Nowgam Blast Raises Serious Questions Over Police Protocols In Handling Seized Ammonium Nitrate
The explosion outside the Nowgam police station in Srinagar on Friday—which killed nine persons and injured 32—ranks among the worst tragedies the area has witnessed in recent memory. Such an incident, occurring within police premises, naturally shakes public confidence.
When Director-General of J&K Police Nalin Prabhat rules out sabotage and attributes the blast to an accident, his assessment deserves respect. Yet an official statement, however credible, cannot replace the need for a thorough, independent inquiry.
What has emerged so far raises more questions than it answers. Reports suggest that a large quantity—nearly 2,900 kg—of ammonium nitrate, seized from a village near Faridabad in the NCR, was transported almost 900 kilometres to Srinagar in a Tata pickup truck. While police may describe this movement as standard protocol, the adequacy of that protocol must be re-examined.
On its own, ammonium nitrate is not explosive, but its volatility increases sharply when combined with other substances. If senior officers themselves term the seized material “extremely sensitive and unstable”, transporting it through densely populated regions demands heightened caution.
Equally puzzling are the circumstances at the Nowgam station on the night of the blast. The accident occurred around 11:20 pm—a time when sensitive material is seldom handled, if only because night operations limit oversight and increase risk.
Yet, several officials and civilians were present: two forensic photographers, two revenue officials and even a local tailor, Mohammed Shafi Parray, who was among the dead. Their presence suggests either that multiple procedures were being carried out simultaneously or that the site had become an improvised workspace for various agencies. Neither explanation sits comfortably with the need for controlled, minimal personnel exposure while handling hazardous material.
This also raises a broader question: is a police station, located in a densely populated locality, an appropriate site for examining potentially explosive substances? The heavy damage suffered by the station itself and the tragic casualties among those present indicate that the decision may not have been sufficiently risk-assessed. If forensic analysis could have been completed at or near the site of the seizure, why relocate the material to such a crowded area? These questions are not expressions of blame; they reflect legitimate public concern.
The inquiry now ordered must be swift, impartial and comprehensive. It should reconstruct the chain of decisions—from seizure to transport, choice of site, personnel deployment and timing—and establish whether safer alternatives existed.
Most importantly, its findings must be transparent and followed by clear reforms: stricter transport protocols, dedicated forensic facilities sited away from civilian clusters, and tighter limits on personnel presence during high-risk operations. Public anxiety today stems not from terror but from an operational lapse. No alibis are necessary. Only the truth—and reforms grounded in it—can restore trust.
news