NI:1984 Delhi-and-around

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Justice delayed, justice denied

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4141524.stm
Justice delayed, justice denied
By Renu Agal
BBC News, Delhi
Twenty years and nine investigations later, why have the people behind the anti-Sikh riots in the Indian capital, Delhi, not been brought to book and punished?

This question is again being asked after the latest investigation by a retired Supreme Court judge found that Congress leaders either incited or helped mobs to attack Sikhs.

The riots, in which more than 3,000 Sikhs died, were sparked by the assassination of then PM Indira Gandhi by Sikh bodyguards on 31 October 1984.

The resignation of Indian cabinet minister Jagdish Tytler, who was implicated in the riots, has not helped matters.

Nor has the resignation from a Delhi government position of Congress parliamentarian Sajjan Kumar - also named in the investigation report - placated the Sikhs, the opposition or the media.

Too little, too late

For the angry and hurt Sikh community and the outraged media, it is a classic case of too little, too late.

They are not wrong.

In the cases of many Congress leaders who could have been re-investigated it is too late.

Federal interior minister at the time of the riots and former prime minister PV Narasimha Rao is dead. A senior Congress leader named in the investigation HKL Bhagat is old and critically ill.

The then lieutenant governor of Delhi, PG Gavai, told a news channel recently that Mr Rao "hid like a rat" when the riots were taking place.

Jagdish Tytler
The resignation of Jagdish Tytler has not helped matters
There is now no way to determine whether this serious allegation is true.

This is the not the first time that politicians believed to be guilty of inciting or leading communal riots have literally gone scot-free.

Three years on, no one has been brought to justice over the Gujarat riots either.

More than 1,000 people, mostly Muslim, were killed. Independent groups have placed the figure closer to 2,000.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Gujarat administration, led by chief minister Narendra Modi, has been accused of doing little to prevent the bloodshed.

Investigations into the 1992 riots between Muslims and Hindus in Mumbai (Bombay) in which hundreds of people were killed have met a similar fate.

Partisan

This is despite the fact that the inquiry criticised the nationalist right-wing party, Shiv Sena, and its leader Balasaheb Thackeray for inciting the riots.

The report by a judicial commission also found the city's police were partisan and anti-Muslim.

Ayodhya is another case in point. Hundreds of people died in the violence which followed the destruction of the historic mosque there by Hindu militants in 1992. It was the trigger for the violence in Bombay.

BJP leader LK Advani is still facing charges that he incited Hindus to attack the mosque. He had a court appearance as recently as July 2005.

Why does justice reach a dead end in India while investigating such high-profile riots?

Criminals just followed the politicians - but 1984 made them realise people leading mobs and killing others could get elected
Lawyer Harvinder Singh Phoolka

Delhi-based lawyer KTS Tulsi says the way the ruling Congress party-led government has treated the latest inquiry into the 1984 riots is "shameful".

He says mere probability of complicity in a crime should be enough reason to launch a criminal investigation against a person.

The problem starts here.

The police and investigative agencies in most Indian states are heavily politicised and influenced by their political masters.

Complicity

Independent research has shown that riots in India usually happen with the complicity of police who either covertly participate or turn a blind eye to the violence.

Social worker Teesta Setalvad says the fallout from the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 1992 Mumbai riots prove this point.

"The latest inquiry into the 1984 riots named police officials. The Mumbai riots inquiry named 15 policemen for their involvement. But the governments failed to take any action against them."

Gujarat riots
The Gujarat riots of 2002 left at least 1,000 people dead
Delhi-based lawyer Harvinder Singh Phoolka, who fought many cases on behalf of the victims of the 1984 riots, says the incident was a watershed in Indian politics.

The riots, he says, showed the creeping criminalisation of Indian politics

''Before the 1984 riots, there were no criminals in politics. Criminals just followed the politicians. But 1984 made them realise people leading mobs and killing others could get elected and become leaders," says Mr Phoolka.

"So a way was opened for criminals to make politics a profession."

Analysts feel inquiry commissions are used by the state to delay action and protect politicians, policemen and civil servants.

They say the pussy-footing over the 1984 investigation by the ruling government proves that very little has changed.

'Cover-up'

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has apologised to the Sikhs and promised those named in the report will be investigated.

There is a feeling of deja-vu about this attempt to atone.

Congress chief Sonia Gandhi apologised for the 1984 riots over a decade ago and promised action.

No wonder the Sikhs are bitter and the media is sceptical.

The Asian Age summed the mood up in a front-page headline that simply said: "Mother of All Cover-Ups."

Newspapers are already talking about the need for something along the lines of South Africa's post-apartheid truth and reconciliation commission to unravel the truth and heal the wounds.

Because, as The Pioneer newspaper said, "justice delayed, also denied".

Dr. Sudip Minhas
Executive Director
Voices For Freedom
www.voicesforfreedom.org
info@voicesforfreedom.org



Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos

Leaders 'incited' anti-Sikh riots

BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4130962.stm

An Indian government inquiry into the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 has said that some Congress party leaders incited mobs to attack Sikhs.

It found "credible evidence" against a current Congress minister, Jagdish Tytler, who denies any wrongdoing.

The riots, in which more than 3,000 Sikhs died, were sparked by the assassination of then PM Indira Gandhi by Sikh bodyguards on 31 October 1984.

This inquiry is the latest of nine that have looked into the riots.

It was begun in 2000 amid dissatisfaction, particularly among Sikhs, with previous investigations.

But the BBC's Sanjeev Srivastava in Delhi says this commission of inquiry has only added to the confusion and is unlikely to satisfy either the opposition parties or Sikh groups awaiting justice for more than two decades.

Further investigation

The 339-page inquiry report by former Supreme Court judge, GT Nanavati, was tabled in parliament on Monday.

[The report] practically exonerates most of the Congress leaders we had accused of leading the mobs. Nothing will happen to the big leaders
Gurdip Singh, victim's son

It said that recorded accounts from witnesses and victims of the rioting "indicate that local Congress leaders and workers had either incited or helped the mobs in attacking the Sikhs".

The investigation found "credible evidence" against current Congress minister for non-resident affairs, Jagdish Tytler, "to the effect that very probably he had a hand in organising attacks on Sikhs".

The inquiry recommended further investigation into Mr Tytler's role.

Mr Tytler on Monday denied any involvement, saying all previous commissions into the riots had failed to mention his name.

Lack of evidence

The investigation also found "credible evidence" against Congress politician, Dharam Das Shastri, in instigating an attack on Sikhs in his area.

It also recommended examination of some cases against another Congress leader, Sajjan Kumar, for his alleged involvement in the rioting.

Mr Kumar had been cleared of leading a mob by a sessions court in Delhi in 2002 because of lack of evidence.

The inquiry said there was "absolutely no evidence" suggesting that Mrs Gandhi's son, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, or "any other high ranking Congress leader had suggested or organised attacks on Sikhs".

The report said that the police "remained passive and did not provide protection to the people" during the riots.

"There was a colossal failure of the maintenance of law and order," the report said.

Relatives of the victims of the riots who spoke to the BBC were sceptical about the investigation.

"What is the use of this report? It practically exonerates most of the Congress leaders we had accused of leading the mobs. Nothing will happen to the big leaders," said Gurdip Singh, whose father Harbhajan, was killed by the rioters.

Our correspondent, Sanjeev Srivastava, says the lack of evidence the report has found means the Congress government is unlikely to suffer much embarrassment.




The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Anti-Sikh riot victim identifies accused

Anti-Sikh riot victim identifies accused
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200612031143.htm
New Delhi, Dec. 3 (PTI): A victim of 1984 anti-Sikh riot, Harvinder Kaur, who lost her husband, son and son-in-law in the massacre, has identified five assailants before a city court and said that she was an eye-witness to the gory incident.
Standing by her affidavit, which was treated as complaint, before Additional Sessions Judge Rajinder Kumar, Kaur said the charge that her statement was "motivated" was wrong as around 150 rioters had stormed and torched the house in front of her.
Kaur, during her cross examination by accused's counsel, rubbished the claim that her complaint was false and was lodged at the insistence of others.
"It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely, or I was not present at the place of incident of murder of my husband, son and son-in-law," she said.
Kaur also identified all the five accused who were present inside the courtroom and informed the judge that they were leading the violent mob which killed her husband Niranjan Singh, Head Constable of Delhi Police, 17-year-old son, Gurpal Singh, and son-in-law Mahender Singh.
Harjinder, Kaur's daughter who lost her husband in the riot in 1984 after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi, however identified two accused Ram Praksh Tiwari and Har Prasad Bhardwaj.
As per the prosecution, Kaur's husband Singh, who was then stationed at Shahdara railway station, was lynched and set ablaze by the rioters on November 1, 1984, a day after the assassination of Gandhi.
A day after this fateful incident, Kaur's son and son-in-law were killed by the mob led by the same accused.
The FIR in the case was lodged in 1996 when Kaur filed an affidavit with the Jain and Banerjee Committee constituted to look into the anti-Sikh riot cases.
She had alleged former Union Minister, H K L Bhagat, and five others - Harprasad Bhardwaj, Suraj Giri, Ram Prasad Tiwari, Jagdish Giri and the lone woman accused Kamlesh - were the persons who killed her dear ones in a riot at Mansarovar Park in east Delhi.
However, Bhagat was later discharged as the CBI could not produce sufficient evidence against him.
All the five have been booked under various sections including 302 (Murder) 395 (Dacoity), 436 (Burning Houses) and 147 (Rioting) of the IPC.

Monday, October 16, 2006

2006/10/16:Records burnt

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=205525
’84 anti-Sikh riot records were destroyed: Cop

Press Trust of India

New Delhi, October 16:
A Delhi Police official, deposing in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case, today informed a Delhi court that the Shahdara Police Station records, which contained entries of riot victim's complaints, were not available as the same have already been destroyed.
Constable Krishan Kumar, who in 1998 was the record keeper of the police station, informed Additional Sessions Judge Rajinder Kumar that the Dispatch and Complaint register of 1984 have already been destroyed by a departmental order.


Bride Groom 18 - 24 25 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 50 50+ Hindu - Assamese - Bengali - Gujarati - Hindi - Kannada - Malayalam - Marathi - Marwari - Oriya - Punjabi - Sindhi - Tamil - Telugu Muslim Christian Sikh Parsi Jain Buddhist Jewish Other No Religion Spiritual
"On November 26, 1998, I was posted as reader of the SHO, Investigation Officer of the present case, who has demanded dispatch and complaint register, but the same (records) had already been destroyed...," said Kumar.
On being asked about the content of the complaint of Harvinder Kaur, who lost her husband, son and son-in-law in the massacre, Kumar said, “I do not know the content of the complaint dated November 6, 1984.”
On being confronted whether the complaint, which was in the court records, was the same received by the police in 1984, Kumar said, “I can not confirm this fact due to want of original register....”

Thursday, October 05, 2006

2005/01/27: Entire Congress Party Is Not to Blame for 1984 Sikh Massacres

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_012705a.html

Entire Congress Party Is Not to Blame for 1984 Sikh Massacres By RAJDEEP SARDESAI N.D.T.V., Jan. 27, 2005
The Justice Nanavati report on the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 is ready and will be given to the Home Ministry next week. For more than two decades, the sepia-tinted images of the riots, have haunted the nation. But they haven't led to justice for the victims. The report of the commission could jog public memory once again. N.D.T.V. has learnt that the Commission will not directly indict the Congress party for its role in the violence. According to sources, the Commission feels that the violence was 'organised' and 'systematic' in several areas. But it maintains that the entire Congress party apparatus cannot be held responsible for the acts of individual politicians, hooligans, depraved people and local gangs. The report, according to sources, does not hold the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi directly responsible in any way for the failure to check the violence. 'How can a prime minister be held responsible for each and every action in a police station or a particular district of Delhi?' is the explanation being given. However, the role of another former prime minister, late Narasimha Rao, who was home minister at the time, has come under greater scrutiny. According to sources, the Commission feels that as home minister, Rao did not act quickly and decisively enough in controlling the law and order situation. There are also no adverse findings against two other union ministers: Kamal Nath and Jagdish Tytler, who deposed before the Commission. According to sources, the evidence brought against them was weak. But the Commission has found enough evidence from witnesses to recommend a re-investigation of cases against some party leaders. These include sitting Congress M.P. from outer Delhi, Sajjan Kumar, former union minister H.K.L. Bhagat and another former Delhi M.P., Dharamdas Shastri. Ironically, Kumar is the only active politician who could face embarrassment and even he has been acquitted by the Delhi High Court in one major case. The Commission is also likely to pass strictures against senior Delhi police officers at the time and recommend departmental inquiries against them. But here again, Commission sources maintain, 'you cannot blame the police as an institution for the failure of individual officers.' According to sources, the Commission's terms of reference do not allow it to pronounce on the guilt of anyone. It can only ask for re-investigation in those cases which the police filed as 'untraced' but where witnesses have now come forward to depose against individuals who were part of the mob. The other category is the cases where people were named by witnesses but not accused. The Commission received more than 10,000 affidavits and examined 197 witnesses. But there is a question mark over whether it has come any closer to providing real justice to the victims of the 1984 riots. Ironically, Justice Nanavati is also heading the commission appointed to inquire into the Gujarat riots. His report then might only then end up reviving the debate on whether inquiry commissions alone can ensure speedy and genuine justice to the victims of communal riots. Political reactions to the development reported by N.D.T.V. were muted. Kumar walked away when told he was one of the politicians against whom action had been recommended. The Congress has side stepped comments against individual leaders, but it says the report proves the B.J.P. launched a misleading campaign against the party. 'The B.J.P. campaign has been slanderous and this report exposes this,' says Anand Sharma, Congress spokesperson. It's the B.J.P. which is now reacting cautiously after accusing the Congress of orchestrating the anti-Sikh riots. The N.D.A. government had set up this commission in 2003. 'I don't think this conclusion is possible. All commissions of inquiry before this has blamed the Congress. We will officially react only after seeing the report,' says V.K. Malhotra, B.J.P. spokesperson. Over the last 20 years, a commission of inquiry and eight committees were set up to investigate the anti-Sikh riots. Officially, 2733 people were killed but only nine people, none of them Congress workers, have received life sentences. Only two Congress leaders, Sajjan Kumar and H.K.L. Bhagat, were indicted. But Kumar was acquitted by a lower court in 2002 and his case presently rests with the Delhi High Court. And Bhagat is now medically unfit and cannot make a statement.

2005/02/12: AMU the film: The Children of 1984

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_021205b.html

The Children of 1984 By SUDHANVA DESHPANDE Sudhanva Deshpande is an actor, director and playwright, and is a member of Jana Natya Manch, Delhi. Frontline, Feb. 12, 2005

