Enforced Disappearances, Arbitray Executions And Secret Cremations
Victim Testimony
And
India’s Human Rights Obligations
INTERIM REPORT
By Ram Narayan Kumar, Amrik Singh Muktsar, Harshinder Singh
For the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab
Contents:
INTRODUCTION: COMPLEX DENIAL AND THE CONTEXT OF DOCUMENTATION
THE AGENDA - A DISAPPEARANCE AND THE INQUIRY REPORTS - A FUNNERAL ORATION - BLITZKRIEG AND BLACKOUT: TRICKS OF A MEDIA WAR - NATIONAL SECURITY AND UNIVERSAL METAPHORS - SIDESHOWS OF A DEMOCRACY - A CASE FOR EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE - PROBLEMS OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE INITIATIVE OF COORDINATION - AMBITIOUS PROPOSALS - EARLY DISAPPOINTMENTS - A SERIOUS MISUNDERSTANDING - LAW AND ORDER - CONTEMPT OF COURT - THE IRISH EXAMPLE - DEADENDS OF MILITANT CRIMES - PRINCIPLES OF A JUST WAR - THE WEAKNESS OF AMBIVALENCE - THE ROOTS OF UNREST - INDIAN FREEDOM AND INSPIRATIONS FROM PUNJAB - BRITISH LESSONS - TURNING A BLIND EYE - THE REIGN OF DESPAIR AND THE URGENCY OF DOCUMENTATION - OUR SURVEY AND ITS METHODS - THE REPORT FORM - THE INTERVIEW PROCESS - A CASE FOR EXCLUSION - INCIDENT-REPORTS - COURT CASES - FURTHER EVIDENCE OF SECRET CREMATIONS - APPENDICES OF CREMATIONS: SIX LISTS: Faridkot, Kapurthala, Ludhiana, Mansa, Moga, Zira - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INCIDENT REPORTS: SOME HIGHLIGHTS
A PARADIGMATIC CASE - THE ORDEAL OF SURVIVAL - ABORTION OF A PEACE ACCORD - UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS: CONSTRUCTION OF THE LABYRINTH - THE LEGISLATIVE APPARATUS OF COUNTERINSURGENCY - EARLY INVESTIGATIONS AND THE FIRST REPORTS ON STATE ATROCITIES - POLITICAL CONSENSUS ON STATE TERRORISM - BULLETS AGAINST THE BALLOT - POLL BOYCOTT: ENGINEERING OF A MANDATE - SILENCING THE HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS - DECIMATION OF THE GUERILLA GROUPS - THE WAR WITHOUT QUARTER - EVIDENCE OF MASS CREMATIONS - FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS - THE CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT - DISAPPEARANCE OF JASWANT SINGH KHALRA - FOUR AFFIDAVITS IN THE CREMATIONS MATTER: Pyre hunting of a father, a clean sweep, teaching a lesson, a frivolous pledge - AN INVESTIGATION INTO A GORY TALE - INTERIM REPORT AND THE PUBLIC NOTICE - ABDUCTIORS OF KHALRA IDENTIFIED - COMPENSATION FOR THE “WORST CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY” - THE REFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - CONFLICTS ON THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY - PROBLEMS WITH THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT - FORMULATION OF THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES BY THE COMMISSION - SUBMISSIONS BY THE COMMITTEE - SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE OF PUNJAB & THE POLICE - SUBMISSIONS BY THE UNION OF INDIA - THE COMMISSION’S COUNSEL - THE ORDER ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES - SALIENT POINTS OF THE ORDER - OUR SUGGESTIONS ON THE MODALITIES OF PROCEEDINGS - THE UNION GOVERNMENT GOES BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT - THE SECOND VERDICT OF THE SUPREME COURT - ARGUMENTS IN A VICIOUS CIRCLE - DECONSTRUCTION OF A MANDATE - STRANGE EMPHASIS ON KHALRA’S PRESS NOTE - THE COMMISSION RENDERS THE GRIEVANCE - THE TERMS OF REFERENCE: NEW INTERPRETATIONS - SOME ABSURD CONCLUSIONS - THE EXCLUDED ISSUES - THE PROBLEM WITH THE TERRITORIAL LIMITATION - EMPTY EMPHASIS ON COMPENSATION - THE BURDEN OF PROOF - OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MANDATE - THE COMMISSION REJECTS OUR REVIEW APPLICATION - THE GROUNDS FOR MOVING THE SUPREME COURT - THE LIGHT OF FURTHER EVIDENCE - INCIDENT REPORTS AND VICTIM TESTIMONY - THE OBLIGATION OF A THOROUGH INQUIRY - STANDARDS OF INVESTIGATION - THE IMPERATIVES OF INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES: Articles 21, 32, 14 - THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION UNDER INDIA’S INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS - INDIA’S OWN STAND - PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF NON-DEROGATION - THE MEANING OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY - THE RIGHT TO LIFE: THE MECHANISM OF PROTECTION - THE BINDING OBLIGATIONS - THREE LEGAL RIGHTS OF VICTIMS - THE RIGHT TO KNOW - THE RIGHT TO JUSTICE - THE RIGHT TO REPARATION - VALASOUEZ RODRIGUEZ CASE - FINDINGS OF THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS - A FACTUAL APPRAISAL OF INDIAN POSITIONS - SOVEREIGNTY IN TRANSITION AND UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS - THE TRUE REFERENT OF SOVEREIGNTY - EFFECTS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION - HUMANITARIA INTERVENTION & THE QUESTION OF IMPUNITY - UNIVERSAL JUSTICE & THE STATIST BIAS: CONTRADICTIONS IN THE UN REGIME - SOME QUESTIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMNITY - EVIDENCE OF HYPOCRISY - SOME STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS - FORCES OF IMPUNITY & THE INCOMPLETE STRUGGLE FOR UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION - SOME CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE
VICTIM TESTIMONY: ABSTRACT OF CASE STUDIES:
TEN EXAMPLES
RELATIVES WHO EITHER COMMITTED SUICIDE OR DIED UNDER TRAUMA - RELATIVES DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO DEAD BODIES - OUTSIDE AMRITSAR - POLICEMEN WHO THEMSELVES BECAME VICTIMS - SOLDIERS OF THE INDIAN ARMY - DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY - FURTHER DISCLOSURES
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF SECRET CREMATIONS: SIX LISTS:
APPENDIX A: FARIDKOT
APPENDIX B: KAPURTHALA
APPENDIX C: LUDHIANA
APPENDIX D: MANSA
APPENDIX E: MOGA
APPENDIX F: ZIRA
APPENDIX G: SURVEY CHART:
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF 838 DISAPPEARED PERSONS:
APPENDIX H:
INCIDENT-REPORT FORM
APPENDIX I:
JASWANT SINGH KHALRA’S PRESS NOTE
DATED 16 JANUARY 95 - DISAPPEARED: CREMATION GROUNDS
This is an interim report on one of the unfinished tasks of the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab (CCDP), a representative body of eighteen human rights organizations and other individuals, which came into existence on 9 November 97 with the following agenda:
(a) To develop a voluntary mechanism to collect and collate information on disappeared people from all over the State, and to ensure that the matter of police abductions leading to illegal cremations of dead bodies proceeds meaningfully and culminates in a just and satisfactory final order;
(b) to evolve a workable system of state accountability, and to build up the pressure of public opinion to counter the bid for immunity;
(c) to lobby for India to change the domestic laws in conformity with the UN instruments on torture, enforced disappearances, accountability, compensation to victims of abuse of power and other related matters;
(d) to initiate a debate on vital issues of state power, its distribution, accountability and to work for a shared perspective on these matters with groups and movements all over India.
This interim report summarizes our documentation on disappearances in the State. It bears directly on the matter of illegal abductions and secret cremations of dead bodies, carried out by the State agencies in Punjab, which the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is supposed to be investigating on remit from the Supreme Court. The next chapter will discuss the immediate background to the phase of repression documented in this report, and will explain the present legal position of the matter before the NHRC. It will also deal with the broader historical context of human rights concerns, which shape the Committee’s documentation of the subject. This prefatory note will be limited to few issues of “denial” and the requirements of documentation, which led to the formation of the Committee. It will also explain the methods that have guided our investigations, the analysis of our findings, and the writing of this report.
In January 1995, Jaswant Singh Khalra, who was then the General Secretary of the Akali Dal’s Human Rights Wing, released some official documents which established that the security agencies in Punjab had been secretly cremating thousands of dead bodies labelled as unidentified. Khalra suggested that most of these cremations were of people who had earlier been picked up in the State on suspicion of separatist sympathies. In September 1995, it was Khalra’s turn to disappear: he was kidnapped from his Amritsar home by officers of the Punjab police. In November 95, a bench of the Supreme Court under Justice Kuldip Singh instituted two inquiries to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The first inquiry aimed to determine what happened to Khalra. The second inquiry intended to establish the substance in the allegations, which Khalra had made before himself disappearing. In July 96, the report of the first inquiry held nine officers of the Punjab police responsible for Khalra’s abduction. In December 96, the report of the second inquiry disclosed “flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale.” The Supreme Court referred the matter to the NHRC for a broad and thorough investigation. But as will be shown in the next chapter, the State agencies continued to passionately deny that there had been systematic human rights abuses.
On 24 May 1997, newspapers reported that Ajit Singh Sandhu, former Superintendent of Tarn Taran police district, committed suicide by throwing himself before a running train. Sandhu had been imprisoned for few months on charges, established by judicial inquiries, that involved illegal abductions, torture and elimination in custody of people like Jaswant Singh Khalra and Kuljit Singh Dhat, a relative of Bhagat Singh, the famous revolutionary from the pre-independence era. The circumstances of his reported suicide were suspicious. He had consumed alcohol, had driven to the railway track in his own car, and a short suicide note which he left behind said “it is better to die than to live in this shame”.
Sandhu had been a trusted lieutenant of KPS Gill, former Director General of Punjab police who had led India’s ruthless war against the Sikh secessionist militancy in the State. Charged with all these extra-judicial executions and hasty cremations, Sandhu would have had no choice but to establish the line of command under which he had acted. There should have been an inquiry into his reported suicide. But KPS Gill, now retired, seized the opportunity to launch his campaign against “an utterly compromised human rights lobby”.
He called a press conference on 24th evening “not to express grief”, but to discuss the larger political and policy issues that arise from Sandhu’s suicide. And discuss them he did - with passion, emotion, and high drama. The newspapers across the country dutifully carried the full text of his statement. It held the nation to shame for its ingratitude towards “heroes” like Ajit Singh Sandhu who had saved India from the brink of disintegration. It castigated the people for permitting human rights activists to thrive on India’s soil - those busibodies “who will work with any cause that serves their personal ends, whether criminal, political or secessionist”. The statement also chided the State for not “educating itself on how to tackle individuals and groups trying to destroy it”, and went on to ask the parliament to vote for the legal amendments needed to protect other courageous officers of Punjab from the kind of humiliation that apparently drove Sandhu to suicide. The statement said that the evil weed of Khalistan had been nipped in the bud by officers like Sandhu, whose determination had prevented the loss of Kashmir and the eventual balkanisation of India.
On 27 May, our Delhi-based Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab issued a press statement to discuss, from its human rights perspective, the issues raked up by K. P. S. Gill. The Committee, which had been singled out for attack by Gill, had not only filed the petition on enforced disappearances and hasty cremations, it had also been involved in the issues of justice to Punjab for almost a decade. But no newspaper, with one or two exceptions, carried the statement. Some journalists called back to say that although, personally, they liked the statement, it did not harmonise with their editorial guidelines. Others wanted to go through the original documents on illegal cremations, to be sure that our arguments were based on “concrete and established facts”. They copied documents from our files, wasting many hours, and vanished. Promised stories did not appear.
Meanwhile, the campaign launched by Gill was avalanching into a crusade. Responsible political leaders began to accuse the National Human Rights Commission of being prejudiced against the police. There were warnings of police revolt, and threats to break the Punjab government if the Akali Dal, which was leading a coalition with the Hindu right wing party called Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), did not unambiguously declare itself for the police. The leader of the BJP’s parliamentary group in Rajya Sabha - Upper House of Parliament[1] - wrote: “Sandhu was not just left to fend for himself, the State abandoned him and - to my mind, much worse - his incarceration and humiliation were used to deflect attention.[2] Tavleen Singh, a senior journalist, explained in her column: “Murderers of Sandhu are the “human rightswallahs”. They have been unable to see that it was war in Tarn Taran: In fighting it if Sandhu broke few rules, there was no other way.
In his subsequent letter to the Prime Minister, also published in its entirety, KPS Gill asked for a legislation that defines “appropriate criteria to judge the actions of those who fought this war on behalf of the Indian State”. “Until the necessary criteria are sufficiently debated, defined and legislated, immediate steps should be taken to ensure that the pattern of humiliation through litigation and trial by the media is prevented forthwith”. He repeated the insinuation that “for those who were comprehensively defeated in the battle for Khalistan, public interest litigation has become the most convenient strategy for vendetta.”
Provocative as these arguments are, they have a familiar ring to them: they are the stock-in-trade of those who, all over the world, want to save their societies from “subversives” by genocidal methods. In January 1973, the American puppet in South Vietnam, was telling Oriana Fallaci that he prayed for the bombing of Hanoi to continue. “They have a purpose, and if we want to achieve that purpose, we have to bomb. Mademoiselle, speaking as a soldier, I tell you that the shorter the war the less atrocious it is.”
Nguyen Van Thieu was a Vietnamese, even if of the South. K. P. S. Gill is a Punjabi, and an Indian. He told the Indian Express: “it was an error that terrorism was brought to an end too quickly”. He went on to add: “the fight against militancy in Punjab was one of the most humane operations ever”.[3] Both stalked the same logic: “What are fifty thousand or hundred thousand people dead for a country? Don’t few hundred thousand people die every few minutes on this planet without any cause?”
It was the same logic that provided the ideological backbone to the “Dirty War” in Argentina between 1976 and 1983 when the junta murdered thousands, imprisoned and tortured scores of thousands, and exiled almost half a million citizens. The doctrine defines the strategy of counterinsurgency “as an interlocking system of actions - political, economic, psychological, military.” Because the rebel organisations are clandestine, their destruction requires unconventional and ruthless pursuits. A captured terrorist must be tortured for the knowledge of his organisation, and if he cannot be intimidated or induced to become a stooge, must be killed. The groups which do not sympathise with these imperatives of national security, particularly human rights groups, are subversives who wish to destroy the pristine power and the moral supremacy of the Nation-State.
The vehemence of this campaign for impunity did not hurt us so much as the pervasive sympathy, which it seemed to receive from supposedly enlightened sections of Indian public opinion. From the very beginning of my researches in Punjab, I have been meeting important officers of the government, politicians, journalists and other members of the intelligentsia who eloquently argued that the “excesses” were a small price to pay for upholding the territorial integrity of India. These views, mouthed so glibly and so casually, were filling us with dark forebodings, for we felt that a country’s institutions, particularly in a democratic set-up, cannot for long remain unaffected by such negative collective perceptions as the brandmarking of minority groups as enemies and the orchestrated clamour for their repression. Several authoritative studies on the holocaust, after examining how Nazism fitted into the ideational matrix of the then German society, conclude that the perpetrators could never have carried out their plans with such ease if the ordinary Germans hadn’t been so indifferent to the fate of the Jews, and that such indifference in turn sprang from a widely shared feeling that the Jews didn’t deserve to be protected.[4]
I had myself witnessed the bloody pogrom in Delhi which had broken out after Indira Gandhi’s assassination on 31 October 1984 to claim more than three thousand innocent Sikh lives in less than a week. I had watched how hundreds-strong bands of absolutely ordinary people, with policemen looking on, had swarmed into Sikh houses, hacking the occupants to pieces, chopping off the heads of children, tying Sikh men to tires set aflame with kerosene, burning down the houses after sacking them.
In the previous years, I had also observed how the relentless advocacy, by Hindu right-wing groups, of military option, had influenced Indira Gandhi to launch the army attack on the Golden Temple of Amritsar in June 1984.[5]
In March 1988, I noticed how the combined opposition in both houses of Indian parliament forced the Treasury Bench to modify the proposals of the 59th Amendment to the Indian constitution to say that the imposition of an Emergency and the attendant suspension of fundamental rights would be limited to the State of Punjab.[6]
In 1994, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Terrorist and Disruptive (Prevention) Act (TADA), which not only conflicted with the elemental principles of due process but also eliminated the existing legal safeguards of free and fair trial, by beseeching the principle of “legislative competence”, the doctrinal mainstay which has been historically available to the judiciary to withdraw fundamental human rights and the legal tenets of procedural fairness to the politically dissenting sections of the Indian population.[7]
What should we do then to prevent India from becoming ever less of a democracy, and its leaders from receiving a blanket mandate for repression whenever they wish for one? At this point, we would like to make an important point: it appeared to us that the large segments of our public who watched the anti-Sikh pogroms, those who knew of, or suspected, State atrocities and seemed to approve of them, didn’t in fact approve truly and knowingly, or rather, that they were approving so to speak out of equivocation: their knowledge of events was second-hand. It rested on the distorted reports and representations dished out in the media. It was tainted by the meta-narratives of the “national cause”, which they had very little reasons to question. - “It is only a few traitors and terrorists, acting under inducement from Pakistan, who are getting a somewhat rough handling”. - The common assumption is that India is a “just society”, in which innocent people would never suffer.[8]
Should we condemn all who lived under the influence of this view, as the worshippers of the Moloch?
And what about us? Without our special exposure to the reality of repression, would we have so completely disputed the “contextualization” of Punjab in the mass media? Would we have so readily seen through the grand narratives of our nationalists, who were making out that the standard repertoire of legal guarantees simply would not apply in the crisis situation obtaining in the state? Doesn’t not the public, misinformed as it is about the ground realities, first require a solid, reliable knowledge of the real happenings, through victim testimony, along with the hard evidence of the State crimes, before it can rectify its position, change its heart, and begin to press for more humane policies?[9]
Unfortunately, those who try to raise awareness for human rights have to contend with legalistic and political frameworks, which are slow-moving, often unresponsive, and which above all do not sufficiently expose the target audiences to raw facts. The people working in the field are, no doubt, aware of the many ways, subtle and blatant, in which the media “manufacture social consent”, by suppressing information and by twisting the truth.[10] Again, there are those sections of the media and academia which do not mind to carry the human rights positions, but on condition that these be couched in the aseptised jargon, known as “UN-speak”. Stanley Cohen characterises this internal dialect as “bland, technocratic, legalistic and designed not to offend. The language is so abstract, non-pictorial and non-specific that it is often unclear what exactly is being talked about.”[11]
This kind of presentation about the human rights agenda cannot possibly impress the non-specialised groups of people whose sympathies we badly need. Unless presented with hard facts and with an honest, vivid, objective reinterpretation of the context, these “laymen” simply won’t respond.
We must acknowledge another serious difficulty here: the target audience we have in mind - normal middle class Indians - do not routinely experience illegal detention, custodial torture and arbitrary executions. So they tend to be sceptical of extreme statements that berate the State institutions to be calculatedly inhuman, specially when they come from habitually anti-establishment characters. We must also admit that the meta-narrative of Punjab problem has been so successfully “contextualized” that it generally conjures up a picture of cynical forces, bent on violence and disruption, which the security forces somehow managed to contain.
For all these reasons, the true facts about Punjab, as presented by the human rights groups, have not percolated to a large enough section of the public, and have failed to shape the moral and political debate. The arguments about the State’s obligations and the rights of victims to restitution can have force only when the information on the violations and their magnitude is available in objective, accurate, systematic and standardised form. This applies particularly to the matter of police abductions and illegal corpse disposal, now before the National Human Rights Commission: In the face of stout denials by the State agencies and of a vehement campaign for impunity, a fault-proof case must be presented if we want the litigation to reach a just and satisfactory conclusion.
The simple objective was, however, impossible to achieve unless all the main human rights groups working in the field came together on the basis of a definite program. The task of monitoring the progress of the investigations which the Supreme Court had remitted to the NHRC, could not be fulfilled without a vigorous injection of voluntary initiative and effort: we had to fashion an effective mechanism to undertake thorough investigative work at the grass-root level. This was how the idea to form a Coordination Committee of various human rights groups involved in Punjab took shape. Preliminary discussions with the human rights leaders of the community culminated in a meeting at Chandigarh on 14 November 1997. It saw the formation of the Coordination Committee and the adoption of the aforementioned agenda. A position paper that spelt out the issues, the programs and the conceptual framework was circulated to all the affiliate organisations and individuals. The following organisations joined:
Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab, Punjab Human Rights Organisation, International Human Rights Organisation, Movement against State Repression, World Human Rights Protection Council, Human Rights and Democracy Forum, Lawyers for Human Rights, Khalra Action Committee, Bhartiya Kisan Union, Akali Dal (Wadala), Akali Dal (Mann), Akali Dal (Panthik), Punjab Janata Morcha, Bahujan Samaj Party, Internationalist Democratic Party, Sikh Students Federation, (Mehta, Chawla), Babbar Akali Dal, Akal Federation, World Sikh Council.
Those who joined the Committee in their individual capacity are:
Dr. (Mrs.) Sukhjeet Kaur Gill, Amrik Singh Muktsar, Harshinder Singh, Baba Sarabjot Singh Bedi, Sukhjinder Singh, Mokham Singh, former IAS Gurtej Singh, Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon, Dalbir Singh, Col (rtd) Bhagat Singh, Jaspal Singh Siddhu, Maj. Gen. (rtd) Narinder Singh, Gurdip Singh, Editor Az Di Awaz, Gurbachan Singh, editor Des Punjab and Joginder Singh, editor Spokesman.
Gurtej Singh offered one part of his house in Sector 8 of Chandigarh to be used as the Committee’s headquarters.
A Secretariat under the Convenor was constituted to implement and supervise the progress of the adopted programs.
Baba Sarabjit Singh Bedi, Kuldip Wingh Wadala, Jasbir Singh Rode and Mokham Singh became members of the Fund Raising Committee. It was decided that the Committee would not accept foreign donations and anonymous contributions.
An Accounts Committee, with Dr. (Mrs.) Sukhjeet Kaur Gill, Maj. Gen. (Rtd.) Narinder Singh and Rajwinder Singh Bains as members, was formed to maintain the records of contributions and expenditure. All expenses had to be supported with proper bills and receipts. It was also decided that any member of the Coordination Committee can scrutinise the work and the records of the Accounts Committee.[12]
The first Convention of the Committee was held in Chandigarh on 10 December 97, with former Supreme Court Judge Kuldip Singh presiding. The Convention, attended by thousands of people from the victims’ families, adopted the position paper that had been circulated earlier; also a design for the Incident-Report to document all cases of enforced disappearances and arbitrary executions leading to illegal corpse disposal. The Convention called on the Punjab government to set up a Truth Commission to investigate all complaints of human rights violations, as it had pledged in its election manifesto, and requested Justice Kuldip Singh to establish a People’s Commission if by 13 April 1998 the government failed to keep its electoral promise.
The Convention also decided to organise workshops to train volunteers in the documentation work. All the organisations affiliated with the Committee were asked to promptly identify their workers who would participate in the workshops. They were also asked to appoint one qualified member of their parties to liaison with the Committee on field research and documentation. The idea was to use their organisational strength to compile all cases of enforced disappearances and arbitrary executions within a period of six months. The lawyers belonging to the Committee who had filed cases involving human rights abuses before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, mainly petitions for writs of habeas corpus, were requested to give their copies to be included in the Committee’s documentation. As a quid pro quo, the Committee offered to provide research inputs to follow up on those cases that were still pending.[13]
Most of these ideas turned out to be far too ambitious to be feasible.
The training workshops never materialised. The political organisations failed to identify their workers who would learn interview techniques. They also did not appoint anyone to liaison with the Committee on its documentation work.
Only four lawyers sent in some of their cases.
By the end of March 1998, more than four thousand Incident-Report Forms had been distributed. But only one hundred filled forms had come back to the Secretariat.
The lawyers from Delhi, who committed to help with the legal work, never showed up.
In six months, the Committee was not able to raise sufficient money to even acquire a computer and a telephone for the office. The organisations affiliated with the Committee failed to make their monthly financial contributions.
Eventually, the Committee found few sympathetic individuals who gave enough money for the basic work. The outlines of the investigation and research were revamped and attended almost entirely by the core members of the Secretariat.
The history of our failures, the diagnosis of their causes, also the long series of official intimidation and harassment that aimed at frustrating our work - all these must be left for some other volume. But before moving on, we must briefly discuss another episode that illustrates a basic weakness within the human rights movement in Punjab.
On 26 April 1998, following the refusal by the Punjab government to form the Truth Commission as beseeched by 10 December 97 Convention, the Committee announced the formation of a panel of three judges to constitute a People’s Commission on Human Rights Violations in Punjab. The Commission was to be headed by D. S. Tewatia, former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, with H. Suresh and Jaspal Singh, retired judges of Bombay and Delhi High Courts, as the other members.
The Committee debated the issues of the inquiry and their terms of reference on the basis of a draft, circulated by the Convenor, which suggested that in addition to the State atrocities, the Commission should also investigate why the security forces in Punjab failed to enforce the law, despite being equipped with extraordinary powers to counter violence and restore order.
At this point, one member organization of the Committee decided to attack the circulated draft on the ground that it conveyed absence of sympathy for the Sikh militant movement.[14]
The controversial part of the draft said: “The individual and group violence in Punjab has taken a heavy toll of human lives. As is common knowledge, the security forces in Punjab were equipped with extraordinary powers to counter the situation of separatist violence. Yet, the law and order machinery not only failed to contain the menace, it also failed to prosecute suspects arrested under such law as TADA, in spite of their draconian provisions. The Commission would examine these incidents of individual and group violence with the view to determine the reasons for the failures of the law and order machinery in curbing and punishing the guilty.”[15]
We had proposed the issue as a subject of investigation because we thought it important for understanding the collapse of social order in Punjab. Protagonists of the Indian establishment habitually repeated the claim that “excesses” had become inevitable because terrorism had completely paralysed the courts of law, which would not convict the terrorists brought before them for trial.
The merits of this claim have not been seriously scrutinised with factual reference to the cases that had been brought before the courts, which are supposed to operate on the rules of evidence. Terrorist And Destructive Activities (Prevention) Act - in short TADA - modified the established norms of criminal trial system in India, going to the extent of commanding the presumption of guilt against the accused. It even allowed custodial confessions as admissible evidence. These provisions were extremely odious in destroying traditionally established safeguards of the criminal procedural regulation. Punjab registered 17,529 cases under the TADA since its promulgation in 1985 up to 31 July 1994.[16] In how many cases did the prosecution marshal the minimum necessary evidence to procure conviction?
Sleeman and his team had succeeded in eradicating the menace of thugee under William Bentinck. It was a slow, laborious and dangerous work. It would have been easy to catch hold of thugs and to eliminate them without legal ceremony. But Sleeman and his team opted for the arduous way, compiling lists of the members of each gang, building up accounts of the incidents, procuring witnesses, and collating evidence that would stand judicial scrutiny against discrepancy. Their work bore fruit. Between 1831 and 1837 more than three thousand thugs were convicted. Hundred of them were hanged, and thousands transported for life.[17]
Violent crime is not new to Punjab. The minutes of British officials who served in the state are full of references about their difficulties in handling the problem by the book. But they rose to the challenge.
The system of maintaining a surveillance register No. 10 of bad characters was created in 1861 by E. A. Prinsep, the Commissioner of Amritsar division. Another District Officer posted at Jullundhur gives elaborate description of the police campaign against crime, based on careful selection of Station House Officers, cultivation of reliable informers, and persuasion of villagers to testify.
Gerald Savage worked with the "Special Cell" to deal with organized crime. "This meant living in rest houses and never really gaining civilization for months on end".[18]
In our opinion, these standards of police work, actually evolved in Punjab, had been given short shrift by the team of officers under KPS Gill who had the aptitude for drama, but little training, inclination or the compulsion to do the dog's work. With the result, Punjab in the beginning of insurgency became a stage for their vainglory. In the end, they could only catch and kill.
Judiciary has often come under attack for exposing police misdeeds. Aubrey Pennell, the District Magistrate of Noakhali in 1904, sentenced Reilly, his Superintendent of Police, to a jail term for his slackness in investigating a darogha's role in murder. Pennel was forced to quit.
In 1942, a Punjab District Officer R. M. K. Slater sentenced a Sub-Inspector to a term of imprisonment on a private complaint of causing grievous bodily hurt. Slater reports: "The reaction from the British Superintendent of Police was instant and explosive. I had struck, it seemed, a mortal blow at the whole fabric of law and order".[19]
It is possible to glean more examples of this kind, and to compile a volume of interesting anecdotes. Those who have studied the relations between the judiciary and the executive organs of the State in comparable situations of social unrest would testify that the phenomenon is not unique to India.
In the context of the troubles in Ulster, every one knows about the Lord Lane’s October 89 judgement in the case known as Guildford four. These four suspects had been charged with terrorist crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment. They had to remain for fifteen years behind the bars before the new evidence convinced the Secretary of State Douglas Hurd that the case merited a fresh appeal, and that it would be morally wrong for the Crown to defend the convictions. The evidence exposed failings in the police investigation process, the forensic science service and even the lower judiciary, all developing from political bias.
The result had been a grave abortion of justice.
