the ADGP proposed a change, rejecting the security scheme prepared by the commissioner.

A meeting of police officers was scheduled to be held on April 13 at 2 pm. However, they, who were in Thrissur city, reached the police academy eight kilometres away at 10.30 am and held a secret meeting in the DIG's room. The then commissioner Ankit Ashokan introduced a scheme to rectify the security lapses at Pooram. However, the ADGP directed the commissioner to obey as he said.

It is alleged that this is what led to lapses including erecting more barricades to control the people, delaying fireworks and preventing feeding of elephants. When DYSP rank officers, who got years of experience in conducting pooram, expressed dissatisfaction with the arrangements, the commissioner replied that it was a suggestion from above.

ADGP in Thrissur three days ahead of Pooram

• ADGP Ajith Kumar claimed that he was on leave on pooram day. However, he was staying at the guest house at the police academy three days before the pooram.
• He reviewed the security arrangements till 1 am on the day of Pooram. Then the mobile was turned off. The next day he went to Mookambika.
• If the ADGP is present at the spot, he is in charge rather than the commissioner. It is also a violation of rules that the ADGP did not intervene despite the problems.
• If the ADGP was on leave, the DGP would have appointed another senior officer in his place. That didn't happen.
• These things contradict the ADGP's report that the problems were caused by the commissioner's lack of experience and lack of pacifying the people.