The horrors of the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 are revisited in two recent feature films with pertinent questions about identities and memories. Retaliation is spelt in blood. When Indira Gandhi was shot dead by her two Sikh bodyguards, thousands of Sikhs had to pay with their lives and property in the pogrom that followed over the next few days in Delhi. That was in November 1984. When 58 kar sevaks [volunteers] were burnt alive in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002, thousands of Muslims had to pay with their lives and property in the pogrom that followed over the next several weeks. Eighteen years had passed, but little had changed. For 20 years, after the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, there has been a near-total silence in the field of arts around the events of that horrific November. To be sure, the artists Vivan Sundaram and Arpana Cour had done paintings in response to 1984, but those were exceptions. There has hardly been any representation of 1984 in poetry, fiction, drama, cinema, and even in the plastic arts. Indeed, there is very little visual documentation of the riots in terms of photographs and documentaries. The absence of documentaries is explained by the fact that video technology was quite expensive and cumbersome then, unlike today. The relative absence of photographs is more striking. The horrors of 1984 seemed to erupt suddenly, as if out of nowhere. On the other hand, the pogrom of Gujarat in 2002 has been extensively documented in documentaries (Final Solution, Godhra Tak, Passengers, and so on) and photographs, and the artist community has also responded to the pogrom vigorously. In Hindi, for instance, there are over 100 poems written directly in response to the carnage, some of them superb and enduring works, and no doubt there is writing to match in other languages. In theatre, more than half a dozen important plays mounted across the country responded to Gujarat riots in 2002. In Kolkota, Suman Mukhopadhyay brought together several groups to produce Mephisto, a tale of an actor who sells his soul to the Nazis; Kaushik Sen did Dushman No.1, an adaptation of Brecht's The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui; Usha Ganguly produced Kashinama, which showed the avarice and greed rampant in the holiest Hindu city of Banaras; in Delhi, Anuradha Kapur collaborated with Ein Lall on The Antigone Project, a reworking of Brecht's retelling of the Greek tragedy in the context of Gujarat; in Mumbai, Ashok Purang produced Bahut Raat Ho Chali Hai, the story of an ex-secular journalist and his artist ex-wife, under attack from the Hindutva hordes; Ramu Ramanathan wrote and directed Mahadevbhai, a one-person play that looks at the life of Gandhi's secretary; and Vikram Kapadia produced Black with Equal, a black comedy set in a Mumbai high rise. All these are proscenium plays; in street theatre, literally scores of plays have been evolved around the events of Gujarat 2002. Even Mumbai cinema responded in its own oblique way to the horror of Gujarat (Frontline November 19, 2004). After a silence of two decades, suddenly, there are two feature films about the horrors of 1984 - Sashi Kumar's Kaya Taran (Chrysalis) and Shonali Bose's Amu. There is more that is common about these two films, besides the subject matter and the timing. Both are debut films for their directors. Both directors are from professions that normally deal with facts, rather than fiction: Sashi Kumar is one of India's pioneering television journalists, while Shonali Bose is a documentary film-maker. Both directors are from communities that were not the victims of the 1984 riots: one is a Malayali and the other is a Bengali. Both were based in Delhi when the killings took place, but have subsequently relocated - Sashi Kumar moved to Chennai and Shonali Bose to the United States. What is most striking, however, is that both films are about the children of 1984, who, in 2002, as Gujarat riots erupts, break the silence in their own lives about the trauma of 18 years before. Based on writer N.S. Madhavan's Malayalam short story, When Big Trees Fall, the film Kaya Taran attempts to capture the essence of the Gujarat riots of 2002. At the press conference, addressed by survivors of Gujarat, there was a young reporter who was then sent to do a story on conversions. This takes him to Meerut convent for aged nuns. Bit by bit, the film also shows what happened here in 1984, when a Sikh woman and her eight-year-old son sought refuge as they ran from a violent mob. We learn, as the film goes on, that this child (the little Sikh lad) has grown up to become the young reporter. As one minority community is under attack, it is given refuge by another minority community. What makes the situation moving is that those who give refuge are themselves 'weak' and vulnerable - old nuns, eight of them, one blind, another wheelchair-bound, another surviving on pills, and so on. These sequences, in the Meerut convent, are the soul of the film, excellently shot, tender and moving. The nuns are vulnerable, but resourceful. They manage to smuggle out the boy and his mother by using a simple trick. The boy is smuggled out in a coffin, but not before his hair is cut. This is the reason why the young reporter is not turbaned. All eight nuns have performed like seasoned actors. The other remarkable performance is by Neelambari Bhattacharya as the young Sikh boy. Unlike most screen children, Neelambari is at ease in front of the camera and not at all precocious. Seema Biswas as the younger nun who looks after the old ones, is good as usual. She has the most expressive eyes, and knows how and when to use them. Angad Bedi as the reporter visiting his past is, however, below par. His awkwardness seems the awkwardness of an incompetent actor, rather than that of a character who has lived through a traumatic past. The film has a restrained quality to it, it looks inward, and poses questions about identities. Particularly, it underlines the fragility of religious identities, both in times of stress as well as 'normality.' While Kaya Taran begins with Gujarat, Amu ends with it. And while Kaya Taran approaches its theme from the side, as it were, and holds itself back emotionally, Amu confronts the 1984 riots frontally. It tells the story of Kaju, a non-resident Indian girl about 21 years old, who has been told that her mother, Keya, adopted her after her biological parents died in a malaria epidemic in a village in western Uttar Pradesh. Kaju is back in Delhi, and, in the company of boyfriend Kabir, discovers Delhi's teeming slums and Keya's lie about her past. What Amu does is to focus on our collective amnesia about the events of November 1984. This is achievement enough, of course. But what the film does brilliantly is to bring out how the amnesia, though collective, is differentiated. All the characters in the film want to forget 1984, but for different reasons. The rich, because they do not care about 1984 or anything else; ruling politicians, because it was they who led the mobs; officials of the state, because of their complicity in the riots; the middle class, because it is neither killer nor victim; and the poor, because they are both killers and victims. Everyone holds a secret, a dark, terrible secret, and everyone prefers that it remain a secret. It seems, even the Censor Board wants to remain silent. The film has been cleared with an A certificate, after some audio cuts. These cuts come in the scene where Kaju and Kabir meet a group of 1984 widows, who recount how ministers led rioters, while the police and the administration looked on. Rather than edit the scene out of the film, the director has chosen to retain it with the audio cuts. The result is that the now-silenced widows condemn the perpetrators of the killing with even more power and poignancy. Amu has some outstanding performances. Konkona Sen Sharma as Kaju confirms her status as the best young actor in Indian cinema today. She is completely believable as the N.R.I. girl in search of her roots. One would think she has spent a lifetime in the U.S. She is also quite clearly a master at picking up accents in her award-winning performance in Mr. and Mrs. Iyer. However, the truly outstanding performance in Amu is that by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat as Keya. Television viewers know her as a person who is not only photogenic, but also strong, clear-headed, and articulate. In Amu, she brings all these qualities into her performance, and more. She is totally natural, passionate, sensitive and, as in the brief scene with her former lover Neel, subtle and nuanced. She gets a vulnerability in her portrayal of Keya that is actually quite rare, at any rate in Indian cinema: the vulnerability of an independent, strong woman. The relationship between Keya and Kaju is superbly etched, and both actors complement each other perfectly. The support cast is also good. A few are experienced actors, like Yashpal Sharma (Govind), Luvleen Mishra (Govind's wife), Rajendra Gupta (K.K.), but for most it is their first screen appearance, and they are all first rate: Ankur Khanna as a surly, introverted Kabir, Aparna Roy as the grandmother and Choiti Ghosh as Kaju's cousin Tuki. The early part of the film appears to meander a bit as it sets the context for what is to follow, but with Keya's return to India, it grips you totally. Director Shonali Bose builds up the suspense well, and then, as Kaju unravels one thread of the mystery after another, the film moves towards its denouement almost like a thriller. Bose has shot Delhi as few others have; the slum sequences, in particular, are absolutely authentic. She also shoots the riots very well - the violence is real without being voyeuristic, and the fear palpable. The sequences in Kaju's uncle's home capture the life of the probashi family just right. Amu is an important film, perhaps the most important Indian film of recent years. It is that rare film which combines a strong political statement with a powerful and moving story. It is also not without humour, something one normally does not expect in a film of this kind. For a long time, Indian cinema - Hindi cinema at any rate - stayed away from our contemporary history. Now, with films like Amu, Kaya Taran and Anurag Kashyap's Black Friday, a staged documentary account of the Bombay blasts of 1993, there is a serious effort to engage with our times, in our times. In Kaya Taran, in the end, the reporter reconciles himself to his past, regrows his hair, and puts on a patka [under-turban]. Since the film is really about identities, their fragility, and their visible markers, it is believed that it had to end with the boy facing up to his identity and accepting it. It is the way this is shown that makes one uncomfortable: in the Press Club, everything is treated with cynicism, the most weighty matters can become trivial. And that is exactly what happens with the born-again Sikh - his embracing his identity, with all its visual difference, seems facile rather than profound. The question with Amu's resolution is somewhat different. As Kaju starts unravelling the mystery about her past, she is faced with a terrible possibility, which she eventually discovers is not true. In an otherwise deeply disturbing film, this resolution of Kaju's own search is strangely, irrationally comforting, even though what she discovers is tragic enough. Because the possibility it opens up is almost unimaginably terrifying to face up to - that her parent is a killer. What makes Amu truly frightening is the realisation that this could so easily be true.

2005/02/12: The Truth About the 1984 Sikh Massacres

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_021205a.html

The Truth About the 1984 Sikh Massacres EDITORIAL The Indian Express, Feb. 12, 2005

The Congress government must place the Nanavati report in the public sphere. The victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots have been victimised twice by the Indian State. Whoever may have been responsible for the riots, the state failed to give the victims protection in any substantial measure. But their tragedy was compounded by the state's failure to bring the perpetrators of those gruesome crimes to justice. Very few convictions have been handed down in proportion to the scale of the horrors inflicted on that fateful day. The Ranganath Mishra Commission was given so narrow a mandate that it was unlikely to produce justice. The Nanavati Commission has finally submitted its report. Yet the state continues to repeat its pattern of evasion and procrastination. Although the home minister has suggested that the report will be made public at some point, the hesitation in doing so instantly does not speak well. The report must be made public immediately. The victims of the riots deserve at least this much good faith effort on their behalf. And it is a travesty that in a democracy making public reports on such vital issues is a matter of executive discretion. The contents of the report can be judged only when it is made fully public. There is something of an oddity in the fact that the home minister has been exercising his discretion already in discussing the report with the Congress president, Sonia Gandhi. Whether or not, or to what extent, Congress politicians are indicted in the report remains to be seen. But there is something of a conflict of interest at work in the whole situation. The very party whose members are the object of the report will now exercise the discretion to make it public. The only way to maintain propriety in such a situation would have been to make the report public instantly. The rest of the political class should also rise above narrow partisanship in the way it uses the report. Political parties should demand that the report be made public. They should, if need be, press for more investigations. But they should not lose the larger objective in sight. The point should not be to score facile political points, but to earnestly strive for truth and justice. They ought to remember that it is not the Congress party that is on trial. The whole nation is on trial on every measure of moral decency. Do we care about the victims? Are our institutions sources of justice? Does the state protect its minorities? How can we ensure that the horrors of 1984 do not re-surface as they have, indeed, done in Gujarat? The Nanavati Commission may not have all the answers. It may not even be convincing. But we owe it to the victims; we owe it to ourselves as a nation, to discuss these matters in full measure. Make the report public.

2005/02/23: Nanavati: 1984 Sikh Massacre Was Organised

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_022305b.html

Nanavati: 1984 Sikh Massacre Was Organised By KULDIP NAYAR Deccan Herald, Feb. 23, 2005
Riots were 'organised,' some Congressmen instigating the anti-social elements to 'target the Sikh community' without any 'meaningful intervention' by the police. This is the import of the report by former Supreme Court Judge G.T. Nanavati on the 1984 riots. Understandably, he is reluctant to reveal the contents of the report because the Home Ministry, to which he has submitted it, is yet to place it before Parliament. But he makes no secret of his unhappiness over the nexus that has formed between some Congressmen and the police. He describes one as exploitative and the other indisciplined. Nanavati's observations more or less confirm what some N.G.O.s had said in the pamphlet, Who Are the Guilty? published soon after the killings in Delhi. The pamphlet said that 'the attacks on members of the Sikh community in Delhi and its suburbs during the period, far from being a spontaneous expression of 'madness' and of popular 'grief and anger' at Mrs. (Indira) Gandhi's assassination as made out to be by the authorities, were the outcome of a well-organised plan marked by acts of both deliberate commissions and omissions by important politicians of the Congress (I) at the top and by the authorities in the administration.' Nanavati believes what happened in Delhi can happen anywhere in India and at anytime because the police knows no limits and politicians no norms of behaviour. 'I have seen the same pattern in Gujarat' where he is currently investigating into the rioting which had made Muslims as the target. He sees many similarities between the happenings in Delhi and Gujarat and he has no good word, either for the politicians or the authorities. 'The army was late to arrive,' says Nanavati. It was not familiar with Delhi and hence took some time to get acquainted with the different localities. To begin with, according to Nanavati, the army wanted to go only into the two areas that were adjacent to the Cantonment. However, he does not comment on the allegation that the government had purposely delayed the induction of the army. He is particularly harsh on the prosecuting agency. 'There should be something like the National Prosecuting Agency for the country' so that prosecution is independent, without any outside pressure. Nanavati has no hesitation in saying that the authorities were not obeying instructions from above. 'I have seen the orders issued by the top but there was no implementation.' This is, indeed, a serious charge which suggests that the authorities, particularly the police, had become itself a mob, without any check or control. Connivance is bad enough but participation is something horrendous to contemplate in a democratic society. When it comes to action against the guilty, Nanavati expresses helplessness. After 20 years, he says, there was no concrete evidence to pursue, nothing to bring the killers to book. Still he has named four, five Congressmen, including a member of Parliament. Nanavati opened five or six cases from the many the police had closed but gave up because he found it to be a wild goose chase. Two or three cases were going on in the court against some police officials, he says. Apparently, he had not gone beyond. Nanavati's report says that the first incident took place around 2.30 pm on October 31, 1984 in the neighbourhood of All India Institute of Medical Sciences when some Sikhs were dragged out from their vehicles. The then President Zail Singh's motorcade was stoned around 5 p.m. Hell broke the following day, according to Nanavati. He is of the view that the fury lasted for one day, although some stray incidents took place subsequently. This is contrary to the general belief that the rioting continued for three days. Nanavati admits that he is conscious of 'limitations' in the report. To pick up the thread two decades later was not easy. Many people had died in the meantime and the court had given its verdict on several cases. Still he had done his best. 'I have not tried to whitewash anything. The report has to be read in its entirety to know where the blame lay,' says Nanavati. 'Some in the media were unfair to me because what was used as a leak was partly concocted and partly torn out of context.' He takes the credit for suggesting two steps for the rehabilitation of victims and their families. One recommendation is to pay the same compensation in other parts of India as has been done in Delhi Rs. 3.5 lakh [1 lakh = 100,000] for every person killed. The second is to ask the government to provide a job to the son or any other person of the family which lost its breadwinner. I wish the Nanavati Commission had gone beyond the rioting. I had something else in mind when I raised the demand in the Rajya Sabha for another commission. I wanted something on the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission appointed by South Africa to go over the period of apartheid. The whites were asked to confess what they did and were promised that no action would be taken against them. Many came forward and told the truth. For example, one said that he tried to kill Nelson Mandela. Had New Delhi gone about the same way, some from among the politicians and authorities might have come forward to tell the truth. We would not have been clueless as we are today even after several inquiry reports. Probably, our laws do not permit this. Even then, the commission's terms of reference should have been different. None expected any new evidence or something clinching to get at the guilty. Nanavati was also for a similar commission. He says that he tried to pursue the same path but did not succeed in his efforts. 'I asked many witnesses and others who appeared before me to rise above politics. But it looks as if I did not succeed.' (The Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee was keen on finding the culprits and hanging them. It was not willing to condone their guilt even if they were to come out with the truth.) Still we have the right to know why those who indulged in the rioting did so and how 'the organised' killing came to be planned and executed. The pattern in Delhi and elsewhere was the same: looting and burning the property and then setting it on fire and even killing or burning the owners and occupants along. The report, I am afraid, may not satisfy the Sikh community that has been wronged. But then even the most critical report cannot heal the wounds. Yet the government owes an explanation to the Sikhs or, more so, to the country. Let the prime minister say in Parliament at the next session that however limited the Nanavati report, the government seeks forgiveness from the nation and the victimised community. This will be statesmanship even though it may not serve the calls of politics.

2005/09/02: Yet Another Panel for Victims

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_090205a.html

1984 Sikh Massacres: Yet Another Panel for Victims By STAFF The Indian Express, New Delhi, Sep. 2, 2005

The Delhi Minorities Commission (D.M.C.) has decided to set up a 15-member committee of lawyers and eminent citizens to help riot victims claim relief from the Centre. This decision comes in the wake of the Central Government's decision to provide help to 1984 victims. Commission Chairman, Prof. Abu Baker said the Minorities Commission would be headed by Advocate K.T.S. Tulsi, who fought the Uphaar case on behalf of the fire victims. 'We would provide free legal assistance to victims to fight their case in courts. Our motive is to help victims who are poor and ignorant,' says Baker. 'We will teach them to fill up forms and fight for themselves.' The facilitative committee would begin operations by organising camps in various Sikh settlement areas in Delhi. The first contact with victims would be at these camps, Baker said. Many law students have opted to volunteer in the committee, he said. The commission is now planning to approach the Central and State governments and offer its services as a nodal agency for disbursement of relief to victims.

2005/05/16: Five Sentenced to Life in 1984 Sikh Massacres Case

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_051605a.html

Five Sentenced to Life in 1984 Sikh Massacres Case By STAFF P.T.I., New Delhi, May 16, 2005

More than two decades after five persons burnt to death a man during the anti-Sikh riots that rocked the capital following the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, a Delhi court today sentenced all of them to life imprisonment. Additional Sessions Judge N.K. Kaushik, found Rajinder, Pyarelal, Dharam Pal, Rajbir and Barumal guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C. (murder) for killing one Baba Singh by setting him ablaze after pouring kerosene. The incident took place on November 1, 1984 when the five dragged the deceased out of his home in Nangloi in West Delhi into the street, poured kerosene on him and set him ablaze. An F.I.R. in the case was lodged only on July 2, 1996, when the widow of the deceased, Kuldeep Kaur, approached the Lt. Governor after running pillar to post demanding justice for 12 years. Nearly 2,000 Sikhs were killed in the riots that broke out immediately after the assassination of Indira Gandhi.

2005/08/09: Mother of All Cover-ups

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_080905b.html

1984 Sikh Massacres: Mother of All Cover-ups By SEEMA MUSTAFA The Asian Age, New Delhi, Aug. 9, 2005

The Nanavati Commission report, which has failed to fix responsibility for the 1984 anti-Sikh violence, has involuntarily disclosed what can be described as one of the most elaborate cover-up exercises undertaken by successive Central governments for the past 20 years. Nine inquiries later, the Sikhs demanding justice are no closer to fixing responsibility on specific leaders and officers, many of whom have been exonerated in criminal cases because of 'lack of evidence.' The Nanavati Commission itself received 2,557 affidavits naming Congress leaders for inciting and leading mobs in Delhi during those days. It recorded interviews with 89 persons, including journalists, Army officers, police officers and eminent persons who had either witnessed the violence, or tried to knock at the government's door for action at the time. Much of this evidence is included in the report, but even so Justice Nanavati took the view that the violence was not systematically organised by the Congress party, that just a few of the Congress leaders named were involved, and that it was actually the police that had failed to do its duty. The earlier commissions of inquiry had also preferred to hold the police and the administration responsible for the deaths of 2,733 Sikhs (unofficially 4,000) and had remained reluctant to pin the blame on the politicians. But even here the commissions remained unsuccessful in bringing erring police personnel to book. Committees under a retired secretary, Kusum Latta Mittal, and another under Justice J.D. Jain and Mr. D.K. Agrawal, had identified 72 and 90 police officials respectively for action. No action was taken against 42 officials because they were either dead or retired. The ministry of home affairs exonerated five of the eight cases of police officers it dealt with as charges against them could not be substantiated. Of the other three officers, one was 'punished' with a 30 per cent cut in his pension for five years, which is long since over, another was not served with a final order, and the third got a stay from the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Delhi government processed the cases of the remaining 97 officers. Again, no action was taken against 29 officers as they were either dead or retired. No action was initiated against nine others as they were already facing inquiries. Finally, only about 22 criminal cases were registered against the remaining 72 police officers. Till date most of these cases are gathering dust with the noting 'filed untraced' against their names. Others have been acquitted, four are still pending trial and only one, Amir Khan, A.S.I., has been convicted. Of the total of 587 F.I.R.s filed in Delhi during the time, 11 were quashed, three had the proceedings withdrawn, 241 were filed as untraced, 253 were acquitted, and 11 were discharged. Only 25 of the total were convicted, one is still pending investigation, and 42 are pending trial. The Nanavati Commission, while dedicating several pages to police inaction, has taken the view that 'as appropriate actions were initiated against them, the Commission thought it fit not to recommend any further action against them.' It further claimed that it was difficult to make recommendations against many of those named by the witnesses simply because the statements were poorly recorded, or F.I.R.s improperly registered. However, the Nanavati Commission has given a clean chit to the Congress party, maintaining there was 'absolutely no evidence' to suggest the involvement of senior Congress leaders, and 'whatever acts were done were done by local Congress (I) leaders and workers, and they appear to have done so for purely personal reasons.' On many of these leaders, against whom it has found 'credible evidence,' the Nanavati Commission has surprisingly taken the view that 'as they have been acquitted in the criminal cases filed against them, the Commission does not recommend any further action against them.' Mr. H.K.L. Bhagat also falls in this particular category because of 'his physical and mental condition.' In fact, the only leaders that the commission speaks out against are Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, Dharam Dass Shastri (who is dead) and one Balwan Khokhar, against whom it has found credible evidence of involvement. The commission is of the view that these leaders were 'probably involved.' Here the government has come to their rescue with the Action Taken Report making it very apparent that the home ministry has found no reason to take action against these leaders. And the case, as far as the government is concerned, is closed.