When the case led to a spate of similar appeals and acquittals, the government set up a full-blown Royal Commission on Criminal Justice for a thorough revamping of the police establishment and a critical reappraisal of its ways of working. The public criticism had been sharp. The Independent wrote to say “when fish start to rot, they rot from the head.” In the beginning, the police were embarrassed and actually admitted mistakes of “noble cause corruption”, as John Woodcock, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary put it in his memorable phrase. But when the campaign for reforms threatened to become radical, the attitudes changed again with many accusing the judiciary of loading the process in favour of suspects.[20]
It is also possible to criticise the Indian judiciary on many counts. However, the tardiness and corruption of the Indian judiciary cannot be the main issue when the law-enforcing officers accused of gross human rights violations clamour for immunity with the suggestion that on this hinges the national unity and sovereignty. When Nero argued in like terms, Seneca committed suicide.
These are the issues that we wanted the People’s Commission to investigate when we proposed the failure of the State agencies in prosecuting the individuals and the groups suspected of involvement in terrorist crimes as a subject of reference. But the member organization of the Committee, which attacked the draft on the terms of reference, had clearly decided to misrepresent our objectives. They must have felt that our objective was to investigate and denounce human rights abuses committed by armed militant groups in Punjab. And this they clearly found upsetting.
In fact, we would have eagerly pursued this line of investigations if there had been any real possibility of determining the facts. But there was not. The First Information Reports (FIR) registered by the police about the terrorist crimes did not identify the perpetrators. The hapless victims of these crimes were themselves unable to report or even suggest the identities of aggressors.
Young Sikhs belonging to various radical organisations and suspected of having instigated or committed terrorist crimes had either been arbitrarily killed by the security forces or locked up in prisons without fair trials. In these circumstances, we could not get far by investigating human rights offences committed by the armed separatist groups and individuals.
However, the member organisation that chose to misrepresent our objectives had correctly assumed that we had nothing but abhorrence for the crimes that had taken the lives of so many innocent people - often from among the poorest of the poor, or among honest opponents of separatism.[21]
From an early stage, the Sikh militant movement had become infected by many obnoxious traits. This was because its leaders were unable to strictly enforce and themselves practice the prohibition against the taking of innocent lives, an absolute moral imperative for all revolutionary movements. Indiscriminate violence cannot be justified. It ignores the individual identities of the oppressors and the oppressed. It operates instead with blanket descriptions and stereotypes. In a word: it is blind. It also undermines the very foundation of justice, by mocking the notion of people as concrete moral agents. Besides, those who seriously take Guru Gobind Singh’s exhortation “to pursue justice to the last recourse”, must also accept that revolutionary strategies can only be resorted for ending the abuse of political power and for reinstating law and righteousness.
When they become means of snatching political power, they can only breed sin within and chaos without. World history bears this out on almost all its pages.
The concept of Just War, has a long history and has assumed many forms. But it never was a blanket license for violence. It enjoins proper protocols of declaration. It requires the combatants to spell out their motives, to say what the rights are which they want to defend, what wrongs they want to rectify, what crimes they wish to punish. It also imposes stringent obligations towards the non-combatant population.
Article 3 of 1949 Geneva Conventions and the terms of the second Protocol of 1977 forbid willful killing, torture, inhuman treatment and indiscriminate attacks on civilian population. They apply to all belligerent sides, and to all armed conflicts, whether internal or between nations.
More than a question of law, this is fundamentally a matter of moral legitimacy: Any group of people who are opposed to a system of governance for reasons of justice, must themselves pay attention to justice! As Archbishop Tutu explains in the foreword to the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: “A venerable tradition holds that those who use force to overthrow or even to oppose an unjust system occupy the moral high ground over those who use force to sustain that same system. That is when the criteria of the so-called “just war” come into play… This does not mean that those who hold the moral high ground have carte blanche as to the methods they use…”[22]
Apart from generally concluding that, generally speaking, the liberation movements were not paragons of virtue and were often responsible for egging on their people to behave in ways that were uncontrollable”, the South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report held Ms Madikizela Mandela and the members of her United Football Club responsible for heinous crimes, and also announced that the ANC was accountable for them.[23] For a Commission that would never have been created without the ANC in the government, it was a rather courageous finding to give. We must also remember that the ANC was an internationally recognized liberation movement that was conducting a legitimate struggle against the apartheid, a crime against humanity under international law. And yet, even before the overthrow of the racist regime, the ANC had set up three internal Commissions of inquiry - the Stuart, Skweyiya and Motsuenyane Commissions - to investigate, and eventually confirm, the reports of gross human rights violations committed by its own cadres. These were public and independent inquiries. Altogether, they amounted to a rare exercise in honesty, almost unprecedented in the history of liberation movements.[24]
In comparison, the human rights movement in Punjab has for far too long shied from making a clear denunciation of the crimes committed by the armed underground groups against innocent and non-combatant civilian population. In our opinion, this reluctance has exposed them to accusations of double standards, which have only strengthened the forces of impunity on the other side.
The member organization which attacked the draft on the terms of reference indirectly played a very useful part in compelling the entire coalition of human rights organizations to take a clear stand on this important issue. The next meeting of the Committee held on 8 June 98 adopted a unanimous resolution to propose that the terms of reference for the People’s Commission must remain wide enough to include allegations of atrocities committed also by individuals unconnected with the State.
As the next chapter would contextually show, the unrest in Punjab and its bloody repression have deep historical roots. They can be traced to the trauma of Partition and, farther back, to the terrible violence which the process of State-creation in the waning years of the British empire, which particularly affected the people of India’s periphery, their identities, their land, their frontiers, their rights over their natural resources and their sense of culture. These people, divested of their past, estranged from their culture, bereft of their traditional rights, have now become, as it were, corporate possessions of the Central State. Such a situation is fraught with conflicts.[25]
No wonder then if, ever since independence, India’s periphery has been seething with discontent and unrest. For these, the Center always had one answer: repression. And sure enough, these ethno-national movements pose a serious challenge to the traditional understanding of State sovereignty, with its disregard for popular consent. This situation is not peculiar to India. It is the same world-wide.[26]
The chapter of unrest-cum-repression in Punjab is particularly woeful for the reason that, had not the Sikhs been so loyal to India in 1947, our famed “granary” and “shield-arm” would now be in Pakistan, with an international border meeting the outskirts of Delhi. The Indian establishment could have paused to remember this contribution of the Sikhs to the making of a modern India and their sacrifices for its defense, and it could also have tried to understand their grievances before unleashing its repressive might.
As for the attitude of the Sikhs, the questions to ask are: What accounted for the evaporation of their faith in India’s capacity for justice? What were the commitments and the ideals of the independence movement, which bound the Sikhs and the other peoples of the subcontinent to their common struggle against the British imperialism? Have the leaders of the Indian State, and its institutions, betrayed those commitments and ideals? Did they ever sincerely try to understand the hardcore of the Sikh grievances, including their demand for a radical restructuring of the Center-State relations? What scope is there for reconciliation now, and in which framework?
In our view, no serious reflection on the Punjab problem can dispense with a sincere inquiry into these questions.
As all know, Punjab lost its national sovereignty in 1849 to the British combination of deceit and intrepidity. Later on, the people of Punjab were often found in the forefront of Indian people’s struggle. Our human-rights bashers in the Indian establishment are all too prone to forget Gandhi's position on the Rowlett Bills, and Punjab's role in the first satyagraha after the first World War, which played such an important part in developing India's freedom struggle. Brigadier Dyer, who supervised the massacre at Amritsar’s Jallianwala Bag in 1919 to suppress the movement, would openly brag about his “feat”, necessary in his view to restore law and order. Jawaharlal Nehru, who chanced to overhear the brigadier’s ranting during a train travel, was taken aback by so much brazenness. He was also appalled by the "cold-blooded approval of that deed" in England. He wrote: "I realised then, more vividly than I had ever done before, how brutal and immoral imperialism was and how it had eaten into the souls of the British upper classes."[27]
The Punjab events had no less an impact on the younger Subhash Chandra Bose. He had passed the ICS in 1920 but, seeing the depth of British support for the repression in Punjab, he decided "to chuck this rotten service” and dedicate himself “whole-heartedly to the country's cause”.[28]
Today, many “Indian patriots” are proud to air the view that the people of Punjab had to be killed by the thousands in order to save India’s territorial integrity. But even the British - except precisely in the Jallianwala Bag episode, which showed them at their worst - have rarely been so callous of fundamental human rights in India.
Viceroy Minto had wanted a free hand to put down the wave of terrorism which swept India at the partition of Bengal in 1905. John Morley, the Secretary of State, asked if his government was going to be equally harsh with Englishmen who committed violence against Indians. Otherwise: "our pharisaic glorification of the stern justice of the British raj is windy nonsense... Is it not idle for us to pretend that we wish to understand their sentiment, and yet silently acquiesce in all these violent sentences?"[29] Those days, the police did not fake encounters, but deported the revolutionaries. Even then the question of evidence, as the following letter from Morley shows, was a matter of scrutiny: "Meanwhile I quake as to the hideous perils of Deportation. Of course, I know that you will take all possible pains not to seize the wrong men... Your evidence which is to reach me soon, will be scanned by me with sharp eye; and by others whose eyes will be still sharper (and more unfriendly) than mine."[30] At the end of the first world war, Chelmsford demanded similar powers to deal with the communist, Pan-Islamic and other revolutionary groups in Punjab like the Gadhr. Edwin Montogu, then secretary of State, called for reflection: "Revolutionary crime exists; Rowlatt legislation becomes inevitable... But are we not moving in a vicious circle? Are we doing enough to prevent the existence of the crime? There is nothing so easy at any particular moment as to govern through the police. It is far simpler than any other method. It requires less thought, less circumlocution." The Secretary of State also insisted on a thorough probe into the ways of the secret police: "And then again I shall never be satisfied myself until some investigation is made of the methods and powers and the use of the powers of the CID. The statements that I have heard ever since I have been connected with India about shadowing of innocent people, about records, about the whole activities of the Department and about the use made of it by the Government, make me think that an impartial investigation of its activities now that the war is over is very much and urgently called for..."[31]
That is exactly what the people of Punjab are clamouring for today: An impartial investigation into the reports of human rights abuses over the last decade and a half. The evidence gathered by us, further corroborated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (which submitted its report to the Supreme Court in December 96) establishes widespread, systematic and cynical violation of human rights. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the National Human Rights Commission to determine all the issues arising from the report which “discloses flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale.” But under the pressure of the forces of impunity, the Commission has so whittled down the meaning of the inquiry in a way that it becomes a travesty.
The Akali government in Punjab, under Chief Minister Badal, had made an electoral pledge to set up a Truth Commission to investigate all reports of human rights violations in the State. But once in office, it reneged on its pledge.
Later on, when the Committee constituted the People’s Commission, it met with a barrage of adverse publicity and with vociferous demands for its ban. The Director General of Punjab Police indicated that the government was contemplating to move the High Court to ban the People’s Commission. This apparently took the form of a Public Interest Litigation Petition, seeking to restrain the People’s Commission from holding public hearings on complaints of atrocities. The petition argues that the Commission poses a serious threat to India’s national security interests and aims to subvert India’s judiciary by setting up a parallel system. But the fact is that both the Union government and the Aklai government in Punjab, when appearing before the court, have declined to set up an official machinery to examine all cases of human rights violations. As of now, the High Court has not given its decision, although the arguments on the matter have long been concluded. As a result, the People’s Commission has not been able to proceed with its work.
Faced with such stubborn denial of truth, what can we do except persist in our efforts to arouse the mechanisms of human empathy and compassion? And how can we achieve that, unless we place the facts before the public, as carefully and objectively as we are capable of?
This collective looking-away from the truth and this hypocrisy of our political establishment are real crimes. They have a devastating effect on the survivors and the bereaved who are hoping against hope for acknowledgement and reparation. We are acutely conscious of our inadequacies in conveying the spirit of despair and impotent anger that weighs on their lives. As shown in the second part of the report, many have committed suicide. The majority are already resigned to the dispensations of Providence. They fear reprisals and, when exhorted to keep faith in the eventual triumph of justice, remind us of what happened to Khalra .
In our assessment, the large majority of survivors from the families of those who disappeared or got arbitrarily killed do not even care to report the incidents from the conviction that no one can do anything to alleviate the injustice they have suffered.
In our estimate, only ten percent of the survivors from the families that suffered enforced disappearances and arbitrary killings have, in any manner, come forward to give reports. That is also the ratio of people who approached the judiciary or other institutions for redress. This leaves about ninety percent of the cases that have remained undocumented.
This should be a cause for concern to human rights organisations or simply to those interested in preserving history. Clearly, filling this huge gap would be a difficult task. It would require coordinated efforts, and demand technical and financial resources. The bulk of victim-testimonies is coming from people who are old and might not live very long. Most of them are poor and illiterate and do not understand the meaning of “evidence” or the point of recording it. Yet they are the repositories of that evidence, which, unless quickly collated, risks being lost altogether.
One part of our survey is based on the sample of 838 Incident-Reports. This survey of 838 cases has gone through two main stages of verification. The first stage involved the filling of an Incident-Report Form (Appendix F) by close relatives of victims, often assisted by volunteers affiliated to the Committee. In the second stage, members of the documentation team, tape-recorded oral testimonies in a structured interview process. Both the stages implied several sub-processes. The interview process was not chosen at haphazard. It was evolved after examining the information contained in the Form and after taking into account the impressions and suggestions of the volunteers engaged in the fieldwork.
One slightly unorthodox but very important feature of our inquiry is the emphasis put on descriptive information. The Incident-Report design is in the number of columns that elicit descriptive information on the political and family background, the general circumstances of the disappeared person and his family members. These columns, which elicit descriptive data and leave room for subjective interpretation, follow on other questions, which seek strictly factual information.
Of course, for an efficient computerized analysis, this blend of factual enumeration and anecdotal and interpretative material created major difficulties. Neither Foxpro database program, which we decided to use, nor any other program available in the market seemed capable of analyzing our long memo fields and of squeezing a clear statistical picture out of them.
For the sake of detailed knowledge, we opted to err on the side of clumsiness and to sacrifice database efficiency, which required complete ranking of information through entries under controlled vocabulary. To put it simply, we settled for a design that allowed us to incorporate in the Form whatever the victims wanted to tell us, even though it meant that much information had to remain locked in memo fields outside the reach of database queries.
We distributed the Incident-Report-Forms to the victims’ families through volunteers affiliated to the Committee. The volunteers were also required to fill them if the complainants could not read and write.
The number of forms and the dates on which the Committee’s volunteers took them were entered in a register, along with the volunteers’ names and addresses. Similar entries, with names and dates, were also made when the volunteers returned them to the office.
Those forms that were sent back by mail were entered in a separate register.
Every form was given a unique number and acknowledged.
If the information was inadequate or confusing, we wrote back with requests for clarification and supplementary details.
A status report was prepared for every form after cross checking the information with the lawyer, if there was one involved, and the volunteer who assisted the complainant to fill the form. This led to the second stage of verification, which involved new interviews, to understand the complex and unique situation of each victim and to guess its likely influence on the presentation of the facts.
To illustrate the intricacies of the second process, we shall give two regular examples:
A relative of the victim of enforced disappearance let say a mother, a father, or a wife, who is reporting the incident, is illiterate. The relative has acquired a copy of the Incident-Report Form, and has approached a local social worker who can fill it up. More probably, a political worker from the area, loosely affiliated to the Committee, has gone to the family to take down the incident.
The straight and simple question in the column to be answered is: When did the incident take place? That sounds simple, but the reporting family member does not possess written notes on the incident’s details. The local newspaper either did not report the incident or the copy has been lost. The reporter does not exactly remember whether it was four or five years ago. It was just approaching winter, and crops in the fields were so high; harvesting was still so many weeks away. That is as close to the time of occurrence as you can get by the narration. Or again, the family member may know the year but not the month and the date; perhaps, if you are lucky, he known even those details but by the local variation of the Indian system of calendar, let us say 16th of Magh!
The volunteer who is filling the Form can, of course, take down the information verbatim. That would be easy to classify and enumerate, even resolve. But he may have his own ideas of exactitude, but not enough sense or training to extract it. Not liking uncertain statements, he might resolve four or five years into a certain number and calculate the year back as 1992.
Of course, there are methods to extract the definite year, month and date of the incident even when the reporting relative is confused and without any written evidence to offer. Some one in the village might have got married around that time. Perhaps, the neighbor had childbirth in the family, or a cousin of the disappeared had passed the school examination or had come home on a short vacation from the army. Perhaps, the Congress Party had formed the State government earlier in that summer, or there was an election to the village council of elders few months later.
By determining a few such definite occurrences in the recollection of the reporting member, it would be possible to work one’s count closer to the actual time. However, the process involves tiresome investigative work, hours of interviews, checking and cross-checking of facts and scanning of old newspapers. The volunteer might not have the patience, time or training for the task and so he might enter in the Form, which carries the thumb impression of the illiterate complainant, a wrong date at his own guesswork.
The reporter says the incident happened on 16th of Magh. Our volunteer should normally know that the Indian month of Magh belongs to the winter season, but might not be able to work out the corresponding month of the Gregorian calendar. In stead of recording exactly what he has heard, he may write down his conjecture of the analogous month, which can be both January and February, and further vitiate the possibility of correction by swiftly guessing a date.[32]
The interview process aims to correct all such errors that can creep into the information system. It also hopes to corroborate factual assertions in the survivor testimony with statements and evidence from independent sources to account for possible lapses in the recounting abilities of putative victims.
Let us consider one more example. A complainant, call him XY Singh, is a well-to-do farmer and can also read and write. On 22 August 91, his son is abducted from the local bus stand by unknown officers. A shopkeeper who cannot identify the kidnappers, or does not want to reveal their names from fear, sees the kidnapping. He is also afraid to become a formal witness.
Five days later, a newspaper reports the death of his abducted son in a supposed armed combat between some officers of a police station in the district and a group of unidentified militants. The report says that one militant, later identified as XY Singh’s son, is killed while others escaped.
XY Singh knows the report to be false. He does not actually know which officers abducted him. But after reading the news report, he is convinced that the officers who killed him in the supposed combat are the ones responsible.
With the intention to file a petition before the High Court, XY Singh consults a local lawyer who tells him that unless there is a witness to identify the officers as abductors, the court would not entertain his allegation. So, under the influence of this expert advice, XY Singh decides to introduce a false witness, a relative, to claim that he was also at the bus stand when such and such officers carried out the kidnapping. Or, he decides to change the scene of the abduction to claim that the officers have picked up his son from his own house. After receiving notice from the High Court, the officers swear an affidavit to disclaim responsibility. The affidavit also contains some information to suggest that they were some other place when the abduction allegedly occurred, and the court dismisses the petition. But the father feels compelled to repeat the invented evidence before our volunteers, lest his incident-report should appear inconsistent with the record of his statement before the High Court. If the person interviewing him is patient and persistent, and would not hesitate to go back to him a few times after crosschecking the facts locally, he would know the truth. If then XY Singh insists on “consistency”, the Incident-Report is excluded from the survey.
Transcripts of all interviews, when tape-recorded, and also all hand written notes, are included in the files of the incident-reports with their unique numbering, along with any other material including press reports, court papers and personal letters containing information on the cases. Their perusal would show the staggering complexity of the interview process, with repetitive and circular questioning, checking and cross-checking, all aiming at as complete and authentic a reporting as possible. Although the process is time consuming, strenuous and emotionally exhausting, also for the reason that the dignity of victims requires that we talk to them at their pace and in their own terms, it has rewarded us with a wealth of information and insights, which help us to better understand the larger systemic aspects of violations. All of this material would be included in the writing of the final report.
Complete list of Incidents-Reports, constituting the sample of our survey, is included as Appendix G. Some salient points of the data, already analyzed by us, are included in the note on the highlights which follows the introduction. The summaries of incidents included in the second part of the report are drawn from this survey.
The Committee has received 523 complaints, involving grave human rights offences, for submission before the People’s Commission whose proceedings have been hampered by the petition before the High Court that seeks a writ of mandamus to restrain the Commission from publicly hearing them. The Commission would take them up for further investigation after the matter before the High Court has been disposed of. The Committee has not included these 523 cases in its report.
The Committee has analyzed 112 petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, filed by four lawyers of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on behalf of relatives of those who disappeared after police abductions. These lawyers are Rajvinder Singh Bains, Navkiran Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Dalbir Singh Pheruman. All these cases would form part of a research project of the Committee that aims to examine human rights abuses in Punjab, the relevant laws and the judicial attitudes.
The Committee’s investigations to acquire further evidence of illegal cremations have resulted in our being able to obtain partial records from six districts in Faridkot, Kapurthala, Ludhiana, Mansa, Moga and Zira in Ferozepur district.
These records show cremations of 934 bodies, labeled as unidentified and unclaimed, which the Punjab police carried out. The lists of these cremations are given as Appendices A-F. In the course of its investigations, the Committee has been able to acquire some important insights into the procedure governing the cremations. They are the following:
For cremations of unidentified and unclaimed bodies, the concerned police officials are required to make formal application to the local Municipal Committee to make arrangements, and also to purchase firewood and body shrouds. The applications, addressed to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, are supposed to be complete with description of the bodies, their sex, First Information Reports, and autopsy reports. The rules say that the Municipal Committees are themselves responsible for the actual cremations. In the years of militancy, however, the police officials never allowed the personals of the Municipal Committees to come near the bodies brought for cremations.
Every Municipal Committee is supposed to maintain a separate Stock Register to account for the purchase of firewood and shrouds for unidentified bodies. However, some committees do not do so, making the necessary entries in some general-purpose register. Some Committees maintain separate yearly registers, while others use the same register until they are full. Some give lot of details, - the number of bodies, names if known, concerned police station and FIR numbers, details of the purchases made for their cremation, their costs etc. Other Committees only enter the weight or the cost of firewood and shroud. In such cases, the number of bodies remains unstated, and has to be deduced by calculating the amount spent for a single body against the aggregate expense.
Most of these cremations took place at the sub-divisional and district headquarters for the reason that smaller places did not have the facilities for postmortem. In some districts and subdivisions, the cremations of unidentified bodies were carried out only in one burning ground controlled by the Committee. In bigger cities, the Committees controlled a number of sites where the bodies could be burnt.
We have found out that the Municipal Committees have maintained the records concerning cremations of unidentified bodies, which have taken place over the last twenty-five to thirty years. After the Supreme Court ordered the CBI to investigate the illegal cremations, Punjab intelligence officials started to ask for and examine the Municipal Committee Records relating to the cremations of unidentified bodies, carried out by the police in the militancy years, in all the seventeen districts of Punjab.
The specific experiences of our investigation team at six Municipal Committee offices, from which it was able to obtain the records, are as following:
At the Municipal Council’s office in Faridkot, the investigation team was able to examine three stock registers relating to the cremation of unidentified and unclaimed bodies. According to one official, the Register No. 1 had been opened on 29 October 86. But the first entry in the register showed the date of 29 April 87 and covered the cremations carried out up to 18 April 89. The register No. 2 had the details of the cremation of unidentified and unclaimed bodies from 8 April 91 to 9 December 91. The register No. 3 covered the period from 10 January 92 to 10 September 92. The entries in the registers showed the weight of firewood purchase for every body as 350 kilograms and length of body shroud as 5 meters. It also gave the names of wood and cloth suppliers. The register showed the dates of each entry, and names and signatures of the Committee’s employees receiving the purchases for the cremations. But the registers did not show the names of police stations or police officers who had brought the bodies. There was also no column for the number of bodies, which had to be calculated from the quantity of wood and the length of cloth purchased for the bodies. The investigating team only noted down the dates of cremations and the number of bodies.
When the members of the investigating team started to note down the details from these registers in their own note books, the Municipal Committee officials began to object. They refused to show them any more registers, and insistently took away one register that seemed to contain entries of cremations for the period from 18 April 1989 to 7 April 1991. This was the period in which deaths in so-called police encounters were at their peak. The three registers covering the periods from 29 April 87 to 18 April 89, 8 April 91 to 9 December 91 and 10 January 92 to 10 September 92 showed 164 cremations. The details are in the Appendix A.
At Kapurthala, the investigating team made a formal application to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee for copies of the registers containing information on cremations of unidentified bodies in the period from 1987 to 1994, through advocate Harjit Singh Sandhu. The Executive Officer marked the application to the Sanitary Inspector, who wanted to know the rules under which he could give the copies. The application went to the Legal Advisor of the Municipal Committee, but no decision could be taken.
After waiting for some days, the team went to the Shiv Mandir cremation ground to explore the possibility of obtaining its own data. The attendant of the cremation ground said that the information was available at the office of the cremation ground run by Sanatana Dharm Sabha. The team then went to this office and demanded to see the registers concerning the police cremations. Apparently, the office attendants assumed that ours was an official intelligence team and showed them the registers. They also revealed that the Central Intelligence Department from Chandigarh had already examined the register once. The register contained details of every body under a serial number which had been cremated at this one particular site from 20 January 1988 to 11 February 1994. Our team members noted down the details, showing a total of 149 cremations, as in the Appendix B.
As the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation officials refused to allow the team to examine their registers on the cremations, its members went to the managing Committees’ offices for various cremation grounds in the city. They found out that the police burnt unidentified bodies at four places in the city. They were:
[1] Shivpuri cremation ground, [2] Daresi ground, [3] Ramgarhia cremation ground, [4] Miller Ganj cremation ground and [4] Gaushala cremation ground. The team members then went to all the four places where the attendants told them that all the records were with the Presidents of their managing committees. The team members went to all the managing committees’ offices but succeed in obtaining the records for only the Ramgarhia cremation ground. The team members noted down the details of all the entries relating to cremations of unidentified bodies carried out by the police, only omitting those which mentioned the cause of death as natural or accident. The entries in the register of Ramgarhia cremation grounds Committee covered the period from 6 May 1987 to 20 September 1993, and showed a total of 94 unidentified bodies.
The Executive Officer of the Municipal Council at Mansa allowed the Committee’s application for copies of the records, made through advocate Ajit Singh Bhangu. The Sanitary Inspector showed a register that contained entries from 23 April 1992 to 26 November 94.
The Inspector claimed that the older records of such cremations were at a different office and could be obtained only later. The register for unidentified cremations from 23 April 1992 did not show the names of police stations or officials who had brought the bodies. It also did not have any entry on the cause of death. The details of what our team was able to write down are listed in the Appendix C, which shows a total of 74 bodies.
The Municipal Council official at Moga produced three registers, which contained the entries of the unidentified cremations done by the police from 20 April 1988 to 12 September 1994. The team did not write down those entries which mentioned as causes for death road or rail accident, or sudden or natural deaths. The list, Appendix E, shows a total of 165 bodies.
Approached for information, the Municipal Committee officials in Zira produced one register which contained entries on the purchase of firewood and body shrouds for unidentified bodies from 4 June 1988 to 19 May 1994. The register maintained by Zira Municipal Committee showed more details than others. The information was organized in eight columns under the following entries: [1] Serial number, [2] date, [3] FIR case number and date, [4] name of the police station, [5] name, if any of the dead person, [6] cost of firewood, [7] cost of cloth, and [8] remarks etc., carries the signature of the person making the entry after recording the details of the officer who issued the orders for cremation of the body; also, details about the police report on the search of the body. This information covered the period from 4 June 1988 to 13 May 1994 and showed a total of 288 cremations, as in Appendix F.
Some acknowledgements are due. Our investigative work would have come to nothing without the support from local informants, mostly members of the Akali Dal (Mann) and the Panthik Akali Dal. They helped us in a spirit of dedication to justice, which we hope would eventually triumph. The members of the Accounts Committee sustained our efforts in ways infinitely more onerous than their formal responsibilities entailed. When there was absolutely no money, they contributed from their private resources so that the essential work can go on. We are particularly grateful to Major General (Rtd) Narinder Singh and Dr. Sukhjeet Kaur Gill. The Committee would never have taken off without a roof over our heads. Mr. Gurtej Singh not only provided us with an independent office space within the compound of his house, he also allowed us to use all the facilities of his private establishment. We are particularly thankful to his wife Mrs. Surinderpal Kaur who, in her sympathy for our cause, has suffered myriad nuisances that attend on our intensely people oriented activities. Several volunteers from outside organizations have for short periods of time been associated with our documentation work. We acknowledge the contributions of Kamayani Mahabal from the India Center for Human Rights and Law, Neeru Kumar who now works with the Hague Tribunal and Neeta Kaur Chabra from New England School of Law. Neeta spent several sleepless nights in making short abstracts of case studies, included in this report. The life of our database specialist Hardayal Singh has not been easy since he joined the Committee’s office year and a half ago. His calm persistence is our strength. Mr. Kripal Singh Bajwa not only developed an efficient system of maintaining office registers and case files, but has also been an inseparable member of the documentation team.
Without the core documentation team, the Committee would not exist and this report would never have got written. No words can sufficiently convey their importance to the mission, which the Committee represents. They should have signed this report as the co-authors, as I proposed. They declined for the simple reason that they had not written it, literally. Well, it would have been impossible for me to work on this project without their help. This report marks the end of my direct association with the Committee for the reason that I would be on a Fellowship at Oxford. But the documentation team of the Committee can count on me personally for the cause that brought us all together.
Justice (Rtd) Kuldip Singh’s moral support has been crucial in sustaining our endeavors against impediments, which often seem insurmountable. Diverse and sometimes-discordant groups and individuals belonging to the Committee may not have been able to hold together as a group without his persuasive force that connects them as a community dedicated to a common cause.
