Will
the CBI take the Tytler case to a logical conclusion?
Is
CBI trying to contact a key witness in such an important case?
It may be 24 years, but the victims are still waiting.
New Delhi, March 20, 2008
Tehelka
MIHIR SRIVASTAVA reports
‘Tytler said he'll finish my family
’
Forced to reinvestigate the 1984 riots case against Congress
leader Jagdish Tytler, the CBI finds eyewitness Surinder Singh
saying Tytler made him change his statement. MIHIR SRIVASTAVA
reports
IN CASE I die, then Jagdish Tytler will be responsible for the
same. Jagdish Tytler had put great pressure on me and had obtained
my signatures on blank papers… threatened me that in case
I speak against him in future, then me along with my family will
be finished.” This damning disclosure is the latest testimony
obtained by the CBI on February 12, 2008. The premier investigating
agency has been under pressure from a Delhi lower court which
ordered that the case against Tytler be reinvestigated. The order
was issued when the CBI approached the court with a closure report
in December last year.
Tytler was earlier forced to resign from Manmohan Singh’s
Cabinet after the Nanavati Commission probing the 1984 anti-Sikh
carnage found “credible evidence” against the Union
minister. So, who is Surinder Singh who has now put his signature
to the damaging statement? The same testimony provides the answer.
Head granthi of Gurdwara Pul Bangash near Delhi’s Azad Market
in 1984, Surinder is an eye witness to Tytler’s role in
the infamous riots that claimed over 3,000 lives in the capital.
This is what he saw on the morning of November 1, a day after
Indira Gandhi’s assassination: “On 1st November 1984
in the morning at 9am a big mob which was carrying sticks, iron
rods and kerosene oil attacked the Gurdwara. The crowd was being
led by our area Member Parliament of Congress- I Jagdish Tytler.
He incited the crowd to set the Gurdwara on fire and to kill the
Sikhs. In the crowd some people were having in their hands the
flags of Congress party and they were raising slogans such as
‘The revenge of blood will be taken by blood, the Sikhs
are traitors, kill them, burn them’. Five-six policemen
were also with the crowd. On incitement by Jagdish Tytler they
attacked the Gurdwara and set it on fire. Thakur Singh, who was
a retired inspector of Delhi Police and an employee of the Gurdwara
Managing Committee, was killed by the crowd. Badal Singh, who
was the Sewadar of the Gurudwara, was burnt alive by putting a
burning tyre around his neck. This whole incident was helplessly
witnessed by me from the upper floor of the Gurdwara. The Gurdwara
was on fire, but the fire did not reach the upper floor.”
Surinder Singh filed a similar affidavit with the Nanavati Commission
in January 2002.
By the time the Nanavati Commission summoned Tytler on the complaint,
Surinder Singh had been “managed”. Tytler, astonishingly,
drew the Commission’s attention to another affidavit by
Surinder, this one dated August 5, 2002. The new affidavit amounted
to a retraction of Singh’s earlier position. Nanavati was
taken aback by the Congress leader’s knowledge of the second
affidavit. It was evident that Tytler had tried to work on Surinder,
who had acknowledged the same even in his first testi-mony wherein
he had said that the tarnished leader had contacted him on November
10, 1984 and asked him to sign two sheets of paper which he declined
to do. Justice Nanavati was scathing in his report: “what
appears from all this is that the subsequent affidavit was probably
obtained by persuasion or under pressure. If this witness had
really not seen Jagdish Tytler in the mob or if he was not approached
by Tytler then he would not have come before the Commission to
give evidence or would have told the Commission that the attack
did not take place in that manner. For speaking the truth, it
was not necessary for him to wait till 5-8-2002 and file an additional
affidavit.”