2005/08/09: Ten Commissions

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_080905a.html

1984 Sikh Massacres: Ten Commissions, Panels By R. SURYAMURTHY
The following list excludes the N.G.O. commissions, for example those set up under Dr. Rajni Kothari, former Supreme Court Justice V.M. Tarkunde, and former Supreme Court Chief Justice S.M. Sikri.
The Tribune, New Delhi, Aug. 9, 2005
Since the 1984 anti-Sikh riots that followed the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in which over 3,000 persons were killed, the government had appointed 10 commissions and committees to inquire into the incident. However, the victims claim that none of those who perpetrated the crime and instigated the mob have been punished. Here is a chronology of different committees and commissions, which the government has set up from time to time and their results. 1. The Marwah Commission was appointed in November 1984. Ved Marwah, Additional Commissioner of Police, was assigned the job of enquiring into the role of the police during the carnage of November 1984. Mr. Marwah almost completed his inquiry towards the middle of 1985 when he was directed by the Central Government not to proceed further as the Misra Commission had been appointed by then. Complete records of the Marwah Commission were taken over by the government and were later transferred to the Misra Commission. However, the most important part of the record, namely the handwritten notes of Mr. Marwah, which contained important information, were not transferred to the Misra Commission. 2. The Misra Commission of Enquiry was appointed in May 1985. Justice Ranganath Misra, was a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Misra submitted his report in August 1986 and the report was made public six months thereafter in February 1987. In his report, Justice Misra stated that it was not part of his terms of reference to identify any person and recommended the formation of three committees. There was only one term of reference to this commission, i.e. whether the violence was organised. 3. The Kapur Mittal Committee was appointed in February 1987 on the recommendation of the Misra Commission to inquire into the role of the police, which the Marwah Commission had almost completed in 1985 itself, when the government asked that committee to wind up and not proceed further. After almost two years, this committee was appointed for the same purpose. This committee consisted of Justice Dalip Kapur and Mrs. Kusum Mittal, retired Secretary of U.P. It submitted its report in 1990. Seventy-two police officers were identified for their connivance or gross negligence. The committee recommended forthwith dismissal of 30 police officers out of 72. However, till date, not a single police officer has been awarded any kind of punishment. 4. The Jain Banerjee Committee was recommended by the Misra Commission for recommending registrations of cases. It consisted of Justice M.L. Jain, former Judge of the Delhi High Court and Mr. A.K. Banerjee, retired I.G.P. The Misra Commission held in its report that a large number of cases had not been registered and wherever the victims named political leaders or police officers, cases were not registered against them. This committee recommended registration of cases against Mr. Sajjan Kumar in August 1987, but no case was registered. In November 1987 many press reports appeared for not registering cases in spite of the recommendation of the committee. In December 1987, one of the co-accused along with Sajjan Kumar, namely Mr. Brahmanand Gupta filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and obtained a stay against this committee. The government did not oppose the stay. The Citizens Justice Committee filed an application for vacating the stay. Ultimately, the writ petition was decided in August 1989 and the high court quashed the appointment of this committee. An appeal was filed by the Citizens Justice Committee in the Supreme Court. 5. The Potti Rosha Committee was appointed in March 1990 as a successor to the Jain Banerjee Committee. This committee also recommended registration of cases against Sajjan Kumar. 6. The Jain Aggarwal Committee was appointed in December 1990 as a successor to the Potti Rosha Committee. It consisted of Justice J.D. Jain, retired Judge of the Delhi High Court and Mr. D.K. Aggarwal, retired D.G.P. of U.P. This committee recommended registration of cases against H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar, Dharamdas Shastri and Jagdish Tytler. This committee was wound up in August 1993. However, the cases recommended by this committee were not even registered by the police. 7. The Ahuja Committee was the third committee recommended by the Misra Commission to ascertain the total number of killings in Delhi. This committee submitted its report in August 1987 and gave a figure of 2,733 as the number of Sikhs killed in Delhi alone. 8. The Dhillon Committee headed by Mr. Gurdial Singh Dhillon was appointed in 1985 to recommend measures for the rehabilitation of the victims. This committee submitted its report by the end of 1985. One of the major recommendations of this committee was that the business establishments that had insurance cover but whose insurance claims were not settled by insurance companies on the technical ground that riot was not covered under insurance should be paid compensation under the directions of the government. This committee recommended that since all insurance companies were nationalised they be directed to pay the claims. However, the government did not accept this recommendation and, as a result, insurance claims were rejected by all insurance companies throughout the country. 9. The Narula Committee was appointed in December 1993 by the Madan Lal Khurana government in Delhi. This committee submitted its report in January 1994 and recommended registration of cases against Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler. 10. The Nanavati Commission was appointed by a unanimous resolution passed in the Rajya Sabha. This commission was headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The commission submitted its report in February 2004. The report said there was 'credible evidence' against the now Union Minister Jagdish Tytler that he 'very probably' had a hand in organising attacks on Sikhs and recommended to the government to take further action as may be found necessary. The A.T.R. [Action Taken Report, prepared by the Congress government in response to the Nanavati report], while exonerating Mr. Tytler, said, 'a person cannot be prosecuted simply on the basis of probabilities.'

2005/08/10: A Massacre Is a Massacre

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_081005a.html

1984 Sikh Massacres: A Massacre Is a Massacre By VIR SANGHVI The Hindustan Times, Aug. 10, 2005
When is a riot not a riot? When is a massacre not a massacre? When is a mass murderer not a mass murderer? And when is public outrage to be muted - if not entirely suspended? When the Congress is the culprit. And when the victims are Sikhs. That, at least, seems to be the attitude of much of our so-called secular establishment. The publication of the Nanavati report into the 1984 Delhi riots should have served to remind us of the horrors of that bloody week. It should have led us to recall how completely the administration failed and how innocent Sikhs were murdered in front of their own children. Instead, the secular response to the report has been curiously low-key. It was a long time ago, we are told. What is the point in raking up old memories? Justice Nanavati doesn't conclusively blame anybody anyway, does he? And anyway, all secularists must unite to fight Hindu fundamentalism, so let's not get sidetracked by an old riot. There is something sad and shameful about these responses. Listening to them yesterday, I had some sense of why secularism has fallen into such disrepute. It has become a flag of convenience for anybody who wants to oppose the B.J.P. And we have forgotten that all communal violence - no matter who it is directed against - is equally bad. It wasn't always like this. Those of you with long memories will remember the horror with which most educated people reacted to the riots in 1984. Then, they became a Great Secular Issue in much the same way that the Gujarat riots later became a defining issue for a new generation of politicians. Certainly, it was impossible not to be outraged by the massacres. They took place in the immediate aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the early violence was spontaneous, sparked off by public anger against Sikhs and by simmering Hindu resentment at the Punjab violence. Then, somebody spread a rumour that Sikhs were distributing sweets to celebrate Mrs. Gandhi's death. Even though there was no substantiation to this story, small-time local Congress leaders gathered their followers and went in search of Sikh homes to burn. What happened next is the subject of some dispute. Eyewitnesses claim that they saw senior Congress leaders - Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, H.K.L. Bhagat and Dharamdas Shastri - either leading the mobs or organising the violence. Naturally, the leaders have since declared their innocence, but there is little doubt that some of their followers were involved. It did not help that the police force failed. The Delhi Police disappeared from the streets of the capital and Sikhs were denied the protection they needed to save their lives. The administration delayed calling in the army and, in the interim, hundreds of poor Sikhs living in the resettlement colonies on the other side of the Yamuna were murdered. In a pattern that would be repeated in Gujarat nearly two decades later, the mobs resorted to extreme cruelty: fathers were killed in front of their daughters, women were raped in full public view and, in some cases, thugs drove electric drills into the heads of defenceless Sikhs. By the time the riot was over - actually, I don't know why we call it a riot, it was a massacre - three things were clear. One: the Congress was involved. Two: the police and the administration did nothing to protect the Sikhs. And three: there was an unforgivable delay in calling in the military. The dispute was over other issues. What was the level of Congress involvement? Were people like Bhagat and Tytler really involved? Did the policemen run away because they were scared? Or was it because they did not want to act against workers of the party that was in power? And why did it take so long to restore order? Was it because the government was in a state of chaos following Mrs. Gandhi's assassination? Or was there a more sinister design? Was it true that Arun Nehru, the Congress strong man of that era, had said, 'Let Delhi burn for three days?' Had Rajiv Gandhi's administration allowed the massacres to go on because they tapped into a vote-rich Hindu backlash? Over two decades and many commissions of inquiry later, we have some answers. Yes, senior Congress leaders were involved. There may not be enough evidence to prosecute Tytler, but Justice Nanavati suggests that he played some role. About Bhagat, the report is vague: no purpose is served in investigating him further because of his advanced age and declining health. Sajjan Kumar and Dharamdas Shastri seem to have had some involvement. On the more substantive issue of whether the administration allowed Delhi to burn, all the commissions have been unanimous: yes, it did, but this was because of incompetence and negligence, not because of any sinister design. If there is a parallel, it is with the 1993 Bombay riots rather than with Gujarat. In Bombay too, the police failed to protect Muslims. And the local administration failed to ask the army to restore order till it was much too late. Then too, there were political workers involved - except that they belonged to the Shiv Sena which was in opposition, and not to the ruling Congress. I suppose it offers secularists some comfort that the riots in two of India's greatest cities - Delhi in 1984 and Bombay in 1993 - were not engineered by Congress governments. But this is little comfort to the victims and their families. We elect governments to protect us and when they fail to do so, it is hardly reassuring to be told, 'At least they didn't set out to murder you.' Besides, the distinction between a party and its government is not always clear. We accept now that the central government did not intend Delhi to burn in 1984 and that it did not ask the police to let Sikhs be murdered. But nevertheless, there is no denying the Congress's role in the massacres. Even if Rajiv Gandhi and his aides did not want the violence to spiral out of control, and even if the failure to protect the Sikhs was due to the government's state of paralysis following Mrs. Gandhi's assassination, it was still local Congress leaders who led the mobs, who committed the murders. And if Justice Nanavati is to be believed, it wasn't just local leaders; some national figures were also involved. In the Eighties, nobody was afraid of saying this. But Indian politics has now become so polarised between the so-called forces of secularism (i.e. the Congress and the Left) and the so-called communal elements (the Sangh parivar), that every event is now reassessed through the prism of this polarisation. So Congress supporters and communists are willing to forget the horrors of 1984 lest they weaken the secular case against Narendra Modi and the mass murderers of Gujarat. But the truth is that a murderer is a murderer. A massacre is a massacre. A victim is a victim - regardless of whether he is Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. When somebody comes to kill you, it does not matter whether he does so in the name of Hindu fundamentalism or Congress extremism. If we forget the murders of 1984 and allow those who committed them to get away with it, then we lose the moral right to criticise Narendra Modi or to ever speak out against communal violence. It saddens me that the secular establishment has forgotten basic morality. Its failure to stand up for the victims of the 1984 massacres shames us all.

2005/08/12: No Longer In Denial

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_081205a.html

1984 Sikh Massacres: No Longer In Denial EDITORIAL The Indian Express, Aug. 12, 2005
Is our history of abdicating responsibility for riots finally coming to an end? Jagdish Tytler's resignation - albeit a reluctant one - has set some new benchmarks for the pursuit of justice in Indian democracy. We are now sending a strong signal that politicians who appear to be complicit in riots will have to pay the political price. It is also not insignificant that the Congress has acted upon some of recommendations of the Nanavati Commission. While many parties, including the Left, have expressed some doubts over the Commission's findings, the Congress was at least responsible enough not to impugn the Commission simply because it was appointed by the N.D.A. government. Cynics might argue that this was largely due to the fact that the highest echelons of the Congress leadership had been exonerated by the Commission. But this should not detract from the fact that the Commission's findings are being respected and acted upon; that the Commission is not itself being targeted for partisan reasons. No one should be under any illusions that the events of the last few days come anywhere near bringing a substantial measure of justice to the victims of the anti-Sikh carnage. The cases originally filed against alleged perpetrators produced few convictions. And even with brand new investigations the passage of time and the deteriorating quality of evidence will make securing legal justice an enormous challenge. The government should ensure that it now does the best it can to ensure these cases are investigated and prosecuted properly. But, in the meantime, assigning some measure of political responsibility for those events is at least a beginning. Unfortunately, even small political steps are missing when it comes to other riots. A number of reports of other commissions still await action. The Srikrishna Commission Report, to take one example, has still not elicited a proper response from successive governments. So many riot victims in Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Bhagalpur - to name a few prominent instances - still await justice in any form: legal, political or moral. Will the tide finally turn? Will we finally get over the history of denials, partisan politics and abdication of responsibility that mark our attitudes towards riots? Our task is to ensure that Jagdish Tytler's resignation is not just an anomaly in the struggle for political justice.

2005/08/13: Need More Than an Apology

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_081305a.html

1984 Sikh Massacres: Need More Than an Apology EDITORIAL The Times of India, Aug. 13, 2005
The prime minister has done the right thing by apologising to the nation in Parliament for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. His well-crafted speech was rich in emotion and promise. He now needs to deliver on his promise of justice to victims of the riots if the emotion is not to be construed as a hollow political tactic. The Congress needs to walk the extra mile to enable Manmohan Singh in his endeavour. This 'search for truth' has to be not just the prime minister's but of the entire political spectrum. The nation needs apologies, and much more, if the scars of the riots are to heal. There are enough reasons for sceptics to worry if the sentiments expressed by the Congress leadership in the last few days go beyond addressing the immediate political moment. The A.T.R. [Action Taken Report] on the Nanavati commission's report approved by the Union cabinet and submitted in Parliament had glossed over most of Justice Nanavati's remarks. The moral outrage in the media and the threat of U.P.A. allies to vote against the government pressurised the Congress to look at the commission's report anew. The party had begun rethinking its position on the '84 riots in the 90s itself. Sonia Gandhi's apology to the Sikhs went a long way in bridging the gap between the Congress and the community. But the sentiment was hardly reflected in the party's preference for politicians like Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar who were indicted by victims as instigators of violence. The A.T.R. prepared by the home ministry only raised doubts about the government's commitment to justice. The challenge before Manmohan is enormous. Free India's history is a history of failed promises. Riot after riot has challenged the idea of a secular and democratic India. Institutions meant to protect constitutional guarantees of political and social freedoms have been trampled upon repeatedly by the mainstream political class. Delhi '84 and Gujarat '02 are evidences of the collapse of the state. Such memories erode the belief of the people in the Indian state and democracy. Justice to the victims of the anti-Sikh riots can go a long way to restore the confidence of the people not just in the state but in the political class as well. Which is why Manmohan can't afford to fail. Commitment to justice has to be a fundamental character of Indian democracy.

2005/08/22: Nanavati Report Victory to the Mob By KHUSHWANT SINGH

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_082205a.html
1984 Sikh Massacres: Victory to the Mob By KHUSHWANT SINGH Outlook, Aug. 22, 2005