Ram Narayan Kumar
The Committee has made in-depth analysis of 838 Incident-Reports. The essential highlights of the survey are as following:
Amritsar 287
Bhatinda 47
Faridkot 2
Fatehgarh Saib 19
Ferozepur 11
Gurdaspur 119
Hoshiarpur 9
Jalandhar 9
Jammu 1
Kaithal 2
Kapurthala 11
Ludhiana 69,
Mansa 7,
Moga 11,
Nawan Shahr 4,
Patiala 23,
Ropar 79,
Sangrur 126,
Udhamsingh Nagar 1,
Yamuna Nagar 1
Age distribution of 838 victims is shown in the following chart. The first row shows the age group, the second the number of incidents in the group. Some cases in the survey actually fall outside the listed age-groups. For example, CCDP Case No. 00430 concerns a victim who was only thirteen. The Case 00002 relates to a boy born in 1978, abducted and killed in illegal custody in 1992. One four year old child was killed in the Incident-Report CCDP 00432. One ninety years old man - case No. 00433 - was killed in the same incident.
15-20 |
21-25 |
26-30 |
31-35 |
36-40 |
41-45 |
46-50 |
51-55 |
56-60 |
61-65 |
66-70 |
71-75 |
76-80 |
Unknown |
142 |
259 |
157 |
86 |
51 |
34 |
21 |
17 |
15 |
4 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
38 |
Following is the yearly division of 838 incidents. First rows of the column shows the year and the second the number of incidents in that year:
1984 |
1985 |
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
Unknown |
22 |
2 |
7 |
28 |
33 |
47 |
57 |
181 |
257 |
135 |
21 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
39 |
Following is the caste constitution of 838 incidents. The significant divisions are: Jat Sikh 595, Majhabi Sikh 45, No Caste 47, Ramdasia Sikh 38, Nai Sikh 14, Ramgarhia Sikh 15, Saini Sikh 9, Hindu 9
Ahulwalia Sikh: 1
Arora Sikh: 2
Balmiki Sikh: 1
Bazigar Sikh: 1
Blacksmith Sikh: 1
Chamiar Sikh: 2
Chheembe Sikh: 3
Christian: 1
Damchhatri Sikh: 1
Darji Sikh: 1
Deoo Sikh: 1
Goldsmith Sikh: 1
Gusain Sikh: 1
Harijan Sikh: 3
Hindu Aggarwal: 1
Hindu Arora: 1
Hindu Brahman: 2
Hindu Khatri: 1
Hindu Pandit: 1
Jargar Sikh: 1
Jat Sikh: 595
Jheor Sikh: 1
Julaha Sikh: 1
Kahar Sikh: 4
Kamboj Sikh: 2
Kande Sikh: 1
Kumhar: 1
Lohar Sikh: 4
Lubhana Sikh: 2
Majhabi Sikh: 45
Mehare Sikh: 4
Minhas Sikh: 2
Mistri Sikh: 4
Nai Sikh: 14
No Caste: 45
Prajapat Sikh: 5
Rai Sikh: 3
Rajput Sikh: 4
Ramdasia Sikh: 38
Ramgarhia Sikh: 13
Ravidasia Sikh: 2
Saini Sikh: 9
Sikh Brahman: 2
Sikh: 3
Sirkibann Sikh: 2
Tarkhan Sikh: 6
Primary 96, Middle 136, High school 280, Higher secondary 68, Art graduates 57, Science graduates 4, Law graduates 3, Medical graduate 1, Diploma in Engineering: 4, Postgraduates: 7, Illiterate 182.
The occupational profile, conveyed under fifteen broad categories, is as under:
Farmers: 398,
Wage Earners: 81 including: Daily wage laborers 67, Factory workers 9, Farm workers 5,
Students: 69,
Technical self-entrepreneurs: 47 including: Carpenters 7, Cycle, scooter, car and tractor mechanics 5, Electricians 11, Masons 7, General mechanics 6, Radio mechanic 1, Lathe machine operators 3, Tailors 3, Embroiders 1, Weavers 1, Welders 2,
Policemen and officers of security agencies: 37 including: Police constables 16, Army 7, BSF 2, ex-servicemen 6, Gunman 1, Home Guard 2, Special Police Officers 3
Drivers: 35 including:Taxi drivers 17, Drivers of buses 1, Combined harvesters 1, Helpers in Punjab roadways 2, Transporters 2, truck drivers 12
Businessmen: 31 including: Business 16, Factory owners 2, Insurance agents 2, Property dealer 1, Salesmen 2, Shop-keepers 8
Religious Workers: 22 including: Scripture readers called Pathis 5, Granthis 5, Employees of the SGPC 2, Associates of Dam Dami Taksal 1, Voluntary workers at religious shrines called Kar Sewaks 3, Sewa Dars 5, Religious singers called Ragis 1
Professionals: 22 including: Doctors 2, Registered medical practitioners 6, Journalist 1, Laboratory technician 1, Lawyers 2, Teachers 6, Photographers 4,
Electricity workers: 16 including: Punjab State Electricity Board employees12, Assistant Linemen and Linemen 2, Clerk in the Electricity Board 1, Daily wage workers with the Punjab State Electricity Board 1
Revenue and Administration: 16 including: Government servants 10, Panchayat Secretary 2, Patwari 1, Retired Patwari 1, Central government servant 1, Under training Patwari 1,
Agro-enterprises: 17 including: Dairy farming 11, Animal husbandry 2, Cattle dealers 2, Milk vendors 2,
Miscellaneous: 12 including: Private employment 5, Office peon 1, Keeper of sports ground 1, Workers of the irrigation department 2, Political workers 3,
Bank and Accounting: 4 including: Bill clerk in a finance company 1, Cashier in the Central Cooperative Bank 1, Accountant 1
Unemployed: 28 including: Household work 4, Housewives 8, Unemployed 2,
Unknown: 17.
Out of 838 victims, 403 were married and 435 unmarried.
In 222 out of 838 incidents, one or more members of the families died under trauma.
The psychological impact of these incidents, leading to psychopathological consequences, is widespread. The presumption follows from the fact that 500 out of 838 report morbid psychological effects, including insanity, on one or more members of their families. The Committee is working on a separate report on this subject.
In 58 out of 222 cases, involving deaths of close relatives under trauma, the security forces also illegally destroyed, damaged and confiscated family properties.
In all, the security forces, mainly the Punjab police, destroyed, damaged and confiscated family properties in 224 cases.
More than 241 persons, who subsequently disappeared, got abducted from their houses.
Eyewitnesses
There are eyewitnesses to 530 cases of police abductions.
In 290 cases, persons who eventually disappeared or got shown to have been killed in armed combats had been seen by their relatives in police custody subsequent to their abductions, most often in lock-ups of police stations and interrogation centers.
Relatives of 149 victims of disappearances approached the courts, mainly the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, with petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Most petitions were dismissed following routine denials by officials. Some petitions are still pending although petitioners themselves remain ignorant about the proceedings. Majority of victim families, 689 to be exact, did not approach the courts either because of police fear or indigence.
Newspaper reports
467 of these incidents were reported in the local newspapers, mainly on the basis of the police briefings and handouts which claimed deaths either as the result of supposed armed skirmishes, called “encounter”, or as escapes from the custody.
In 127 cases, relatives claim to possess sensitive information on other incidents of illegal abductions and custodial murders. They disclose 390 additional cases of illegal abductions leading to disappearances and custodial murders explained as encounters or escape from custody.
In 193 cases, more than one member of the families got abducted, disappeared and killed.
Only in 74 cases, the police returned the dead bodies to the families for cremations.
759 incidents report brutal custodial torture, including rape, not only of the victims who eventually disappeared or got killed, but also of their close relatives. The Committee is preparing a separate report on this subject.
The following Incident-Report tries to bring out the politico-legal aspects of the Punjab tragedy, as well its human dimensions. We hope that the reader will share the sense of outrage which impelled us to document the gruesome events of the last decade and a half - enforced disappearances, arbitrary executions and secret disposal of dead bodies, all carried out by the State agencies. The Incident-Report also captures the urgency for accountability and reparation, which the situation calls for.
Fifty-five years old Sardar Ajaib Singh from village Othiyan in Ajnala subdivision of Amritsar district was a man of worldly wisdom, who handled the problems of life in a calm and calculated manner. These qualities of his character had stood him in good stead, enabling him to preserve his family, property and considerable social standing in an area of Punjab that for a decade had remained locked in the spiral of Sikh insurgency and the State repression. Ajaib Singh was the elected head of his village council (Panchayat).
He had three grown up sons: Thirty-five years old Kulwinder Singh, married with three young children, was employed as the Panchayat Secretary at Naushera Pannua block of Tarn Taran subdivision in Amritsar district. It was a challenging job that involved attending to local problems concerning land, revenue and development. Kulwinder was very popular for the fairness and energy with which he performed his duties.
Second son Jagbir Singh, thirty-two, managed the family’s twenty-five acres of irrigated agricultural land, which yielded good crops and income. His third son Maminder Singh, twenty-eight, became a registered medical practitioner. Ajaib Singh and his wife Manjit Kaur kept good health. As devout Sikhs, they often went on pilgrimages, and organized and attended with fervor the festivals of the religious calendar.
Ajaib Singh made some extra money as a property dealer and spent his spare time dabbling in the Congress politics, which brought him many influential friends also in the official and police circles. Things seemed to be going as well as they could under the circumstances.
As we said, Ajaib Singh had for long been associated with the Congress Party, and he had not given up the association even after the army assaulted the Golden Temple in June 1984. He was all praise for Rajiv Gandhi when, after winning the parliamentary elections with an unprecedented popular mandate early in the year, he signed an Accord with the Akali Dal’s moderate President Longowal in July 1985. The Accord paved the way to the restoration of a popular government in the State. Although Longowal was assassinated soon after, his equally moderate successor, Surjit Singh Barnala led the party to a thumping victory in the State Assembly elections, and went on to form a government.
For a while, the situation seemed to be improving. But the central government was unable to keep the promises it had made in the Longowal Accord. The radical Sikh groups that had been lying low resurfaced. Militancy revived. The slogan of Khalistan was again in the air. In October 87, the Union government brought Punjab under President Rule after dismissing the Akali government. Paramilitary forces were deployed to crack down on extremists.
When he saw that the situation in his part of Punjab was becoming very tense, Kulwinder shifted his residence to Amritsar mainly for the reason that his young children needed education. Ajaib Singh gave him money to build a small house in Amritsar. Kulwinder daily commuted to his work on his motorcycle.
20 December 1991 was a crisp winter day. Kulwinder left for his work little late that morning. On the way, one man asked him for a lift on his motorcycle, a TVS Suzuki No. PB02-C-4455. The man later identified as Palwinder Singh Sona was a known militant.
It is possible that Sona forced Kulwinder to take him along on the pillion of his motorcycle, as his brother Jagbir Singh suggested to me. Subsequent events, however, indicate that the two may have been actually acquainted. That would hardly be inconceivable in the situation then obtaining in Punjab.
Thousands of young Sikhs had embraced the path of gun to confront the Indian State. Many empathized with their sentiments and helped them indirectly to find shelter and food even when disagreeing with the wisdom of their chosen path. Kulwinder’s job brought him in contact with all kinds of characters, some of them very weird, who were involved in land and revenue disputes. If we assume that Kulwinder had known Palwinder Sona to be a militant, we must also see that he could not have refused the hitchhiker from the fear of reprisal.
The motorcycle was stopped for a routine check at a barrier set up by Sadar police station of Amritsar on the road across the railway station. Inspector Ajaib Singh, Station House Officer (SHO) of Sadar Police Station, was personally leading the check-over. One police constable at the barrier recognized Sona as a wanted militant and both of them were taken into custody.
By coincidence, the arrest was witnessed by Manjit Singh, head of the village council of Raja Sansi, an influential man with many contacts in the police. He was looking for a taxi near the barrier when the police nabbed the two. Manjit Singh was a friend of Kulwinder’s father who also knew Inspector Ajaib Singh. Recognizing Kulwinder, he went up to the Inspector and pleaded for his release. But the Inspector did not agree.
Later, Manjit Singh went to Kulwinder’s house and informed his wife Rajbir Kaur who immediately sent a message to her father-in-law in his village Othiyan. Ajaib Singh accompanied by his second son Jagbir Singh rushed to Amritsar and met Inspector Ajaib Singh at Sadar police station, who said that Kulwinder would not be released before a thorough interrogation.
The same night, Sona was killed in a supposed armed combat between the police and a group of militants. Punjab newspapers reported the killing on 21 December. The Tribune said Palwinder Singh Sona was a top militant who carried the designation of a Lieutenant General. The report also said that his three accomplices had escaped and that the police had also killed three other unidentified militants in armed encounters in the outskirts of the city.
The report made Ajaib Singh and his family very nervous. The police could easily kill Kulwinder in their custody and report it as a death of an unidentified militant in a combat. But on 21 December, Inspector Ajaib Singh and a large police force brought Kulwinder to his house No. 24 in Sahebzada Zujjar Singh Avenue on Ajnala road in Amritsar. The entire family was present when the police led him to search the house. The search did not yield anything incriminating. But Kulwinder was not allowed to converse with his family members and was taken away after the search.
Ajaib Singh decided to negotiate Kulwinder’s release for money, without wasting any time. He involved some middlemen, including Manjit Singh of Raja Sansi village who knew the Inspector well.
Inspector Ajaib Singh demanded one hundred and fifty thousand rupees. Borrowing the amount from his relatives, Ajaib Singh sent it across to the Inspector through the broker who had negotiated the deal. By then, the Inspector had changed his mind. The case was no longer in his hands, he explained. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Chattopadhyay had taken over the investigation.
Ajaib Singh now went to Raghunandan Lal Bhatia, a senior Congress leader and former Minister in the Union government, for help. Bhatia talked to the SSP two three times on telephone. The SSP said Kulwinder had to be interrogated. The SSP was not particularly courteous to the former Minister refused to talk to him again. Ajaib Singh then requested Surinder Singh Kairon, son of former Chief Minister Pratap Singh Kairon and another influential Congress leader in the State, to intervene. Kairon talked to the SSP who again was less than responsive.
Ajaib Singh asked the Sadar police station to formally register his complaint that Kulwinder had been illegally arrested. His friend, Deputy Superintendent of Police Davinder Singh called the Station House Officer to recommend the registration. But Sadar police station refused to do so.
Punjab was under the Governor’s rule. So, Ajaib Singh sent urgent telegrams to the Governor, the Director General of Police (DGP), the Chief Secretary and the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, informing them about the illegal arrest and beseeching them to intervene. Later, he also sent detailed written petitions about the arrest and the disappearance. But there was no response.
Kulwinder had been very friendly with Birendra Singh Kalon, then Additional District Commissioner of Tarn Taran. Approached by Ajaib Singh for help, Kalon found out that Kulwinder was under interrogation and was being forced to identify wanted Sikh radicals in the area. This was confirmed when a month after his arrest, the police took him to the village of Jagrup Singh Dhotiyan, also a known militant. Jagrup was arrested in the combing operation that followed, but one of his associates, also on the wanted list, escaped. As punishment, Kulwinder was badly tortured. Later, he was again seen by his former colleagues at Naushera Pannua. Kulwinder was unable to walk and his body showed signs of terrible torture.
Ajaib Singh pursued the case of his son relentlessly, although to no avail.
In early 1992, Punjab came under the Congress government with Beant Singh as the Chief Minister. Ajaib Singh again requested Raghunandan Lal Bhatia and Surinder Kairon, who had become a Member of Parliament, to help. But no one could ascertain Kulwinder’s whereabouts.
Ajaib Singh wanted to know whether he was still being held for anti-insurgency operations, intensified under Beant Singh’s regime, or had already been killed. Ajaib Singh met another Congress Member of Parliament Jagmit Singh Brar, who sometimes talked about the issues of justice to Punjab. Brar wrote to Union Home Minister Chahvan and, later in March 1993, personally met him to pursue the case. Ajaib Singh was also in Delhi to goad Brar into action. The Union Home Minister talked to Punjab’s Director General of Police K. P. S. Gill who confirmed that Kulwinder Singh had been killed.
But there was no formal acknowledgement. The family never received the dead body, nor the mortal remains from the cremation, if it had taken place. The Sadar police station in Amritsar did not even bother to hide or destroy his Suzuki motorcycle No. PB02-C-4455, confiscated at the time of his illegal arrest. The motorcycle was openly used by its officers.
In 1996, Ajaib Singh engaged lawyer Ranjan Lakhanpal in Chandigarh to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus - No. 324/1996 - before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petition was backed with the supportive affidavits of Manjit Singh, who had witnessed the arrest, and other eyewitnesses. The court issued notice. SHO Ajaib Singh, who had taken Kulwinder into custody on 20 December 91 became nervous about the possibility of his incrimination if the High Court ordered an inquiry.
The officer began to liaison with the family members for a settlement, offering to pay a substantial amount of money if they agreed to withdraw the petition. Ajaib Singh spurned the overtures with contempt. On 12 August 96, Sub-Inspector Gujinder Singh from the CIA staff office in Amritsar picked up Ajaib Singh and his two sons from their house and brought them to the B. R. Model School Interrogation Center. They were held in illegal detention for a day and threatened with elimination if they did not withdraw the petition from the High Court. They were released after Manjit Kaur sent telegrams to the higher authorities complaining about the illegal detention. Ajaib Singh also sent a letter about the illegal detention and the threat given to him at the CIA interrogation center to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. But no action followed.
Meanwhile, his second son Jagbir Singh had been employed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), as a dispatch clerk, on the recommendation of then President Gurcharan Singh Tohra. Jagbir worked in the head quarters housed within the Golden Temple Complex. Raghubir Singh was the temple’s manager, an influential person within the SGPC who was also acquainted with Inspector Ajaib Singh. In March or April 1997, while the inquiry ordered by the High Court was still pending, Raghubir Singh called Jagbir into his office to make a proposal on the Inspector’s behalf. He would pay one million rupees if his father agreed to withdraw the petition. Raghuvir Singh also threatened to transfer Jagbir to Jind, a small place in Haryana, if he failed in persuading his father to negotiate with the Inspector. Jagbir agreed to try. In the evening, he could not muster the courage to take up the proposal with his father. Next morning, he opened the topic by mentioning that Raghuvir Singh was harassing him. Ajaib Singh asked him to explain and remained silent for a while after Jagbir completed the narration of his conference with Raghuvir Singh. Ajaib Singh then asked if he wished to accept the proposal. Jagbir said no. Ajaib Singh repeated the question again and again, with Jagbir affirming no compromise. Raghubir Singh had proposed to pay one million rupees on the Inspector’s behalf. Ajaib Singh was suddenly seething with anger: He would pay one million and a half to recover his son. If it was not feasible, the Inspector should never contact him again. That was his message to Raghubir Singh. He was confident that the High Court would do him justice.
In the beginning, the matter seemed to be moving in the right direction. At the time of crucial hearing, lawyer Ranjan Lakhanpal went away to America and Canada on invitation from the Sikh expatriate community to lecture on the human rights situation in Punjab. His junior was unable to attend the court proceedings. The judge had also changed. The petition was dismissed by the new judge S. P. Malte in October 96, on the ground of insufficient evidence to prove that his son had been abducted by the police. Returning from his foreign tour, Lakhanpal promised to take the matter to the Supreme Court which, in the meantime, had taken cognizance of illegal mass cremations of supposedly unidentified bodies conducted by the Punjab police. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the National Human Rights Commission for determination and of all the issues, after the Central Bureau of Investigation corroborated the allegations in its report submitted in December 1996. Ajaib Singh expected his case to come up before the Supreme Court, as Lakhanpal had promised. But nothing happened. For the next month or two, Ajaib Singh remained very distressed. Gurcharan Singh Tohra advised him to engage a Supreme Court lawyer in Delhi to file a fresh petition. Lawyer R. S. Sodhi demanded twenty-five thousand rupees, which he immediately paid up. For some time thereafter, Ajaib Singh remained eager with the impression that the hearing before the Supreme Court would soon commence. When it turned out that the court had not admitted the petition, he was crestfallen.
Soon, he started making fresh rounds of Chandigarh where he met the newly elected Akali Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal. Before the elections, the Akali Dal had promised justice to all victims of human rights violations that had taken place over the last decade. Badal proposed to mark an inquiry about his case to the Police Inspector General of the Border Range. Ajaib Singh said that his son had been murdered by policemen who would not, therefore, allow the truth to come out. Badal then marked the inquiry to the Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar. This was in May 1997. The Deputy Commissioner recorded the statements of several witnesses, and closed the inquiry on 26 June.
It is not clear what happened thereafter, but on 4 July 97 Ajaib Singh returned home in a dejected state of mind. Apparently, he had found out that the inquiry report was not going to say anything conclusive. For the next couple of days, he did not talk to anyone and remained unusually calm. His wife Manjit Kaur tried to engage him in conversation, and to draw him out of his depression. She suggested that they sell a piece of their agricultural land to raise the resources to pursue their son’s case in other ways. But Ajaib Singh remained silent.
On 7 July 97 morning, Ajaib Singh left the house after announcing that he was going to the Golden Temple, Darbar Sahib. Although the family members had been very troubled about his unusual silence, they did not see anything aberrant in his visiting the shrine. It was routine.
After doing the round of the temple’s circumference and offering obeisance at the main sanctuary, Ajaib Singh sat down on the platform under the northern gate. One relative, who was also visiting the temple, saw him there scribbling something in his diary. The relative assumed that he was calculating or writing something concerning his business as a property dealer. Mota Singh, correspondent of Az Di Awaz, a daily newspaper published from Jalandhar, also saw him likewise engaged in writing something.
Ajaib Singh was composing his suicide note. Probably, he had already consumed poison, which he had somehow procured and taken along with him to the Golden Temple. After finishing the letter, Ajaib Singh walked into the premise of the Bank of Punjab, within the temple complex, whose manager Avtar Singh was his neighbor in Sahibzada Zujjar Singh Avenue. Ajaib Singh, who must already have been feeling the poison’s effect, told him that he had swallowed powerful toxins and would not live long.
Avtar Singh probably could not grasp the seriousness of his situation and sent him home in his car. Ajaib Singh was vomiting and told his son Jagbir that he had taken poison with the intention to die because he could not bear the injustice any longer. Immediately, the family members rushed him to a hospital where the doctors, after examining him, said that he must be taken to the main Civil Hospital. Ajaib Singh was already dead when doctors at the civil hospital looked him up.
Lot of his sympathizers gathered for the cremation. Some police officials too approached Jagbir Singh to suggest that he should mention heart attack as the cause of his father’s death. Otherwise, there will be consequences, they warned. But Jagbir Singh stated the truth and released his suicide note to the press. The national press blacked out the story.[33] The following is my short translation of the suicide note. It is dated Monday, 7 July 1997 and it says:
“In this house of Guru Ram Das, I seek forgiveness from everyone whom I may have unwittingly hurt or wronged in anyway. Self-annihilation is the only way out of a tyranny that leaves no chance for justice. Tyrants like former SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu, who eliminated thousands of innocent Sikhs and also extorted millions of rupees, also sometimes commit suicide under the unbearable weight of their sins. It is known that Jaswant Singh Khalra had become Sandhu’s victim for his human rights work.
My son Kulwinder Singh was picked up by SHO Ajaib Singh of Sadar police station in Amritsar. Neither had he committed a crime nor was he absconding from the police custody. Why did the SHO kill him then? I understand that the time and the place of one’s death are predetermined. SHO Ajaib Singh got promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for eliminating hundreds of young Sikhs. As an officer, he extorted millions of rupees from the people whom he held at his mercy.
My grudge is that no one even confirmed my son’s death. I did not even receive his ashes. Otherwise, I would not have gone to the High Court for justice, which I never received. I approached Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal. Some people rightly say that he is not a fit person to rule Punjab. I had approached him for justice. He marked the case to the Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar for inquiry. Badal should find out if he had conducted a fair inquiry. I believe DSP Ajaib Singh gave him a handsome amount of money to muddle it up.
I pray to Guru Ram Das to send me where my son is. I hope my prayers would be answered. Once again I apologize to the residents of my colony, my village Othian and Gumtala for any inconvenience I may have caused them. I am not in anyone’s financial debt. Nevertheless, I authorize DSP Davinder Singh to sell my land to settle any claim of liability that may arise. I am grateful for the support I have received from Manjit Singh, Sarpanch of Raja Sansi, DSP Davinder Singh and Bibi Paramjit Kaur Khalra. I wish to be cremated near the Martyr’s Shrine, Gurudwara Shahindan. I do not wish any rituals, except the recitation of the Guru Granth, to follow my death. If my family wants to offer any service, it should be made to the charitable organization of Pingalwara.
Now the ink in my pen and also my time in this world are running to their end.
Wahe Guruji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh![34]
Jagbir Singh, with whom I talked at length for the first time in September 97 to understand the train of events that crushed his father’s life, is still working for the SGPC. I was struck by the extraordinary melancholy and his obsession with his father’s tragic destiny, which seemed to be eating into his very soul. Jagbir would be there whenever I went to Amritsar, with his bundle of papers about the lost court cases, newspaper clippings and photographs of his father and disappeared brother. He would also present himself at every press conference or public meeting organized by any human rights organization anywhere in Punjab. Alas, he would not be the only one around with a tale of tragedy and impossible redress. After his father’s suicide, Maminderpal Singh could not carry on with his medical practice in his village, as his mother wanted to live in Amritsar to look after her widowed daughter-in-law and grand-children. Maminderpal is now also employed by the SGPC and lives in Amritsar. Kulwinder Singh’s thirty-six years old widow Rajbir Kaur smothers her own grief in bringing up her two daughters Amrita Preetam Kaur and Amanjot Kaur, twelve and ten, and a seven years old son Ranjodh Singh who, although conscious of an all-permeating sense of calamity, do not yet know what exactly happened to their father.
Kulwinder Singh’s enforced disappearance, life-exhausting and fruitless pursuit of accountability and justice by his family, suicide by his psychologically broken father, the trauma and the ruin of the surviving members - none of these are unique to this particular Incident-Report. Punjab’s countryside is dotted with myriad other examples of people who became victims of India’s war against the Sikh separatist threat. But, unlike Kulwinder, most victims are to be found among the poor, the uneducated and the powerless, who cannot afford the mechanical, grinding legal process, whom the elite across the lines of political divide does not mind seeing destroyed.
ABORTION OF A PEACE ACCORD:
As we earlier observed, in October 1987 the Union government dismissed the elected Akali government in Punjab on the ground that it had failed to safeguard the Hindu interests in the State against the Sikh militant attacks. The government under Chief Minister Surjit Singh Barnala had been formed in September 1985 when the Akali Dal, representing the spirit of the Accord which the India’s Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the President of the Akali Dal Harcharan Singh Longowal had signed in 24 July 85, won 72 out of 117 seats in the elections to the State Legislative Assembly.[35] The Sikh militants had already assassinated Longowal for compromising with a central government guilty of destroying the Golden Temple and of conniving in the Delhi massacre of November 84. But the Akali Dal under Barnala stood by the terms of the Accord, which promised to “usher in an era of amity, goodwill and cooperation” between the Sikhs and the Center. The Accord delineated eleven points of common consent, making the following main concessions:
(a) It promised to transfer Chandigarh to Punjab by 26 January 1986,
(b) to set up tribunals presided by Supreme Court judges to adjudicate the river water and territorial disputes and,
(c) to refer the Akali resolution for provincial autonomy to a Commission appointed to recommend changes in the “Center-State relationship to bring out the true federal characteristics of our unitary constitution”. The Accord also promised inquiry into the Delhi killings of November 1984, to withdraw the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, and to restore the rule of law and human rights in Punjab.
In the event, the Central government flouted the Accord in toto. Chandigarh was not transferred to Punjab as promised. The Commissions on the river waters and territorial disputes were scuttled. Guilty for the November 1984 massacre in Delhi remained unpunished. On 26 January 86, a large congregation of Sikhs had gathered under the leadership of Bhindranwale’s followers at the site of the demolished Akal Takht to review the political developments in the State. Four days earlier, the court that had been trying the case of Indira Gandhi’s assassination handed out its judgement sentencing all the accused to death by hanging.[36] On the day of the event, the newspapers headlined that the government had shelved the main part of Longowal’s accord with Rajiv Gandhi, the promise to transfer Chandigarh to Punjab before 26 January 1986. These news reports, read out from the stage to thirty thousand participants, carried home the point that India would not make the smallest concession to the Sikhs.[37] This helped the militants, who had been isolated in the last elections.
The political resolution adopted by the congregation said that if the assassins of Indira Gandhi are hanged, they would become the first martyrs of Khalistan. The congregation also appointed a five-member panel called the Panthic Committee to guide the Sikh struggle to its goals, which the incumbent Akali government had betrayed.[38] A repeat of the congregation, called Sarbat Khalsa, held on 13 April 1986, adopted a political resolution that asked the Sikhs to break the shackles of slavery to India. A fortnight later, the Panthic Committee declared the “formation of Khalistan”, also creating its own army called Khalistan Commando Force that would fight for the objective.[39] The next day, the government of Punjab had to send the troops to the Golden Temple to flush out the separatists. But the members of the Panthic Committee had already disappeared.[40] The symbolic raid, however, helped the militant cause by precipitating a split in the government of the Akali Dal. An influential section of the party, with 27 members of the Legislative Assembly, broke away from the government to form a separate group. The four most important leaders of the Akali Dal - Tohra, Badal, Sukhjinder Singh and Amrinder Singh - had left the government over this issue.[41]
Undercover operations: Construction of the labyrinth:
Publicity of militant crimes was very helpful to the government, which needed public sanction to introduce new measures of repression in Punjab. An investigative report in the Indian Post of Bombay of 24 April 1988 indicated that sophisticated weapons allegedly used by the terrorists in some sensational attacks might in fact have been planted by the government agencies themselves. According to the story by Dhiren Bhagat, who has since died in a mysterious road accident, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), a counter espionage outfit created by Indira Gandhi, had been directly involved in illegally smuggling weapons from Afghanistan, conveying them onwards to Punjab to contrive terrorist outrages with the intention to sustain the anti-Sikh hysteria in the country.