IN FACT, Surinder left for Canada 10 days after filing the second
affidavit, raising questions of how he could afford to travel
abroad on a granthi’s salary. Under pressure from the Court
to reinvestigate the case against Tytler, the CBI has now tracked
down Surinder and he admits to having been influenced by the former
Congress minister. His third statement (the first two were filed
with the Nanavati Commission) states, “That first statement
which I had made against Jagdish Tytler to the Nanavati Commission
is totally correct. I never changed my statement, but Tytler had
put great pressure on me and had obtained my signatures on blank
papers that he produced before the Nanavati Commission. He threatened
me that in case I speak against him in future, then I along with
my family will be finished.” When questioned by TEHELKA
about this, Tytler said, “He has changed his versions thrice.
Either I am very powerful or the man is a fool.” But the
fact that Tytler has used his “power” to try and influence
Surinder is now etched in Nanavati’s report.
Twenty four years after the carnage, the cover-up continues.
The CBI too would not have tracked down Surinder if it were not
for the courts. The agency had, in fact, gone to the court asking
for the case to be closed since it had not been able to find another
witness in the Tytler case. Jasbir Singh, in an affidavit to the
Nanavati Commission, had stated that he saw Tytler inciting a
group of people near Kingsway Camp in Delhi to kill Sikhs on the
night of November 3, 1984. Jasbir has been in the US for the last
six years and the CBI said the case should be closed because Jasbir’s
whereabouts were “untraceable”. In what can only be
called mud on the face of the investigating agency, the media
was able to get Jasbir to give his testimonial on live television
even as the premier agency claimed that they were not able to
contact him.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sanjiv Jain was categorical
in his order: “Since the witness has allegedly seen the
incident and submitted the affidavit before Justice Nanavati Commission,
and is willing to depose before the CBI or join investigations,
I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be further investigated”
The ball was back in the CBI’s court. Jasbir Singh while
talking to TEHELKA on the phone maintained that he saw Tytler
inciting a mob. “The CBI never tried to contact me. I can
testify by teleconferencing. I am not willing to come to India
because I fear for my life.” He offered a way out: “If
the CBI is really serious and interested in investigating the
case and recording the statement of the witness petitioner, then
it should have moved under section 166A (1) (which allows a non-resident
Indian to testify in foreign courts on the request of the probe
agency) and not under section 160 of the CrPC.”
Jasbir’s family, his wife and two children live in a flat
in Tilak Vihar with his mother-in-law Gurdeep Kaur who lost her
husband, two sons and son-in-law in the 1984 riots in Block 32
of Trilokpuri. Gurdeep Kaur maintains that some police personnel
did come to her thrice, asking for Jasbir’s address, saying
he has been allotted a flat, or some other alibi. “CBI officials
never revealed their true identity to us or why they have come.
Fearing for his life we did not provide them the address,”
says Kaur. This is how the CBI tried to contact a key witness
in such an important case. Even as fresh investigations are being
carried out, efforts seem to be afoot to muddy the waters once
again and discredit the witnesses.
A clear divide is already visible among Surinder Singh’s
family. His father and brother, Ajit and Jaswant Singh, and Harpal
Bedi, a lady who lives near the Pul Bangash gurdwars, are willing
to negate Surinder’s testimony saying Tytler was not present
and have told the CBI as much. The father, in fact, goes to the
extent of saying that his son is playing into the hands of the
Khalisthanis. But Santa Singh, Surinder’s son in law, says
the family is divided on the issue: Ajit and Jaswant are pro-Tytler,
he says. Santa reveals that Surinder’s wife Jasbir Kaur
has left her inlaws’ house and gone into hiding because
of the pressure. In Jasbir’s case too, his credentials are
being questioned. The Tytler camp points out that there is a judgment
against him and he can be arrested if he returns to India. That
he was found guilty of trying to pressurise Darshan Kaur, an eyewitness
who had testified against another senior Congress leader, HKL
Bhagat. Jasbir, however, claims the case is motivated. Will the
CBI take the Tytler case to a logical conclusion? It may be 24
years, but the victims are still waiting.
WRITER'S EMAIL:
mihir@tehelka.com