The Nanavati report is utter garbage. All the killers are roaming freely. I have only two words for Justice G.T. Nanavati's inquiry report on the butchery of Sikhs 21 years ago: utter garbage. I have the report in hand, all 349 pages, plus the Action Taken Report [A.T.R.] presented by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government in Parliament on August 8. I thought it would take a whole day or two to go through it. It took only a couple of hours because it is largely based on what transpired in zones of different police stations and long lists of names which meant nothing to me. There are broad hints about the involvement of Congress leaders like H.K.L. Bhagat, Jagdish Tytler, Dharam Dass Shastri and Sajjan Kumar. He gives them the benefit of the doubt and suggests yet another inquiry commission to look into the charges against them. Yet another commission? For God's sake, is he serious? To say the least, I was deeply disappointed with the whole thing. But the game of shirking responsibility was to attain higher levels! First, the government took its own sweet time to put the report on the table of the House, waiting till the last day allotted to it for doing so. Union home minister Shivraj Patil had assured the House when the report had been submitted to him six months ago that the government had nothing to hide. However, he hid it till he could hide it no more. That shows the government's mala fide intent in the whole business. Even the Action Taken Report makes sorry reading. Most of it is aimed at the policemen now retired from service and hence no longer liable for disciplinary action. Any wonder why, despite monetary compensation, the sense of outrage among families of victims has not diminished by the passage of years? About 21 years ago, northern India down to Karnataka witnessed a bloodbath the likes of which the country had not experienced since Independence nor after. In Delhi, over 3,000 Sikhs were murdered, their wives and daughters gangraped, their properties looted, 72 gurudwaras burnt down. The all-India total of casualties was close to 10,000, the loss of property over thousands of crores. What triggered off the holocaust was the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. On the morning of October 31, 1984, she was assassinated by two of her Sikh security guards. As the news of her death spread, rampaging mobs of Hindus shouting khoon ka badla khoon se lenge (we will avenge blood with blood), armed with cans of petrol, matchboxes and lathis set upon Sikhs they met on the roads - easily identifiable because of their distinct appearance - and set them on fire. Sikh-owned shops and homes were attacked and looted. Most of this mayhem and murder took place in Congress-ruled states. Word had gone round, 'Teach the Sikhs a lesson;' the police was instructed not to intervene. It was then people realised how much ill-will Sikhs had earned because of the hate-filled utterances of Bhindranwale against Hindus and the years of killings carried out by his hoodlums in Punjab. No Sikh leader, neither Congress nor Akali, had raised his voice in protest. Consequently, when Mrs. Gandhi ordered the army to enter the Golden Temple to get Bhindranwale dead or alive, no Hindu condemned the action as unwarranted. Sikhs were deeply hurt by Operation Blue Star and ultimately two of them decided to murder Mrs. Gandhi. What followed was largely condoned by Hindus and the Hindu-owned media. Girilal Jain, editor of The Times of India, wrote that Sikhs should have been aware of what lay in store for them. N.C. Menon, editor of The Hindustan Times, wrote that they had 'clawed their way to prosperity' and deserved what they got. There were few people left to share their pain. It must be acknowledged that some leaders of the Sangh parivar and the R.S.S., including A.B. Vajpayee, went out of their way to help the Sikhs. So did men like Ram Jethmalani, Soli Sorabjee and a few others. Rajiv Gandhi, who flew in from Calcutta with his cousin and confidant Arun Nehru, was quickly sworn in as prime minister by Zail Singh without consulting other ministers or chief ministers of states. Rajiv was busy receiving foreign dignitaries coming to attend his mother's funeral. Days later, in his first public speech, he exonerated the murderers: 'When a big tree falls, the earth beneath it is bound to shake.' He meant to take no action in the matter and retained men named as leaders of mobs in his cabinet. Home minister Narasimha Rao did not stir out of his house. When a few eminent Sikhs approached him, he listened to them in studied silence. He remained, as he always was, the paradigm of masterly inactivity. With the three men at the top refusing to do their duty, little could be expected from the Lt. Governor of Delhi or the police commissioner. Section 144 of the I.P.C. [Indian Penal Code], forbidding gatherings of more than five people, was not promulgated or enforced; no curfew was imposed, no shoot-at-sight order given. A unit of the army was brought in from Meerut but when it was discovered that they were Sikhs, it was ordered to stay in the cantonment and not meddle with the civic unrest. The only word I could think of using for the way the authorities carried out its duties? Downright disgusting. It was like spitting in the face of all democratic institutions. However, there were citizens' organisations which refused to allow a crime of this magnitude to go uninvestigated and unpunished. Leading them were Dr. Rajni Kothari and Justice (retired) V.M. Tarkunde. Kothari's report, Who Are the Guilty?, named men like H.K.L. Bhagat, Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, Dharam Dass Shastri - all M.P.s and leaders of the Delhi municipality amongst leaders of goonda [hoodlum] gangs. None of those named took these men or organisations to court for criminal libel. When Jagdish Tytler claimed that none of the commissions of inquiry implicated him in the anti-Sikh violence, he was lying. You can see it in the smirk on his satanic face. Only sarkari [governmental] commissions let him off the hook. More important than Kothari and Tarkunde's findings were those of the non-official commission of inquiry set up under retired chief justice of the Supreme Court, S.M. Sikri. Comprising retired ambassadors, governors and senior civil servants (none of them a Sikh), the commission castigated the government in no uncertain terms. The government could not ignore its verdict. Ultimately, Rajiv Gandhi took the Sikh problem in his own hands. He appointed Arjun Singh governor of Punjab to make contacts with Akali leaders in jails. They were released in small batches to create a favourable atmosphere. Secret negotiations with Sant Harchand Singh Longowal were started. Zail Singh, Buta Singh and others were kept in the dark. On July 24, 1985, the Rajiv-Longowal Accord was signed. Amongst other items, it provided for an inquiry commission into the incidents of violence of November 1984. Justice Ranganath Mishra of the Supreme Court was appointed as a one-man commission. 'Operation Whitewash' had begun. Before Mishra was half-way through, the panel of lawyers representing victims of the holocaust led by Soli Sorabjee expressed its lack of confidence in the learned judge's impartiality and withdrew from the commission. Mishra went ahead and submitted his findings to the government. As expected, he held the Lt. Governor and the police commissioner of Delhi guilty of dereliction of duty. It must have occurred to him that neither of the two could have acted the way they did without the instructions of higher-ups, including the prime minister or someone acting on his behalf or the home minister. I doubt if Mishra can look at his own face in a mirror. I don't think Rajiv Gandhi was himself a party to the anti-Sikh pogrom. If he was guilty of anything, it was allowing it to go on for two days and nights till his mother's funeral was over. Behind it all was his eminence grise who sent out the message: 'Teach the Sikhs a lesson.' No commission of inquiry, official or non-official, has looked into the role of this sinister character, although he is still very much alive and around in Delhi's political circuit. Nor, unfortunately, can I look into it at this stage. After the Mishra Commission, nine others were instituted by the government. Their terms of reference were restricted. Nothing much came out of their findings as most of them focused on the shortcomings of the Delhi police in handling the crisis. Resentment against the government continued to simmer. Ultimately, in May 2000, the government set up yet another commission of inquiry under Justice G.T. Nanavati. He was to submit his report in six months. At the leisurely pace he heard evidence tendered, it took him five years to do so. I did not expect very much from him. But H.S. Phoolka, who had taken charge of presenting victims' grievances, persuaded me to file an affidavit and appear before him. I did so, but the way the inquiry commission functioned didn't inspire much confidence. It was less like a court dealing with criminal charges and more like a tea party with lawyers on both sides exchanging pleasantries. I told the commission what I had seen with my own eyes taking place around where I live: burning of Sikh-owned taxi cabs and the desecration of a gurudwara behind my flat, looting of Sikh-owned shops in Khan Market - all in full view of dozens of policemen armed with lathis lined along the road but doing nothing. I also told him of my futile attempts to get President Zail Singh on the phone. There is no doubt about it: the November 1984 anti-Sikh violence will remain a blot on the face of our country for times to come. No one will take the findings of these sarkari commissions of inquiry seriously. It will be left to historians to chronicle events that led to this tragedy and the miscarriage of justice that followed. A few salutary lessons that the experience has taught us should be kept in mind by our leaders.The most important is to understand that crimes unpunished breed criminals.Another equally important thing to bear in mind is that the State must never abdicate its monopoly of punishing criminals, if it overlooks its duty or delays dispensing justice beyond limits of endurance, it encourages aggrieved parties to take the law in their own hands and settle scores with those who wronged them.If we do not learn these lessons now, we will have more holocausts in the years to come.

2005/09/02: Yet Another Panel for Victims

The Indian Express, New Delhi, Sep. 2, 2005

The Delhi Minorities Commission (D.M.C.) has decided to set up a 15-member committee of lawyers and eminent citizens to help riot victims claim relief from the Centre. This decision comes in the wake of the Central Government's decision to provide help to 1984 victims. Commission Chairman, Prof. Abu Baker said the Minorities Commission would be headed by Advocate K.T.S. Tulsi, who fought the Uphaar case on behalf of the fire victims. 'We would provide free legal assistance to victims to fight their case in courts. Our motive is to help victims who are poor and ignorant,' says Baker. 'We will teach them to fill up forms and fight for themselves.' The facilitative committee would begin operations by organising camps in various Sikh settlement areas in Delhi. The first contact with victims would be at these camps, Baker said. Many law students have opted to volunteer in the committee, he said. The commission is now planning to approach the Central and State governments and offer its services as a nodal agency for disbursement of relief to victims.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

2005/08/10: Hindu.com: Nanavati Commission findings on Police

http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/10/stories/2005081004771200.htm

Army deployment took time during 1984 riots
Vinay Kumar
Attacks were made without much fear of the police: Nanavati Commission report

NEW DELHI: The Nanavati Commission, which probed the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, came across evidence to show that on October 31, 1984 either meetings were held or the persons who could organise attacks were contacted and given instructions to kill Sikhs and loot their houses and shops.
"The attacks were made in a systematic manner and without much fear of the police; almost suggesting that they were assured that they would not be harmed while committing those acts and even thereafter," the Commission said in its report tabled in Parliament on Monday. From November 1, 1984, another `cause of exploitation of the situation' had joined the initial `cause of anger.' The exploitation of the situation was by anti-social elements who saw an opportunity of looting things without the fear of being punished.
"The criminals got an opportunity to show their might and increase their hold. The exploitation of the situation was also by the local political leaders for their political and personal gains like increasing the clout by showing their importance, popularity, and hold over the masses. Lack of the fear of the police force was also one of the causes for the happening of so many incidents within those 3 or 4 days. If the police had taken prompt and effective steps, many lives would not have been lost and so many properties would not have been looted, destroyed or burnt," it said.
If this was how the Commission described the situation on the ground, there is another key question of how the high-ups took time to decide on calling the Army for assistance of the local authorities to restore law and order when Delhi streets were ruled by criminals, anti-social elements.
Evidence given before the Commission by Major-General (Retd) J.S. Jamwal, then General Officer Commanding of Delhi area, the affidavit of Brigadier A.S. Brar, then Commandant of Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre in Delhi, depositions of P.V. Narasimha Rao, then Home Minister, S.C. Tandon, then Delhi Police Commissioner, and P.G. Gavai, then Lt-Governor of Delhi, show the way decision was taken to requisition services of the Army.
Mr. Tandon told the Commission that he met Lt-Governor and Major-General Jamwal on November 1, 1984. Maj. Gen. Jamwal informed him that he did not have enough units and he would be able to cover only two contiguous districts. On his suggestion, Maj. Gen. Jamwal agreed to deploy one in Central district and one in South district. According to him, he had not received any instruction from the Home Minister either on October 31 or till the evening of November 1, 1984.
The then Lt-Governor, Mr. Gavai, attended a meeting with the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and senior Congress leader M.L. Fotedar at 6 p.m. on November 1, 1984. On November 2, he spoke to General A.S. Vaidya about some sluggishness of the armed forces in getting out of their vehicles. That very day he was told by Dr. P.C. Alexander, then Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, to proceed on leave. The next day Mr. Gavai had left Delhi.
In his reply, Dr. Alexander told the Commission that he had not received any proposal from the Lt-Governor about calling out the Army. According to him, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was very unhappy at the way the Delhi Administration was handling the situation of violence and the riots in the city. He told the Commission that the Prime Minister took the decision of calling out the Army at 1.30 p.m. on November 1, 1984. However, the Army Chief was already alerted both by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary to keep the army contingents in readiness.
The then Home Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, told the Commission that the Home Minister was not competent to call out the troops. From where the troops should be called out is a decision within the exclusive domain of the Army Chief under the Ministry of Defence. In the Commission's view there was no delay or indifference at the level of the Home Minister.

2002/05/01: COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1901/19010810.htm

Crime and connivance
As the G.T. Nanavati Commission of Inquiry proceeds with its investigation of the 1984 riots in Delhi in the wake of Indira Gandhi's assassination, more and more tales of complicity and connivance on the part of the police force come to light.
NAUNIDHI KAUR
STARTLING evidence of the complicity of the police in the 1984 riots in Delhi has been brought to light by the G.T. Nanavati Commission of Inquiry, which is now halfway through its investigation. The Commission, which has covered the three police districts of Delhi - New Delhi and Central and East Delhi - was appointed by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government on May 10, 2000, to look into the causes of the violence and the manner in which it occurred. Its terms of reference include fixing of responsibility for the dereliction of duty by the state authorities. The depositions made before the Commission reveal that while the majority of the police personnel tacitly supported the rioters, a section of them actively participated in the rioting.
One of the few Sikhs who ventured out onto Delhi's streets shortly after the violence that erupted between Indira Gandhi's assassination and funeral in 1984. About 1,500 people, most of them poor and semi-skilled male Sikhs, were killed in the riots.
The police have been accused by the then general secretary of the Akali Dal's youth wing, Kuldip Singh Bhogal, of participation in the riots. In testimony before the Commission, Bhogal said that policemen from the Madhuban Training Centre near Karnal in Haryana were sent to Delhi to create chaos. He said that on November 2, 1984, a mob armed with lathis and iron rods ran riot in the Ashram area of Delhi. He along with some other Sikhs caught one of rioters, who was later identified as a policeman.
Bhogal said: "A Haryana police identity card was recovered from him, which was a clear indication and evidence that the mob to which he belonged consisted of members of (the) Madhuban Training Centre near Karnal and (that) they were sent to Delhi to create chaos, lawlessness and destruction."
Other witnesses said the police not only did not make any effort to control the mobs but actively instigated them to loot property, all the while not allowing Sikhs to come out of their houses to protect themselves. Ishar Kaur, a witness, said that the police did not allow her family to take their truck to the gurdwara while mobs were targeting the property of Sikhs. She said: "When we were bringing the truck to the gurdwara, the police stopped us by bringing their jeep in front of us and asked us to take the vehicle back."
Riot victims cite the case of Station House Officer (SHO) Shoor Veer Singh Tyagi to point out the fact that some officials have easily escaped punishment. Tyagi was the SHO of Kalyanpuri in 1984. Some of the worst cases of arson, looting and slaughter occurred in Kalyanpuri, just 12 km from the police headquarters. On the night of November 1, 1984, more than 200 people died there. The final death roll, mostly constituting poor and semi-skilled male Sikhs, was 1,500.
Rahul Bedi, who was then a reporter with Indian Express, said in his deposition that 300 yards (some 270 metres) away from Block 32 of Trilokpuri (which is a section of Kalyanpuri) he found the path blocked by a mob several hundreds strong. He added: "Before we could reach them, two policemen, one a head constable and the other a constable, riding a motorcycle, burst through the crowd coming from the direction of Block 32 and headed towards us. I flagged the motorcycle to a halt and asked the head constable driving it whether any killings had taken place in Block 32. The policeman said that there was shanti (peace) in Block 32. On further probing he admitted that two people had been killed." Bedi said that after that he was confronted by a mob that asked him to either leave or face the consequences of staying on. He then went to the Kalyanpuri police station and asked the duty officer and the sub-inspector there whether there was any trouble in Kalyanpuri. Both of them said that the situation was calm.
Rahul Bedi said: "A parked truck nearby attracted our attention and on closer inspection we found the back of the vehicle littered with three bodies, charred beyond recognition, and a half-charred, barely alive Sikh youth lying atop them. In his quasi-consciousness, the man told us that he was from Punjab and had come visiting relatives in Trilokpuri. In the early hours of the same morning, a rampaging mob, he said, had killed his hosts and set him alight after pouring kerosene oil on his body. He had been brought to the police station around 11 a.m., around four hours before we spoke to him. He had lain there ever since."
When Bedi questioned the police personnel at the station they denied any knowledge of the incidents and said that such matters were the responsibility of the SHO, who was away and would return only in the evening. Looking for information, Bedi reached the police headquarters and met Acting Police Commissioner Nikhil Kumar, who asserted that he would not be able to do anything more than inform the police control room as he was a "mere guest artist". After this, according to testimony, Bedi went back to Trilokpuri where he met Shoor Veer Singh, who then went to Block 32 with him. Describing the apathy of the police, Bedi recounted in his deposition: "Shoor Veer Singh, walking over the sea of hundreds of charred and mutilated bodies in Block 32, told me 'the Mussalmans are responsible for this'."
THE Carnage Justice Committee (CJC) set up for the riot victims cites Tyagi's case as an example of how easy it was for some police officials to escape punishment. The members of the CJC quote the landmark judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, Justice S.N. Dhingra. In his judgment Justice Dhingra said: "The then SHO Shoor Veer Singh Tyagi showed his shoorvirta by getting the innocent persons killed. His successor Satvir Singh Rathi showed his 'love for truth' by suppressing the truth and eliminating whatever possible evidence against the culprits that could be eliminated. Other police officials of Kalyanpuri faithfully followed their instructions for not taking any action." The judgment further said that Tyagi's investigation was a farce. It concluded that Tyagi and Rathi could not have acted in that manner unless they had instructions from their superiors.
"Nothing came out of this historic judgment as the Commissioner of Police did not sanction the use of Section 197 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) against Tyagi. This was necessary for Tyagi's prosecution. As a result he was discharged by the court and continues to be part of the Delhi Police," said senior advocate H.S. Phoolka, who represents the CJC. "The response of the Delhi police in Tyagi's case exemplifies the shoddy treatment given to the riot victims by the police force," said advocate R.S. Chatwal, also of the CJC.
Tyagi's alleged role in abetting the killings in Trilokpuri has been examined by various government committees, including the Kapoor Mittal Committee which was set up to investigate acts of commission and omission by police officers. One member of this committee, Kusum Lata Mittal, indicted in 1988 as many as 72 officials under specific charges. (One member of the committee dropped out midway, leaving Kusum Lata Mittal to complete the job.) However, successive governments have shown no interest in following up on these proceedings.
In Tyagi's case, Kusum Lata Mittal's report states that "it was clear that the police staff of the Kalyanpuri police station had itself become a part of the mobs indulging in killings". It took note of the fact that while a carnage was going on in Tyagi's own district, he was ordered by his DCP to proceed to the adjoining police district, which was not under his jurisdiction. On the basis of this fact the committee said that it seemed probable that senior officials of the police did not want to intervene in the killings and hence claimed that they were unaware of the incidents and kept themselves away.
Specific patterns of police participation in the 1984 riots can be traced on the basis of depositions made before the Commission. Whenever Sikhs attempted self-defence, policemen disarmed and arrested them. This was clear from what happened at Motia Khan gurdwara in Central Delhi. The police said that two Sikhs fired from inside the gurdwara at a mob on November 1, 1984. The then Police Commissioner, S.C. Tandon, reached the spot with two battalions of police and arrested both the Sikhs under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which held them accountable for attempt to murder, although nobody from the mob was injured. The SHO of the area said in his deposition before the Commission that only four out of the 4,000 rioters had been arrested.
Most of the police officials who have been cross-examined have cited staff shortage as the reason for not reaching the sites of violence in time. The strength of the police force in Delhi at the time of the riots was 22,000 constables, 3,000 head constables, 1,400 inspectors and sub-inspectors, and some 242 higher officers, including the Police Commissioner. While it is widely recognised that the force as a whole was inadequate in size to service the needs of a densely populated and growing city, it was not so thinly distributed in 1984 that it could not have acted more positively than it did. The city was divided into five police districts and had 63 police stations and 25 police posts. The population of Delhi in 1984 was roughly 6.5 million, and there was one policeman for roughly 200 people. This was a sufficient number to stop the killings, as the police officials who appeared before the Commission admitted that they could disperse crowds by stern warnings or by shots fired in the air.
Deposing before the Commission, Assistant Commissioner of Police from the New Delhi range, Ranbeer Singh, said: "While I was passing through Bank Street I found that three or four Sikh families who were staying there were under heavy attack. They had gone to the topmost floor of the houses. The mob was throwing stones at them and they were also throwing stones at the mob. The mob consisted of about 2,000-3,000 persons. I told the mob to disperse but it did not listen. Therefore I ordered constable Anand Singh to fire two shots in the air. The crowd thereafter dispersed."
The participation of the Delhi Police in the riots has been discussed at length by the Ranganath Misra Commission, which tabled its report in Parliament in February 1987. The Misra Commission said that "when the incidents started taking place the police remained passive, leading to generation of the feeling that if the Sikhs were harassed no action would be taken, and the situation deteriorated further". It also noted that "it was not proper on the part of the police to withdraw the licensed firearms from some people belonging to the group which was being exposed and thus expose the weaker groups to great risk at the hands of the rioters." It stated that there were several instances when policemen in uniform were found marching behind or mingling with the crowd. Since they did not make any attempt to stop the mob, an inference has been drawn that they were part of it.
Regarding property that was looted, it said that "possession of identified stolen property constitutes good evidence for the offence punishable under Sections 411 and 412 IPC and provides a presumptive link for the offence. During the riots, the police, instead of following this known method, adopted a novel one of inviting the culprits to pile up the stolen articles in the open, near the houses from where the removal had been made. By this process the best evidence linking the accused with the offence vanished".
The Misra Commission recommended that the Delhi administration investigate the conduct of the delinquent police officers. It also recalled that the inquiry by V.P. Marwah, launched by the Delhi administration to identify incidents of severe failure to act and negligence by police officials, had been derailed by high-ranking officers in charge of South and East Delhi.
However, nothing has come out of the recommendations of the Misra Commission. Even less came out of the recommendations of the Kapoor Mittal Committee report, a comprehensive 400-page document, which went into the conduct of the personnel of all the police stations in Delhi, the Delhi Railway Police and the Delhi Armed Police in a detailed manner. However, 17 years after the riots, the role played by the political actors and officials of the state is still under debate.