Others involved in the Punjab scene made even more direct allegations against the high ups. One prominent person to make such an allegation was Acharya Sushil Muni, a Jain monk, who had been holding dialogues with the Sikh religious leaders and militant organizations for a solution to the Punjab problem. Sushil Muni gave an interview to a fortnightly magazine India Today about his peace mission, which he claimed had the personal backing of Rajiv Gandhi. The interview was published on 30 April 1988. Sushil Muni claimed that he had been able to persuade the militants to sign an accord by which they would have surrendered arms, following a declaration of amnesty. But the government backed out of the commitment after he succeeded in making this extraordinary breakthrough. Sushil Muni alleged that those “who stand to gain by keeping Punjab on the brink of terrorism” had scuttled the negotiations. He also accused the “vested interests” of getting his associate in the peace process, T. S. Riyasati, a former Minister, murdered. He posed the question: “Who could be responsible for acts of violence when the major extremist organizations were all condemning them?” Sushil Muni added: “You must notice that during the earlier terrorist killings there was no TV coverage. But look how quickly TV crews now reach the scene of the massacre and telecast them in detail all over India.”
More startling revelations came from Sampat Singh, Home Minister of Haryana, the only State in northern India ruled by a non-Congress party since December 87. Speaking to the press on 25 April 1989, the Home Minister of Haryana claimed evidence to show that the Union Home Minister and the Agricultural Minister patronized some groups of killers in Punjab. He promised to furnish complete evidence if the Prime Minister cared to institute an inquiry.
My own researches in Punjab of that period suggested that the State agencies were creating vigilante outfits with the view to infiltrate and break the ranks of real radicals. They also benefited by engineering heinous crimes, attributed to Sikh militants, which inspired moral revulsion against the separatist struggle. I had a discussion on the subject with Bhan Singh, the Secretary of the SGPC who had been managing the affairs of once powerful Sikh religious organization for over a decade. I talked to Bhan Singh a week before he was killed reportedly by separatist militants on 25 July 1988. After the Army action against the Golden Temple in June 1984, Bhan Singh’s main responsibility had been to look after the personal welfare and legal defense of people who had been arrested from the temple complex and were being held in a Rajasthan jail without trial. Bhan Singh had his office inside the Golden Temple complex and was able to closely observe the developments inside the shrine. He believed that just as Bhindranwale, in his initial days, had been encouraged by the Congress party, so also the Congress government in Delhi was condoning the new breed of militants entrenched inside the Golden Temple with the view to weaken the Akali Dal’s political base. He pointed out that given the tight security around the Golden Temple, it was inconceivable that any one should be able to bring large dumps of arms inside without official complicity. I asked him if in his opinion there were no genuine militants in Punjab. Bhan Singh gave the following answer:
“Genuine militants are not entrenched within the Golden Temple. They won’t lurk behind its sanctity to save their skins temporarily while inviting its repeated desecration by the government forces. They fight their battles out in the open.”
I asked if the government agencies were responsible for all heinous crimes attributed to the separatist militants. Bhan Singh said, with good sense, that there must be just as many anti-social elements involved in crime as there had been before the start of the political crisis. But the government was manipulating the media to attribute all crimes to separatist militants. This was helping the government to generate a public reaction, which it used to deny justice to the Sikhs.
Kripal Singh, a Member of Parliament from Amritsar for many terms and the President of the Chief Khalsa Dewan (a prestigious organization from the days of Sikh renaissance in early 20th century), corroborated these views. Kripal Singh told me that the government agencies had been creating many armed vigilante groups out of anti-social riff-raff, so as to infiltrate and neutralize genuine militant outfits. But these government hirelings usually reverted to their habits of compulsive criminality and often ended up fighting their personal enemies. The outrages they committed were routinely blamed on the separatist groups.
Gurdayal Singh, who had retired as the Inspector General of Police for Punjab in April 1966, provided the clinching evidence. He was Lahore’s Superintendent of Police before India’s partition in 1947. As the Deputy Inspector General (Intelligence) from 1952 to 1956 he had closely followed the movement for the creation of a Punjabi speaking State. One of his main tasks was to neutralize the Communist insurgency in parts of Punjab, which had been led by Teja Singh Swatantra in the years between 1950 and 1960. Because of his reputation as an officer who had successfully handled many explosive situations, the rulers of Punjab still consulted him on how to deal with the separatist violence. Governor of Punjab Sidhartha Shankar Ray and his Police Chief Julio Ribeiro had deliberated with him on their plans to create armed groups that would take on the militant menace without involving the State apparatus directly. Gurdayal Singh advised them not to pursue these plans as, in his opinion, unscrupulous elements would thrive under official patronage.
Apparently, Ray and Ribeiro went ahead with their undercover operations, using informers and infiltrators from the underworld. Ribeiro concedes this in his book “Bullet for Bullet”, which he authored after his retirement.[42] Ribeiro writes with extraordinary candor: “In Punjab there were some persons with criminal propensities, who were known to police officers at various levels. They were approached and a few of them agreed to form groups which would move in the guise of terrorists and confront the real militants in their dens… The police did give them financial and logistical support, but their demands grew to an extent where it was impossible to satisfy them within our resources. Besides, they were very greedy people, with a criminal tendency, who began to prey on law-abiding, rich citizens on the assumption that the police were indebted to them and so would do nothing to stop them.”[43]
One such particular man, recommended to Ribeiro by Gur Iqbal Singh Bhullar, a senior police officer, was a smuggler who had once been a police constable. He was reinstated and located in Patiala to search out and neutralize dreaded militants, with the permission to use force. Once he drove into Ribeiro’s official residence to escape the Chandigarh police, who chased him after he killed two supposed terrorists on the main road of the city. Ribeiro later found out that this operative committed a robbery in Jammu, with the policemen in his squad participating. The Director General of Police was still contemplating action, when the operative managed to shoot down both the SSP and the SP of Patiala whose security officer then shot him down.[44]
In his book, Ribeiro mentions several other undercover operations, planned by Amritsar SSP Izhar Alam and other officers. The book also narrates how KPS Gill, then Inspector General of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), thwarted all his attempts to discipline his men who had committed atrocities, by pleading with the Union Home Ministry not to sanction their prosecution.[45] Later, Gill replaced Ribeiro by persuading the Governor and the leaders in Delhi that he alone was capable of “the harder line of action that was required to put down the terrorists.”[46]
Ribeiro himself is known to have publicly first propounded the policy of “bullet for bullet”, as reported in the Hindustan Times of 11 April 1986. He later denied it, though: According to him, it was Arun Nehru, then Union Minister of State for Internal Security, who put these words in the mouth of the correspondent. Be that as it may, dismissal of Barnala’s government in October 1987 was preceded by a significant public exchange in which some Akali ministers accused Ribeiro of upholding an extra-judicial approach in handling the separatist militancy. The DGP had alleged that the elected ministers and legislators were offering support and shelter to militants.[47] Ribeiro himself was convinced that the President’s Rule was imposed on Punjab because, “the Haryana elections were to be held some time towards the end of May, and the government at the Center wished to show the Hindu majority that it was opposed to the soft-pedalling vis-à-vis the Sikh terrorist activities, favored by the Akalis. Bhajan Lal, the Haryana Congress Chief Minister, Ray and Sardar Buta Singh, the Union Home Minister, all felt that the Congress’s electoral prospect would improve if the Center was projected as being very firm.” Referring to an interview which Barnala gave to the Times of India on 11 May 87, Ribeiro mentions that the Congress had lost the West Bengal and Kerala elections, and so the stakes in Haryana were very high.[48]
In the event, the Congress did lose the elections in Haryana. Meanwhile, the situation in Punjab was witnessing a runaway deterioration, with a steep increase in the daily reports of Sikh extremist outrages and summary executions by the security forces. In March 1988, the Indian parliament passed the 59th Amendment of the Constitution which enabled the central government to extend the President’s rule in the State beyond one year; to impose emergency on the ground of “internal disturbance” and to suspend Article 21 of the Constitution which guaranteed that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except according to the procedure established by law.[49]
The Union government dragooned this unheard-of constitutional amendment through parliament, despite all the special legislation already at its disposal (which legislation, be it said in passing, not only conflicted with the elemental principles of due process, but also eliminated the existing legal safeguards of free and fair trial).
The legislation already in force included the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, which provided death sentence for terrorist actions resulting in death and the minimum term of five years in imprisonment extendable to life for other offences. Section 21 of TADA commanded the presumption of guilt against the accused. Its definition of “abetment” in section 2(1)(a) eliminated the proof of criminal intention. The section 15 of TADA allowed a police officer of the Superintendent’s rank to record confessions of the accused in custody and to use them as evidence against them. Preclusion of anticipatory bail by 20(7) of TADA destroyed the protection, which the section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure offers to the innocent against manifest abuse of police power. Section 20(4)(b) of TADA allowed sixty days of police custody of an accused under interrogation, and one year of judicial remand without bail. Section 20(8) prohibited bail even when the prosecution failed to furnish a charge sheet after ninety days of arrest. The section said that no person accused of an offence under TADA would be released on bail unless the designated court was satisfied on “reasonable grounds” that “he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.” The Act did not explain how the accused should adduce the evidence of his innocence in the absence of a charge sheet, or how the judge should authenticate his guiltlessness ahead of the actual trial, and go on to certify that he would not “commit any offence while on bail.” TADA cases were heard in special courts by executive magistrates who were appointed centrally. The hearings were held in camera, and could be held in locations far removed from the disturbed area itself. In March 1994, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of TADA.[50]
Apart from TADA and the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, there were also other black laws like the National Security Act, 1980, as amended by the Act 24 of 1984 specifically with the reference to “the extremist and terrorist elements in the disturbed areas of Punjab and Chandigarh”. The Act provided for detention without charge or trial for one year in all parts of India, and two years in Punjab. Also in force was the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, which empowered the security forces to enter and search any premises, and to arrest any person without warrant. It also allowed the security forces to destroy any place on the suspicion of being a “terrorist hideout” and to shoot to kill a suspected terrorist with immunity from prosecution. If the officers of the Punjab police failed in bringing terrorists to book, in spite of TADA and other draconian legislation, their obsession with extra-judicial activities to the negation of arduous and lustreless tasks of regular police work, must squarely take the blame.
From early 1988, when reports of police atrocities amidst the escalation of the Sikh separatist violence became regular part of the news from Punjab, I as a member of the Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab began to travel in the State to investigate.[51] During these travels, I came in close contact with many who had suffered illegal detention, interrogation under torture and other atrocities. The cases in which there were witnesses to illegal arrests and custodial torture before the police announced their deaths in encounters were rare in comparison to others in which persons were whisked away by unidentified men, appearing out of the blue, in vehicles without number plates, to be taken to undisclosed places for interrogation, and to disappear for ever. I documented dozens of such cases. Rarely in some instances, the disappeared returned from the “dragon’s belly”. Some of them survived when the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or the Supreme Court of India issued directions for their production. I became directly involved several such cases. I also got involved with the case of Avtar Singh Sidhu, a leader of the Youth Akali Dal from Muktsar, which brought us in first direct confrontation with K. P. S. Gill, then Director General of Punjab Police. Sidhu had been helpful in gathering information on several cases of faked encounters in his region. On 30 September 1988, the police raided his house and a shop of pesticides owned by him in Muktsar. Sidhu was not present at either place. Many of his relatives including his younger brother were taken into custody to force him to surrender. On 14 October 1988, Sidhu surrendered himself to the custody of K. P. S. Gill at the latter’s residence in Chandigarh, in the presence of Amrinder Singh, scion of the Patiala royalty. When three weeks later Sidhu had still not been produced before a magistrate, I and two other members of the Committee went to Faridkot and requested the Senior Superintendent of Police to grant an interview with the detainee. The SSP admitted to Sidhu’s detention, but expressed inability to grant our request since the DGP himself was handling the case. We then approached the DGP at Chandigarh. Gill took our application and promising to respond to the request for interview in due course, chided us for “disturbing him at odd hours on unimportant issues”. We also gave the particulars of the case to the Secretary of the Punjab’s Governor who assured us that he would place them before the Governor. Sidhu was released on 30 November 1988, and he gave us a long interview on his ordeals.
I also came across several examples of purely bestial abuse of police powers, against the absolutely innocent and the meek. In one case, the police officer in-charge of a post at village Bham in Batala subdivision of Gurdaspur district, kidnapped two teenage girls Salvinder Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur in front of eye-witnesses in his official jeep. The officer in-charge of police station in HarGobindpur denied their custody. Four days later, their naked distended bodies were recovered from a nearby canal. Officers of HarGobindpur police station tried to pressurise the parents to sign a declaration that the bodies were unidentified and unclaimed, and were threatened that they would be eliminated in an “encounter” if they disobeyed. But the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Batala interfered and had the bodies handed over to the parents for cremation. One month later, the Senior Superintendent of Police of the district told a newspaper that the policeman alleged to have kidnapped the girls was actually having an affair with one of them. The policeman was later arrested on charges of kidnapping, rape and murder to be soon released on bail, as the prosecution did not file a charge-sheet against him within the stipulated period of three months.
I also came across examples of the police terrorising the whole villages in the border districts known to be militants’ strongholds. Unable to distinguish silent sympathisers from active militants, the security forces were using collective humiliation and intimidation to wean them away from their political sympathies. In reality, these methods were only adding to their alienation the thrust of hatred.
The testimonies of victims of police powers, which I recorded, not only established systematic violation of the domestic and international guarantees on inalienable human rights, they also gave the lie to the grand narrative of Indian officials and their sympathisers, who were straining to portray the situation in Punjab as a war between the patriotic forces and anti-national mercenaries. The evidence collected by me discredited their claims that the government agencies represented the forces of social order, justice and legitimacy. I failed to recognise anything noble in the picture of police operations that was emerging from the collected evidence. Although some of the cases documented by me might have involved genuine extremists, I gained the impression that, for the most part, the sufferers were primarily victims of arbitrariness - of a police force that had gone haywire.
These investigations constituted the basis for detailed case studies of human rights violations, which the Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab then published and circulated in the hope that testimonies of victims might persuade the public - those at least whose ears weren’t stopped - that the ‘war without quarter’ would destroy the very basis of the nation in whose name it was being waged.[52] The bulk of these early reports also form part of my book, published in 1991 under the title, “The Sikh Struggle: Origin, evolution and present phase”.
As we observed earlier, violence in Punjab escalated at a runaway pace after the dismissal of Barnala government. Large number of criminal elements, who passed for militants, had occupied the rooms inside the circumference of the Golden Temple. They summoned prosperous citizens to their rooms and made them cough up large amounts of money.[53] They were also killing the recalcitrant, burying the bodies under the rubble of the Akal Takht. The government mounted a new Operation in May 1988 to displace these bandits from the holy shrine. With Amritsar under curfew, the commandos of the National Security Guard, equipped with sniper rifles and night vision equipment, shot down more than thirty entrenched militants over the next week. Baba Uttam Singh of Khadur Sahib, a friend of the Union Home Minister, appeared on the side of the security forces to direct his followers to surrender. On 15 May, 150 of them gave up; three days later the remaining forty-eight. But the Inspector General Chaman Lal told the press that the committed militant groups had not taken shelter inside the temple.[54] Although the Operation purveyed some strategic gains to the government, including good publicity, it had no effect on controlling the militant outrages.
Meanwhile, Simranjit Singh Mann, former police officer, arrested on charges of sedition, was emerging as the new star on the horizon of the Sikh politics. As Faridkot’s SSP, Mann had been close to Bhindranwale. The government found out about his link and transferred him to Bombay. He would have been dismissed from the service if Amrinder Singh, the scion of Patiala royality, had not interceded in Mann’s favor. Mann and Amrinder Singh are close relatives, their wives being sisters. After Operation Blue Star, Mann wrote a strong emotional letter to President Zail Singh. In the letter, he upbraided the President for not resigning, after the Indian army, under his supreme command, had destroyed the Akal Takht. The letter became public and Mann was dismissed from the service. He went underground and was arrested in November 84 while trying to cross the border into Nepal, ostensibly to organize the Sikh resistance from abroad. Later, he was also charged of conspiring to assassinate Indira Gandhi. His defiance of the government made him very popular with the Sikhs. Mann had already been nominated as the President of the United Akali Dal, an outfit launched by Bhindranwale’s old father who had been pushed by the extremists to become the pivot of a new political allignment.[55] When the government announced parliamentary elections for the end of 1989, Mann declared his candidacy from Tarn Taran constituency, although he was still a prisoner. He also fielded his candidates from eight parliamentary constituencies in Punjab. The results belied the predictions of the political pundits that the division in the Sikh vote would benefit the Congress Party. The group under Mann swept the polls by bagging six out of thirteen parliamentary seats in Punjab. Four additional constituencies elected independent candidates who had received his blessings. Mann himself created a record in his constituency by polling 527, 707 out of the total of 591,883 valid votes cast.[56]
The Congress Party lost the elections at the national level to the Janata Dal, a new formation under V. P. Singh who had resigned his position as the Finance Minister under Rajiv Gandhi to accuse the latter of gargantuan corruption in arms deals. The manifesto of the Janata Dal had promised to end the abuse of civil liberties in Punjab, and to solve the unrest in the State through dialogue in a democratic spirit. Returning from prison to Punjab in his new role as a political leader, Mann promised to strive for the fulfilment of Sikhs’ aspirations by adopting the Constitutional means. Speaking to the massive crowd that gathered to welcome him in Punjab on 3 December 89, Mann said: “First we would try out the constitutional ways to get the demands of the Sikhs fulfilled… If the government fails to satisfy the Sikhs, we shall follow a path according to our nation’s consensus”. According to the newspaper reports, there was no trace of either bitterness or hubris in his meek voice.[57] After consulting all the organisations involved in the struggle, Mann set out five preconditions for the central government to fulfil before they could discuss more substantial political questions. They were:
(1) It should express repentance and seek forgiveness for the army assault on the Golden Temple. (2) It should adopt a condolence motion in both the Houses of Parliament to commemorate those Sikhs who had been killed during the November 84 riots, and take steps to punish those who had orchestrated the anti-Sikh mayhem. (3) It should release from prisons and reinstate those Sikh soldiers who had revolted in the wake of the Operation Blue Star. (4) It should register criminal proceedings against the officials in Punjab including Governor Ray, his police advisor Julio Ribeiro and DGP K. P. S. Gill who excelled all in the policy of blind repression. (5) It should repeal the black laws which violated the fundamental rights of citizens and withdraw from Punjab the paramilitary forces occupying the State.[58]
For a government that had promised justice and restoration of democracy, these conditions should have been agreeable. But the new government, whose Prime Minister staged a theatrical drive through the crowded lanes of Amritsar in an open jeep and proclaimed that “a new era has begun”, decided not to come under pressure by accepting their preconditions for a “dialogue”. The most bizarre of all was the decision of the government to hold consultations with those moderate groups of the Akalis who had been routed in the elections. These leaders like Prakash Singh Badal and Surjit Singh Barnala advised the central government not to hold elections to the State Assembly as they feared an abrupt end to their own political careers in the new climate.[59] The Janata Dal government not only decided to withhold the Assembly elections, thereby thwarting the process of democracy, but also to retain those police officials who had earned notoriety for human rights violations. “Improving law and order”, euphemism for continuation of the police Raj, remained the guiding principle of the new government’s policy. This combining with the media build-up that portrayed the new Sikh team as a bunch of fanatics destroyed whatever chance there may have been in resolving the conflict through a rational process of give and take.
Mann could not establish a rapport with the new government, even as the situation in Punjab became increasingly anarchical. On 21 December 89, the security personnel at the Parliament House refused permission to a newly elected Sikh member Dhyan Singh Mand to enter the House along with his sword. Mand refused to take the oath of his membership without it. Mann himself declined to enter Parliament unless the government allowed the newly elected members to carry their swords within the House.[60]
The government of V. P. Singh fell in November 1990, through defections engineered by his own Party’s President, Chandrashekhar. The Congress Party under Rajiv Gandhi installed him as the Prime Minister by supporting his breakaway group of 54 in the House of 542. The Congress withdrew the support in March 1991, forcing fresh polls to elect a new parliament. Chandrashekhar had been hobnobbing with the Sikh militant organizations with the hope to solve a difficult problem, to show as an achievement for his term as the Prime Minister of India. Chandrashekhar decided to hold simultaneous elections to Parliament and the State Assembly in Punjab, a decision that all other national parties vociferously opposed.[61]
Most of the Sikh militant organizations themselves called for a boycott of the elections. The terrorists gunned down candidate after candidate, even as 80,000 paramilitary personnel and eventually the army drove around in their armored vehicles. More than 20 candidates fell to the terrorist bullets as the period of campaigning drew to an end. Chandrashekar’s Home Minister, a candidate for parliament from Ludhiana, providentially escaped an attempt on his life. Rajiv Gandhi, visiting Chandigarh on 14 May, promised to cancel the polls in Punjab if his party got elected to Parliament with a majority. The Congress was returned as the single largest party in parliament, although Rajiv Gandhi himself was killed by a woman member of LTTE, a Tamil separatist guerilla group in Sri Lanka. Narsimha Rao of the Congress Party became the Prime Minister and instructed the Election Commission to cancel the polls in Punjab.[62] KPS Gill, whom Chandrashekhar had shifted to Delhi as the Chief of the CRPF, returned to Punjab once again as the Director General of Police.
Since the dismissal of Barnala’s government in Punjab, the Union government had changed party hands three times. However, these changes made no difference either to the government’s political approach in regard to the problem of unrest in Punjab or to the basic patterns of police functioning in the State. From the very beginning, political elements within the government are known to have hobnobbed with one militant faction or the other. However, there never was any attempt to initiate discussions with the extremist groups on the basis of concrete issues which constituted the hard-core of Sikh discontent. All overtures and contacts were always essentially mercenary in nature, based on calculations of short-term political advantages and negativating the prospects of transparent deliberations on the merits of the issues involved.
In November 1991, Punjab came under the Disturbed Areas Act, which gave the security forces extensive powers to search, detain and interrogate anyone without judicial warrants. Along with these steps, the central government announced that the elections to parliament and the State Assembly for Punjab would be held in the first quarter of 1992. A meeting of all the major Akali Sikh groups held on 4 January 1992, decided to boycott the elections.[63] The government reported 28 per cent of polling. The turnout in the urban areas was between 25 and 40 per cent. In the rural constituencies it was between 5 and 20 per cent. The results declared on 20 February, returned the Congress with a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly. Beant Singh, who had been dismissed from the Ministry of Darbara Singh in 1983 on the charge of having instigated a faked encounter, formed a Congress ministry as the new Chief Minister of Punjab.[64]
The state government projected its ‘success at the hustings’ - a pradicatable consequence of the poll-boycott by the main Akali groups - as the democratic mandate, which it had received to stamp out the Sikh separatist militancy by whatever means. Several human rights groups in Punjab, although disorganised and faction-ridden, had been embarrassing the government by publicising police excesses. The government under Chief Minister Beant Singh decided it had to silence these groups before tackling the larger problems of militancy in Punjab’s countryside.
Ram Singh Biling, a reporter with the Punjabi daily newspaper Ajit and the Secretary of Punjab Human Rights Organisation for his home district of Sangrur, was picked up and unceremoniously executed soon after the Congress government took office. Then came the turn of Ajit Singh Bains, retired judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Chairman of the Punjab Human Rights Organization. His illegal arrest in April 1992 was not acknowledged for two days. Bains was manhandled, abused and publicly exhibited in handcuffs. Later, his arrest was formalised under TADA. The accusation was that Bains had taken part in a secret meeting of militant leaders, held at Anandpur on March 18, where they hatched a conspiracy to carry out “terrorist actions”. An inquiry later ordered by the High Court of Punjab established that Ajit Singh Bains’ name did not figure in the original First Information Report about the “illegal meeting”. However, the idea of arresting Bains was not to secure his conviction under the law, but to paralyse PHRO, and to demoralise other human rights groups with the example. Chief Minister Beant Singh told the State Legislative Assembly on April 6 that his government would not release Bains because his organisation was engaged “in defending terrorists”.[65]
A human rights lawyer, Jagwinder Singh, was picked up from his house in Kapurthala by a group of uniformed policemen on 25 September 1992 evening. Although the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary promised to intervene, Jagwinder Singh never returned.
On 18 May 1992, Amritsar police picked up Param Satinderjit Singh, a student of Guru Nanak Dev University, from the university campus. He was forced to identify suspected sympathisers of the separatist cause within the university, who were also picked up. The police brought Param Satinderjit Singh to the university campus several times for this purpose. The university students held a demonstration to protest against the abduction, and his father went on a hunger strike. But Param Satinderjit Singh was not released. There was no trace of him thereafter.
Punjab government kept up the pressure on the PHRO by arresting Malwinder Singh Malli, General Secretary of the organisation, in August 1992. Malli was also the editor of “Paigam”, a vernacular journal affiliated to a Marxist-Leninist group, whose work in the field had led to several exhaustive reports on police atrocities. Elimination of Ram Singh Biling and Jagwinder Singh, and arrests of Ajit Singh Bains and Malwinder Singh Malli effectively paralysed the regional human rights groups. Now the security forces could give undivided attention to eliminate the ring-leaders of the separatist militancy.
The Sikhs of Punjab had never clearly understood the rationale of the militants’ objectives. These groups in their hay-day had generally relied on atavistic sympathies in the preasantry to find hideouts and had received enough support to keep up their operations. But now, with the rural Sikhs in total dismay over the new state of affairs, militants found themselves helpless against the security forces, which began to hunt them down like fair game. Thus, within six months of assuming office, the government of Beant Singh was able to break the backbone of the Sikh militant movement. Main leaders of guerrilla outfits were either killed, or compelled to flee the scene. Hundreds of them also surrendered. Thousands of others suffered torture in custody, long periods of illegal imprisonment and myriad other forms of physical and psychological torment. I have exhaustively documented the historical context of the Sikh separatist violence, its political and psychological aspects and its irrationality in my second book on Punjab, published by Ajanta Books International in 1997 under the title: “The Sikh Unrest and the Indian State: Politics, Personalities and Historical retrospective.”
Following the decimation of the guerrilla groups under Beant Singh’s government in Punjab, the cleansing the countryside of militant sympathisers apparently became the next main task of the security forces in the State. According to the police figures, published in 1993, security forces in Punjab killed 2,119 militants in the year 1992 under the euphemism of “encounters”. A larger number of people in the border districts, picked up by the police for interrogation, simply “disappeared”. Evidence that later surfaced showed that the “disappeared” were killed and their bodies quietly disposed of. First there appeared reports that Punjab’s irrigation canals had become the dumping ground for bodies of killed militants and their sympathisers. Reports carried by the Pioneer on 26 and 27 March 1992 said that the government of Rajasthan had formally complained to Punjab’s Chief Secretary that these canals were carrying large number of dead bodies into the State. The newspaper reports also said that many dead bodies, with hands and feet tied together, were being fished out when water in-flow in canals was stopped for repair works.
Jaswant Singh Khalra from Amritsar, then General Secretary of Shiromani Akali Dal’s Human Rights Wing, produced more incriminating evidence in the form of official records from the cremation grounds of Amritsar, Patti and Tarn Taran for the year 1992. These records showed that the police had burnt more than 1400 bodies in these three cremation grounds alone by stating that they were unclaimed or unidentified. Khalra himself had to become an unidentified body before the Supreme Court would take note of the matter and order the Central Bureau of Investigation to undertake a comprehensive inquiry. While alive, all his endeavors and years of campaigning for accountability and justice had met with institutional disdain, public ridicule - and finally death in the oblivion of enforced disappearance. When Khalra went with his records to the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a Writ Petition No. 990 of 1995 to ask for an independent investigation, the court dismissed it in limine with the remarks that it was “too vague” and that the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter.
Following the dismissal, I, along with Khalra, traveled extensively in the region of Amritsar to investigate his claims. Examination of cremation records from the office of the Registrar of Births and Deaths showed that three hundred bodies were cremated as unidentified/ unclaimed in 1992 alone at the Durgiana mandir cremation grounds even though in the case of one hundred and twelve the names had actually been recorded. Forty-one were shown as having died of bullet injuries. A firewood purchase register maintained at the Patti municipal cremation grounds showed that five hundred and thirty-eight bodies were cremated as unidentified/ unclaimed between 1991 and 1994. After examining these records, I talked to attendants of the cremation grounds, the doctors who had conducted post-mortems and also the relatives of victims who furnished the necessary evidence to establish linkages between the disappearances and illegal cremations. Two attendants of the cremation ground at Patti told me that the police would often buy firewood for the cremation of one or two persons but would cremate several bodies together on a single pyre. The Chief Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital at Patti confessed that a post-mortem was completed in less than five minutes: The whole procedure had been simplified to the extent that it meant no more than filling a paper that announced the cause of death and the time of death, with the policemen providing the information. He also gave me gruesome details of Sarabjit Singh’s post-mortem. On 30 October 1993, a dead body, supposedly that of Sarabjit Singh, was brought to Patti hospital by the officers of Valtoha police station in Amritsar district for post-mortem. The doctor who was to carry out the autopsy discovered that the man who had a bullet injury on his head was still breathing. Thereupon, Valtoha police officers insisted on taking him away. After some time, they brought him back, now dead for good, and forced a different doctor to fill-in an autopsy report. Although a nurse in the hospital was able to identify Sarabjit Singh, and also knew where his parents lived, the police officers took away the body for a hasty cremation. I was also able to interview many serving police officers who, on the condition of anonymity, provided detailed narratives which explained abductions, custodial torture, summary executions and illegal cremations as aspects of a strategy to weed out the Sikh separatist militancy from the roots.
