SIT to Reopen Seven 1984 Anti-Sikh Riot Cases

After the notification became public, Delhi MLA Manjinder Singh Sirsa said senior Congress leader and Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath had allegedly given shelter to five people who were accused in one of the seven cases.

New Delhi: A Special Investigation Team (SIT), set up by the Union Home Ministry, has decided to reopen seven anti-Sikh riot cases, where the accused were either acquitted or the trial closed, according to an official notification.

After the notification became public, Delhi MLA Manjinder Singh Sirsa said senior Congress leader and Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath had allegedly given shelter to five people who were accused in one of the seven cases.

“Nath was never named in the FIR registered in New Delhi’s Parliament Street police station. Five persons named as accused in the case (FIR No. 601/84) were accommodated in Nath’s residence. All these accused were discharged due to lack of evidence.

“Since the SIT will reinvestigate this case also, two witnesses will appear before the SIT where they will tell about Kamal Nath’s role in the riots,” Sirsa told PTI.

The witnesses were Sanjay Suri, who now lives in England, and Mukhtiyar Singh, who is now in Patna, he said.

“I have spoken to both of the witnesses and they are ready to appear before the SIT to record their statements,” Sirsa said.

The case is related to a mob of rioters storming the Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib here.

Nath had previously denied the charges.

According to the Home Ministry notification, the SIT has taken up the discharged cases for scrutiny or preliminary enquiry.

The seven anti-Sikh riot cases were registered in 1984 at police stations in Vasant Vihar, Sun Light Colony, Kalyanpuri, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, Patel Nagar and Shahdara.

The SIT has issued public notices asking individuals and organisations to provide information related to the seven cases.

“This is to inform to all individuals, groups of persons, associations, institutions and organisations that if they have any information in respect of any of the cases, they may contact the officer in-charge of SIT police station,” the SIT said.

Sirsa claimed that Kamal Nath’s name was never included in the FIR nor was he investigated by the police.

The SIT was set up on February 12, 2015 following a recommendation by the Home Ministry-appointed Justice (retd) G P Mathur committee.

The three-member SIT comprises two Inspector General-rank IPS officers and a judicial officer.

The SIT has so far re-opened around 80 out of the 650 cases registered in connection with anti-Sikh riots following the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Gandhi was shot dead by her Sikh bodyguards on October 31, 1984.

A total of 3,325 people were killed in the riots in which Delhi alone accounted for 2,733 deaths, while the rest occurred in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and other states.

The Delhi Police had closed 241 cases citing lack of evidence. Justice Nanavati Commission had recommended reopening of only four of them but the Modi government constituted the SIT for re-investigation of all cases which the probe team finds appropriate.

The CBI had reopened and re-investigated only four cases. In two of them, the probe agency had filed a charge sheet and in one, five persons, including a former MLA, were convicted.

Last year, Congress leader Sajjan Kumar was sentenced to life for his role in the anti-Sikh riots.

On December 10, 2014, the Narendra Modi government had announced an additional compensation of Rs five lakh to the kin of each of those killed in the 1984 riots.

In May, 2016, the Home Ministry had announced that 1,020 families, which had been hit by the riots and migrated to Punjab from different parts of the country, will be given Rs two lakh each as part of a centrally-sponsored rehabilitation scheme.

Delhi Court Awards Death Penalty to Yashpal Singh in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case

On November 14, the court had convicted Singh and Naresh Sherawat for killing two men during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots – the first conviction in the cases reopened by the SIT.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday awarded the death penalty to convict Yashpal Singh for killing two men in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the first capital punishment in the case.

Additional sessions Judge Ajay Pandey also awarded life term to co-convict Naresh Sherawat in the case.

The verdict was pronounced in the Tihar Jail due to security concerns and attack on the convicts on the premises of the Delhi court.

Watch | Why Both Congress and BJP Have Suppressed the Truth about 1984

On November 14, the court had convicted Singh and Sherawat for killing two men here during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots – the first conviction in the cases reopened by the SIT.