2001/09/01: Nanavati Commission "waiting for Justice"

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1818/18180340.htm


COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY
Waiting for justice
As the Nanavati Commission inquiring into the 1984 Delhi riots traverses a crucial phase of its work, weary survivors wait - and some battle it out.
NAUNIDHI KAURin New Delhi
SEVENTEEN years after riots rocked Delhi following Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination, the culprits are still at large and there is widespread disillusionment among the victims about the process of administering justice.
R.V. MOORTHY Satnami Bai with a portrait of Mohan Singh, one of the victims of the 1984 Delhi riots.
Most of the individuals who have been deposing before the Justice G.T. Nanavati Commission, appointed by the National Democratic Alliance government in 2000 to investigate the 1984 violence, admit that they are doing so only out of a sense of duty to their family members who died in the riots. They know that the politicians who were behind the riots have long been acquitted by the courts for lack of evidence or because witnesses turned hostile.
In recent times, a legal battle between two women over a compensation claim have once again brought the issue of the survivors of the riots into the spotlight. Each of them claims that Mohan Singh, who was killed in the riots, was her husband and that the compensation given by the government belongs to her.
Satnami Bai, the defendant in the case, who came under public scrutiny when she deposed against Congress(I) leader and former Union Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Har Kishan Lal Bhagat. On the other hand, Gopi Kaur, the plaintiff, appeared on the scene in 1998, after the Delhi High Court increased the amount of compensation to the relatives of the dead from Rs.50,000 to Rs.3.3 lakhs.
Matters came to a head when Satnami Bai was remanded to 12 days of police custody on July 28, after Metropolitan Magistrate Inderjeet Singh rejected her bail application. She was charged with perjury by Gopi Kaur for making the false statement that Mohan Singh was her husband. Satnami Bai said: "I was kept in prison for 12 days for this case when those I had accused of killing my husband have not even spent one hour behind bars. Now I have to prove that I am the wife of Mohan Singh. I will fight this case to the end."
Satnami Bai maintains that she was married to Mohan Singh in Rajasthan when she was eight years old. Later she came to Delhi to stay with him. She has furnished a copy of the ration card and other documents to support her claim. "In 1984 I saw him being killed by the mobs in Trilokpuri. I saw the crowds come with petrol, tyres and iron rods. They first hit him on the head and then burnt him alive."
Satnami Bai later received monetary compensation from the government, a house in a rehabilitation colony, a pension, and a job with the local government dispensary. She says: "A compensation of Rs.3.3 lakhs was granted to me by the government in 1996. It was after this that Gopi Kaur came to the scene and claimed to be the wife of Mohan Singh." In the same period Satnami also fought a case against H.K.L. Bhagat. A few months after filing her affidavit in which she stated that Bhagat led the mob that killed Mohan Singh, Satnami retracted her allegation and refused to identify Bhagat in the court. Later, she filed another application alleging that she was coerced into retracting her statement naming Bhagat as an accused.
Gopi Kaur's claim that she was the real wife of Mohan Singh made matters worse for Satnami. Since then Satnami has been trying to prove that she is the wife of Mohan Singh. However, no court has ruled yet that she is not Mohan Singh's wife.
In December 1999, a court dismissed Gopi Kaur's suit for an injunction against Satnami Bai. Gopi Kaur filed a criminal complaint in 2001 and an investigation was ordered.
"More than anything else this is a case of compensation. Gopi Kaur remained silent from 1984 to 1998. That is a long time, especially when Satnami's and Mohan Singh's names were being splashed in all the newspapers when she decided to depose against H.K.L. Bhagat. Even in 1984, Gopi would have come to know of her husband's death. The circumstances of her remaining silent cannot be ignored. What prompted her to file a case against Satnami after more than a decade?" asks Satnami Bai's lawyer Dhian Singh Rahi. "As of now the investigation report of the police has not been submitted in the court. When the police submit their report, the case will start," said Rahi.
MEANWHILE, the Nanavati Commission has been recording evidence against Congress(I) leaders who have been accused by survivors of having led the riots. The Commission has been hearing the depositions of persons from east Delhi and central Delhi. "Six depositions have either charged Bhagat directly or named his supporters of being a party to the riots," said Carnage Justice Committee (CJC) counsel Harvinder Singh Phoolka. The CJC represents the riot victims.
Shammi Bai, who lost her husband, a son and a brother-in-law in the riots, told the Commission that Bhagat visited Trilokpuri in east Delhi a day after Indira Gandhi's assassination and instructed the residents of the locality to "finish off" all Sikhs. She said that the Congress(I) leader came in a white car on the night of November 1, 1984 and asked the residents whether they had accomplished the task. Shammi Bai said she heard Bhagat telling a group of people to "finish off all Sikhs. If there are any male children left alive, kill them. Eliminate the entire progeny of these snakes."
Surinder Kaur, a survivor, said that Bhagat had called up the Shakarpur police station and demanded the release of all the people who had been called for identification by the survivors.
Another survivor, Ajit Singh, told the Commission that on October 31, 1984, the day of the assassination, Bhagat gave orders to Ram Pal Saroj, a local Congress(I) leader of Trilokpuri, to kill members of the Sikh community. The next day Saroj was seen leading mobs that killed Sikhs, looted their houses and set them on fire. Wazir Singh, a resident of the area, also deposed that he was a witness to a meeting held by Bhagat in Block 32 of Trilokpuri, an area that witnessed the worst form of violence.
Sardara Singh, who lost six sons in the riots, also testified against Ram Pal Saroj. "Ram Pal Saroj of the Congress(I), who is very close to H.K.L. Bhagat, was leading the rioters," Sardara Singh said in his affidavit. He said: "While I was sitting near my door, Saroj came with a mob of 100-150 people and called my son Bhajan Singh, aged 28 years, to come out. When he came out, they made him unconscious by beating him with sticks, and after he fell down they burnt him after pouring oil on him. Thereafter, they killed my three other sons and burnt them. They also killed two of my sons-in-law and a grandson aged 18 years."
Parsa Singh, another survivor, said that the local Station House Officer Soorvir Singh, who disarmed Sikhs at the time of the riots, later told him that Bhagat had pressured him to do so. Jagjit Singh, who was a Congress(I) worker before the riots, deposed that another party worker, Babarsi Dass Goel, had come to his house after the assassination of Indira Gandhi and informed him of a meeting attended by Bhagat. "In the meeting it was stated that Sikhs should be taught a lesson, they should be looted, killed and their houses be destroyed. Bhagat had given money for the riots," Jagjit Singh said.
Most of the depositions have hinted at some government representatives' active participation in or open support to the riots. Even independent groups that carried out investigations to identify the guilty politicians had come out with similar statements. The Amiya Rao report, prepared by the voluntary organisation Citizens Commission, titled "Report to the Nation: Truths about Delhi violence", had referred to Bhagat as "scolding the crowd" and asking "what is the point of assembling here?" This statement was interpreted in two ways - either that the crowd had no purpose in assembling there or that it might be more useful elsewhere. Indian Express wrote on November 8, 1984: "After Mrs. Gandhi's body was taken to the AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences), the police 'disappeared' as if by an 'unseen signal' clearly indicating to eyewitnesses their sanctioning of the violence already under way." However, the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry, appointed by the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1985, had exonerated politicians, including Bhagat, in the matter.
The People's Union of Democratic Rights in its report "Who are the Guilty? Report of a Joint Inquiry into the causes and impact of the riots in Delhi from 31 October to 10 November, 1984" also named Bhagat in its list of guilty and blamed him for organising the crowds.
However, the Ranganath Misra Commission noted that "implication of Shri Bhagat was perhaps in the air and hundreds of affidavits were filed before the Commission to say that Shri Bhagat had no role to play in organising the riots". The Commission got charges against him in other affidavits investigated by its own agency and exonerated him in the "absence of convincing material".
The Nanavati Commission faces the difficult task of investigating the role of senior politicians in the riots. "As of now, among politicians, depositions have been made against H.K.L. Bhagat because the commission has covered east Delhi where he was active. Depositions made as the Commission moves to other districts, will throw light on the conduct of other leaders," Phoolka said. Whatever be the results, ascertaining the role of politicians is important both for the survivors and the for the inquiries into the 1984 riots.

2005: Nanavati Commission

http://www.witness84.com/latestnews/

::Nanavati Commission 2005:: Sikh Massacres1984 Delhi Massace
Organised mobs on rampage
The November 1984 carnage in Delhi is one of the darkest periods in the history of independent India . From October 31 to November 7, 1984, Delhi along with many other places in India witnessed widespread disturbances in which thousands of Sikhs were killed following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her bodyguards. Thousands died during four days of an organized pogrom in Delhi orchestrated by the high ups in the Congress Party. Beginning late afternoon on October 31, 1984, murderous mobs directed by officials and with police inaction, even connivance, went on rampage, targeting Sikhs, their establishments, and their homes. Khoon ka badla khoon se lenge was the death cry which emanated from Safdarjang Road , where Mrs Gandhi 's body lay; it found echoes across Delhi , Gurgaon, Kanpur , Bokaro, Indore and in trains. Sikhs were dragged out of their homes, attacked with iron rods, trapped in burning tires or in their flaming shops and homes, and their women raped. Many Sikh men cut their hair in desperation to save themselves. Even Sikh army officers in uniform were pulled out of trains and killed. The police, at many places, went around on motorcycles shouting encouragement to the mobs while Congress leaders were seen instigating those beholden to them in the vast slum clusters. The help to the victims came from very few organized groups, notable amongst them the Nagarik Ekta Manch, a citizens group that was set up spontaneously in response to the carnage. People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) and the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) rushed their fact finding missions to the scenes of violence and on November 17, released their report on the carnage titled Who are the Guilty? The main findings of the report were that the carnage was the "outcome of a well-organized plan marked by acts of both deliberate commission and omission by important politicians of the Congress (I) at the top and by authorities in the Administration." Some of these important politicians of Congress were the then Home Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao; Members of Parliament, H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar and Dharam Das Shastri; and Lt. Governor of Delhi P.G. Gavai. Among other things, the report carried, in an annexure, the names of the people against whom allegations were leveled by the victims. Among them were 198 local Congress-I activists, 15 Congress-I leaders and 143 police officials. The main findings of the report were substantiated later by the report of the Citizens for Democracy in January 1985 and another report by a Citizens' Commission headed by former Chief Justice of India, S.M. Sikri, as well as by Nagarik Ekta Manch, Sampradayikta Virodhi Andolan and others. The PUDR/PUCL findings were also corroborated by press reports. The worst of the massacres was witnessed by Block 32, Trilokpuri. This locality housed working class Labana Sikhs -- mostly coolies, carpenters, rickshaw pullers and charpai weavers -- originally refugees from Sindh during partition and forcibly settled later in this block during 1975-76 emergency days. On November 3, 1984 when members of the PUDR/PUCL team reached this block, they were greeted by a strong stench of burnt bodies which were still rotting inside some of the houses. The team found survivors -- old men, women and children -- some with severe burns, huddled together in the open on the main road. The entire lane was littered with pieces of burnt furniture, papers, scooters and piles of ash in the shape of human bodies. Almost 450 people were killed in this block alone. Many women were raped and abducted to nearby Chilla goan. The mobs were allegedly organized by local Congress said, Dr. Ashok Kumar. Police from Kalyanpuri police station, in which the block then fell, actively connived with the mobs. Rahul Bedi and Joseph Maliakan, two reporters of Indian Express tried their best to get some help while the carnage was going on, and pleaded with a number of police officials but to no avail. In one of his reports, Bedi wrote, "The street in Block 32 was littered with charred bodies, limbs and burnt hair. It was very difficult to walk without tumbling upon these parts. There I met a Sikh woman who took us to the scene of the massacre. There was a boy whose stomach had been cut open. He was holding it together with his turban. He was thirsty and wanted water. We, the reporters, took him to the police vehicle. I subsequently learnt that the Sikh boy had died in the hospital." Bedi helped several injured people and the Station House Officer (SHO), Kalyanpuri, Soor Vir Singh, did not do anything to help. "We did not find the SHO or the police people making any arrangement. When we left they were standing there, surrounded by mobs." On the evening of November 2, CRPF troops arrived in Block 32 and the survivors began their exodus to the Farash Bazar camp. Today, many of the female survivors of the massacre live in Tilak Vihar, a locality that has become known as the "Widows' Colony." All this has been documented in the thousands of heartrending affidavits filed by the victims and in the PUDR/PUCL report. The government has accepted the claims of 2427 dead, 2403 injuries and 3537 cases of damage to and destruction of houses. That covers only Delhi . However, some of the unofficial estimates of the dead in Delhi alone exceed 5,000. Then there were many Sikhs killed outside Delhi , in other parts of India . For months, the public appeals for a judicial inquiry into the carnage fell on deaf ears. The Rajiv Gandhi government stalled on the appointment of a commission of inquiry for six months and it was only when the Rajiv-Longowal accord was signed in April 1985 that the government was forced to appoint a commission since Longowal had insisted on it. However, the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission which was appointed under Section 3 of The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, was asked to inquire into "allegations" of violence and not to inquire into the "nature" of violence, a departure from the terms of reference of over a dozen other commissions on communal disturbances since independence. Almost two decades after the violence, the victims still wait for justice. The latest commission headed by Justice Nanavati was appointed by the NDA government on May 10, 2000 to look into the causes of and the manner in which the riots occurred. It was asked to fix the responsibility for any lapses or dereliction of duty on the part of the authorities in taking steps to prevent the incidents. The depositions made before the Nanavati Commission so far emphasize the planned nature of the riots. The statements contradict the conclusion of the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission that the rioting was spontaneous. Many prominent persons, including Khushwant Singh, Jaya Jaitly, Madan Lal Khurana, Madhu Kishwar, Lt. Gen J.S. Aurora, Patwant Singh, Justice R.S. Narula, Swami Agnivesh, and ex-Prime Minister I.K. Gujral, have deposed before the commission. These people have for the first time put on record what they had already said in public speeches or published works. Khushwant Singh appealed to President Giani Jail Singh to intervene. Being a Sikh, the President had lost whatever authority he had and was helpless. The President had to seek the help of Madanlal Khurana of BJP to retrieve the body of a relative from the police in west Delhi . Khushwant Singh was advised to look for his own safety which he did by seeking refuge in the Swedish embassy! "I was like a refugee in my own country. Like a Jew in Nazi Germany," an Khushwant Singh told the Nanavati commission. Lt. Gen. J.S. Aurora appealed to the Narsamiha Rao to deploy the army immediately but without success. Aurora himself had to seek refuge during the violence. The 1984 anti-Sikh riot in the Delhi will remain as a disgraceful blot on the history of inter-community relations in independent India .

2005/10/09: Films on 1984

http://www.witness84.com/site/

Commissions and Committees

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/delhiriots/commission.htm

Commissions and Committees
1. Marwah Commission : This Commission was appointed in November, 1984. Mr. Marwah almost completed his enquiry towards the middle of 1985, when he was directed by the Central Government not to proceed further, as Misra Commission was appointed by then. Complete records of Marwah Commission were taken over by the Government and were later transferred to Misra Commission. 2. Misra Commission of Enquiry was appointed in May, 1985. Justice Misra submitted his report in August, 1986 and the report was made public six months thereafter in February, 1987. There was only one term of reference to this Commission, i.e. Whether the violence was organized?
The case of the victims was presented before Misra Commission by Citizens Justice Committee, a body constituted for this specific purpose, comprising Justice S.M. Sikri, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India as its President, Justice V.M. Tarkunde, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, Mr. Soli Sorabjee, former Attorney General, Mr. Khushwant Singh, eminent journalist, Justice R.S. Narula, former Chief Justice of Punjab &Haryana High Court, Lt. Gen. J.S. Arora, Prof. Rajni Kothari, President, PUCL, Mr. Govinda Mukhotey, President, PUDR and others.
3. Kapur Mittal Committee was appointed in February, 1987 on the recommendation of Misra Commission to enquire into the role of police, which job the Marwah Committee had almost completed in 1985 itself, when the Government asked that Committee to wind up and not proceed further. This Committee consisted of Justice Dalip Kapur and Mrs. Kusum Mittal, retired Secretary of U.P. This Committee submitted its report in 1990. 72 police officers were identified for their connivance or gross negligence. However, till date, not a single police officer has been awarded any kind of punishment. One such police officer is presently Special Commissioner of Police in Delhi Police and the other is Joint Commissioner of Police.
4.Jain Banerjee Committee : This Committee was recommended by Misra Commission for recommending registration of cases. Misra Commission held in its report that a large number of cases have not been registered and wherever the victims named political leaders or police officers, the cases were not registered against them. In November, 1987 many press reports appeared for not registering cases inspite of recommendation of the Committee. The Government did not oppose the stay. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was decided in August, 1989 and the High Court quashed appointment of this Committee.
5. Potti Rosha Committee was appointed in March, 1990 as a successor to Jain Banerjee Committee.
6.Jain Aggarwal Committee was appointed in Deccember, 1990 as a successor to Potti Rosha Committee, consisting of Justice J.D. Jain, retired Judge of the Delhi High Court and Mr. D.K. Aggarwal, retired DGP of U.P. This Committee was wound up in August, 1993. 7.Ahooja Committee was the third Committee recommended by Misra Commission to ascertain the total number of killings in Delhi.
8. Dhillon Committee headed by Gurdial Singh Dhillon was appointed in 1985 to recommend measure for rehabilitation of the victims. One of the major recommendations of this Committee was that the business establishments, which had insurance cover, but whose insurance claims were not settled by insurance companies on the technical ground that riot is not covered under the insurance, should be paid compensation under the directions of the Government. However, the Governmment did not accept this recommendation and as a result insurance claims were rejected by all the insurance companies through out the country. 9. Narula Committee was appointed in December, 1993 by Madan Lal Khurana Government in Delhi.
10.Nanavati Commission was appointed by an unanimous resolution passed in the Rajya Sabha. This Commission issued notices to HKL Bhagat former Union Minister, Sajjan Kumar, former Member of Parliament, Dharamdas Shastri, former Member of Parliament, Kamal Nath (presently Union Commerce Minister) and Jagdish Tytler (presently Union State Minister for NRI Affairs). The report of this Commission is likely to be submitted in February, 2005. Wg. Cdr. R.S. Chhatwal is the Member Secretary of this Committee.