On the basis of these investigations, Delhi based Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab, of which I am a member, invoked Articles 32, 21, 19 and 14 to move the Supreme Court of India through a Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 447/95, filed on 3 April 1995. The petition backed with the records of illegal cremations at Durgiyana Mandir in Amritsar city and at Patti subdivision drew the attention of the court to the problem of disappearances in the State of Punjab, which was now reinforced by the evidence that its police force had been cremating thousands of bodies labelled as “unidentified” at various crematoria in the State. This was the asseveration in the first paragraph of the petition.
The second paragraph stated that over two thousand families in Amritsar alone have one or more “disappearances” to report. It is in this context that the court must examine the records of illegal cremations of 300 “unidentified” bodies at the Durgiana Mandir in 1992 and of 538 “unidentified” bodies at Patti between 1991 and October 1994. The petition pointed out that out of 300 bodies brought to the Durgiana Mandir in 1992, the names of 112 are actually recorded although they were cremated as unidentified. Forty-one were shown as having died of bullet injuries or in “police encounters”. Cause of death of remaining 259 was not given.
The record showed that some of the bodies burnt at Durgiyana Mandir came from outside Amritsar; few from outside the State. One body was shown to come from Chamkaur Saheb in Ropar district. Two of them were shown to have been picked up in Uttar Pradesh and two others from Sopore in Jammu and Kashmir.
After analysing the Patti’s firewood purchase records in the like fashion, the petition pointed out that according to the personnel of the crematorium and some farmers in its vicinity, the police had often been purchasing wood for one body but burnt several. With the result that they had to often collect half burnt and charred remains of bodies which stray dogs carried away from the pyres to adjoining fields and had to either cremate them again at their own expense or to dump them in the Rajasthan Feeder Canal.
Clause eighteen of the fifth paragraph in the petition went on to affirm that “These cremations are only part of the story. Punjab is full of canals. Reports about the recovery of dead bodies from all the major and minor canals of the State have been appearing in the local and the national press for the last several years. Clearly, these dead bodies are linked to the “disappearances” reported all over the State.”
The paragraph four had already pointed out the main thrust of the petition, which was to affirm “a systematic and sustained policy of murder/extrajudicial execution and disposal of dead bodies by the police all over the State.”
The petition then pointed out the grounds on which the Supreme Court was being moved: (a) As the ultimate repository and enforcer of citizens fundamental rights, the court had no option but to act on the disclosures made by the petition, even if partly borne out to be true. (b) Unless the court intervened to establish the truth, to bring the culprits to book and to suitably compensate the next of kin, the people of Punjab would completely lose faith in the possibility of justice within the system, a disillusionment that could give rise to fresh orgies of violence. (c) The court must direct the respondents to give clear explanation as to how the events narrated in the petition were allowed to occur and also direct them to place all information and evidence to “facilitate identification of the cremated persons” before the Inquiry Commission to be constituted. (d) It would not be possible to determine the identity of the cremated bodies unless the court ordered a comprehensive inquiry.
A separate application for interim directions, also filed on 3 April 1995, said that as the entire hierarchy of the Punjab police stood accused, the court had to order a full scale inquiry, also ensuring that the accused were unable to further tamper or destroy evidence. The court should, therefore, direct the the CBI or any other independent agency to commence the investigation and to immediately seize all the records, including the Daily Diary registers and the registers and files maintained under Rule 25.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, which lay down the procedure for the cremation of unidentified and unclaimed bodies. The application also requested the court to ensure full protection from harassment, intimidation and threats to all witnesses and human rights workers connected with the investigation and pursuit of the matter.
Jaswant Singh Khalra had for some time been receiving direct and indirect threats from the police officials of Amritsar district, particularly from Tarn Taran’s Senior Superintendent of Police Ajit Singh Sandhu. The later had warned that unless Khalra ceased his involvement in the matter, he would also become an unidentified body. Although Khalra’s friends and associates, including then President of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and a senior Akali leader Gurcharan Singh Tohra, advised him to leave the scene for a while, he refused to take to flight, and stuck with his human rights work in his native region.
On 6 September 1995 morning, the armed commandos of Punjab police kidnapped Khalra from outside his house in Amritsar. A bench of the Supreme Court under Justice Kuldip Singh treated a telegram about the abduction, which it received from Gurcharan Singh Tohra, as a petition for the writ of habeas corpus and issued notice to the Punjab authorities to either produce Khalra or account for his whereabouts. The S. P. Sukhdev Singh Chhina of Amritsar city filed affidavits to claim that Khalra was not wanted in connection with any case and that the police had not arrested him. Other officials also filed affidavits to maintain that the Punjab authorities were making all efforts to trace Khalra, contending at the same time that he might have become a victim of inter gang rivalries. SSP Sandhu of Tarn Taran also filed a statement to deny that he had ever threatened Khalra. Meanwhile, Paramjit Kaur Khalra had also filed a regular petition for a writ of habeas corpus, giving a detailed description of the abduction on the basis of eye-witness accounts. On 13 October 95, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab M. L. Sarin assured the court that he was personally supervising the investigation into Khalra’s disappearance.
Meanwhile, another bench of the Supreme Court that had been hearing the Committee’s Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 447/95 asked us to establish a real connection between the complaints of police abductions and reports on illegal cremations. Only then the court would entertain the petition and issue notice to the Punjab authorities. On 11 October 1995, the Committee filed four affidavits from relatives of persons abducted and disappeared by the Punjab police officials, who also prayed for a comprehensive inquiry. Life chronicles furnished by these four relatives of abducted persons compellingly established the connection between abductions, disappearances and secret disposal of dead bodies.
1. Sixty-five years old Baldev Singh from Amritsar had retired from 9 Punjab Regiment of the Indian army after being seriously injured during the war with Pakistan in 1965, which he fought at Punch sector in Jammu and Kashmir. Baldev Singh’s eldest daughter Manjit Kaur had been India’s star female weight-lifter, earning nineteen gold medals. She had also represented India in many international events, including the Asian Games held in Peking. His youngest twenty-five years old son Pragat Singh earned his livelihood from a dairy farm. The police began to harass him, picking him up for interrogation and torturing him in illegal custody. Unable to put up with the harassment, Pragat Singh went away from the house but was arrested on 19 September 1990 when he was watching a film at Sandhu Talkies, a cinema hall of Amritsar, along with his cousin Chayan Singh. On 5 November 1992, newspapers reported Pragat Singh’s death in a supposed armed encounter with the police near Raja Sansi, a suburb of Amritsar. Baldev Singh talked to an employee at the General Hospital in Amritsar where the post-mortem of the dead body had been conducted. The employee’s description of the body matched Pragat Singh’s. Baldev Singh reached the Durgiyana Mandir cremation ground in the nick of time even as the police had just lit the pyre. The head was already burning, but the rest of the body was still intact. His son Pragat Singh was burning. Although Baldev Singh was allowed to carry the ashes for the last rites, the abduction and the illegal cremation remained officially unacknowledged. Traumatized by the incident, Pragat Singh’s sister Manjit Kaur never again took part in competitive sport.
2. Lakhwinder Kaur from Tarn Taran in Amritsar district was the mother of thirty-five years old Hardev Singh, a farmer and a member of the All India Sikh Students Federation. Hardev Singh disappeared after the police kidnapped him from the house of a colleague on 28 September 1992.
3. Baljit Kaur, also from Tarn Taran in Amritsar district, was married to a head constable of the Punjab police. Her brother Balwinder Singh, the elected head of the village council of Chabal Khurd, had been vocal against the police abuses and therefore had become an eyesore for the authorities. On 8 March 93, Balwinder Singh was picked up from his house by Balbir Singh, officer in-charge of Chabal police station. The next day, a group of police officials brought Balwinder Singh to his village and thrashed him there publicly until he fell unconscious. Later, he was taken back to the CIA interrogation center in Tarn Taran. Baljit Kaur’s husband found out through his police contacts that his brother-in-law was later killed there and his body secretly disposed of.
4. Fifty-five years old Dilip Singh from Amritsar city owned a dairy farm and was an active member of the right wing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party. His twenty-six years old son Jaswinder Singh was a college student and also worked in pharmaceutical shop. Earlier, he had been arrested under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. Released on bail for lack of evidence, Jaswinder’s trial was still pending. On 19 August 1992, Jaswinder Singh attended the special court at Faridkot and pleaded for a expeditious disposal of the case so that he could concentrate on his studies. The court fixed the case for final disposal the next day. The same evening, Jaswinder was abducted by armed commandos of the Punjab police when he was boarding a return bus to Amritsar. Approached by Dilip Singh for help, then Minister for Public Works in the Punjab government Joginder Singh Mann talked to SSP Jasminder Singh of Faridkot on telephone and confirmed that Jaswinder was indeed in his custody. Joginder Singh Mann gave Dilip Singh a letter introducing him to the SSP. The letter mentioned their telephonic talks about Jaswinder and requested him to meet Dilip Singh and to release his son. Dilip Singh met the SSP, who promised to let the boy go in some days. Later, he denied the custody. In early 1993, Vidya Sagar Sharma, SP of Faridkot, told Dilip Singh that Jaswinder Singh was alive and was being held in a CRPF camp. There has been no further information about Jaswinder’s whereabouts.
On 11 October 1995, the Committee filed the affidavits of these relatives of the abducted and disappeared persons, supported by their prayer for a comprehensive inquiry. The matter came up for the hearing on 13 October 1995, when the court issued notices to the Punjab authorities and posted the petition for further hearing on 20 November 95.
Meanwhile, another bench of the Supreme Court under Justice Kuldip Singh was proceedings with the matter relating to Jaswant Singh Khalra’s abduction. On 15 November 95, Punjab’s Advocate-General M. L. Sareen suggested that the court should hand over the investigation of Khalra’s abduction and disappearance to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Accordingly, the court directed the CBI to appoint an investigation team under a responsible officer. The court also took note of the allegations regarding police abductions, disappearances and illegal cremations, which Jaswant Singh Khalra had made in a press release dated 16 January 1995. In the 15 November 95 order instituting these inquiries, Justice Kuldip Singh observed: “In case it is found that the facts stated in the Press Note are correct - even partially - it would be a gory-tale of human rights violations. It is horrifying to visualize that dead bodies of larger number of persons - allegedly thousands - could be cremated by the police unceremoniously with a label “unidentified”. Our faith in democracy and rule of law assures us that nothing of the type can ever happen in this country but the allegations in the Press Note - horrendous as they are - need thorough investigation. We, therefore, direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to appoint a high powered team to investigate into the facts contained in the press note dated January 16, 1995. We direct all the concerned authorities of the State of Punjab including the DGP to render all assistance to the CBI in the investigation… The CBI shall complete the investigation regarding kidnapping of Khalra within three months… So far as the second investigation is concerned we do not fix any time limit but direct the CBI to file interim reports… after every three months.”
It is important to notice that the court’s order did not set any limit to the inquiry; territorial, numerical or by the mode of body disposal. It only talked about the gory tale of human rights violations, the horrendous allegations and the need to investigate the facts contained in the press note. Following this order, which fulfilled the plea for a comprehensive inquiry, the Committee’s petition 447/95 was also transferred to the same bench of the court under Justice Kuldip Singh. Hereafter, both the petitions were heard simultaneously.
On 22 July 96, the CBI submitted an interim report that disclosed 984 illegal cremations at Tarn Taran. The CBI also asked for the court to order registration of three separate criminal cases against the police officials in respect of three deaths in suspicious circumstances. The court ordered the CBI to register the cases. It also directed the investigative agency to issue a general notice to the public at large to assist in the inquiry. The court’s order dated 22 July 96 said:
“Since large number of dead bodies have been allegedly disposed of by the police it may be necessary to seek assistance from the public at large. We direct the CBI in the course of enquiry to issue a general direction to the public at large that if any person/authority/government office has any information/material which may be of any assistance to the CBI in the enquiry in this matter, the same shall be placed before the CBI. We direct Mr. P. S. Sandhu, DIG (Border) to hand over the entire relevant records to the CBI immediately.”
On 30 July 96, the CBI submitted its report on Khalra’s abduction and disappearance, holding nine officers of the Punjab police under SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu responsible. At the CBI’s request the court directed their prosecution on charges of conspiracy and “kidnapping with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person”. The court also directed the Chief Secretary of Punjab to sanction their prosecution within three weeks of the order. The Sanction Order dated 19 August 1996 elucidated the CBI’s findings that established the criminal conspiracy to abduct Jaswant Singh Khalra. The Sanction Order pointed out that on 24 October 1995, eighteen days after his abduction, Khalra was found illegally detained at Kang Police Station, by a Kikkar Singh who was also detained there illegally. The Saction Order mentioned that Kikkar Singh witnessed the injuries on Khalra’s body, the evidence of his custodial torture. It went on to say that Kikkar Singh helped Khalra to eat before he was taken away from the Kang police station, never to be seen again. Kikkar Singh’s illegal detention from 14 October to 11 November 1995, as elucidated in the Governor’s Sanction Order, was independently corroborated by an inquiry conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Chandigarh, which the High Court of Punjab and Haryana relied on to grant him monetary compensation. The evidence on record in the Governor’s Order of Sanction confirmed serious offences under sections 302, 364, 346, 330, 331 and 120 of IPC. However, the offenders were arrested only under section 365 of IPC which is “kidnapping with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person”, a woefully insufficient charge in the face of evidence which proved kidnapping with the intent to murder, illegal confinement, custodial torture and custodial murder. Subsequently, former Special Police Officer Kuldip Singh, who was attached to the Kang police station told the CBI that Khalra was tortured and then shot dead in the night of 24 October 1995. His dead body was quartered and thrown in river Sutlaj near Hari Ke Pattan.
None of these facts were known to the court, which presumed Khalra to be still alive, when it ordered the prosecution of the officials on 30 July 96. On 7 August 96, the court also directed the Punjab government to pay one million rupees as interim compensation to Mrs. Khalra. The court’s order said: “The fact remains that the abductors are keeping Khalra away from his family since 6 September 1995. Kidnapping of a person whose family is totally in dark about his whereabouts - even about the fact whether he is alive or dead - is the worst crime against humanity. In the facts and circumstances of this, we direct the Punjab government through the Chief Secretary, Punjab to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as interim compensation to Mrs. Paramjit Kaur, wife of Mr. Jaswant Singh Khalra. In case, the police officers are convicted the State of Punjab can recover the amount from the police officers…” The court had awarded interim compensation for the crime of disappearance, which it described as the worst crime against humanity.
On 10 December 1996, the CBI submitted its final and fifth report on the larger issue of police abductions and illegal disposal of dead bodies. We do not know what the CBI’s inquiry report discloses on the larger patterns of enforced disappearances, extra-judicial elimination and illegal disposal of dead bodies. The court decided to keep its full contents secret, as urged by its officials on the ground that further investigations would be hampered on the publication of the report at this stage. However, the court’s 11 December 96 order disclosed the number of 2097 illegal cremations - 585 fully identified, 274 partially identified, and 1238 unidentified -, carried out by the State agencies. Presumably, the CBI obtained these figures by investigating the records for Amritsar’s three crematoria, which the Committee had furnished to substantiate its allegations. The Supreme Court observed that “the report discloses flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale.” Instructing the CBI to investigate criminal culpability and to submit a quarterly status report on its progress, the court’s 11 December 96 order said: “We request the Commission through its Chairman to have the matter examined in accordance with law and determine all the issues which are raised before he Commission by the learned counsel for the parties. Since the matter is going to be examined by the Commission at the request of this court, any compensation awarded shall be binding and payable.”
Contentions on the scope of the imminent inquiry flared up before the Commission when it first heard the matter on 29 January 97. The Union and the State governments, as also the Punjab police officials representing themselves separately, vehemently opposed our assertion that the Commission’s mandate under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was to discover the depth and magnitude of all violations divulged by the CBI’s report and to restore justice through compensation and other reparative measures. The proceedings of the Commission, under the Supreme Court’s reference, had to cover not only the illegal cremations at the three sites revealed in the CBI’s report, but also disposal of dead bodies in other ways throughout the seventeen districts of Punjab, without any time limit, which followed illegal abductions, enforced disappearances and extra-judicial executions carried out by the State agencies.
Some genuine confusion arose from the fact that the the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the statute that created the Commission and bound its normal working, did not allow it to take up the issues, which it received from the the Supreme Court’s remit. The following are the main limitations in the Act that created obstacles:
1. Section 36(2) of the Act says: “The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year…” This is the most abhorrent clause in the Act, which has to be first removed if the Commission is ever to be able to recompense, in any measure, the wrongs that have been committed over the last decade and a half in Punjab. This was the period in which the population had been tightly controlled by the security forces, and had been prevented from filing complaints on the pain of reprisals. Prima facie demonstration of evidence should be the principle for the Commissions under the Act to take cognizance of a complaint, without any time limit. Some statutes of limitation impose a time limit only with the view that claims are not made after evidence has been lost. In German law, for example, the periods range from six months for breaches of administrative regulations to 30 years for crimes involving a life sentence but, as also in the United States, there is no limitation on crimes involving genocide and murder. In England, there is no general statute of limitations applicable to criminal actions. In 1968 the UN General Assembly adopted a Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutes of Limitation on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Surely, an Act whose first Statement of Objects and Reasons refers to India’s international human rights obligations, should have amended its clause 36(2) in conformity with this principle.
2. Under clause 11(b) and 14 of the Act, the Commission depended on the investigative agencies of the government, themselves accused of grave violations. The Act requires suitable amendment to enable the creation of an investigative mechanism, accountable to the National and the State Human Rights Commissions alone, that would possess statutory powers to demand cooperation from the government authorities under investigation. They must also have the powers to compel production of documents and other evidence, necessary to complete investigations.
3. The section 19 of the Act prohibits the Commissions from directly investigating allegations of human rights violations committed by the military and paramilitary forces. Amendment of this section is essential to the requirement of justice in a state where the military, the paramilitary and other central forces have been routinely deployed to carry out counter-insurgency operations.
4. Likewise, the clause 30 of the Act that provides for the establishment of special human rights courts requires guidelines on the mandate and powers of these courts and on the procedure, which they must follow. Amendment is needed also to remove the requirement of governmental sanction for the prosecution of public servants. Without it, the provision of special human rights courts under the clause 30 of the Act can have no meaning.
5. Finally, the section 18 of the Act has be so amended as to provide the National and the State Human Rights Commissions with the statutory powers to enforce its findings and recommendations.
After hearing the diametrically conflicting interpretations of the Supreme Court’s mandate, the Commission issued an order on 28 January 1997 asking all the parties to clearly state their views on the scope and ambit of the matter before the Commission. It also required them to opine on the jurisdiction, scope and ambit of the powers of the Commission under the dispensation of the Supreme Court’s mandate. Specifically, the Commission’s 28 January 97 order asked them to answer the following questions:
(a) Has the mandate of the Supreme Court had the effect of removing the bar of limitation under Section 36(2) of the Human Rights Act, 1993? Or, is the Commission designated sui generis to perform certain functions and adjudicate certain issues entrusted and referred to it by the Supreme Court?
(b) What are the views on the concept and content of the idea of compensation referred by the Supreme Court to the Commission for determination?
(c) What are the other specific issues that require to be decided by the Commission?
(d) Can the Commission set up an adjudicatory mechanism to expeditiously quantify compensation subject to the final decision to be taken by the Commission?
The Committee argued that the powers of the Commission in this particular case derived from the Supreme Court, within the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was a well settled law - AIR 1984 SC 802 and AIR 1987 SC 1086) that the Supreme Court had the “amplest power to issue whatever direction or writ appropriate in a given case for enforcement of a fundamental right”. Further, Article 32 laid down a “constitutional obligation on the Supreme Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose exercise all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce fundamental rights.” Thus, the Commission, in this case, was a sui generis designate of the Supreme Court with all powers under the jurisdiction of Article 32, including its powers under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. However, the limitations under the Act would not apply. In fact, the Supreme Court’s 12 December 96 order clearly said that except for the registration of criminal cases against the culprits, which the CBI is to do, the Commission would determine all the other issues.
The Supreme Court’s order made it clear that flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale had taken place. As the Court had left “the whole matter to be dealt with by the Commission”, it had to decide on the systemic aspects of the violations as it is inconceivable that violations of this magnitude can take place without the knowledge, approval and complicity of the State’s higher echelons. As the CBI’s investigations, which established mass cremations appeared to cover only three cremation grounds in Amritsar district, the Commission had to extend the investigation to all other cremation grounds in the State as well as to other forms disposing dead bodies with the enforced disappearance as the starting point. Only through a comprehensive investigation the Commission would be able to propose the corrective measures to ensure that such violations do not recur. In formulating the criteria for compensation, the Commission would be guided by the principles of (a) exemplary damages based on strict liability to penalize the wrong doer, as in 1993 2 SCC 746, and through determinations on the extent to which the imperatives of the State’s responsibility to protect the fundamental rights have been offended, and the level of complicity of the political and administrative hierarchies in the violations; (b) the standards of repairing the wrongs caused to the victims and their families, as in 1997 (9) Seale 298, and by taking into account the particular circumstances of each victim and his traumatized family. The Commission should also be guided by the views and decision of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol on Civil and Political Rights on similar matters.
Their arguments emphasized that the powers of the Supreme Court were not interchangeable with other bodies constituted under statute. For this reason, the referral of the issue of compensation as well as the other issues raised in the two writ petitions to the Commission violated the spirit of the Constitution. The Commission can adjudicate only if it is permissible to do so under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The mandate of the Supreme Court cannot have the effect of removing the limitations, which the Act imposed on the functioning of the Commission, particularly its section 36(2) that prohibited it to entertain complaints of violations older than a year. Therefore, the Commission had no choice but to decline adjudication in the matter. In any case, the Supreme Court did not intend it to take up any dispute outside the issue of compensation.
Union government’s arguments, though couched in slightly more decorous terms, were essentially on the same lines, emphasizing that the Act did not give the Commission adjudicatory powers. It was a fact finding body that could only make recommendations to the government. An order of the Supreme Court or the High Court that extended the jurisdiction of a statutory body would be contrary to the constitutional scheme of things and, therefore, could not be complied. The Commission had to act within the limitation of Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Rule 8(I) of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994, which prohibited it from investigating complaints older than a year, the cases that were sub-judice and matters outside its purview. The Union government also argued that compensation could not be paid to legal heirs of “terrorists” who died in police actions and that allegations of atrocities and wrong doing against public servants had to be established through proper investigation before any action could be taken against them.
The counsel for the National Human Rights Commission made the following main arguments, which assume importance in contrasting with the changed perceptions that mark its latest stance on the scope of the inquiry. The counsel argued - then! - that the Commission’s jurisdiction derived not only from the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 but also from the Supreme Court’s 12 December 96 order as well as the mandate of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. The Commission was a unique institution established under the Act to implement India’s commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights. Acting on the additional dimension of jurisdiction under Article 32 provided by the Supreme Court’s order in the present case, the Commission possessed the powers to investigate, inquire, determine liabilities, obligations, duties, and also to identify persons and authorities responsible for violations of human rights, to take further steps to ensure enforcement of such determinations, and to suggest remedial and compensatory measures. It would be absurd to suggest jurisdiction if the powers to consummate it are not simultaneously implied.
On 4 August 1997, the National Human Rights Commission gave a detailed order on these preliminary contentions holding that it was designated as a body sui-generis to carry out the mandate of the Supreme Court, which had referred “the whole matter to be dealt with by the Commission” after concluding that “flagrant violaltion of human rights on a mass scale” had taken place.
Specifically on the question of whether or not the Supreme Court’s reference conferred the plenitude of powers under Article 32, the order relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India[66] and M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India.[67] The two judgements said that where it involved the question of enforcing fundamental rights, the court, under the obligation to protect them which Article 32 imposed, had the power to forge new tools, devise new methods and adopt new strategies. Therefore, Section 36(2), or any other limiting provision of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 would not constrain the Commission’s powers, “as, indeed, it does not function under the provisions of the Act but under the remit of the Supreme Court”, whose powers under Article 32 are not circumscribed by the Act. On the question of the Commission’s power to adjudicate, the order said: “the jurisdiction and the powers of the Commission, to the extent they go, can be sustained on surer grounds which do not attract the vice of “delegation”. The Supreme Court in its order has asked the Commission to have the matter examined… and determine all the issues which are raised before the Commission”. It also observed that “if any approval or further assistance from this court is necessary the same may be sought by the Commission”. Reading these two stipulations together it became obvious that the court retained authority over the matter and any determination by the Commission, wherever necessary and appropriate, would be subject to the court’s approval.
Coming to the issue of compensation, the order referred to a range of decisions of the Suprme Court that lay down the broad parameters of the emerging concept of damages, also the guidelines as to the nature and content to the idea of compensation in public law.[68] The order then referred to the requirements of Article 4(1) in the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984, which the government of India has ratified, and Article 2.3(a) of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which require the State-parties to ensure that their legal systems allow the victims of torture and such persons whose rights or freedoms are violated to obtain redress. They must also have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible, as well as other effective remedies notwithstanding that the violations have been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. The order also referred to the ratio of the Supreme Court’s judgement in PUCL Vs. Union of India,[69] which said that that “the provisions of the Covenant, which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution, can certainly be relied upon by courts as facets of those fundamental rights and hence, enforceable as such.” The PUCL judgement also said that the resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations that lay down universal principles are entitled to incorporation as part of any particular fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian constitution. In Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi,[70] the Supreme Court had declared, long before the 1984 Convention against Torture had come into force, that the protection against torture belonged to the right to life entrenched in Article 21. On the question of the State’s liability towards victims of human rights violations, the Commission’s order strongly relied on the Supreme Court’s judgement in D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, describing it as one of far reaching significance that will shape the future. The judgement said: “…monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation.”
On the question of quantification of compensation, the Commission’s order said that it was first necessary to lay down the factual foundations to establish liability. With this order, the Commission disposed of the contentions on the scope of the inquiry and the powers of the Commission raised as the preliminary issues. The Commission then went on to invite from all the parties suggestions on modalities for further proceedings, and also to devise a pro-forma to invite complaints by public-notice.
We shall take note of some salient points of this order before we move on, as they are crucial to understand the subsequent developments in the case. Firstly, the Commission claimed its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, a guaranteed remedy and itself a fundamental right, which binds the Supreme Court to act against all complaint human rights violations. Secondly, it concluded that the Supreme Court had referred the whole matter to the Commission, to determine and adjudicate all the issues arising from the CBI’s report, which established flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale. All the references to concepts of damages, fair and adequate compensation in public law, the right to rehabilitation and redressal of established infringements revolve around Article 21 as a compendious guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is also affirmed that the State is vicariously liable for the acts of infringement committed by public servants and that the argument of sovereign immunity will not be available against claims of citizens for just and adequate compensation and punishment of the offender. Finally, the Commission asked for specific circumstances and the factual contents of all complaints as the basis to establish liability and to quantify compensation.
On 30 August 1997, the Commission convened a meeting of all the parties to discuss the modalities of further proceedings and also to make suggestions on the format of the pro-forma, which should be used to invite complaints and claims. The Committee’s written submissions emphasised the importance of synthesising the imperatives of transparency as well as the necessity to protect the primary data elicited through pro-formas from the dangers of abuses. It was also important that the Commission devised a way of managing and processing the data to ensure reliability of complaints and also to satisfy the subsequent requirements of analysis and cross-referencing. Because the need for completeness and reliability of disclosures and claims, as also the necessity to clearly understand the patterns of violations could require the Commission to undertake further in-depth investigations. Adjudication on patterns of violations and the development of criteria to quantify compensation could only develop from a satisfactory completion of this investigative process.
The Committee also submitted a design for the suggested pro-forma to elicit complaints and claims, which it had developed after consulting several international human rights organisations. (Annexture ?) It was suggested that the pro-forma should be available at primary health centers, post offices, offices of village revenue officials, block development officers, sub-divisional magistrates and district magistrates. They should also be available at jails and other custodial institutions.
As the first step, the Commission should publish a public notice that would begin with a clear statement on the mandate of the Commission. It should carry an assurance that confidentiality of the information shall be maintained and that complainants need not disclose the identities of witnesses while completing the pro-formas. They could supply this information later to the Commission in complete confidentiality. The notice should also say that anyone who made false statements would be liable to prosecution for perjury. Finally, the notice should specify the places where the pro-forma would be available, the places where the completed forms may be deposited, the date by which it should be done and their right to obtain receipts. These forms should then be forwarded to the Commission in sealed boxes. A specially constituted Secretariat of the Commission should then scrutinize the forms and collate the information in the following categories: a) Cases under each police-district, b) cases in which deaths are established, c) if established, whether there are corresponding entries in any record like the cremation ground record, municipal record or police record; d) cases in which deaths are not established; e) cases in which dead bodies were not handed over to the relatives; f) cases in which dead bodies were handed over to the relatives; g) the cases in which the bodies were cremated by the police as lawaris; h) cases in which prior to disappearance/ death the person was alleged to have been in police custody; i) cases in which there are witnesses to support this allegation; j) cases in which complaint/ representation as to the disappearance or police custody was made; k) cases in which the authorities responded to the complaint/ representation; l) cases in which destruction and/ or expropriation of property is also involved, m) cases in which more than one member of the family disappeared or died.
