Connecting over 25 millions NRIs worldwide
Most trusted Name in the NRI media
NRI PEOPLE- OUR NETWORK
 
1984 anti-Sikh riots

 

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