Delhi Riots-1984

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/events/delhi1984.htm


Sequence of EventsA recapitulation of the 1984 Delhi carnage in which about 4,000 Sikhs were massacred in three days in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
October 31, 1984:9.20 am: Indira Gandhi was shot by two of her security guards at her residence No. 1, Safdarjung Road, and rushed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
11 am: Announcement on All India Radio specifying that the guards who shot Indira Gandhi were Sikhs. A big crowd was collecting near AIIMS.
2 pm: Though her death was yet to be confirmed officially, it became common knowledge because of BBC bulletins and special afternoon editions of newspapers.
4 pm: Rajiv Gandhi returned from West Bengal and reached AIIMS. Stray incidents of attacks on Sikhs in and around that area.
5.30 pm: The cavalcade of President Zail Singh, who returned from a foreign visit, was stoned as it approached AIIMS.
Late evening and night: Mobs fanned out in different directions from AIIMS. The violence against Sikhs spread, starting in the neighbouring constituency of Congress councillor Arjun Dass. The violence included the burning of vehicles and other properties of Sikhs. That happened even in VIP areas like the crossroads near Prithviraj Road where cars and scooters belonging to Sikhs were burnt.
Shortly after Rajiv Gandhi was sworn in as Prime Minister, senior advocate and Opposition leader Ram Jethmalani met home minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and urged him to act fast and save Sikhs from further attacks. Delhi’s lt governor P.G. Gavai and police commissioner S.C. Tandon visited some of the violence-affected areas. Despite all these developments, no measures were taken to control the violence or prevent further attacks on Sikhs throughout the night between October 31 and November 1.
November 1, 1984:Several Congress leaders held meetings on the night of October 31 and morning of November 1, mobilising their followers to attack Sikhs on a mass scale. The first killing of a Sikh reported from east Delhi in the early hours of November 1. About 9 am, armed mobs took over the streets of Delhi and launched a massacre. Everywhere the first targets were Gurudwaras – to prevent Sikhs from collecting there and putting up a combined defence.
Mobs were armed with iron rods of a uniform size. Activist editor Madhu Kishwar saw some of the rods being distributed among the miscreants. Mobs also had an abundant supply of petrol and kerosene. Victims traced the source of kerosene to dealers belonging to the Congress party. For instance, a Congress worker called Brahmanand Gupta, a kerosene dealer, figures prominently in affidavits filed from Sultanpuri.
Every police station had a strength of about 100 men and 50-60 weapons. Yet, no action was taken against miscreants in most places. The few places where the local police station took prompt measures against mobs, hardly any killings took place there. Farsh Bazar and Karol Bagh are two such examples. But in other localities, the priority of the police, as it emerges from the statement of the then police commissioner S.C. Tandon before the Nanavati Commission, was to take action against Sikhs who dared to offer resistence. All the Sikhs who fired in self-defence were disarmed by the police and even arrested on trumped up charges.
Mobs generally included teams attending to specific tasks. When shops were to be looted, the first team that gets into action would kill and remove all obstacles. The second team specialises in breaking locks. The third team would engage in looting. And the fourth team would set the place on fire.
Most of the mobs were led by Congress members, including those from affluent families. For instance, a Youth Congress leader called Satsangi led a mob in the posh Maharani Bagh. The worst affected areas were however far flung, low income colonies like Trilokpuri, Mongolpuri, Sultanpuri and Palam Colony.
The Congress leaders identified by the victims as organisers of the carnage include three MPs H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar and Dharam Dass Shastri and 10 councillors Arjan Dass, Ashok Kumar, Deep Chand, Sukhan Lal Sood, Ram Narayan Verma, D.R. Chhabbra, Bharat Singh, Vasudev, Dharam Singh and Mela Ram.
November 2, 1984:Curfew was in force throughout Delhi – but only on paper. The Army was also deployed throughout Delhi but nowhere was it effective because the police did not co-operate with the soldiers who were not empowered to open fire without the consent of senior police officers or executive magistrates. Meanwhile, mobs continued to rampage with the same ferocity.
November 3,1984:It was only towards the evening of November 3 that the police and the Army acted in unison and the violence subsided immediately after that. Whatever violence took place the next two or three days was on a much smaller scale and rather sporadic.
Aftermath of the carnage: Most of the arrested miscreants were released at the earliest. But the Sikhs arrested for firing in self-defence generally remained in detention for some weeks. Worse, there was also a pattern throughout Delhi of the police not registering proper cases on the complaints of victims. Instead, the police registered vaguely worded omnibus FIRs which did not deal with any specific incident or person. As if the damage done by such FIRs was not bad enough, the police made little effort to investigate the cases and trace the miscreants. The only acknowledgement of any wrongdoing on their part was the appointment of a committee headed by senior police officer Ved Marwah to probe the role of the police.
Two remarkable initiatives that came on the same month as the carnage, in a bid to make up for the failure of the Government, were from human rights organisations and a leading Opposition party. People’s Union of Civil Liberties and People’s Union for Democratic Rights came out with a devastating expose in a booklet titled, Who are the guilty? The Bharatiya Janata Party contradicted the Government’s claim then that only 600 people were killed in the Delhi carnage. On the basis of a survey done by its cadres, the BJP came out with a death toll of 2,700, which is remarkably close to the official tally of 2,733 arrived at three years later.
On December 27, 1984, the Lok Sabha elections were held and the Congress party had a landslide victory bagging over 400 seats for the first and so far the only time in the Indian electoral history. The election held under the shadow of Indira Gandhi’s assassination and the subsequent massacre was marked by an anti-Sikh sentiment whipped up by the Congress party campaign.
In the early months of 1985, two more NGO reports followed: one by Citizens for Democracy headed by Justice V.M. Tarkunde and another by a Citizens’ Commission headed by former chief justice of India S.M. Sikri. Both indicted the Government and the ruling party and called for a judicial inquiry.
A journalist, Rahul Kuldeep Bedi, filed a writ petition in the Delhi high court seeking an inquiry into the role of the police. PUDR filed a writ petition in the same court seeking a direction to the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Both the petitions were dismissed.
On April 26, 1985, i.e. almost six months after the carnage, the Rajiv Gandhi Government appointed the Ranganath Misra Commission to inquire into “the allegations in regard to the incidents of organised violence” in Delhi.
In June 1985, a group of eminent persons and representative of human rights organisations came together under the banner of the Citizens Justice Committee (CJC) to help the Misra Commission unravel the truth.
The Misra Commission held all its proceedings in camera and took the help of the CJC to get affidavits from victims.
On March 31, 1986, the CJC notified its withdrawal as the Misra Commission kept it out of most of the inquiry holding “in camera proceedings within in camera.”
In August 1986, the Misra Commission submitted its report to the Government, which in turn tabled it in Parliament in February 1987. The report vindicated the CJC’s apprehension that the Misra Commission would whitewash the role of the Government and the ruling Congress party.
On February 23, 1987, the Government appointed three committees on the recommendation of the Misra Commission. (1) Jain-Banerjee committee to pursue cases that have either not been registered or not properly investigated. (2) Kapur-Mittal committee to identify delinquent police officials. (3) Ahooja committee to arrive at the official death toll of the carnage.
In August 1987, the Ahooja committee determined that the number of persons killed in Delhi in the 1984 carnage were 2,733.
In November 1987, the Delhi high court stayed the functioning of the Jain-Banerjee committee because of its very first recommendation, which was to register a murder case against former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar. The petition was filed by one of the co-accused, Brahmanand Gupta.
In October 1989, the Delhi high court quashed the notification appointing the Jain-Banerjee committee. The court found that the powers of monitoring of investigation and the institution of new case conferred on the committee were illegal.
March 1, 1990: The two members of the Kapur-Mittal committee gave separate reports. Justice Dalip Kapur gave no finding on the ground that the committee had not been empowered to summon police officials to hear their version. Kusum Lata Mittal identified 72 police officials, including six IPS officers, recommending various penalties against them.
March 27, 1990: The Delhi Administration prompted by the newly elected V.P. Singh Government appointed the Poti-Rosha committee without the legal defects pointed out by the high court in the case of the Jain-Banerjee committee.
August-September 1990: The Poti-Rosha committee sent two batches of recommendations covering altogether 30 affidavits, including the case against Sajjan Kumar. When a CBI team went to his house to arrest him, Sajjan Kumar and his supporters locked up the officials and detained them till his lawyer, R.K. Anand (now a Congress MP), obtained “anticipatory bail” from the high court. Subsequently, the two committee members, Subramaniam Poti and Padam Rosha, declined to carry on in office when their first term expired on September 22.
October-November 1990: The Delhi Administration constituted a fresh committee comprising J.D. Jain and D.K. Aggarwal, to take over the work of the Poti-Rosha committee.
June 30, 1993: After making recommendations from time to time from among the remaining 1,000-odd affidavits, including 21 affidavits against Congress leaders H.K.L Bhagat and Sajjan Kumar, the Jain-Aggarwal committee submitted a detailed report giving a comprehensive account of how the police scuttled carnage cases at the stages of registration, investigation and prosecution. The Jain-Aggarwal committee also recommendation action several police officials for their lapses.
1994: The Delhi Government under Madan Lal Khurana appointed an Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Justice R.S. Naroola. The Advisory Committee reviewed the status of the recommendations made the Poti-Rosha committee, Jain-Aggarwal committee and Kapur-Mittal committee. The Advisory Committee also made a particular reference to the failure of the police, which came under the Congress-ruled Central government, to book the cases recommended against Congress leaders H.K.L. Bhagat and Sajjan Kumar.
1995: On the basis of the Advisory Committee’s report, Delhi chief minister Madan Lal Khurana repeatedly asked the Centre to let the police take action on the 21 affidavits against Congress leaders H.K.L. Bhagat and Sajjan Kumar. It was only when Khurana threatened to complain to the National Human Rights Commission, the Centre sent those affidavits to the Delhi Government.
2000: The Atal Behari Vajpayee Government appointed a fresh judicial inquiry into the 1984 carnage under the chairmanship of Justice G.T. Nanavati. The justification offered for it was the failure to punish the guilty. Despite the lapse of over 15 years, the Nanavati Commission received hundreds of fresh affidavits from victims as well as victims, including prominent persons such as I.K. Gujral, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayar and Jagjit Singh Aurora.
2001-02: The Nanavati Commission records much damaging evidence brought on record for the first time since 1984. Arguments pending at the time of release of this report.
Commissions and Committees Click Here
EyeWitness AccountsCase 1This widow, a former resident of Kartarnagar (trans-Yamuna area), related that their house was looted and burnt by a mob on 2 November 1984. Her husband and two sons, one married only four months ago, were dragged out of the house and mercilessly beaten. Thereafter, kerosene was poured over the three men and they were set alight. No police or army was in evidence at the time. She could, she said, identify the person who killed her husband. Though she did not know his name. She was definite about the name of his father: a weaver of the area. She had originally come from Rawalpindi at the time of Partition. This was her second nightmarish experience of mob fury during which she had lost everything, including three male members of her family. She was accompanied by a completely dazed girl, hardly 16 years old, widow of her recently-married and recently-butchered son. This young girl sat through her mother-in-law's harrowing testimony shedding silent tears of grief and despair.
Case 2According to this widow, mobs came to her neighborhood at about 9 am on 1 November and began stoning Sikh houses in the vicinity. Sikhs who happened to be out were advised by the police to return home and stay indoors. They followed this advice and locked themselves inside their homes. Soon after, the crowds returned and started breaking into individual Sikh homes. The men were dragged out, beaten badly and burnt alive. Then the houses were systematically looted and most of them set on fire. The Sikh residents of the area owned their homes. According to this woman's estimate there were approximately 35 to 40 Sikh homes in the area, almost all of which had been destroyed and 55 men brutally murdered. Only five men from the area survive, owing their escape to their absence from home for one reason or another.
Case 3: Burning of Khalsa Middle School Sarojini Nagar.On the afternoon of 1 November, at about 3.30 or 4 pm, a mob of about 250-300 men came to the school which has 525 pupils of whom 65% are non-Sikhs. The mob first set fire to the tents and the school desks. Thereafter, they demolished the boundary wall of the school. They then entered the building and broke open the steel cupboards and looted them. They stole the school typewriter, instruments belonging to the school band, utensils, etc. Two desks and seven steel cupboards were seen being taken away. They destroyed the library and scientific equipment in the laboratory. The school building was burnt as also the Headmaster's scooter.
There were seven or eight policemen standing by who witnessed the mob's activities but did nothing to stop them. When asked to prevent the mob from damaging the school, they said that they could do nothing. No arrests are reported to have been made nor has any other action been taken. The FIR was lodged on 7 or 8 November. The Sikh SHO of the police station, located within sight of the school, is understood to be a relative of a Congress-I leader. He is said to have been beaten up on 31 October while in uniform, and was not to be seen (he was either in hiding or under orders--the witness could not say) from 31 October to 2 November. It was further conveyed to the Commission that even though-the school imparts free education and is in receipt of a Government grant, no repairs of any nature had begun as on 18 December 1984. Neither was any furniture nor other equipment--not even books and stationery--provided.
Case 4A social worker informed the Commission that he had been associated with the Shakkarpur Camp as a voluntary relief worker since 6 November. The camp had been set up on 3 November and the administration had forcibly closed it on 13 November. When asked how it had been 'forcibly closed' down, he replied that the water supply had been cut off. He then asked the authorities how they would assist the inmates to return to their original homes and was told that they would be returned in the same way by which they had been brought to the camp!
Case 5A survivor from Mangolpuri, who had been operating his own scooter-rickshaw in shifts jointly with his brother, had been brought to a relief camp on 3 November by the army or CRP, he was not sure which. He related that there was increasing tension on 31 October after the news of the attack became known. He went to his neighbor for shelter and was given protection but told to cut his hair, which he refused to do. The following morning when a crowd came around, his neighbors asked him to leave their house. Sikhs emerging on the street were seized and their hair and beards were forcibly cut. The mob, who, he said, was from the same locality, thereafter indulged in violence and looted individual homes. However, the damage done was mainly to the woodwork. Some movable property was stolen.
Very early on the following morning, at about 4 am, the crowd returned, dragged the men out of their homes and beat them up. The neighbors pleaded for their lives and they were thus saved but only for the time being. In the evening the neighbors were also threatened with violence and that silenced them. Then five persons of his family--his brother, brother-in-law, uncle and two cousins--were belaboured with sticks and rods and burnt alive. Attempts to rape some of the women were, however, thwarted. The witness himself managed to escape by obtaining refuge in the house of a Harijan woman. On 3 November he was removed along with other survivors to a refugee camp. He named seven persons amongst the perpetrators of the crimes, one of whom was a local Congress-I worker identified as a supporter of a former MP.
Case 6A woman from Trilokpuri described her harrowing experience. She and her husband, a Labana Sikh, originally from Sind, had migrated to Rajasthan in 1947. About fifteen years ago they had moved to Delhi in search of better prospects. During the slum clearance drive of 1974-75, they had been resettled in Trilokpuri.
She and her husband and three of their children survive but the eldest son aged 18 was killed on 1 November. She described the mob led by the Congress-I block pradhan as consisting of some people from the same block and others from neighboring blocks and nearby villages. While the block pradhan identified Sikh houses and urged the mobs to loot, burn and kill, the women were herded together into one room. Some of them ran away but were pursued to the nearby nallah where they were raped. Their shrieks and cries for help fell on deaf ears. From among the women held in the room, the hoodlums asked each other to select whomsoever they chose. All the women were stripped and many dishonoured. She herself was raped by ten men. Their lust satisfied, they told the women to get out, naked as they were. For fear of their lives they did so, hiding their shame as best as possible. Each begged or borrowed a garment from relenting neighbors and sought shelter wherever they could.
Case 7The Commission gathered the following facts at the Sadar Bazar gurdwara (Delhi Cantonment).
Having heard of the news of the assassination, one witness feared trouble and brought his family to the gurdwara. He found that some other families had already collected there. Leaving the women and children downstairs, the men went up to the roof from where they saw a crowd collecting at the local Congress-I office about 200 yards away. They had come by truck at 8.30 on morning of 1 November.
This mob then advanced towards the gurdwara and started stoning the people they saw on the roof. The Sikhs had also collected some bricks which they threw at the crowd. When their supply was exhausted, the mob became emboldened and set fire to a shop which the gurdwara had rented out. The group of Sikhs, about twelve in number, collected all the swords available with them in the gurdwara and came out. The mob retreated in the face of this puny show of force. The police, who had been informed, came at about 3.30 pm. By that time, the fire had been put out. The police surprisingly expressed their inability to do anything further to help them. Consequently the Sikhs went back inside and locked the iron gates of the gurdwara. On 2 November, the army brought refugees from other colonies in the area surrounding Palam until there were 2,000 refugees in the gurdwara. They were housed, clothed and fed entirely by voluntary effort. The gurdwara itself fortunately escaped damage.
Case 8This victim's family consisted of his father, four brothers, mother, two sisters-in-law, his wife and children. The family owned a bakery, a confectionery, a kirana shop and a small chemical industry.