After processing this data, the Commission should call for information from the police. This should be done by giving them the names and other particulars of the missing/dead person. They may admit or deny knowledge or custody. They may have an explanation of death or disappearance. They will be required to substantiate their position by producing records, their diaries, their own dead-body disposal registers and so on. The police should also be asked to furnish explanation for the illegal cremations detailed in the CBI report. Independently, the Commission should call for the following official records: The cremation ground records of each police district insofar as they relate to cremations carried out by the police; the municipal records pertaining to dead bodies disposed of by the police; the records of each police district pertaining to custodial deaths and encounters; press releases including photographs issued by the police or the state government relating to deaths in custody, escapes and deaths in armed encounters.
Examination and processing of these sources of information would yield patterns of violations, which would lay the foundation for the adjudicative stage of the Commission’s proceedings.
When the Commission met for further hearing on 4 September 1997, the standing counsel for the central government moved an application praying that the proceedings of the Commission be stayed for three months as the Central government and the Ministry of Home Affairs, not being in agreement with the Commission’s order of 4 August 1997, wished to move the Supreme Court for a clarification. The Commission adjourned the matter till 6 October 1997 to given them time.
The Union government’s application for clarification reiterated the objections, which it had earlier raised before the Commission. The application was heard by Justice Saghir Ahmed, who had shared the bench with Justice Kuldip Singh in remitting the matter to the National Human Rights Commission, and Justice S. Rajendra Babu. The verdict, which came a year later on 10 September 98, said that the National Human Right’s Commission’s findings on all the four preliminary issues were explicit and clear and reflected the intention of the court as set out in its 12 December 1996 order. The judgment clearly said that “In deciding the matters referred by this court, National Human Rights Commission is given a free hand and is not circumscribed by any conditions."” This elucidation settled the issue of jurisdiction and the Commission’s powers.
Unfortunately, the part of the order regarding the ambit of the inquiry contained some ambiguities, which the Commission would later use to make its about turn on the scope of the inquiry. First it said, “The matter relating to 585 dead bodies, which were fully identified, 274 partially identified and 1238 unidentified dead bodies, has already been referred to the Commission, which has rightly held itself to be a body sui generis in the instant case.” This emphasis on the number of bodies cited in the CBI’s report left some margin for the interpretation, contrary to the mandate of Article 32, that the inquiry would not encompass the wider patterns of police abductions leading to disappearances and secret disposal of bodies. Later in the order, the court seemed to overturn the narrow interpretation on the ambit of the inquiry in favor of a more comprehensive approach. Referring to 22 July 96 direction given by the Court to the CBI to issue a general notice to the public, including any authority and government office, to place any information or material available with them to assist the investigating agency to ascertain the identities and circumstances in which the large number of dead bodies had been cremated, the court concluded that “It is in the background of the above order that the order dated 12th December 1996 is to be read, in which this court had stated as under: “Without going into the matter any further, we leave the whole matter to be dealt with by the Commission”. By the force of Article 32, invested in the Commission to overcome its statutory limitations, the “whole matter” obviously meant infringement of all the fundamental rights that arise from the CBI’s findings. But the wordings of the order were by no means unequivocal on this important issue, as they should have been.
In fact, the court ought to have known better: It was familiar with the disposition of the authorities to hamper the inquiry from going into the systemic aspects of the violations. The authorities had from the very beginning harped on “impermissible delegation of powers”, which exceeded the scope under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and they had claimed all along that the Commission should, therefore, decline to adjudicate the issues that arose from the reference. True, the court’s ruling that “in deciding the matters referred by this court, National Human Rights Commission is given a free hand and is not circumscribed by any conditions,” should have been enough to end the controversy. But another observation in the court’s order not only left the argument open but also created the necessary legal ambiguity, which would allow the Commission to invert its earlier positions. Referring to the ongoing investigations by the CBI, the court said: “The investigation by the CBI has been ordered and is being done to determine and establish some other facets, including culpability of those responsible for violation of human rights. The remaining issues have been referred to the Commission. They obviously relate to violation of human rights. If on a publication of general notice, as proposed by the Commission, which incidentally was also done by the CBI in pursuance of our Order dated 22 July 96, complaints relating to violation of human rights are filed before the Commission, it will investigate into those complaints in accordance with the provisions of the Act, specially Section 17 thereof and will also take such steps, after enquiry, as are deemed fit by it in the light of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act.” This part of the order seemed to confuse the issues once again since it was possible to argue that whereas the Commission would adjudicate the matter of 2098 bodies without any limitations, it will investigate other complaints that may result from the publication of the notice in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
This legal muddle was to prove an unremovable stumbling clock, and to frustrate yet again years of efforts - just when these efforts were at last showing promise of bearing fruit and forcing our institutions to account for their deeds..
The court’s order concluded with some critical remarks on the attitude of the parties before the Commission. It said, this “is not a healthy attitude and does not represent the effort to assist the Commission for a quick conclusion of the proceedings so that if there have been any violations of human rights, the families affected thereby may be rehabilitated and adequately compensated.” The court went on to say, “We also do not approve of the conduct of the parties in approaching this court for clarification of the order of the Commission by way of a miscellaneous petition which was filed on 3 October 1997 and has remained pending in this court for ten months, during which period the Commission could have had disposed of the whole matter.” .
Although the court’s order purported to settle all the preliminary issues, it would soon lead us to a deadlock. It is this deadlock that this report aims to highlight and remedy. As it is, we may have no choice but to revert to the Supreme Court for a clarification even though the court has indicated its disapproval of the parties approaching it for clarification on the Commission’s orders.
But let us get on with the further developments in the case. The Commission met again on 16 September 98, after its proceedings in the matter had been stalled for more than a year. Although the agenda was to develop clear modalities for the inquiry and to finalize the Public Notice to invite complaints and claims, the Commission popped up the issue of “filters” to be applied so that the matter would not become excessively enlarged. The Union and the State governments renewed their claims to circumscribe the inquiry to the locations, the numbers and the mode of disposal of dead bodies cited in the CBI’s report. The Committee made written submissions to argue that any contention to limit the inquiry, as desired by the Union and the Punjab governments, would be wholly repugnant to the Supreme Court’s express intent. The CBI may have chosen to limit its investigations of the cremations at Durgiyana Mandir, Patti and Tarn Taran crematoria for the reason that their records had already been supplied by the Committee. For the Commission to repeat the same exercise and to exclude all other issues of violations that remained undetermined would not only be devoid of reason but also constitute a substantial abridgement of the Supreme Court’s order. Illegal cremations, burials, entombment or quartering and drowning of bodies in canals, as issues, must remain secondary to the principal theme of fundamental rights whose violations had preceded and culminated in one or the other form of disposal.
On 13 January 1999, the National Human Rights Commission passed yet another order, which it called “ORDER ON THE SCOPE OF INQUIRY”, whose net import was to ‘deconstruct’ - to demolish, if you prefer - our own understanding of the mandate, which was fully consonant with the Commission’s earlier decision on the preliminary issues and which the Supreme Court’s 10 September 98 clarification seemed to affirm with some ambiguities. The Commission posed the problem succinctly: “The petitioners contend that the Commission is required to inquire into all incidents of what are referred to as "extra-judicial eliminations" or "involuntary disappearances", "fake encounters", "abductions and killings", etc. alleged to have been committed by the Punjab Police during the decade of 1984-1994. The contention of the Union and the State of Punjab on the other hand is that the inquiry is restricted only to 2097 cases of cremation of the bodies - 585 fully identified, 274 partially identified and 1238 unidentified - in the Police Districts of Amritsar, Tarn Taran and Majitha.”
To resolve the controversy, the Commission decided to revert back to the history of the litigation and the Supreme Court’s orders to search for the contradictions within their interstices to support a reversal of its earlier position.
The Commission referred to the Court’s 15 November 95 order directing the CBI to undertake the inquiry into the Press Note released by Jaswant Singh Khalra on 16 January 95, which was titled “Disappeared: Cremation grounds”. According to the Commission, the press note talked about a large number of human bodies being cremated in the district of Amritsar as “unidentified”, 700 bodies at Tarn Taran Municipal crematorium, 400 at Patti Municipal ground and 2000 at Durgiyana Mandir cremations ground. The Commission’s order claimed that “the Press Note did not speak of any illegal executions or similar cremations in any other District of Punjab”. The Supreme Court ordered the CBI to investigate the allegations contained in the Press Note, “which related only to the cremations at the three crematoria of Amritsar district.” Accordingly, “the scope of the inquiry was restricted”.
The Commission conceded that some paragraphs in the petition filed by the Committee referred to extra-judicial executions and disappearances alleged to have occurred all over the State. However, these statements were general in nature and were not backed by material evidence to support them. Therefore, “they did not admit of specific traversal except by way of general denials.” In the Commission’s opinion, the pleadings taken as a whole centered around the main grievance that extra-judicial killings and disappearances had culminated in the cremations at Durgiyana and Patti Municipal cremation grounds. Thus, so far as the CBI was concerned the scope of the inquiry ordered by the Supreme Court was limited to the allegations in the Press Note about the cremations in Amritsar district. As the petitioners did not seek modification of the Supreme Court's order of inquiry by the CBI, it was obvious that all the parties agreed that “the inquiry was and should be limited to cremations in Amritsar district.” The Commission went on to conclude: “By analogy and parity of reasoning, it requires to be understood that the scope of the remit to the Commission was similar though the purpose is different.”
To buttress the conclusion, the order referred to the Public Notice carried by the CBI in Punjab’s newspapers which said that the investigating agency was “making an enquiry into the matter pertaining to disposal of unidentified/unclaimed dead bodies in three Police Districts of Amritsar, Majitha and Tarn Taran between June, 1984 to December, 1994.” This showed the CBI’s understanding on the scope of the inquiry. The petitioners should have moved the Supreme Court for a direction to the CBI to enlarge the scope, if in their opinion the investigating agency had misunderstood the court’s intention. Absence of any such endeavor indicated their agreement. Also, they did not raise objections even as the CBI kept filing its reports, culminating in the fifth and the final report filed on 9 December 96, which disclosed 585 fully identified, 247 partially identified and 1238 unidentified bodies. As the Supreme Court remitted the matter in consideration of this final report, the scope of the inquiry by the Commission had to be accordingly restricted.
The Commission’s order then responded to the Committee’s arguments on a more expansive scope of the proceedings. About the wide terms in which the Supreme Court had refer the matter to the Commission in its 12 December order, the Commission said that they did not have the effect of enlarging the scope of the inquiry instituted by the court with its 15 November 95 order, limited to the allegations in Jaswant Singh Khalra’s 16 January 95 Press Note. The wide terms of reference in 12 December 96 order only related to the issues or compensation and other appropriate reliefs, whenever justified, arising from the cremations in the three police districts of Amritsar. The Commission claimed further support for this conclusion from the Supreme Court’s 10 September 98 clarification, which disposed of the Union government’s application against the Commission’s 4 August 97 order. The Supreme Court’s clarification had said: "The matter relating to 585 dead bodies (which were fully identified), 274 partially identified and 1238 unidentified dead bodies, has already been referred to the Commission which has rightly held itself to be a body sui generis in the instant case." In conclusion, the Commission said: “The contention of the Petitioners to the contrary that the Commission should undertake an investigation of all the alleged Police killings in the State of Punjab, apart from being extremely expansive in nature, does not seem to square or be reconcilable with the express terms of the Court's remit.”
The most important point about this order, which restricts the inquiry to “cremations”, “the given number of 2097 bodies” and the “location of Amritsar district”, is the pivotal importance it attributes to Khalra’s 16 January 95 Press Note, and the conclusion that “it did not speak of any illegal executions or similar cremations in any other District of Punjab.” It is a matter of record that Khalra’s Press Note, (Annexture ?) made a passionate statement on common patterns of police abductions, disappearances and extra-judicial executions throughout the State, using the records of cremations in Amritsar only as an example of the larger reality. It is also known that the Supreme Court had withheld the CBI’s report as a secret document, which left us no chance to study its contents let alone challenge them. It was also absurd for the Commission to suggest that the scope of the inquiry was limited by the CBI’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s order and our failure to seek modifications in the directions. We cannot explain why the CBI decided to confine its investigations to those records of cremations that we had already furnished, in stead of finding out if such events occurred in other parts of Punjab as well. Few substantiated facts through purely voluntary effort were brought to the Supreme Court’s notice. That cost Jaswant Singh Khalra his life. The Commission’s order suggested that our allegations about larger patterns of abductions, disappearances, extra-judicial killings and secret disposal of dead bodies did not admit of traversal except by way of denial because they were substantiated by material evidence. This is downright absurd. Our specific allegations are all supported by proofs. This should be enough to shift on the State authorities the burden of proving that such violations have NOT taken place in other parts of Punjab. Even the State of India has made no such claim. The CBI report, far from ruling out such occurrences in the rest of Punjab, renders them strongly probable. Be that as it may, this order of the NHRC is an abomination. It grates on our understanding of truth and restorative justice, and it goes squarely against the fundamental principles of human rights law as it has developed in this country. Just marvel at the logic of it all: on the one hand, the Commission is employing the competence of Article 32, a constitutionally guaranteed remedy against infringement of all fundamental rights of citizens, to amplify its powers beyond the statute, which created it. But simultaneously, it insists on disallowing the benefits of this guaranteed remedy to the citizens who have suffered the violations. This indeed is extraordinary.
The National Human Rights Commission is an expert body created by statute to fulfill Indian obligations under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. By the injunction of Article 32, and agitated by the larger implications of the CBI report, the Supreme Court remitted this matter to the Commission. The main issues to be adjudged are enforced disappearances and arbitrary executions, carried out by the State agencies, which culminated in illegal cremations and disposal of bodies in ways that remain largely unknown. This is the inescapable conclusion that follows from the composite reading of the allegations and the prayers in the writ petitions, the Supreme Court’s initial order asking the CBI to investigate, the order by which the Supreme Court referred the matter to the NHRC, the Commission’s own findings on the preliminary issues and, finally, the Supreme Court’s clarification on the Union government’s objections.
The Commission refuses to acknowledge enforced disappearances, arbitrary executions and secret and hasty disposal of dead bodies, outside the CBI’s list of 2097 cremations in Amritsar, as issues pertinent to the matter. Article 1 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance condemns this crime as “a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances points out that cases of disappearance cannot be closed and must be treated as continuing crime until whereabouts of the victims, dead or alive, are made known by the State agencies to the satisfaction of relatives, and their right to obtain redress including medical, psychological, legal and social rehabilitation are recognized. Alike are the stipulations, under the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. As we earlier observed, the Supreme Court itself described enforced disappearance as the worst crime against humanity.
The territorial limitation to the inquiry imposed by the Commission would burden us with other restrictions and completely defeat the ends of justice. Without a comprehensive inquiry, it is not possible to establish the regions of Punjab the 1500 unidentified bodies, cited in the CBI’s cremation report, came from. The records of the three burning grounds in Amritsar that we had furnished pertained to the period from 1991 to 1993. Presumably, the period of inquiry by the CBI was also limited to this time. However, the notification published by the Commission has enlarged the time span from 1984 to 1994 while keeping the inquiry limited to the number of bodies cited in the CBI’s report. The logic behind this expansion of time frame by the Commission, while giving up on all other relevant issues, is inscrutable indeed. Although many unidentified bodies cremated at these sites between 1991 and 1993 would have come from far-flung districts of Punjab, it should be possible to cover up the truth by associating the numbers in the CBI’s report to more than 2000 persons in the district of Amritsar who disappeared in the span of a decade.
The notification and the questionnaires circulated by the Commission to invite claims put the emphasis on compensation that the legal heirs to illegally cremated victims should eventually receive. However, the questionnaires circulated by the Commission skip over all the destructive experiences of victims so necessary to develop criteria for monetary compensation and other restorative and rehabilitative measures. For example, the questionnaires seek details of occupation, income, property owned by claimants and persons whose bodies had been cremated. But they offer no columns for the claimants to inform the Commission about destruction, theft and confiscation of their immovable property, cattle, crops and chattel. Likewise, no attempt has been made to measure psychological damages and their consequences suffered by relatives of victims. The questionnaires indicate that the Commission does not also care for the plights of widows and orphans as issues relevant to determination of compensation.
The rules of evidence and some other aspects of the procedure suggested by the Commission lack conceptual deftness and comprehension of intricacies involved in an inquiry of this nature. These deficiencies, synthesizing with other anomalies already discussed, would create obstacles in the way of monetarily compensating the victims of illegal cremations in Amritsar by standards of fairness, adequacy and justness. The Commission has invited claims from legal heirs of people who got illegally cremated in Amritsar district in the period between 1984 and 1994. The 13 January 1999 order of the Commission has also asked the State government to file before the Commission a list of all the unidentified cremations in the district done by the police in the same period. The order lays the initial burden to prove legality of the cremations on the State authorities. The supposed onus of proof on the State is meaningless in a situation that does not afford the victims any means to assail plain lies. Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act turn the burden to prove death of a disappeared person on one who claims it. State authorities can take the cover of these sections to disclaim responsibility for such cases of enforced disappearances. Payment of compensation is unlikely for so long as the presumption of death is not established. Some countries like Chile and South Africa have exhumed mortal remains from graves and other undesignated places to forensically identify people who got clandestinely buried after having got abducted by the security agencies. But exhumation and other forensic methods would not salvage identities of those who got surreptitiously burnt and their ashes washed away in rivers and canals. A judicial declaration on presumption of death can help. However, no such declaration can come forth through a process that excludes enforced disappearance as an issue for scrutiny.
These are some of the points on which we abhor the NHRC’s scuttling of its remit under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Our understanding of the mandate is: (1) The Commission is duty bound to investigate and give its findings on every complaint of illegal abduction, enforced disappearance, arbitrary execution and disposal of dead body carried out throughout Punjab. (2) Further, it has to examine the antecedents, circumstances, factors and context of such violations to determine the variety of overlapping rights inherent in the rights to life, liberty, and equality before the law which have been destroyed. (3) The Commission also has to unravel the multifold spiral of responsibility/ irresponsibility that permitted systematic practice of crimes against humanity, and in particular to identify the officials and agencies that conducted, connived or knew, and did not take measures in their power to prevent, suppress or to expose these wrong-doings. (4) The inquiry has also to identify the victims, be they individuals or collectives, who suffered harm, including physical and mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or denial of other fundamental rights. The process of identification has also to include, apart from the family and dependents of those disappeared and killed, all such persons who suffered harm in the process of attempting to prevent these offences and in helping their victims. (5) The Commission had then to quantify compensation and develop other measures of restitution and rehabilitation on criteria to be evolved through determination of the aforementioned issues.
After marshalling all our arguments against the 13 January 99 order, the review application requested the Commission to seek directions from the Supreme Court by formulating the issues that we had raised, if it was not willing to review its own order. The Supreme Court’s 12 December 96 order explicitly mentioned that “if any approval or further assistance from this court is necessary, the same may be sought by the Commission.” Our application also requested the Commission to withhold the publication of the Public Notice, which it proposed to issue on 31 January 99, as long as our review application was not disposed of. The Commission decided to go ahead with the publication of the Public Notice, and dismissed our review application, after hearing the arguments, with an order which it released on 24 March 99. The order said that the Commission had carefully considered the Committee’s arguments which had been raised earlier, and are nor reiterated. The relevant question was not whether the Commission should or should not investigate the serious issues arising out of what is perceived as a violation of human rights on a mass scale. The relevant question is whether the remit and the mandate of the Supreme Court, from which the Commission draws jurisdiction, has the scope for this. It was the Commission’s view that the directions of the Supreme Court did not envisage a wider investigation of all the alleged extra-judicial executions or enforced disappearances in the State of Punjab, but referred to the issue of cremation of 2097 bodies as unclaimed bodies in the police districts of Amritsar, Patti and Tarn Taran. About the contention that the Commission could not ignore the systemic patterns in the killings that culminated in the cremations, the Order said that if such patterns are disclosed from the examination of 2097 cases of cremations, it would then consider what further action to take within the remit. Elucidating the Commission’s methods to determine the illegality of cremations, the order explained that apart from inviting claims from the members of the effected public, it has also directed the State of Punjab to explain each cremation in the three police districts. The government had to file before 10 March 99, a chronological list of all the cremations done in the three cremation grounds between June 1984 and December 1994, and also explain in respect of each cremation whether the authorities had observed the rules that have to be followed for cremating unclaimed and unidentified dead bodies. If necessary, and at the appropriate stage, the Commission would examine the details about the compliance or non-compliance with the rules and their consequences. The order also declined the suggestion that the Commission should seek further directions from the Supreme Court on the scope of the inquiry, because it had no doubts on the mandate from the Supreme Court. Thus, the review petition was dismissed.
1: Having failed to persuade the Commission to either review its order, in the light of our submissions, or to refer the matter back to the Supreme Court for clarification, as it has been mandated by the court, we have no option but to take the latter course ourselves. As we have already said, the restrictions imposed on the inquiry fundamentally affront our understanding of truth and restorative justice. As the Commission pointed out in its 4 August 97 order,[71] the court retained “seisin over the matter and any determination by the Commission, wherever necessary and appropriate, would be subject to this power of approval…”. Naturally, the principles that would guide the Court in approving or revising any determination by the Commission, must be consistent with the jurisdiction of Article 32, which is not only the source of the court’s power, but also the Commission’s own authority as a body sui-generis. This matter of enforced disappearances and secret disposal of dead bodies came within the regime of Art. 32, when on 15 November 1995, the court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to examine the facts contained in Jaswant Singh Khalra’s Press Note dated 16 January 1995. As the record will show, the Press Note (Appendix G) makes an ardent appeal on common patterns of police abductions, disappearances and extra-judicial executions throughout the State, using the records of cremations in Amritsar only as an example of the larger reality. Again on 22 July 95, the court directed the CBI to seek assistance from the public at large “since large number of dead bodies have been allegedly disposed of.” The direction only refers to alleged disposal of large number of bodies, without circumventing the inquiry in any way. It is not our responsibility to explain how the CBI grasped the court’s directions or why it confined its investigations to only those cremation grounds whose records had come essentially from our own investigations. Be that as it may, the CBI’s investigation report disclosed, in Supreme Court’s own words, “flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale”. It is on this finding, that the court referred “the whole matter to be dealt with by the Commission”, requiring it to “have the matter examined in accordance with law and determine all the issues which are raised before the Commission by the learned counsel for the parties”. From the very beginning we maintained that the illegal cremations carried out by the police in Amritsar, which we substantiated with the records from three crematoria, are part of a larger pattern of abductions, disappearances, extra-judicial killings and secret disposal of dead bodies that had been common to the whole of Punjab. The specific allegations that we made have been proved, and it cannot be said that the CBI’s report rules out such occurrences in the rest of Punjab.
For these reasons, the Commission under the mandate of the Supreme Court cannot exclude complaints from other parts of the State, especially in the light of further evidence that we are introducing to brace up our oft-repeated claim that what happened in Amritsar repeated elsewhere. The evidence that we are now presenting has two distinct components. The first part consists of municipal corporation records of illegal cremations at six crematoria, all outside Amritsar. The records are from Zira, Mansa, Kapurthala, Faridkot and Ludhiana.
The second part of the evidence draws from victim-testimony and survivors discourse, which the Committee has assiduously compiled by recording interviews with the close relatives of those who got abducted, disappeared, killed, and cremated, and by getting them to fill an Incident Report Proforma, designed to capture complaints of human rights violations with all their ramifications. This evidence is specially valuable because it relies on the ‘counter memory’ of those who were at the receiving end of police brutality in those days, and also, more disturbingly, largely left out of the accounts of many ‘human rights champions’. Therefore, to gain a better understanding of the nature of the investigation and of the issues involved, let us hearken to the victims’ own voice, and let us for a while forget the dry legalities and theoreticalities into which the Commission has been translating their human woes.
All the Incident-Reports and the bodies listed in the six further records of illegal cremations inseparably belong to the same matter of enforced disappearance and illegal disposal of dead bodies, which the Supreme Court brought under the regime of Article 32 in November 95. All these incidents arise out of the same context of State repression, which we had taken to the Supreme Court for remedy and restitution by filing the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 447/95 in April 95 under Articles 32, 21, 19 and 14 of the Constitution.
There is a close correspondence between the numbers of enforced disappearances reported in Amritsar district and the numbers of illegal cremations cited in the CBI’s report. Further records of illegal cremations in other districts of Punjab authenticate a common pattern. Our own documentation of survivor testimonies also show widespread practices of abductions accompanied by destruction of property, custodial torture, extortion, leading to disappearances, reports of killings in so called “encounters”, or escapes from the State custody. In the circumstances, the procedure of inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission, mandated by the Supreme Court, must invite all complaints of enforced disappearance and arbitrary killing, as well as all records of cremations carried out by the police, the official records pertaining to custodial deaths and encounters, press releases issued by the State authorities relating to deaths in custody, escapes and deaths in armed encounters. Examination and comparison of these sources of information would help to resolve many cases of enforced disappearance. We have already submitted our suggestions on the modalities for the gathering and processing of data.
Amnesty International’s “Disappearances and Political Killings: A Manual for Action,” released from Amsterdam in 1994, propose standards and techniques of investigation that confirm to the UN Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, which the UN’s Special Rapporteur uses to assess governmental investigations. The UN Manual on page 14 states, “Non-compliance with the standards can be publicized and pressure brought against non-complying governments, especially where extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions are believed to have occurred. If a government refuses to establish impartial inquest procedures in such cases, it might be inferred that the government is hiding such executions”.[72]
The Manual for Action proposes techniques of investigation, some of which would be very efficacious in this case, including collection and examination of evidence from eyewitnesses, interviewing the involved officials, the personnel from the cremation sites, human rights activists, lawyers and journalists who may have investigated these cases, detailed expert examination of the scene of death, ballistic examination of ammunition and firearms used in the killings, and autopsy reports.
Most of the bodies illegally cremated by the police had been subjected to autopsy. These autopsy reports, when compared with unresolved complaints of disappearances, should normally be helpful in establishing identities of victims. The Chief Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital at Patti had informed us that the post-mortem procedure in the period of unrest in Punjab had become a total travesty. The investigation should attempt to ascertain whether the doctors conducting the autopsy were professionally competent, impartial and independent of those responsible for the deaths. It should also answer whether the doctors had independent access to investigative data, including the places where deaths supposedly occurred, whether the autopsy reports described all injuries, including evidence of torture, all marks of identification, details of X-ray examination, photography, histological examination of tissues, etc., as mandated in the Model Autopsy Protocol included in the UN Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions.
Parallel examination of these varied sources of information and evidence would resolve many cases of enforced disappearances. It would also help in tracing so-called unidentified bodies cremated by the police back to their origin, in identifying the identities of the perpetrators and the common patterns of operations by the security forces, which led to the violations under investigation. The cases in which identities of victims, the causes, manner and the circumstances of their disappearance, death and cremation get established can then move on to the stages of reparation and restitution. The cases in which only enforced disappearance is proved but not the victims’ fate, the Commission can devise the appropriate legal procedure to establish the presumption of death and enable the dependants to avail compensation. Instances of illegal cremations in which victims are not identified will enhance the burden of State’s liability in the measures for individual and collective reparations.
However, the National Human Rights Commission’s 13 January 99 order, later confirmed by its rejection of our review petition, will not only exclude all these cases, including the further records of illegal cremations, but will even embargo the issues of enforced disappearance and custodial killing outside the purview of the CBI’s report from the Supreme Court’s remit. Because in the Commission’s view, as it says in its 24 March 99 order,[73] “the scope of the subject-matter of the inquiry by the Commission pertains to the examination of and grant, in appropriate cases, of relief to the cases of 2097 persons whose bodies were cremated in the crematoria of the three police districts of Amritsar, Tarn Taran and Majitha ...”.
This view of the Supreme Court’s remit, if it comes to prevail, would not only subvert the regime of Article 32, but also completely obliterate the meaning of Articles 21 and 14, which have been entreated as constituting the substance of the Committee’s petition. Let us briefly recall what these Articles really mean, beginning with Article 21 which says that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
The meaning of this Article has been very penetratingly deliberated in the history of Indian Supreme Court from the time of A. K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras.[74] There is no dispute that the Article 21 is a compendious guarantee, in the Chapter III of the Constitution, which includes the variety of requirements that make up the right to life and liberty. Justice Patanjali Shastri explained in A. K. Gopalan that the right to live, though the most fundamental of all, is also one of the most difficult to define and its protection generally takes the form of a declaration that no person shall be deprived of it save by procedure established by law, which means positive or State made law.