The Delhi Police had closed the case in 1994 for want of evidence. However, a Special Investigation Team on the riots reopened it.

The Kind of Chest Size India Really Needs

The unimpeachable integrity of India’s public servants is the only guarantee that our democracy won’t turn into majoritarianism.

What is the chest size of sub-inspector Gagandeep Singh?

It’s difficult to erase the mental image of Singh holding a Muslim man close to his chest to shield him from a mob at Garjiya Devi temple near Uttarakhand’s Ramnagar.

On May 22, the 28-year-old police officer risked his life to ensure the safety of a young man who ran the risk of being lynched by a communally-charged mob. The 23-year-old Muslim was spotted with a 19-year-old Hindu girl near the temple premises and according to Ashok Kumar, ADG (law and order), locals wanted to “teach the duo a lesson”.

When Singh was alerted about the situation, he rushed to the spot. He found a mob, alleging ‘love jihad‘, preparing to thrash the couple. Singh turned himself into a human shield, saving the young man. In the process, he also received several blows. Upon failing to lynch the Muslim man, the crowd began chanting anti-police slogans. Kumar said the mob, however, was eventually dispersed. The couple was then taken to a police station and handed over to their families.

Singh was not related to the man he saved. He could – like most police officers probably would in a similar situation – have taken the easier option of waiting for reinforcement. In all probability, his brave act averted a communal flare-up.

The importance of Singh’s selfless act lies in the fact that the unimpeachable professional integrity of India’s public servants is the only guarantee that our democracy won’t turn into majoritarianism given the political economy of vote bank politics. The idea of India could well be linked to the chest size of this official. Here’s why.

One, prevention is better than cure. India has a history of communal incidents occurring across the country – 8,449 communal incidents resulted in 7,229 deaths and 47,321 persons being injured between 1954 and 1985. In 2015, 97 deaths were reported and another 2,264 people were injured in 751 communal incidents. In 2016, 86 people were killed and 2,321 others were injured in 703 incidents of communal violence. In 2017, 111 people were killed and 2,384 injured in a total of 822 communal incidents across the country.

One of the reasons behind these incidents occurring and resulting in deaths so frequently is that more often than not, the leaders of communal mobs go scot-free in the absence of a robust criminal investigation machinery. Take for example the 1984 Delhi massacre and the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Given that the probability of prosecution is low, many lives will be saved if we manage to prevent these incidents from taking place in the first place. What police officers like Rahul Sharma and Maxwell Pereira have done when faced with criminal mobs are cases in point.

Two, the Indian constitution is as much about making the state machinery (bureaucracy, police, army etc) accountable for protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens as about regularly conducting general elections. This accountability goes beyond the formal legal definition of the concept.

There is an element of sacredness attached to it. The brave act of sub-inspector Singh carries that touch of sacredness in its heroic context. If India’s public servants start limiting themselves to the notion of accountability in a strictly legal sense, it will be extremely difficult for our democracy to survive and prosper. Singh could have resorted to inaction using the pretext of being alone in front of a charged mob, but he didn’t, unlike hundreds of police officers who did nothing to save the helpless citizens during the 1984 Delhi massacre, the 2002 Gujarat riots and other communal incidents.

Three, as things stand today and as history has been a witness, the willingness and ability of the ruling dispensation – whenever and wherever communal incident occur in the country – to hold the erring police officers accountable for their commissions and omissions is highly doubtful. This lack of accountability goes beyond party affiliations.

No IPS officers being punished for their role in the 1984 Delhi massacre and the 2002 Gujarat riots is again a case in point. Irrespective of what the central IPS association and its state-level wings say of the great job IPS officers are doing for the country, they will have to live with this uncomfortable fact.

Sub-inspector Singh’s chest size matters for the idea of India. As a narrative. As an image. As a metaphor.

Basant Rath is a 2000 batch IPS officer who belongs to the Jammu and Kashmir cadre. Views expressed are personal.