On 1 November at about 11 am, a mob of some four hundred attacked the shop and the factory. The father and the four brothers came out and pleaded with them. Some local Congress-I workers arranged a compromise and asked them all to go back. Eight persons from the mob, who were looting inside the shops, also came out and went away. Fifteen minutes later a bigger mob of about two thousand came and burnt the shops and the factory. One of the local Congress-l workers had a fair price shop in his name which, because of the complaints of the residents, had been canceled and allotted to this family. That seemed to be the bone of contention. The victim's house had the symbol 'Om' on the front and could not be identified as Sikh house unless it had been pointed out as such by a local person.
The victim's father, three brothers and sister-in-law were beaten and set on fire. Some liquid chemical and a powder were used as incendiary material. The victim himself escaped by hiding in the neighboring house of a Jat friend. He cut his hair and went to Palam airport from where he returned to the gurdwara on the 4th. There was no help from the police. There was no electricity in the locality (Sadh Nagar) for 72 hours. Army rescue work started on 3 November. The victim, who is a young man, is left with his widowed mother, widowed sister-in-law, brother's children and his own family to look after. He is not prepared to go back to his original home, which he considers unsafe, but is ready to settle down in Delhi in a safe area and to reestablish his bakery. He has already applied for a bank loan. The mob leader has been identified as a local Congress-l worker, who is said to be the right hand man of a former MP.
Case 9What follows is a summary of an eye-witness account sent to the Commission by a practicing Chartered Accountant (a non-Sikh) living in New Friends' Colony. His account begins:
"Delhi had been considered by us to be a civilized city. The news of rioting coming from different parts of the country from time to time had always carried an aura of remoteness--something which could not happen in Delhi. Or so it seemed up to 30 October recently."
He continues to relate that after the announcement of Smt. Gandhi's death over the AIR, they began receiving telephone calls from friends informing them of incidents in various parts of the city--from lorbagh, from Ring Road, from Safdarjung Enclave—of Sikhs being badly beaten up and otherwise harassed. In view of the trouble, he and a friend decided to go to the airport later that night to receive a Sikh friend arriving in Delhi. On their way back they saw a car burning near the IIT on outer Ring Road. Then they saw a bus on fire. A little further on, they saw five taxis ablaze at a taxi stand. It was about midnight by now and, after dropping their friend at Panchsheel Enclave, they encountered several more burning vehicles and shards of glass from broken wind-screens littering the road. They saw only two policemen on the way home. Both of them were unarmed. One of them was hurling stones at the Sikhs along with the crowd. The other was urging people in the crowd to join in the attacks.
The crowd was armed with lathis, crow-bars and iron rods. They did not see any firearms, either with the crowd or with the beleaguered Sikhs. In New Friends' Colony, they saw several Sikh-owned shops which had been set on fire. Intervening shops belonging to Hindus had not been touched. Two trucks parked nearby were set on fire. The crowd then invaded the gurdwara opposite the shops. They ransacked the rooms in the gurdwara compound and set fire to the buildings. Efforts to contact the police on the telephone were infructuous. He saw no signs of a police presence, much less intervention. The absence of the police, according to him, emboldened the mob. He felt that the 'scenes of wild mourning and mass popular anger on the television were not helping in calming the fury of the mob'.
That afternoon he saw another mob looting a house in a cool and unhurried manner, without any dispute or competition among the looters. Within half-an-hour, the house had been completely ransacked and then set on fire. At about 4 pm, while the looting was going on, the siren of an approaching police vehicle was heard. This alarmed the mob who began to disperse but the vehicle just drove by and the crowd re-assembled.
Case 10A 75 year old army officer, having retired in 1958, narrated that a mob consisting mostly of some DTC bus drivers from Hari Nagar Depot accompanied by anti-social elements attacked some shops and nearby houses in 'G' Block of Hari Nagar. Arson followed the looting. Cars, private buses, trucks and scooters parked in that area were also burnt. The Sikh residents, assisted by Hindu neighbors of Fateh Nagar and Shiv Nagar, came out and succeeded in challenging the miscreants and driving them away.
On 3 November, at midday, the SHO of Tilak Nagar Police Station turned up in a jeep and asked the people to go indoors. Given the previous dab's experience, the residents did not trust the police and some of them continued to maintain a vigil in the streets. Seeing this, the police officer sent some constables to the army officer's house. They began abusing and beating his family members and even threatened one of them with a gun. They also beat this 75-year old man and confiscated his unloaded licensed revolver which he had owned since 1944. They dragged him by his hair to the jeep and took him to the Police Station, continuing to hit him with the butts of their guns. He was told to kill two Sikhs if he wanted to be freed.
At the Police Station he was locked up and again beaten to the point of bleeding and becoming unconscious. He was beaten by a Sub-inspector (whom he named) who shouted that no Sikh would be able to live in the area with his hair and beard. Among the four police personnel who had beaten him, he named two--an Sl and an ASI. The following day, the police took him to Court where a case under Section 307 of the IPC was registered against him. He was locked up in Tihar Jail along with some criminals and was able to secure his release on bail only on 12 November.
Case 11The late husband of this witness was a tea-stall owner. They are originally from Alwar. They were resettled in Trilokpuri in 1977, on a plot measuring 22.5 sq. yds., and given a loan of Rs. 2,000 to build a dwelling. Her husband and three sons (the eldest aged 28, was a railway porter, the second aged 20, drove a hired scooter-rickshaw while the third was a boy of 14), were all killed on 1 November. She said that on 1 November, some people went around asking the shops to down shutters. Those who had closed them, returned to their homes. She then said that the pradhan (Congress-l) of their block went around calling people to assemble, as a mob was coming to burn the gurdwara. The police soon came on the scene and warned them all to return to their homes and to stay indoors assuring them that they would be safe if they did so. When a mob first came the Sikhs came out and repulsed them. Three such waves were repulsed but each time the police came and told them to go home and stay there.
The fourth time the mob came in increased strength and started attacking individual homes, driving people out, beating and burning them and setting fire to their homes. The method of killing was invariably the same: a man was hit on the head, sometimes his skull broken, kerosene poured over him and set on fire. Before being burnt, some had their eyes gouged out. Sometimes, when a burning man asked for water, a man urinated on his mouth.Several individuals, including her sister's son tried to escape by cutting their hair. Most of them were also killed. Some had their hair forcibly cut but were nevertheless killed thereafter. She lost everything of value from her own home, including Rs. 7,000 in cash, a radio, a TV and other items. Despite being a middle-aged mother of four, she was nearly raped but was saved by providence. Nevertheless she was repeatedly humiliated and her clothes were torn off two or three times. She said that when the stricken women rushed out of their burning homes, the Gujjars (from village Chilla), bhangis and some others inquired from each other which woman they fancied and then proceeded to rape them. She heard people shouting to each other to kill every Sikh and that even if one escaped, it would be bad for them. There were twenty one males in her father-in-law's family. All of them were killed. Her brother was beaten and left for dead but fortunately survived.
Case 12This resident of Nangloi, a venerable person with a flowing white beard who looked like a patriarch, belonged originally to Rawalpindi. He had previously lost everything during Partition. He informed the Commission that on 1 November at about 1:00 pm, many trucks and tractors with trolleys full of stones came to Nangloi from the direction of Bahadurgarh. This happened at a time when the Delhi/Haryana border was said to have been sealed. The drivers and passengers let loose a region of terror in the area. They first stoned the houses, then broke open and looted them, and finally dragged out the men and killed them. He said that 65 male Sikhs had been killed in Nangloi. Only the women, two old men and small children survived. In addition to stones, the mob carried studded rods, kerosene and someinflammable powder. He alleged that a political leader came on a motorcycle and identified the houses inhabited by Sikhs. Asked how he recognized the motorcyclist he replied that he knew him personally, having gone to him for help in solving personal problems.
FlRs had been lodged on 4 and 5 November but so far no action had been taken nor any arrests made. No stolen goods had been recovered. Asked whether any women had been molested, he replied emphatically in the negative. He also said that trains between Rohtak and Delhi had been stopped at Nangloi and Sikh passengers dragged out, beaten and murdered.
Case 13A retired Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry, Delhi State, this witness lives on a small farm on the southern outskirts of the capital. He appeared before the Commission at his own request. He grows vegetables, breeds chicken and maintains some cattle. He also renders free veterinary services to the residents of surrounding villages who frequently come to consult him regarding problems concerning their live-stock.
He related that once the news of the assassination became widely known, feelings were aroused as a matter of course. He saw groups of people moving around and going to Sikh residences in the area which were attacked and looted. Some chickens and a buffalo were stolen from his farm and some damage inflicted on the main building. He was not interested in going into details and declared that he did not want any compensation for himself. Nor had he any particular complaint against the miscreants whom, he felt, had been put up to their misdeeds. He told the Commission in as many words that his major concern was for the future. What, he asked concisely, was in store for the country when anti-social forces were enabled, or were able, to perpetrate misdeeds or to break the law with impunity. He said that this was his sole concern and that he had sought an interview with the Commission only to request it to devise measures to ensure the future of the country.
Case 14A serving army NCO made available to the Commission a copy of a letter he had sent to his superior officer. He was returning to Delhi from Amritsar on the Frontier Mail on 2 November 1984, after availing of five days' casual leave. He states that he was witness to the stopping of trains on the approach to Delhi across the Yamuna when Sikh passengers, including some Sikh soldiers, were beaten and/or killed. After being beaten, some were thrown into the river while others were roasted alive. A few were able to save their lives after they had shaved or cut their hair. He also saw the heads and beards of dead Sikhs being shaved after which kerosene was poured over their faces and set alight so that the dead person could not be identified. After about two hours, a guard over a treasury consignment fired three shots in the air which caused the mob to scatter and the train then moved off. Upon reaching Delhi Main Station, he says that he saw many bodies of dead Sikhs. He reported-his experience to the RTO at Delhi station.
He wrote that he himself was spared because he was in uniform and that the mob told him that they were letting him off for that reason.
Case 15On 21 December three members of the Commission visited Sultanpuri and Mangolpuri. They inspected the damaged houses and saw the terrible havoc that had been wreaked. The tales of violence were broadly similar to other accounts they had heard. The new item was that they were told that the police had fired on Sikhs who had grouped in the street for self-defense. They named a police officer who allegedly fired on the group and killed two men. The marks of .303 rifle bullets on some houses were pointed out to the members. A spent bullet was found embedded in a wall. This police officer was still posted in Sultanpuri Police Station and continued to threaten and abuse Sikh residents.
The Commission was given several names of miscreants amongst whom was a kerosene depot holder, who was said to have supplied free kerosene oil. The others named were the block pradhan (Congress-I), another oil dealer and a Congress-I worker described as a special confidant of a prominent Congress-I leader. The local perpetrators of the violence continue to threaten and intimidate the remaining residents, almost all of whom at that time were women and children. Nearly all the men had gone to Rajasthan and were planning to stay there till at least after the elections. The Commission was told of the harassment of a Muslim resident of the area, who had given protection and assistance to the Sikhs for which he had been beaten up. He was threatened, even as late as on 12 December, for continuing to give them advice and assistance.
Case 16This victim, originally from Alwar, has resided in Delhi for about 25 years. In 1977, he had been moved along with others to Block 32, Trilokpuri. He operated his own cycle-rickshaw and owned a pucca house consisting of two rooms. He told the Commission that out of the nine male members in his family, seven had been killed. Only he and one brother survive. The gist of his gruesome experience is as follows:
The killings took place on the afternoon of 1 November. The usual method was to make the victims immobile by beating them. Then kerosene was poured over them and they were set on fire. He mentioned that, earlier, a police havildar, whom he named, and two constables had come to the area and when they saw a group of Sikhs gathered to defend themselves, the havildar shot and killed one of them. He named three local political figures as having been leaders of the aggressive mob. When the Sikhs grouped, the mob dispersed. But the police persuaded them to return to their respective homes. When they returned and locked themselves in, the mobs came again and meted out broadly similar treatment to each house.
They first knocked at the door asking the inmates to come out. If they did not, the door was broken open and the inmates were dragged out. If they opened the door, they got the same treatment. They were first beaten, and sometimes knocked senseless, thereafter kerosene was poured over the individual who was then set alight. In almost all cases, the neighbors did not help. Rather, they participated in the violence. He said that four types of cases had been registered: assault and robbery, rape, arson and murder. There had been no action so far; a few culprits who had been arrested were released within a few days and were still at large and threatening the people. No efforts had been made to recover stolen property and none had been returned to the owners. He also alleged that bank officials and/or civil servants had indulged in fraud or mischief while distributing the cheques covering the compensation stipulated by the Government.
Case 17This witness is a raagi (performer of kirtan) employed by the Delhi Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. He informed the Commission that, being on duty that morning at one of the gurdwaras, he left home at about 7 am on 1 November and disembarked from a bus at Punjabi Bagh to catch a connecting bus. He was seized by the crowd and roughed up. His hair was forcibly cut but he managed to escape. He returned to his house, collected his family and managed to reach safety. It took him some time to round them up. During this time he saw the local dealer in kerosene oil and a local Congress-l leader supplying free kerosene to the crowd. He saw a woman who was five months pregnant being dragged into a house. She did not emerge for a considerable time. They were taken to a relief camp on 3 November. FlRs were lodged on 4 or 5 November but no action had been taken. The same people who brutalized them continue to threaten them and joke about the Sikhs. Asked how he knew that the perpetrators were Congress men, he replied that they were all shouting slogans such as 'Indira Gandhi Zindabad' and 'Sajjan Kumar Zindabad'.
Case 18During its visit to S.S. Mota Singh School Camp, Narang Colony, the Commission heard a general account from the President and Secretary of the local Cooperative Housebuilding Society. The general pattern of violence was described as follows.
A group of urchins, led and encouraged by some adults, were collected and supplied with free liquor, iron rods, kerosene or petrol. They then went on a rampage beating individuals, of whom some were burnt. Only Sikh houses were burnt--and these were identified by one of the leaders. Those who escaped and went to the police for assistance were ignored or, worse, ill-treated by the police themselves. Such police personnel were known to have instigated killings for fear of being identified by the victims. A typical police report would read somewhat as follows: 'A small group was gathered at a point when they were faced by a large number of Sikhs with kirpans. Feeling threatened they began attacking Sikhs.'
No searches were made to recover stolen property. The police only went around the residential areas appealing to persons to surrender stolen goods. While some items were recovered in this manner, not even 10% of them had been returned to the legitimate owners.
In the Janakpuri area, fourteen gurdwaras were burnt. The building of S. S. Mota Singh School had been burnt and the metal door destroyed --and the local police station is only 250 metres away. At a nearby school, the building and eleven buses had been burnt. Attempts to get police intervention were infructuous. Several people had seen a prominent Congress-l politician's brother-in-law advising or instigating the mobs. They also saw young men coming to the crowd on motorcycles, presumably to convey instructions or give guidance.
The residents of the area were upset with the Congressi whose representatives, they firmly believed, were responsible for the violence. They were even more upset that after the violence no representatives of either the Congress-l or representatives of any other political party came to sympathize with them or give them any relief.
Source:Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, Harbans Singh.
Eye witness account J.WilliamsonMy name is J.Williamson, British national, I lived in Delhi for 19 1/2 years. My wife is Bengali I have been married 18 years. In 1984 I was living with a Sikh family in Delhi near Liberty cinema in Karol Bagh when the riots occured. I still have a copy of "Who are the guilty" to this day. I did by best to help the family I was staying with, taking subji and doodh on a Yazdi motorcycle to their relatives who could not venture out . I drove to Kashmiri Gate motor market to the family's ball bearing shop and retrieved cash for them kept in the shop. I was stopped by police twice, once at the market and once near Filmistan cinema who were only concerned if I had a camera. On the way through Pahar Ganj, furniture shops ablaze, Connaught Place, Darhia Gunj and back via Baraf Khanna and Filmistan, all the tyre shops were on fire on Rani Jhansi Road, I saw terrible scenes of shop burning, looting, violence against Sikhs and their property that have haunted me till this day. The mobs passed the house (we had removed the name sign) and burnt a couple of shops opposite the cinema. I saw the police standing by and doing nothing at all. When on the 2nd night I could hear a huge mob coming closer I along with the Hindu neighbours were out in the road half the night but luckily they didn't come down the street. Yes I knew fear those nights but I had become very close to the family and a close friend of the father (Sadar Jagjit Singh) and his 3 sons and his brother's son. One day I drove a Fiat with the wives and young children for safety, to the military residential compound on the Ridge Road to a relative's house who was in the Air Force.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Nanavati Commission and Future of Sikhs