In Kharak Singh Vs. State of U. P.,[75] Justice Ayyangar quoted an American Judge of the Supreme Court to explain that “By the term life as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all these limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body or amputation of an arm or leg or the putting out of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world… By the term liberty, as used in the provision, something more is meant than mere freedom from physical restraint or the bounds of a prison.”[76] Justice Ayyangar goes on to quote Justice Frankfurter, as from the American Supreme Court, to the meaning of liberty: “The security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police… is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in the concept of “ordered liberty” and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause. The knock at the door, whether by day or by night, as a prelude to a search, without authority of law but solely on the authority of the police, did not need the commentary of recent history to be condemned as inconsistent with the conception of human rights enshrined in the history and the basic constitutional documents of English-speaking peoples… We have no hesitation in saying that were a State affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy it would run counter to the guarantee of the fourteenth amendment.”[77]
In straight terms, the right to liberty means that no one be subjected to imprisonment, arrest or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification. As Justice Subba Rao explained in the same case,[78] psychological restraints as also “the creation of conditions which necessarily engender inhibitions and fear complexes” can be described as physical restraint. If a man is shadowed, his movements become constricted. He moves physically like an automaton without freedom. The whole country becomes his jail. “The freedom of movement therefore must be a movement in a free country, i.e., in a country where he can do whatever he likes, speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of his own choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the law…”
This comprehensively view of right to life and liberty suffered a major reversal during the period of the Emergency when the suspension of all the fundamental rights by the regime was justified by the Supreme Court in A. D. M., Jabalpur Vs S. Sukhla.[79] Justice M. H. Beg echoed the common position: “The will of the State, indicated in some form of expression, is the law, the subject of jurisprudence, and no natural rule which may exist, forms a part of the law unless identified with the will of the State so indicated. What the State wills is the coterminous measure of law; no preexisting rule is the measure of that will.”[80]
This position, inconspicuously present already in the ratio of A. K. Gopalan, became alleviated by the affects of the forty-forth amendment of the constitution in 1978, and by the ratio of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India.[81] The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 provides that the suspension of fundamental rights under any law or executive order in the situation of a proclaimed Emergency, under Articles 358 and 359 of the Constitution, can be shielded only if the suspension is limited to the purpose of the Emergency through a clear recital. It also provides that the enforcement of right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be destroyed even in such a situation.[82]
In an important judgement, Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court pronounced that parliament cannot claim unlimited powers to amend the constitution to the extent that it abrogates its basic features. The judgment resulted in the annulment of the Clause 4 of Article 368 that sought to save amendments of the Constitution including its chapter on fundamental rights from being challenged in any court on any ground. To an extent it also recovered the power of judicial review, which had been lost to the affectation of legislative omnipotence, as an essential feature of the Constitution itself.[83] Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, in so far as it imports the test of reasonableness and fairness to determine the validity of a law that deprives personal liberty, is described as a landmark in the juridical rehabilitation of the concept of due process which had been given a short shrift by the majority view in Gopalan Vs. State of Madras. The emphasis on the "procedure established by law” in Article 21 was now to be moderated by the dictum that the law must also prescribe a procedure which is not arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. The case also restored the necessary amplitude to the interpretation of rights to life and liberty by underscoring the variety of overlapping rights they incorporate. It followed that a substantive legal restriction on the rights to life and liberty must not, as its inevitable corollary, excessively infringe on other rights immanent in them. Article 32 is the remedy against any such infringement.
In Minerva Mills Vs. Union of India[84] Chief Justice Chandrachud referred to the following statement of Dr. Ambedkar, which he had made in the Constituent Assembly, to explain the importance of Art. 32 in the Constitutional scheme of life in India: “If I was asked to name any particular Article in this Constitution as the most important - an Article without which this Constitution wold be a nullity - I could not refer to any other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution… and I am glad that the House has realized its importance.”[85]
Article 32 does not merely empower the Supreme Court to insure enforcement of fundamental rights, guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution. It actually exists as a “guaranteed remedy”, itself belonging to the Part III of the Constitution, which the citizens can claim as a matter of right. This principle was long ago settled in Romesh Thappar vs. The State of Madras.[86] The principle was further strengthened in Sheoshankar Vs. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh[87]when Justice Hidayatullah clarified that whereas Art. 226 leaves it within the discretion of the High Court whether to entertain a petition or not, Art. 32 makes it obligatory upon the Supreme Court. It is a power that is to be used “eo instanti”.
Kochuni Moopil Nayar Vs. State of Madras[88] reaffirmed these principles and further said that the Court could not refuse a petition under Art. 32 even when it involved disputed questions of fact. In Ujjam Bai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,[89]Justice Subba Rao proclaimed: “This court has no more important function than to preserve the inviolable fundamental rights of the people; for, the fathers of the Constitution, in their fullest confidence, have entrusted them to the care of this court and given to it all the institutional conditions necessary to exercise its jurisdiction in that regard without fear or favor. The task is delicate and sometimes difficult; but this court has to discharge it to the best of its ability and not to abdicate it on the fallacious ground of inability or inconvenience…”[90]
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury Vs. The Union of India[91] laid down that the regime of Article 32 cannot be encumbered by determinations of legislative and executive operations which, irrespective of their legality, will have to confirm to its mandate. It further said that the wide regime of Art. 32, which gives the Supreme Court great discretion in the matter of framing its writs to suit the exigencies of particular cases, is such that a petition cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that the proper writ or direction has not been prayed for.
Article 14:
Article 14, which has been very extensively debated in the annals of India’s higher judiciary, runs as follows: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” Corresponding to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, the Article in plain words means that all persons under like circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike and will not be subject to any kind of discrimination, either in privileges conferred or in liabilities imposed. The first part of the Article is a declaration of equality of the civil rights of all persons, and the second part ensures equal protection of law to all persons in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties without discrimination or favoritism. As Justice K. Subba Rao explained in Lachman Dass Vs. State of Punjab[92], “Equality before law is a negative concept; equal protection of laws is a positive one. The former declares that every one is equal before law, that no one can claim special privileges and that all classes are equally subjected to the ordinary law of the land; the latter postulates an equal protection of all alike in the same situation and under like circumstances.”
The Article does not forbid legislative classification, nor does it take away from the State the powers to develop convenient categories for purposes of police, tax or eminent domain laws, or for purposes to ensure public health, safety, morals, in short, the general welfare of the people. But they must be based on reasonable grounds of distinction. It does not allow class legislation, or arbitrary selections. Justice K. Subba Rao explained in Lachman Dass Vs. State of Punjab: “It shall also be remembered that a citizen is entitled to a fundamental right of equality before the law and that the doctrine of classification is only a subsidiary rule evolved by courts to give a practical content to the said doctrine. Overemphasis on the doctrine of classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the article of its glorious content… the fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws may be replaced by the doctrine of classification.”[93]
Article 14 does not require things that are different in fact to be equal in law. But there must exist some reasonable condition to rationalize the difference. Class legislation or administrative actions discriminating in substance and in effect some citizens against others would be unconstitutional. Law for the purposes of Article 14 includes, as defined in Article 13 of the Constitution, any order, notification and executive order. The Article also applies equally to substantive and procedural laws. In order to pass the test, every law and rule of procedure must fulfill three conditions: (1) The classification must be based on perceptible attributes to establish its dissimilarity from what is being left out from the grouping. (2) Those attributes must be relevant to the purpose for which the classification is being made. (3) Every rule of procedure must ensure that all participants, who are similarly situated, are able to avail themselves of the same procedural rights for relief and for defense with like protection and without discrimination. In other words, the classification has to be examined from two points of view: (1) Does it admit of the possibility of any substantial discrimination, and (2) does it impinge on a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution? If the answers to these questions were in the affirmative, the classification would be impermissible under Article 14. The State which is forbidden to discriminate between persons includes the government and parliament of India and the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the government of India.
The Supreme Court very neatly summed up all these principles in its decision on Union Government’s reference on the Special Courts Bill., 1978.[94] The principles themselves had developed through a long parade of cases involving contentions around the obligation under Article 14. I refer to some of the important cases in the footnote.[95]
In Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India,[96] Chief Justice M. H. Beg explained that the validity of every executive as well as legislative action is tested against the principles of Articles 14, 19 and 21. The criterion that underlies the test had already been spelt out by the majority in E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu: “From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14.”[97]
Justice Bhagavati explained the implication of this on any procedure under the law in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India: “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.”[98] Referring to the decisions in Express News Papers, Sakal Papers, and R. C. Cooper Vs Union of India, Justice Bhagwati further pointed out that it is the substance and the practical result of the State action which will determine its validity by the standards of Article 14 rather than the form and the object, as it had so far been fashionable under the “pith and substance doctrine.”[99]
After making a thorough audit of case law on Article 14, Chief Justice S. R. Das explained in Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Justice S. R. Tendolkar[100] that a law would be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself. But in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court must take into account matters of common knowledge, common report, the history of the times and every state of facts that can be conceived of. The presumption of constitutionality of a classification cannot be carried to the extent of holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or groups to hostile discrimination. Although a discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power, if it appears that a law or an executive action is arbitrary in the sense that it does not follow any rational principle or policy to justify differentiation, the Court will strike it down. Chief Justice S. R. Das had the occasion to make few more points about Article 14 in Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan.[101] In paragraph 14 of the judgement, he explained that Article 14, which does not directly confer any right on any person, is an admonition addressed to the State whose compliance is the measure of the fundamental rights, which every person within the territory of India is to enjoy. The Article does not offer any relaxation on the restrictions imposed by it in the manner some other Articles like 19 do. Thus, the right to equality before the law is comprehensive to the extent that it does not admit any exception, even when the effected person is ready to waive the obligation of Article 14. Chief Justice Das illustrates the point thus: “If the Constitution asks the State as to why the State did not carry out its behest, will it be any answer for the State to make that ‘true, you directed me not to deny any person equality before the law, but this person said that I could do so, for he had no objection to my doing it.’ I do not think the State will be in any better position than the position in which Adam found himself when God asked him as to why he had eaten the forbidden fruit and the State’s above answer will be as futile as was that of Adam who pleaded that the woman had tempted him and so he ate the forbidden fruit… Whatever breach of other fundamental right a person or a citizen may or may not waive, he cannot certainly give up or waive a breach of the fundamental right that is indirectly conferred on him by this constitutional mandate directed to the State.”
Finally, with regard to the relationship of Articles 14 and 19 with Article 32, Chief Justice Chandrachud pronounced in Minerva Mills Ltd., Vs. Union of India that without their effectual guidance “Article 32 will be drained of its life-blood.”[102]
Lest these lofty principles of the Indian Constitution, as also their erudite interpretations by India’s highest judiciary, should become so much froth and foam - the stuff of impotent discussion, with no power over the forces of chaos and arbitrariness - the Supreme Court cannot permit the NHRC to destroy its mandate under the restrictions which it has imposed. The “flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale”, as confirmed by the CBI’s report and as demonstrated by further evidence we offer, cannot be examined within the straight-jacket of a shrunken scope, that would restrict itself to “cremations only”, to “the given number of 2097 bodies” and to the “location of Amritsar district”. The Supreme Court must recognize that this view of its mandate, which that body has suddenly come up with, is untenable when held against the crying requirements of justice in this case, but is also completely contemptuous of the established facts and the fundamental legal principles on which this matter stands.
As we earlier noticed, both the Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission have made repeated references to India’s obligations under UN Conventions and other international human rights instruments. The Supreme Court has ruled that the principles contained in these resolutions are enforceable and that the claim of sovereign immunity has no meaning against established infringement of fundamental rights of citizens by public servants.[103]
Before we consider the meaning of sovereignty in comparison with the rights of the people and international human rights regime, let us first be clear on the dimensions of India’s international obligations in the present context. The following declarations and instruments have the force of customary international law, binding on India by the dint of purposeful accession: The UN Charter of 1945, 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, also called the Magna Carta of Mankind and described by 1968 proclamation of Tehran as a "common understanding of the people of the world concerning the inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the human family," the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India acceded on 10 July 1979. India has also signed, on 14 October 1997, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. India has yet to ratify the Convention.[104]
Without entering into a broad discussion on these instruments, we shall consider their mandate and the mechanisms with reference to India’s obligations in the matter of “flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale” in Punjab, disclosed by the CBI’s report. India’s own stand, as we know from its periodic reports to the Human Rights Committee under Article 40 of the Covenant, is as following: “In essence, India's approach to the observance, promotion and protection of human rights has been characterized by a holistic, multi-pronged effort. Primarily, this effort has revolved around the following constituent elements: (a) creation and strengthening of an institutional framework; (b) an effective network of mutually reinforcing safeguards both within and outside the institutional framework, buttressed by a policy of regular review and strengthening of safeguards; (c) a policy of transparency, responsiveness and dialogue with domestic and international non-governmental organizations, adherence to major international human rights instruments and cooperation with the United Nations human rights machinery…”
About the legal status of the Covenant, the Indian report maintains it to be self-executing for the reason, as it explains at great length, the rights and freedoms reflected in it are already guaranteed by the existing provisions of Indian Constitution, other legislative and institutional remedies.[105]
In the relevant period, Punjab was under a “sustained campaign of terrorism and violence” and had been brought under the Central rule for the first time through a Presidential notification issued on 6 October 1983. With the induction of the army in early June 1984, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act was introduced, withdrawn after Rajiv-Longowal Accord in July 1985. Once again because of the unabated militant crimes, the elected government of the Akali Dal was dismissed in October 87 and the President’s rule imposed. Although a State of Internal Emergency was never formally proclaimed, in spite of the 59th amendment of the Constitution in March 1988, special legislation like amendments 24 and 60 of the National Security Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, which we earlier examined, were introduced with the specific reference to the terrorist menace in Punjab. In February 1992, the Congress Party won the parliamentary and the State Assembly elections, boycotted by all the major Sikh political parties, and formed a State government under Beant Singh. The elections themselves had been conducted under the army’s supervision.[106] Democracy had supposedly been restored. But Punjab witnessed the most ruthless period of counterinsurgency in the next few years, with all the draconian laws remaining in force.
As we already know, the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, as a compendious guarantee, cannot be taken away outside the legal procedure even in a state of Emergency which Punjab, without a formal declaration, had witnessed. Responding to the questions about why the derogation from fundamental rights implicit in the special legislation in force in Punjab was not notified to the Human Rights Committee, as it was required to under Article 4 of the Covenant, the government had said that under the Indian Constitution the fundamental rights to life and liberty could not be suspended even during an Emergency. The special statues aimed to combat terrorism and to protect the life and property of ordinary citizens had been enacted by a democratically elected Parliament, with all the necessary safeguards and subject to judicial review. There were judicial remedies against individual and isolated aberrations, including procedures for apprehension and punishment for such perpetrators of human rights violations.[107]
The principles of non-derogation in a State of Emergency and the standards of monitoring to ensure that they are observed, under international human rights law, are well settled. In August 1977, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities had initiated a thorough study of this issue under Mrs. Nicole Questiaux. After several years of work, the report was submitted in 1982.[108] The Sub-Commission endorsed the recommendations contained in the report and in 1985 and the Economic and Social Council authorized the appointment of a special rapporteur, Leandro Despouy with the mandate to continuously monitor the compliance of the internal and international rules that maintained the legality of a state of emergency and also to analyze the question of expanding the non-derogable core of human rights in conformity with the current case law. After twelve years of work, the Sub-Commission requested the Special Rapporteur to submit his final conclusions and recommendations by updating the contents of Mrs Questiaux’s report and incorporating the later developments and the activities of the international monitoring bodies. The task was completed in June 97.[109]
As the report explains, the state of emergency encompasses the whole range of situations including “state of alert”, “special powers”, “curfew”, etc., resulting from a serious crisis of the sort affecting the population as a whole, which involve restrictions on the exercise of human rights beyond those applicable in normal circumstances. International war, internal armed conflicts, as also the states of tension or domestic disturbances are covered. This is the meaning of public emergency in Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The state of emergency in this sense belongs firmly to the field of law, in which the conditions which call for it, the measures taken to deal with them, the duration for which they apply as well as the rules of the game must clearly be enumerated, proclaimed and notified, not only to inform the effected population, but also the member States of the United Nations and its monitoring agencies. Thus, emergency does not imply temporary suspension of the rule of law, nor does it allow discretionary exercise of authority. The end of a state of emergency, which can never be prolonged for speculative and abstract purposes such as “national security” or “latent subversion”, must also be proclaimed and notified. The fundamental rights under the Covenant, which the State will not derogate from in a emergency situation, include:
the right to life, the prohibition of torture and slavery, non-retroactive nature of criminal law, the right to recognition as a person before the law, freedom of conscience and religion. These non-derogable rights have since been expanded to include children’s right to special protection, the remedy of habeas corpus, due process and the right to self defense.[110]
The most important of all is the right to life. As the fourteenth report of the special rapporteur on summary and arbitrary executions, submitted in 1996, informs the States: “the right to life is absolute and must not be derogated from, even under the most difficult circumstances. Governments must respect the right to life of all persons, including members of armed groups, even when they demonstrate total disregard for the lives of others.” The violations of this right, which come within the purview of the rapporteur and calls for his action, include: death threats by State officials or others cooperating with or tolerated by them, deaths in custody from torture, neglect or use of force, deaths due to the use of force inconsistent with the criteria of absolute necessity and proportionality, breach of the obligation to investigate alleged violations and to bring those responsible to justice, breach of the obligation to adequately compensate the victims. The obligation to carry out exhaustive and impartial investigations into allegations of violations of the right to life, to identify, bring to justice and punish the perpetrators, to grant compensation to the victims and their families, to take effective measure to avoid future recurrence of violations is also absolute.
Victims right to receive adequate compensation is both a recognition of the State’s responsibility for the acts committed by its personnel and an expression of respect for the human being, which presuppose thorough investigation. The responsibility to fulfil this right continues to exist, irrespective of changes of government, and in cases of people who have disappeared the investigations must continue until there remains any uncertainty regarding their fate. Any financial or other compensation paid to the victims or their families before such investigations are initiated or concluded, would not exempt governments from this obligation. To fulfil these obligations, all States should have the necessary legislation in conformity with Article 8 of the Universal Declaration, Article 14 of the Covenant and Articles 8 and 21 of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985.[111] These obligations are binding also under Principles 34 and 35 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All persons under any form of Detention or Imprisonment, Articles 9, 10, 13 and 19 of the UN declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 1992, and Articles 2, 5 and 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.[112]
Following the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, which requires all States to investigate every complaint of enforced disappearance and to prosecute its perpetrators,[113] Louis Joinet, Special Rapporteur for the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, compiled a report on the principles for the administration of justice. The report discusses the victims’ legal rights under three broad principles: (1) the right to know, (2) right to justice and (3) right to reparations.
The right to know belongs not only to individual victims and their families, as the right to truth about what happened, but also to the social collective, to draw on history to prevent recurrence of evil and to preserve the knowledge of oppression as part of its heritage. It is only from such knowledge that it would ever be possible to dismantle the machinery that allowed criminal behavior to become routine administrative practice.
The right to justice means that all victims are able to assert their complaints and receive fair and effective remedy, including trial and punishment of their oppressors. This entails clear obligations on the State, to investigate, prosecute and punish the guilty. These obligations relate to all persons cited in allegations of human rights violations, whether they ordered them or actually committed them, acting as perpetrators of accomplices, and whether they are public officials or members of quasi-governmental or private armed groups with any kind of link to the State, or of non-governmental armed movements having the status of belligerents. Whereas the jurisdiction must cover all violations, the focus as a matter of priority must be on those violations, which constitute serious crimes under international law. All expenses incurred by victims, their relatives and witnesses should be borne by the State. If the national courts are not capable of handing down impartial justice, then the complaints must attract universal jurisdiction, either through an ad hoc body like the tribunal established to deal with violations in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, or a standing international criminal court, as proposed by the Rome treaty signed in July 1998.
The right to reparation also includes individual measures and collective measures. On the individual basis, victims including their relatives and dependants must receive reparation for all injuries suffered by them by the standards of Theo Van Boven report.[114] Restitution means victims are able to return to the state of being, as close as possible, before violations occurred. They must receive compensation for physical and mental injury, including lost opportunities, defamation and legal costs. Their rehabilitation must include medical care, including psychological and psychiatric treatment.
From the stand point of the collective, reparation means public recognition by the State of its responsibility, commemorative ceremonies, guarantees of non-recurrence, dismantling of the repressive machinery and disbandment of the armed forces that carried out the crimes, removal from office of senior officials implicated in serious violations.[115]
These standards of reparation had already been set in the landmark judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, involving the disappearance of Valasquez Rodriguez and two others from Honduras, delivered way back in July 1988, which have since guided the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances. The Honduran case of disappearance has so much in common with the patterns of violations following police abductions in Punjab, and the judgment of the court so helpful to the matter before the National Human Rights Commission, that we shall briefly recount its main points.[116]
According to the petition moved by Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a joint team of National Office of Investigations (DNA) and G-2 unit of the Honduran army forcefully abducted Manfredo Valesquez and two others in the afternoon of 12 September 81. Valesquez was a student and suspected of violent political crimes. Several eyewitnesses corroborated their abduction, illegal detention and harsh interrogation from 12 to 17 September. On 17 September Mandredo Valasquez was segregated from others and taken to a different interrogation center. The security forces responsible for his abduction denied his custody.
The Secretariat of the Commission received the information in October 1981 and after exhausting all the avenues to pursue the case with Honduras government, moved the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in April 1986. The petition invoked the right to life, right to human treatment, and right to personal liberty. The government of Honduras tried to delay the matter by claiming that its own investigations were on and it was facing difficulties in tracing the witnesses who could testify against suspected culprits. After waiting for some time, the court refused to stall the proceedings any further and began to record the evidence.
A former member of the army testified about the abduction and disappearance. Valesquez had been under surveillance for some time before he was kidnapped in an operation by members of his unit in civil clothes, in Toyota pick-up wagons, their glass tinted, without registration number plates. In the course of the abduction, Valesquez was shot in his leg, either intentionally or by accident. He was then taken to a barrack under the army, and tortured under interrogation. Later, on the orders from the superiors, Valeqeuz was killed with a knife, his body dismembered and buried in different places. Another witness who had also been illegally abducted and tortured in the same interrogation center, to be later released, deposed to say that he had seen Manfredo Valasquez in an adjoining cell through a hole in the door. Valasquez had asked for help. Later, this witness found out from a Sargent that Valasquez had been turned over to the member of a different Battalion to be executed.
The government tried to discredit these witnesses by insinuating that they were ideologically committed, were themselves facing criminal charges, lacked in loyalty to their country, etc. The court ruled the objections to be unacceptable. The court also relied on common patterns and observations on the current human rights situation in the country to give its findings. The court decided that in the period from 1981 to 1984, between 100 to 150 persons had disappeared, many never to be heard of again. Those disappearances followed the same pattern of kidnapping by armed men in civil clothes in vehicles without registration plates, and acting with apparent impunity. Asked by relatives or lawyers, the authorities invariably denied knowledge of the detentions, even when the victims were later released.
The court concluded that Honduran officials had been carrying out and tolerating a practice of disappearances. Manfredo Valesquez also became a victim within the framework of this practice. The government of Honduras failed to guarantee his human rights.
The court announced that the power of the State was not unlimited, not it could resort to any means to attain its ends. The State was subject to law and was also responsible for the acts of its agents, even when they acted outside the legal framework or the sphere of their authority. The State of Honduras was therefore responsible for the involuntary disappearance Manfredo Valasquez Rodriguez and must pay damages and compensation. In a second order made on 21 July 89, the court awarded compensatory damages, also deciding to supervise the indemnification until the money had been paid. Reparation of harm brought about by the violation of an international obligation consisted in ‘full restitution’(‘restitutio in integrum’):
- including the restoration of the prior situation, (here hardly feasible, alas), the reparation of the consequences of the violation, punitive damages, indemnification for patrimonial and non-patrimonial damages, emotional and moral harm. The court ruled that the defects, imperfections, deficiencies or silences within the domestic law couldn’t limit this requirement. We feel that the principles held up by the Inter-American Court in Valasquez Rodriguez Case should also guide our National Human Rights Commission in its adjudications on police abductions and secret disposal of corpses.[117]
Throughout the period relevant to the matter of enforced disappearances leading to secret disposal of dead bodies in Punjab, the UN Commission on Human Rights had been receiving reports on serious, persistent and large numbers of human rights violations. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, established in 1980, reported large number of enforced disappearances for which it held the Punjab police primarily responsible. The Working Group also held that its officers acted with virtual impunity, disobeyed judicial orders, even ignored writs of habeas corpus and intimidated family members of disappeared persons to refrain from making complaints. The Group’s 1996/97 report also mentioned the disappearance of Jaswant Singh Khalra after he filed the petition regarding illegal cremations in the High Court, also alleging that many of the cremated had been arrested by the Punjab police.[118]
The government of India turned down an application by the Working Group to visit the country so as to discuss the matters with the competent authorities and to meet with the representatives of the families of the disappeared. The representatives of the Indian government told the working group that “given the fact that the allegations of disappearances have drastically fallen in the last three years, coupled with the government of India’s commitment to investigate the old cases”, the suggestion of the Working Group regarding a visit to India is “inappropriate and unnecessary.” The government also stated that the matter of illegal cremations was now before the Supreme Court, which had instituted an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The report concluded with the observation that under Article 14 and 7 of the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 1992, the government of India was under the obligation to “prevent, terminate and punish all acts of enforced disappearance.”[119]
The 1997 report by the Special Rapporteur on Torture Nigel S. Rodley renewed his “outstanding request for an invitation to visit the country...”, whose refusal was a matter of concern.[120]
The 1997 report focused on widespread and systematic use of torture by the Punjab police. It said: “By letter of 28 April 1997, the Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received reports indicating that the use of torture by police in Punjab was widespread. The methods of torture reported include beatings with fists, boots, lathis (long bamboo canes), pattas (leather straps with wooden handles), leather belts with metal buckles or rifle butts; being suspended by the wrists or ankles and beaten; kachcha fansi (suspension of the whole body from the wrists, which are tied behind the back); having the hands trodden upon or hammered; application of electric shocks; burning of the skin, sometimes with a hot iron rod; removing nails with pliers; cheera (forcing the hips apart, sometimes to 180 degrees and often repeatedly, for 30 minutes or more; and the roller method (a log of wood or ghotna (pestle for grinding spices) is rolled over the thighs or calves with one or more police officers standing upon it); and insertion of chili peppers into the rectum.”[121]
In the same period, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, appointed by the Commission on Human Rights in August 1982, had also been reporting widespread practice of arbitrary executions carried out by the security forces. The last annual report concludes that “despite the existence of legal provisions for the prosecution of human rights violators” there was de facto impunity in India. The Rapporteur also reiterated his interest in visiting the country, which he had already expressed in three earlier letters.[122]
In order to determine India’s international human rights obligations, we must appraise these exchanges between the representatives of the Indian State and the United Nations, and the solemn pledges taken on such occasions, and set them against the grim facts that have already been established before the Supreme Court through the CBI’s investigation report, further records of illegal cremations and victim-testimonies from the extensive survey undertaken by the Committee. The government of India told the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances that the courts foresee and provide compensation to victims of involuntary disappearances, as part of the public law regime in the country.[123] At the same time, it maintained that “allegations of disappearances have been made concerning persons who have actually been exfiltrated across the border for training in subversion. These can in no circumstances be considered cases of disappearances and no investigation can be undertaken…”[124]
The CBI’s report on illegal cremations of supposedly unclaimed and unidentified bodies, and now the further records of similar cremations in other districts of Punjab leave no doubt as to what actually happened to the ‘disappeared’. In these circumstances, the order of the National Human Rights Commission to exclude the issues of enforced disappearances and extra-judicial executions altogether, and to limit the inquiry to the technicality of cremations for the numbers cited in the CBI’s report for one district in Punjab would not only contradict the mandate of the UN Conventions and Declarations but also completely belie India’s official professions before the UN agencies responsible for monitoring its obligations.
In D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal,[125] the Supreme Court held that the claim of sovereign immunity has no meaning against established infringements of fundamental rights of citizens by public servants. On this view, ‘sovereignty’ is something embedded in the common will of the people, which does not tolerate abuse of State power.
The idea that sovereign authority automatically become illegitimate when it oversteps certain permissible limits in the course of policing or repressing its people - that idea is not new to human consciousness. As Indians, we are familiar with Vidura's counsel in Mahabharata: "Improper conduct under the confidence that ‘I have gained my kingdom’ would not pay... A king who terrorises people, would be rejected by them no matter what the magnitude of his possessions and his might. An unjust king gets destroyed the same way, as clouds get scattered by strong wind. His kingdom would shrink like a piece of leather on fire."[126]
In the modern context, the question whether people have rights beyond what the State deigns to grant them, has been answered, at least in idealistic terms, in the sense that all the institutions, in the last analysis, owe their allegiance to constitutions which the people themselves are supposed to create. It is assumed that the social purpose of sovereign entities is to ensure the well being of their people and to provide them protection from the threats to their fundamental rights. It follows that, when they persecute or constrain their people beyond accepted legal limits, they automatically forfeit their legitimacy. We may add that, by so doing, they also lose the qualification to protect their people from external threats, for their ‘protegees’ are already being threatened and abused internally. Actually, to put his doctrine on a firm basis, we must extend the meaning of ‘sovereignty as a derivative of common consent’ to every living human being - to every citizen of the Earth, regarded as a universal realm, to which ultimately our allegeance should go. But this is precisely the spirit that underlies the principle of universal rights, enshrined in the UN declarations and binding on all member States. These declarations and instruments lay the positive basis of an understanding of ‘universal rights’ and for their defence by all UN-adhering States.[127]
The rights to life, freedom from torture, slavery and genocide are held as sacrosanct - as rights so basic that their infringement should call for universal accountability, i.e. accoutability before the international community. The implication is that whereas the States, as social constructs built around a social purpose, remain the contracting parties, the referent of sovereignty in international law are the people who live within them.[128] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes the point in an unobtrusive language when it says the basis of State’s authority is the will of the people. This means that respect for human rights and popular consent are the essential constitutive elements in any legitimate claim to sovereignty. And there is another consequence: as the basic international conventions require the contracting State parties to ensure within their legal systems effective remedies against the violation of these principles, the dividing line between the domestic and international law inevitably - and fortunately - tends to become blurred. As this line erodes, the principle of non-intervention must also weaken.[129]
The June 1997 report of Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, says that the shift in the area of human rights towards a new, truly universal vision, with the focus squarely on human beings, and less emphasis on the leading role traditionally by the State, is one of the most revolutionary changes of the century. “At present, the States’ legitimacy essentially resides in the way they enable individuals and peoples effectively to enjoy their fundamental rights and freedoms.” The report goes on to declare: “Thus, the eventual recognition of the individual as a subject of international law highlighted the major transformations that had taken place, in the sphere not only of international legal relations but also of international relations in general. Nowadays, the concept of "non-interference in domestic affairs" has
become blurred and lacks legitimacy when human dignity is at stake. The
most conclusive proof of this assertion is the ‘erga omnes’ nature (‘valid for all’) of the obligations deriving from the human rights treaties and conventions. The norms they enshrine apply to all and possess, moreover, a dual dimension: The obligation to comply with the agreement and to object if others fail to do so…”[130]
The point was much more dramatically made by former UN General Secretary Javier Perz de Cuellar when he said: “The case for not impinging on the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of States is by itself indubitably strong. But it would only be weakened if it were to carry the implication that sovereignty… includes the right of mass slaughter or of launching systematic campaigns of decimation or forced exodus of civilian populations in the name of controlling civil strife or insurrection… It must first of all be recognized just how revolutionary an idea this is… Indeed, does it not call into question one of the cardinal principles of international law, namely, the obligation of non-interference in the internal affairs of States?”[131]
The point was made with much rhetorical flourish. The duty that on the shoulders of the international community - namely, to stop human rights abuses if State institutions are unable or unwilling to do so, - that duty is indeed an inescapable corollary of currently on-going harmonisation between domestic and international law on human rights.[132]
In the framework of the Universal Declaration, sovereignty ceases to exist as a binding legal concept. It only remains a political construct whose meaning is contextual and the limits are subjective.[133] India’s intervention against the Pakistani forces in 1971, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, is cited as a positive case of humanitarian intervention.[134]
Article 7 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, also called the Nuremberg Tribunal, established by the four Allied Powers to try war criminals at the conclusion of the Second World War, provided that:
"The official position of defendants, whether as heads of state or responsible officials in government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment." Explaining the principle, the Tribunal ruled that “individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state . . . The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances protects the representatives of a state, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law". The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, as also its judgment, was unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations through the Resolution 95 of 1946. These principles are also the basis of the Conventions which established the ad hoc international tribunals for the former Yogoslavia and Rwanda. And now the Rome Treaty for a parmanent International Criminal Court (adopted in July 98 by 120 out of 160 countries represented) visualizes the establishment of a permanent judicial body which will bring to justice those responsible for “the most serious crimes of international concern”, including crimes against humanity, without any reference to nationality, when domestic justice systems fail to do so.