http://voicesforfreedom.org/top_news/fetch_details.php4?id=8


by Dr. Amrik Singh, 28 August 2005.

The justice for the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was believed to have been dispensed by hanging to death Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh in a hasty manner. The appeal to spare Kehar Singh’s life was, however, defeated in the Supreme Court and the office of the President of India. It was alleged that his involvement wasn’t supported by any concrete evidence. But the execution had to be acted out of compulsion to send the weird message that the death of people in power is different from those in the streets. The orgy of violence against Sikhs in an organized manner in Delhi, Kanpur, Bhilai, Jamshedpur and other places continued for three days. The Indian Legislative body, Executive, and Judiciary all appeared to have joined together to overlook the carnage as a natural consequence, a spontaneous reaction, a sincere tribute, and an exemplary show of strength of the nationalists for their leader. In USA after 9/11 attack, similarly a man named Frank Silva Roque declaring his extreme Love for America, shot Balbir Singh Sodhi to death. The average American might have sympathies for his disturbed state of mind for the victims of 9/11 and their secret empathy might be for him, but all this couldn’t stop the verdict of death sentence for Roque on 10/10/03. But in Delhi and elsewhere there were more than 5,000 Balbir Singh Sodhis butchered to death in horrendous manner, and it hasn’t evoked any reaction of the government, judiciary and executive of the largest democracy on the planet. On the other hand US Department of Justice wrote a letter to Sodhi family expressing their whole hearted support. Similar a letter was sent by UN Secretary also. It is in sharp contrast to Indian Government’s apathy to admit the barbarity of the crime on several thousand people of a particular faith.
Though Prime Minister has come out to tender an apology for the shameful incidents of Sikhs’ lynching in Delhi, it has not assuaged the wounded feelings of the community. The manner adopted by Dr. Manmohan Singh more speaks of the tactical move to avert the rising protests and support for the victims all over the world. Had it been the genuine feeling of the party, his government would not have made a statement of taking no action against the guilty ones at the first instance. The declaration of paying no attention to the recommendations of the Nanavati Commission by the government was probably in the background of the fate of other eight reports submitted to the government. The Sikh community is once again in for a shock after the Government clearly declared that no action would be taken against the members of the ruling party allegedly involved in the killing of 3200 Sikhs in the country’s capital. The killers of Sikhs in other states enjoy power both in the society and in the government. Perhaps no one can explain the cover up campaign in the democratic society.
The Nanavati Commission report on 1984 Sikh Massacre tabled in the parliament for discussion created a furor in the country largely because the Government immediately made its intention clear about taking no action against the guilty. The nine commissions and committees appointed after the dreadful killing of Sikhs in the presence of Delhi Police ‘twiddling their thumbs,’ didn’t bring any justice to the Sikh community. Now after twenty years, Justice Nanavati submitted a report that looked a little inimical to the interests of the activists of the Party, Government expressed its determination to throw all norms of justice to the winds in spite of compelling evidence against people in power. But the circumstances changed since 1984 as no party is enjoying an absolute majority in the parliament. Earlier, the party ruled like a dictator because they controlled both of the houses. In such circumstances, there was no effect of discussion on the government. But today CPI (M) a major partner of the coalition having refused to join the executive, has been acting vigilant to censure anyone who seem to be going against conventions of justice. Had CPI(M) not insisted on tabling of the Nanavati Commission report in the parliament, there was every chance that Government would have never brought the report in the parliament. NDA’s voice has nothing to do with justice, they are protesting more for political reasons.
“I felt like a refugee in my country. In fact, I felt like a Jew in Nazi Germany,” said a famous pro congress Sikh columnist Khushwant Singh after the massacre of Sikhs in Delhi. A Sikh soldier in his military uniform after vacationing with his family set out to report for duty. On the way he was attacked in spite of his entreaties that he was a military man to defend the same people who were attacking him. The mob killed him there and then, and threw his body in the sewage. Similarly Sikh soldiers were pulled out of the train and killed by unruly mobs. The probability of Jagdish Tytler organizing the crimes has been pointed out by Justice Nanavati. The strong evidence against him is that he removed all the Sikh police officers to other places and deployed the ones who were told to produce the maximum killing of Sikhs. He provided voting lists of the area and highlighted all names with Singh as last name. He didn’t sleep all night on the night of 31st October, 1984 and was closely closeted with his supporters as to arrange everything for the people to carry out attacks against Sikhs. The strategy was that the poor in slums would be most motivated when asked to loot Sikhs’ homes as wantonly as they willed. They were also told that the Government was on their side. People were explained about their mission, material and machinery was provided, the extralegal support was given, the routes were charted out, highlighted voting lists were given to the designated leaders. It wasn’t hard to prompt the people who already lived in the subhuman ghettos of depravity. They had nothing to lose yet had lifetime hope of gaining access to modern gadgets, money and access to the corridors of power.
“When the big tree falls, the earth trembles” was the reaction of Rajiv Gandhi to the killing of innocent people. The congress cadre was happy as they had made the stage ready to show to the world how popular was their leader. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India had taken the reigns of the government when thousands of Muslims on the one side and Hindus and Sikhs on other were killed for ethnic cleansing. Similarly Rajiv Gandhi assumed the charge by authorizing his supporters to show their love for his mother-land. Indira Gandhi was idolized by her supporters as Durga an angry goddess, a scourge to the evil-doers. The frustration of the Congress was obvious when they thought the power of Indira should be exhibited behind the mindless act of the mob. Was it a tribute to the memory of Indira Gandhi or an insult to her image? She adopted Machiavellian principles to run the country and overstepped the limits of propriety to prop herself in power. In fact after being defeated in 1977, Indira had made up her mind to cash on anything that created divisions and hatred among its own people.
The congress having tasted defeat at the hands of Jaya Parkash Narayan in 1977 was treading a very dangerous trek. All the atrocities and violation of human rights during National Emergency had upset Indira’s operation to become an indispensable leader. What Bangladesh war had done to hoist her image, the emergency had undone it. Then,Indira looked for a way to lead Indian people into Hindu revivalism to stop the discontent of poverty, unemployment, disease and death. The stealing of agenda of RSS coupled with leftist’s tirade against fundamentalism became handy instruments. All parties saw as if Indira was serving their ends in her fight against separatism. For all this, she needed to show to the nation that it was under seize. The Punjab became a bastion of her designs. She had most willing partner, loyal servants, and sycophants of the first water to carry out her Machiavellian machinations. Her mind has been continuously working on those lines when she picked up Giani Zail Singh as the President of India. The Sikh leadership could never measure up to the complexity of the game. Akali Dal declared support for the nomination of Giani Zail Singh as the President of India. It was the single most blunder Akali Dal committed to support the candidature of Giani Zail Singh. It showed that the cadre of Akali party never had a wind of what was coming next. Or they too might have played in Indira’s hands as most other parties willingly or unwillingly did, and were obsessed to support her campaign against religious fundamentalism.
The implication of Nanavati Commission Report for Sikhs is that it has advertised their grievance at the International level. Thanks to CPI(M) and the opposition insistence to force the government to table the report in the parliament. The dependency of Manmohan Singh’s government on the Leftist front brought all the pressure on Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar to resign from the public offices. This could never have happened during 20 years’ lack of concern for the battered community.
The military attack on Golden Temple on the day of Martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev on June, 1984 forcing thousands of innocent devotees in the crossfire was to show to the world that there was a real threat to the sovereignty of India. The pogrom of November, 1984 is now observed as Fourth Sikh Holocaust; and the Blue Star operation being the Third Holocaust. Recently in Chicago a conference was organized by Institute for Conflict And Peace Studies (IFCAPS) to focus on June and November, 1984 mass killing of Sikhs by the majority community with the connivance of the Government of the time. With the tabling of Nanavati Commission Report, it has become certain that lynching of Sikhs in 1984 will go down in the history as Third and Fourth pogrom of Sikhs. It is true that Nanavati Commission Report is quite deficient in accounting for the barbarous acts of those responsible for organizing the crime.

What happened; 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Anti-Sikh_Riots

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots took place in India after the assassination of Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984. India's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh guards acting in the aftermath of Operation Bluestar.
Over the next four days nearly 3000 Sikhs were massacred in systematic riots planned and led by Congress activists and sympathizers. The then Congress government was widely criticized for doing very little at the time, if not acting as a conspirator, especially since voting lists were used to identify Sikh families. The then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, son of Indira Gandhi allegedly made a statement "When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake" on the Sikh carnage. His widow, Sonia Gandhi and current President of the Congress Party, officially apologized in 1998 for the events of November, 1984. The most affected regions were neighborhoods in Delhi.
As an indication of the complexity of politics involved since the riots, Dr. Manmohan Singh a Sikh became the Prime Minister of India on a Congress mandate May 22, 2004 acting on Sonia Gandhi's request. It is also important to note that many ordinary Indians of different religious dispositions made significant efforts to hide and help Sikh families as outlined in affidavits of Sikh victims and have been active in seeking appropriate justice.
It is alleged that the anti-Sikh violence were conducted at the behest of the Congress party and the masses did not support them [citation needed]. This claim can be supported by the fact that Hindu-Sikh communal riots have been rare prior to the 1984 riots and Hindus and Sikhs often intermingled, including having Hindus and Sikhs in the same family.

Picture of the BSF marching on the roads of Delhi
Contents[hide]
1 The Incident
2 Timeline
3 Commission(s) of Enquiry
3.1 Marwah Commission
3.2 Misra Commission of Enquiry
3.3 Kapur Mittal Committee
3.4 Jain Banerjee Committee
3.5 Potti Rosha Committee
3.6 Jain Aggarwal Committee
3.7 Ahuja Committee
3.8 Dhillon Committee
3.9 Narula Committee
3.10 The Nanavati Commission
4 Quotes related to Riots
5 Picture Gallery
6 References
7 External links
8 Further reading
//
[edit]

The Incident
On November 1, 1984, a huge mob from the suburbs of Delhi descended on various localities where the Sikh were mainly concentrated. They carried iron rods, knives, clubs, and combustible material, including kerosene. They had voters' lists of houses and business establishments belonging to the Sikhs. People began to swarm into Sikh homes, ripping the occupants to pieces, chopping off the heads of children, raping women, tying Sikh men to tyres set aflame with kerosene, burning down the houses and shops after ransacking them. They stopped buses and trains, in and out of Delhi, pulling out Sikh passengers to be lynched or doused with kerosene and burnt.
[edit]

Timeline
9:20 AM: Indira Gandhi shot by two of her sikh security guards at her residence, No. 1 Safdarjung Road, and rushed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
Around 10:50 AM: Indira Gandhi dies. [1][2]
11:00 AM: All India Radio listeners learn that two security guards who shot Indira Gandhi were Sikhs.
4:00 PM: Rajiv Gandhi returns from West Bengal and reaches AIIMS. Stray incidents of attacks in and around that area.
5:30 PM: The cavalcade of President Zail Singh, who returned from a foreign visit, was stoned as it approached AIIMS. Late Evening and Night: Mobs fanned out in different directions from AIIMS. The violence against Sikhs spread, starting in the neighboring constituency of Congress Councillor Arjun Das. The violence included destruction of Sikh properties and takes place even in VIP areas such as in the vicinity of Prithviraj Road.
Shortly after Rajiv Gandhi was sworn in, senior advocate and opposition leader, Ram Jethmalani, met Home Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao and urged him to take immediate steps to save Sikhs from further attacks. Delhi's Lt. Governor, P.G. Gavai and Police Commissioner, S.C. Tandon, visited some of the violence affected areas. But no precautionary follow -up action was initiated. It was also alleged that Rajiv Gandhi deliberately delayed in calling in the Army, a move which many believe could have saved the lives of many.
On the night of October 31st and morning of November 1st, several Congress leaders allegedly held meetings and mobilized support to launch a full scale against Delhi's Sikhs.
[edit]

Commission(s) of Enquiry
Numerous commissions have been setup to investigate the riots, however, many of the primary accused were acquitted or never charge-sheeted. Ten commissions and committees have till now inquired into the riots. The most recent commission on the riots, headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati submitted its 185-page report to the Home Minister, Shivraj Patil on February 9, 2005 and the report was tabled in Parliament on August 8, 2005. The commissions below are listed in the order they were formed.
[edit]

Marwah Commission
This commission was appointed in November 1984. Ved Marwah, Additional Commissioner of Police, was assigned the job of enquiring into the role of the police during the carnage of November 1984. Mr Marwah almost completed his inquiry towards the middle of 1985 when he was directed by the Central Government not to proceed further as Misra Commission had been appointed by then. Complete records of the Marwah Commission were taken over by the government and were later transferred to the Misra Commission. However, the most important part of the record, namely the handwritten notes of Mr Marwah, which contained important information, were not transferred to the Misra Commission.
[edit]

Misra Commission of Enquiry
Misra commission was appointed in May 1985. Justice Rangnath Misra, was a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Misra submitted his report in August 1986 and the report was made public six months thereafter in February 1987. In his report, Justice Misra stated that it was not part of his terms of reference to identify any person and recommended the formation of three committees. There was only one term of reference to this commission, i.e. whether the violence was organised? The commission and its report has been heavily criticized as biased and a miscarriage of justice.
[edit]

Kapur Mittal Committee
Kapur Mittal Committee was appointed in February 1987 on the recommendation of the Misra Commission to inquire into the role of the police, which the Marwah Commission had almost completed in 1985 itself, when the government asked that committee to wind up and not proceed further. After almost two years, this committee was appointed for the same purpose. This committee consisted of Justice Dalip Kapur and Mrs Kusum Mittal, retired Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. It submitted its report in 1990. Seventy-two police officers were identified for their connivance or gross negligence. The committee recommended forthwith dismissal of 30 police officers out of 72. However, till date, not a single police officer has been awarded any kind of punishment.
[edit]

Jain Banerjee Committee
This committee was recommended by the Misra Commission for recommending registration of cases. It consisted of Justice M.L. Jain, former Judge of the Delhi High Court and Mr A.K. Banerjee, retired Inspector General of Police. The Misra Commission held in its report that a large number of cases had not been registered and wherever the victims named political leaders or police officers, cases were not registered against them. This committee recommended registration of cases against Mr Sajjan Kumar in August 1987, but no case was registered. In November 1987 many press reports appeared for not registering cases in spite of the recommendation of the committee. In December 1987, one of the co-accused along with Sajjan Kumar, namely Mr Brahmanand Gupta filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and obtained a stay against this committee. The government did not oppose the stay. The Citizens Justice Committee filed an application for vacating the stay. Ultimately, the writ petition was decided in August 1989 and the high court quashed the appointment of this committee. An appeal was filed by the Citizens Justice Committee in the Supreme Court of India.
[edit]

Potti Rosha Committee


Potti Rosha Committee was appointed in March 1990, by the V.P. Singh government, as a successor to the Jain Banerjee Committee. In August 1990, Potti-Rosha issued recommendations for filing cases based on affidavits victims of the violence had submitted. There was one against Sajjan Kumar. A CBI team went to Kumar's home to file the charges; his supporters locked them up and threatened them harm if they persisted in their designs on their leader. As a result of this intimidation, when Potti-Rosha's term expired in September 1990, Potti and Rosha decided to disband their inquiry.
[edit]

Jain Aggarwal Committee
The committee was appointed in December 1990 as a successor to the Potti Rosha Committee. It consisted of Justice J.D. Jain, retired Judge of the Delhi High Court and Mr D.K. Aggarwal, retired DGP of Uttar Pradesh. This committee recommended registration of cases against H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar, Dharamdas Shastri and Jagdish Tytler. The Committee also suggested setting up of two - three Special Investigating Teams in the Delhi Police under a Deputy Commissioner of Police and the overall supervision by the Additional Commissioner of Police, In-charge - CID and also to review the work-load of the three Special Courts set up to deal with October - November, 1984 riots cases exclusively so that these cases could be taken up on day-to-day basis. The question of appointment of Special Prosecutors to deal with October - November 1984 riots cases exclusively was also discussed. This committee was wound up in August 1993. However, the cases recommended by this committee were not even registered by the police.
[edit]

Ahuja Committee
Ahuja Committee was the third committee recommended by the Misra Commission to ascertain the total number of killings in Delhi. This committee submitted its report in August 1987 and gave a figure of 2,733 as the number of Sikhs killed in Delhi alone.
[edit]

Dhillon Committee
Dhillon Committee headed by Mr Gurdial Singh Dhillon was appointed in 1985 to recommend measures for the rehabilitation of the victims. This committee submitted its report by the end of 1985. One of the major recommendations of this Committee was that the business establishments, which had insurance cover, but whose insurance claims were not settled by insurance companies on the technical ground that riot was not covered under insurance, should be paid compensation under the directions of the government. This committee recommended that since all insurance companies were nationalised, they be directed to pay the claims. However, the government did not accept this recommendation and as a result insurance claims were rejected by all insurance companies throughout the country.
[edit]

Narula Committee
Narula Committee was appointed in December 1993 by the Madan Lal Khurana government in Delhi. One of the recommendations of the Narula Committee was to convince the Central Government to grant sanction in this matter. Mr. Khurana took up the matter with the Central Government and in the middle of 1994, the Central Government decided that the matter did not fall within its purview and sent the case to the Lt. Governor of Delhi. It took two years for the Narasimha Rao Government to decide that it did not fall within Centre's purview. Narasimha Rao Government further delayed the case. This committee submitted its report in January 1994 and recommended the registration of cases against H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler. Ultimately, despite the delay by the Central government, the CBI was able to file the charge sheet in December 1994.
[edit]

The Nanavati Commission
Nanavati Commission was appointed by a unanimous resolution passed in the Rajya Sabha. This commission was headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The commission submitted its report in February 2004. The Commission claimed evidence against congressmen Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar and H.K.L. Bhagat for instigating the mobs to violence. The Commission also held the then police commissioner S.C. Tandon directly responsible for the riots. There was widespread protest against the report as it did not mention clearly the role of Tytler and other Congressmen in the riots. It finally led to the resignation of Jagdish Tytler from the Union Cabinet. The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also apologised to the Sikhs for the riots, few days after the report was tabled in the Parliament. The ATR report, while exonerating Mr Tytler, said, “a person cannot be prosecuted simply on the basis of probabilities.”
[edit]

Quotes related to Riots
I felt like a refugee in my country. In fact, I felt like a Jew in Nazi Germany. (Khushwant Singh)
Criminally led hoodlums killed Sikhs, looted or burnt homes and properties while the police twiddled their thumbs. (India Today, November 15, 1984)
I was told,‘You appoint another committee to identify the people but HKL Bhagat is not involved.’ (Advocate Harvinder Singh Phoolka, who fought for justice for the Sikhs)
[edit]

Picture Gallery
















[edit]

References
'1984 Sikhs' Kristallnacht', or 'Night of the Broken Glass', a report released in the House of Commons, Britain, on May 25, 2004 to mark the 20th anniversary of the riots. The report was prepared by Truth & Justice Campaign, Berkshire (London).
[edit]

External links
Website by the attorney defending November 1984 riot victims in Delhi. Contains important affidavits and other documentation.
Times of India Report On the 20th Anniversary of the riots
[edit]

Further reading
Jaskaran Kaur, Barbara Crossette. Twenty Years of Impunity: The November 1984 riots of Sikhs in India. London: Nectar, 2004.[3]
Cynthia Keppley Mahmood. Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dialogues With Sikh Militants. University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-1592-3.
Cynthia Keppley Mahmood. A Sea Of Orange: Writings on the Sikhs and India. Xlibris Corporation, ISBN 1-4010-2857-8
Ram Narayan Kumar et al. Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab. South Asia Forum for Human Rights, 2003. [4]
Joyce Pettigrew. The Sikhs of the Punjab: Unheard Voices of State and Guerrilla Violence. Zed Books Ltd., 1995.
Anurag Singh. Giani Kirpal Singh’s Eye-Witness Account of Operation Bluestar. 1999.
Patwant Singh. The Sikhs. New York: Knopf, 2000.
Harnik Deol. Religion and Nationalism in India: The Case of the Punjab. London: Routledge, 2000
Jacob Tully. Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi's Last Battle. ISBN 0-224-02328-4.
Ranbir Singh Sandhu. Struggle for Justice: Speeches and Conversations of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Ohio: SERF, 1999.
Iqbal Singh. Punjab Under Siege: A Critical Analysis. New York: Allen, McMillan and Enderson, 1986.
Paul Brass. Language, Religion and Politics in North India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.