Of course, this novel view of international human rights obligations which impinges on traditional notions of State sovereignty (and which was also upheld by House of Lords’ 24 March 1999 judgment about Pinoche’s extradition to Spain in Regina Vs. Bartle) is most unpalatable to those who are affected by it, and it is likely to meet with stiff resistance.[135]
From the psychological standpoint, this is quite understandable defensive reaction - it is the usual answer of threatened narcissism, the biting back of privilege under attack. But, strangely, there seems to exist a vague and awkward sympathy for this reactions, even in the international bodies actually responsible for implementing these obligations.
The very same country which once led the humanitarian intervention to liberate Bangladesh, is now barring the “UN human rights mechanisms” from study the problems by directely interacting with the concerned officials and the victims. To fend off the persistent inquiries about its human rights record, India has also demanded that the ‘UN human rights mechanisms’ must also investigate the violations perpetrated by terrorism.[136] That may sound fair, but when India raised this issue in 1993, the counterinsurgency operations in Punjab were at their peak. They were targeting not so much the armed groups, which had mostly been liquidated by then, but their suspected collaborators and sympathizers in the countryside to ensure that there will be no revival of the unrest. The reaction of the Special Rapporteur on Torture Nigel Rodley was interesting, even if emblematic of the main weakness besetting the working of the United Nations - I mean the ingrainede tendency to view the problems of human rights through and from the perspective of the governments accused of violations. The Special Rapporteur said that, in his view: “the Commission would not wish to dignify the perpetrators of criminal violence by describing them as human rights violators…” The implication, even if unintended, is that there is some dignity in those who violate human rights, which the perpetrators of criminal violence cannot be allowed to share. The Special Rapporteur goes on to “recognize that India’s tradition of respect for the rule of law means that serious cases of torture, in particular those resulting in death, may lead to disciplinary action and in some cases to criminal proceedings… As regards action taken against officers in Punjab and in Jammu and Kashmir, the Special Rapporteur would also appreciate learning which such actions were in response to acts within the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. The Special Rapporteur is also sensitive to the “ferocity of the terrorism” faced by the government of India in those territories. He understands that the government of India is not seeking to invoke this serious problem to condone torture…”[137]
What could this not so indirect praise for “India’s tradition of respect for the rule of law” achieve, except encouraging the security forces in Punjab at that time to press on with their operations against ‘the subversive elements’? Needless to say, India’s State apparatus is not the only one to benefit from this kind of moral ambivalence that permeates the working of the United Nations on this vexed issue of ‘sovereign prerogatives of States’ and ‘non-interference in the internal matters’. Before 1993 World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, the Asian governments met at Bangkok to adopt a declaration in which they resolved to fight against “any attempt to use human rights as a conditionality for extending development assistance.” Such strong member countries of the UN as China, India, Russia, Iran, Israel, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil and scores of others across the continents remain committed to the view of ‘national competence’ and ‘inherent right of nations’ to determine their own social systems. Against such a formidable alliance for sovereignty existing within the UN regime, the proposition, articulated by Italian Foreign Minister Gianni de Michelis before the General Assembly in 1991 that “intervention that is primarily aimed at securing protection of human righ is a prerogative of the international community, which must have the power to suspend sovereignty whenever it is exercised in a criminal manner…” has an eerie ring of unreality, and remains largely a millennial dream.[138]
Does this not means that human rights as a universal concern, in spite of the declarations and conventions within the supra-national setting of the UN, is just a myth? After all, no one seems to sympathize with arguments of sovereign immunity when it comes to international commitments in the fields of science, technology, military, commerce and economy, even environment. In those areas, contracts are enforced, liabilities discharged, dues recovered, defaulters punished through stern diplomacy and, when necessary, military intervention. But in the field of human rights the evidence of heinous transgressions would not even induce a formal reprimand, except when it subserves other interests.
Is not this silent international complicity with crimes against humanity due to the fact that their victims world over are overwhelmingly the powerless and the peripheral people, the new slaves of the postcolonial era, or marginalized social critics and other subaltern groups of various kinds?
Isn’t this callousness also due to the fact that the leaders of international human rights bodies are themselves closely aligned with the State interests, which think nothing of using ruthless methods against their own enemies, within and without their borders?
The answers to these questions are so obvious even to casual observers in the field that it would be trite to rehearse them here. We all know the horrors that happened in the name of Cold War behind the Iron Curtain and inside the regimes which the Western countries, led by USA, spawned and sponsored the world over, including Pinochet’s Chile, as bulwarks against communism. Argentina’s ‘dirty war’ against its own citizens from 1976 to 1983 under General Videla, who kept his promise to kill as many people as necessary for the national security, had received whole hearted support from the USA. The American sponsored coups against the leftwing governments in Guatemala (1954), invasions of Dominican Republic (1965), and the interventions under President Regan in El-Salvador and Nicaragua were by no means on the side of human rights. Nor was the decade long campaign against North Vietnam, with episodes like the massacre at My Lie, an example of a war justly led. The Western support for the brutal regime of Shah of Iran did not serve the cause of democracy and human rights. It only produced the fiendish figure of Ayatullah Khomeini (also a one-time recipient of CIA subsidies0, who went on to scare the Western countries so much that they decided to put up a Saddam Hussain in Iraq, with the license to kill as many Kurds as he pleased. Throughout his war against Iran, Saddam Hussain received not just the diplomatic but also the military and economic support from the West. Even after the cease-fire in 1988, Iraq continued to acquire all those lethal capabilities, which the USA would later destroy with its own cruise missiles after Kuwait’s occupation by Iraq. Now the people of Iraq must pay for these follies, even as the most retrogressive and repressive regimes in that part of the world, including Syria, continue to thrive on the Western support. Hypocrisy and double standards remain the hallmark of the western approach to human rights eight years after the collapse of the Sovient Empire in 1991. In the name of human rights, politically isolated Serbs in Bosnia or Kosovo bear the brunt of military intervention from the NATO, but the countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, China and India, which are important to western strategic interests, as well as those outside the pale of their vital calculations like Sierra Leone in Western Africa, are allowed to get away with murder.
To complete the point, and also to understand a structural defect in the international human rights regime, we should mark the discrepancies between the charter and the organization of the United Nations. The first discernible contradiction is in the membership to the United Nations, which is open to any state that can claim the minimal requirements of sovereignty. It does not have to be a democracy or a constitutional republic, much less establish its credentials as a repository of popular will. The second visible discrepancy is between the principle of decision-making by majority, unlike the system of unanimous voting followed by the League of Nations, and the power of veto that belongs to the permanent members of the Security Council. The principle of decision-making by majority voting suggests that the preferences of sovereign states can be bounded by the mandate of the body collective. The power of veto available to the permanent members of the Security Council means that they are more sovereign than others. Ironically, the United States did not ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights until 1992. These discrepancies have decisively influenced the manner in which the mechanisms of justice have grown, or should we say have remained stunted, within the United Nations human rights regime.
Way back in 1978, Mr Nicodeme Ruhashyankiko, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities had recommended establishment of a permanent international criminal court, which would have universal jurisdiction against crimes against humanity and be capable of resisting political pressure.[139] In 1983, the Economic and Social Council commissioned a study on this subject, to be prepared by Benjain C. G. Whitaker. The report was submitted in 1985. It recommended the creation of “an impartial but respected international body with permanent authority” on the lines of Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals.[140] But nothing happened, as there was no agreement, particularly among the members of the Security Council. They were all committed to protect their own client regimes, which were regularly engaging in grave human rights offences. Again in 1996, the Special Rapporteur on Extraducial, summary or arbitrary executions submitted a report strongly recommending two measures that would contribute to a more impartial and comprehensive approach to the problem of impunity. The measures were: (a) the establishment of a permanent international criminal court with universal jurisdiction over mass violations of human rights and humanitarian law; and (b) adoption of a convention, similar to the Convention against Torture, which would provide domestic courts with international jurisdiction over persons suspected of serious human rights offences.[141]
Already, the discussions for a treaty on a permanent international criminal court had been underway for some time. On the eve of the final discussions in Rome, Amnesty International reported that China, Russia and the US were opposing the provision of an independent prosecutor capable of initiating criminal investigations on the basis of information from victims and other reliable sources without waiting for a reference either from the Security Council or UN member States. Amnesty also reported that other countries like Colombia, Mexico, India, Iran, Japan and Turkey were also taking positions that would seriously undermine the effective working of the court.[142] Finally, when the treaty was adopted in Rome on 18 July 1998, the US voted against it along with China, Libya and Iraq, in spite of many compromises that had been made to accommodate their objections on the principle of universal jurisdiction. The treaty will become effective only after 66 countries ratify it. Even after that, the court would be able take up only those matters which the Security Council refers, except when the State, in whose territory crimes are committed or whose citizens stand accused, submit to its jurisdiction. So, with this century drawing to a close, a universal jurisdiction on human rights still remains a far cry.
What are we then to think of these ‘guarantees of human rights laws’, in both domestic and international spheres, which the existing apparatus of justice cannot enforce? We do not have much choice about the answer: The law that cannot curb its offenders is nothing but a travesty. A legal system which is so soft on murderers and torturers, and so sympathetic to the ‘imperatives of political power’, is indeed seriously diseased.[143]
What can then be the conclusion about ‘national sovereignty’ in this transial stage of history, while a universal order has not incarnated yet? Again, there is little scope for hesitation: Powerful State interests would continue to put their spanners against the wheel of history, and will do all they can to slow down its progress. But there is little chance of their succeeding in reversing its direction. Transnational politics at the movement may be loaded with loathsome double standards on human rights issues. But when the abuses are well documented and the issues feelingly articulated, they cannot be altogether extinguished. Citizens initiatives and local campaigns for accountability and justice can today reckon on a larger international audience and support to keep them blazing than it would have been conceivable even twenty year ago. Amnesty international and other such bodies there to stay, and they will ensure that the cause of universal justice is not stifled under the weight of cynicism, national self-interest and raison d’etat.
The final outcome will depend on the extent to which the volunteer initiative and grass-root organizations succeed in developing their human rights agendas. The ultimate goal, fully consonant with the deeper historical trends of our times, is to bring about a major shift or ‘relocation’ of State authority, so as to restore its ‘human face’ and to bring it within the grasp of the people. The redefinition of ‘national sovereignty’ would then follow naturally, along with the needed legal adjustments.
This is a daunting task. Basically, it is a matter of educating the people in civic self-reliance; of insisting on the supremacy of ethics over law, and of law over State sovereignty. It is also a fight aiming at rolling back some of the prerogatives of the juggernaut of State, which has been crushing so many rights and so many human values under its advance in the course of the last centuries, but which has now outgrown much of its usefulness. As Alexander Wendt suggests, and as common sense confirms, sovereignty is neither a once-and-for-all creation nor a sacred ‘principle’, floating up there, in the heaven of ideas, beyond the pale of change and critique. It is an on-going accomplishment, born of practice, supported by practice, and no better or worse than actual practice makes it to be. It is also rooted in a people’s culture, and integral to their structure of thought. Therefore, the only way of changing it is through social action combined with ‘propaganda’, taken in the noblest sense of the word.[144]
Case No. 1: Seventeen years old Sohan Singh Buttar from Dan Singh Wala village under Nehian Wala police station in Bhatinda district was picked up from his house on 29 January 1993 by a group of officers led by Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Surjit Singh of Jaito police station in Faridkot district. Many villagers and the family members witnessed the abduction.
Station House Officer (SHO) of Jaito police station Nek Singh told Sohan’s father Phoola Singh and other village elders, who went to him immediately, that the boy would be released after his interrogation. They were allowed to see Sohan in the police lock-up. Two days later, Phoola Singh accompanied by members of the village council went to the police station again to inquire. Again, they saw Sohan, who was in a bad shape from torture, in the lock up. When they asked ASI Ranjit Singh Sotha whether they could give him some food, which they had brought for him, the ASI started abusing them and asked them to go away. Ranjit Singh slapped Phoola Singh when he began to plead for his son’s release. No one saw Sohan again.
Phoola Singh believes that his son was killed in a faked encounter staged on 29 February 93 along with Ranjit Singh Behla. He believes this on the basis of information that a constable at Jaito gave him informally.
Sohan’s elder brother was so traumatized that he lost his mental balance and had to be treated by a psychiatrist Dr. Sukhwant Singh of Faridkot, who gave him electric shock treatment. The impact of the incident on Sohan’s uncle Roop Singh was fatal. He committed suicide by consuming poison.[145]
Case No. 2: Amarjit Singh, an electrician with the Punjab State Electricity Board, was from Jalal Usman village in Baba Bakala subdivision of Amritsar district. Amarjit was arrested from his office in Majitha on 14 September 1991, by SHO Pritpal Singh of Fatehgarh Churian police station. His colleague Santokh Singh first informed the family about the abduction.
The next day, one Shori Lal, son of Munshi Ram from Pabanrali village visited the family to tell them that he had seen Amarjit in the lock up of Fatehgarh Churian the previous night. Amarjit’s father Arjan Singh went there and met his son. When he went to the police station again on 16 September 91, he was told that Amarjit had been transferred to the custody of DSP Dera Baba Nanak Baldev Singh Sekhon. When Arjan Singh went to DSP Baldev Singh Sekhon, he denied the custody.
Although no one from the family has seen Amarjit again, they maintain that he may be alive. They claim to have received a message from him in the first week of October, which suggested that he was being held at Chakri Bazar police station in Batala, and once again a year and a half later from Sadar police station, also called B Division Police Station, in Amritsar. However, the message bearers, police constables in fact, refused to divulge more information from the fear that their superior officers would victimize them. A complaint of Amarjit’s disappearance was recorded by DSP Rachhpal Singh of Majitha police as a FIR No. 335 DC on 8 July 97.
Amarjit’s younger brother Nirmal Singh had also been picked up from his house by the Majitha police and tortured brutally in illegal custody. Nirmal died three months after his release on bail. Amarjit’s wife Ranjit Kaur wants a thorough inquiry so that she may know whether her husband is alive or dead.[146]
Case No. 3: Twenty-one years old Manmohan Singh was an Ayurvedic doctor who lived at D-127, Thermal Colony, Bhatinda. Manmohan had his clinic in the town.
As a baptized Sikh, he used to take active part in the Sikh religious activities, but had no political connections. However, his fervent religiosity brought him under suspicion and on 2 December 91, he was picked up from a relative's house at village Chuhar Chak by Mehna police in Moga. Manmohan was thrashed for a week under intense questioning to be eventually released at the intervention from the village elders.
On 10 May 92, Manmohan’s father Ranjit Singh went to his son’s clinic with lunch for him. Around 1:30 p.m., a team of police officers led by SHO Kahan Singh of Paras Ram Nagar police post raided the clinic and took Manhoman into custody. Inspector Sukhdev Singh Chahal and several other police officials were along with the SHO who told Ranjit Singh that his son would be released after interrogation. On his scooter, Ranjit Singh followed the police vehicle until it reached the Kotwali police station. Later that evening, he led a delegation to Inspector Sukhdev Singh Chahal who said that Manmohan Singh had been detained by the SSP’s orders. The delegation met the SSP to ask if Manmohan was in his custody and what he proposed to do with him. The SSP answered them evasively. A habeas corpus petition before the High Court, filed by Ranjan Lakhanpal, yielded no results.
On a later date, SSP Anil Kumar Sharma told Ranjit Singh that he should carry out the last rites. This indicated that Manmohan had been killed and his body disposed of in some clandestine manner.
His maternal aunt Baljit Kaur who had brought him up in the childhood could not bear the news and died under trauma.[147]
Case No. 4: Twenty-four years old Ranjit Singh alias Kala, a clean shaven Sikh from village Bhambri under Khamano police station of Fatehgarh Sahib district was a day laborer who supported his parents and three younger brothers from his meager wages. Unconnected with any political or militant activity, he had no previous police record. Ranjit was unmarried.
Early in the morning of 10 July 1991, armed policemen led by ASI Balvir Singh, the Station House Officer of Bhadson police station, raided the house. The family was still sleeping. The policemen manhandled everyone, particularly Ranjit and his younger brother Pritpal before taking them away to Bhadson police station. At the police station, the brothers were segregated. Pritpal Singh was questioned under torture, but was allowed to return home the next morning. Ranjit did not return home, nor was he seen or heard of again. On 13 July 91, the daily Ajit carried a news which said that Ranjit was killed in cross firing between unidentified militants and team of police officers who were taking him to recover arms. His father Swaran Singh along with village elders went to the Bhadson police station to ask for the dead body. But the abusive officials shooed them away and the family could not find out where, when, how and by whom Ranjit got cremated.
The police raided the house once again on 17 July, ostensibly to search for weapons. Swaran Singh realized that the police could easily pick up his other sons and kill them too, if he spoke out about Ranjit. So, he decided to keep quiet but could not reconcile with the injustice of the situation and died from grief one year after the incident.[148]
Case No. 5: Fifty-five years old Santokh singh was a small farmer from Village Behla under Tarn Taran city police station in Amritsar district. He was married to Surjit Kaur with three grown up children; two twenty-eight and twenty-six years old sons and one twenty-four years old daughter. His youngest son Sukhdev Singh Ladi had joined the ranks of militants and had been killed in a supposed armed encounter with the police, reported to have taken place some time in 1992 near their own village. The police harassment of the family became very intense after this incident.
In February 1993, SHO Narinder Singh Malhi of Police station Doburji in Amritsar picked up Santokh and his son Kuldip, who was employed by the Punjab Electricity Board. Few days after the abduction, the head of the village council of Sanghna was able to persuade the SHO Malhi to release Kuldip. But the SHO demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000 for Santokh’s release. The family was not able to raise this money, and Santokh was taken away to the CIA interrogation Center at Tarn Taran.
Santokh was seen alive for the last time at the CIA interrogation Center in Tarn Tarn in March 1993 when Amrik Singh, son of Gurmej Singh from Behla village went there, along with Malook Singh, a member of the village council, to persuade SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu to release him. The SSP said that Santokh’s interrogation was still continuing. They went back to the SSP few weeks later, when the SSP said that he had already released Santokh. For the next five months, the family continued to receive messages about his being alive from the relatives of others detained likewise illegally at the CIA interrogation center. The messages stopped coming after five months.
In this period, the police had several times raided the house ostensibly to search for weapons, but only confiscating valuable household things: Furniture, electric motors used to irrigate fields, and the harvested paddy from nine acres of land. The loss of property from these confiscations is estimated at approximately Rs. 100,000.
Santokh Singh’s wife Surjit Kaur had lost her mental balance after her youngest son Sukhdev had been killed in a supposed police encounter.
Santokh’s mother Preetam Kaur did not survive the shock of her son’s disappearance. First, she remained under the impression that her son Santokh Singh would come back. She became disillusioned when members of the family held a religious ceremony to commemorate his death after a police officer informally told them that Santokh Singh was not alive. After the cermony, she began to hysterically lament. Preetam Kaur then decided to donate all the personal belongings of Santokh Singh, including his clothes, to a Gurudwara. After completing the donation, Preetam Kaur resumed her fatal lamentation, always repeating the words “the police have killed my innocent son”. So lamenting, Preetam Kaur collapsed and died.[149]
Case No. 6: Forty years old Nirmal Singh, a small farmer from Hothian village under Goindwal police station in Khadoor Sahib subdivision of Amritsar district, was elected head his village council. He was married to Gurbinder Kaur and had five children. Two sons, Lakhbir Singh and Sarabjit Singh are twenty-two and forteen years old. Three daughters, Daljit Kaur, Davinder Kaur and Harbarinder Kaur are eighteen, sixteen and twelve years old. Nirmal Singh’s father Mohan Singh and mother Dhan Kaur also lived with them in village Hothian.
On 25 October 1992 afternoon, ASI Balbir Singh from the police post of Fatehabad raided Nirmal Singh’s village house and took him into illegal custody. The same day, all the other members of the village council, including Ram Kaur, her husband Gurdeep Singh, another woman member of the council Dalbir Kaur and her husband Makhan Singh, members Avtar Singh and Balwinder Singh, along with the family members met the DSP of Goindwal who admitted the custody and promised to release Nirmal Singh after his interrogation. Nirmal Singh was held for interrogation at police post of Fatehabad where the family members were allowed to see him.
Nirmal Singh was being interrogated along with Rashpal Singh from village Bhoian and Gurdeep Singh, son of Wasan singh, also of village Hothian. Nirmal Singh was seen in this police post for the last time on 14 November 1992.
When the family members came thereafter to meet Nirmal Singh, the policemen at Fatehabad post refused to let them in. They went on to meet DSP Bhupinder Singh of Goindwal and SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu of Tarn Taran several times to beseech help. But they neither helped nor gave any information. It is not clear what happened to Nirmal Singh. The family assumes that he was killed in custody and his body disposed of in a clandestine manner.
Nirmal Singh’s mother Dhann Kaur could not bear the shock of his disappearance and died after some time. Wife Gurbinder Kaur, who has sent this complaint, also claims that a former police constable Dalbir Singh, son of Kapoor Singh from Patti Gurmukhan Di in Khadoor Sahib also disappeared and got killed around the same time.
Subsequently, a newspaper report claimed that the CBI was pursuing the case and had registered a case against the officials responsible for Nirmal Singh’s abduction. But the outcome of the CBI investigation and the case registered by them is not known.[150]
Case No. 7: Sixty years old Balbir Kaur from Thande village under the post office of Jwala Flour Mill with the Sadar police station of Amritsar district was the mother of Karaj Singh Thande, a known militant. Her husband Makhan Singh was a factory worker and earned Rs. 2000. Apart from thirty years old Karaj Singh, who was killed in a supposedly faked armed encounter with the police, they had two more sons, thirty-five years old Joginder Singh and thirty-two years old Balwinder Singh. Twenty eight years old Bhajan Kaur was their youngest daughter.
In reaction to the army operation against the Golden Temple in June 1984, Karaj Singh had taken to arms and had become a fugitive. Since then the police used to regularly raid the house and harass all the members of the family, particularly mother Balbir Kaur, for information on his whereabouts. Several times, they had been held illegally and tortured. The police also confiscated all the valuable things in the house. They also took away agricultural implements and tube-well motors. The loss of these confiscations is estimated at Rs. 135,000.
The police raids did not cease. On 24 February 1987, one ASI from Sadar police station of Amritsar, known as Pappu Bajwa, raided the house along with a large team of constables. The police searched the house and interrogated the family members about Karaj Singh. They could not tell much.
ASI Bajwa then started to abuse Balbir Kaur and when she protested shot her dead in front of all the other members of the family. The killing was later explained away as the result of an encounter.
The incident effected Balbir Kaur’s husband Makhan Singh very deeply. He died some time later from the grief and the shock of his wife’s murder.[151]
Case No. 8: Thirty-five years old Baldev Singh was a farmer from Patti Bhan ki in Kairon village under Patti subdivision of Amritsar district. Baldev Singh had studied upto the higher secondary school. He was married to Narinder Kaur with one daughter Sukhpreet who is now five years old. His seventy-five years old father Jagir Singh and mother Charan Kaur, seventy, also lived in the same house.
Baldev was himself unconnected with militant political activities. But his brother Gurbaksh had reacted with great emotion to the army operation against the Golden Temple and had presumably taken to arms after becoming a fugitive in late 1984. He was subsequently killed supposedly in an armed encounter with the police. For this reason, the police began to raid the house and harass the family members to find out Gurbaksh’s whereabouts. Baldev had also been illegally arrested and tortured in custody for information.
On 24 November 1992, Baldev along with his wife Narinder Kaur, and his cousin Amarjit Singh, went to his sister Kuldeep Kaur’s house in the Radha Swami colony in Fazilka. Early in the morning of 25th November, around 5 a.m., a police force led by Naurang Singh, incharge of Kairon police post, raided Kuldeep Kaur’s house after scaling the walls. The police force was accompanied by Kulwant Singh, son of Mewa Singh from Sau Ki Patti in village Kairon who had known that Baldev Singh had gone to his sister’s village. At the time of the raid, Kuldeep Kaur, her husband Jeet Singh and their minor children were also present in the house. Both Baldev and Amarjit were immediately nabbed. Naurang Singh tied their hands to their backs and forced them into a vehicle before driving away. Baldev’s wife Narinder Kaur along with her brother-in-law went back to Kairon in a taxi to inform the family about the arrests.
The same afternoon, the members of the village council and other elders including Sarpanch Kashmira Singh, one advocate from Patti known as Tipu, Saroop Singh Gill, an employee of the Punjab Roadways, Mahinder Singh, Baldev’s father Jagir Singh and several other relatives met Naurang Singh, incharge of Kairon police post. Naurang Singh told them that Amarjit Singh and Baldev Singh would be released after their interrogation.
Over the next five days, the relatives and other village elders visited Naurang Singh and DSP Kashmir Singh a number of times to plead for their release. Baldev’s wife Narinder Kaur was allowed to see him in the lock up of Kairon police post briefly. However, they were not allowed to talk.
Naurang Singh demanded a payment of Rs. 200,000 for the release of Amarjit and Baldev. The family managed to raise Rs. 135,000, which was handed over to Naurang Singh. Meanwhile, both Amarjit and Baldev had been brutally tortured in the custody. The information was conveyed to the family by local police constables that their condition was serious.
After paying the bribe of Rs. 135,000 to Naurang Singh on 30 November 1992, the family persuaded him to allow a private doctor to examine them. Naurang Singh also assured them that both Baldev and Amarjit would be released the following day.
Early next morning, the family received the message from an acquaintance that the police had taken their dead bodies for post mortem to the Patti Civil hospital. All the women relatives, including Narinder Kaur, immediately rushed to the hospital, which had been cordoned off by a large number of policemen under Naurang Singh. When they tried to enter the hospital, the policemen beat them up on orders from Naurang Singh. They were forced to go back.
Two Punjabi newspapers, Ajit and Punjab Kesri dated 2 December 92, reported that the police had killed two militants in an armed encounter. One of them was identified as Amarjit Singh belonging to the Panjwar group of the Khalistan Commando Force and the other militant killed was called unidentified.
The next day, the family members went to the Patti cremation ground where they found the half burnt bodies of Baldev Singh and Amarjit Singh on separate pyres. They purchased more wood and arranged for their proper cremation. The following day, they went back to collect the ashes.
Some days later, the family organized the last religious rite of giving a feast, when the police again surrounded their house and did not allow anyone except the close relatives to attend.
Naurang Singh never returned the bribe of Rs. 135,000, which he received from the family on 30 November 1992 evening to release Baldev and Amarjit unharmed.
The incident left a deep impression on Baldev’s mother Charan Kaur, who has become mentally unstable.
His father Jagir Singh also took to bed and died in 1996 after his second son Sukhwinder Singh, Baldev Singh’s younger brother, was killed in 1996 reportedly by a police agent. Sukhwinder was also married with two young daughters and one son.
Charan Kaur, who has become mentally disturbed, finds it hard to look after all the widows and their children.
Baldev’s younger brother Gurbaksh Singh who had become a fugitive after the Operation Blue Star, and had also been killed in a supposed armed encounter, was unmarried.[152]
Case No. 9: Twenty-five years old Dalbir Singh was a small farmer who along with his father Sardool Singh, mother Gopal Kaur, his wife Satwant Kaur and their two young daughers Varinder Kaur and Satinder Kaur, now fifteen and twelve, lived in village Varpal under Jandiala police station in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district.
On 4 June 1984, Dalbir’s elder brother Lakhvir Singh had been arrested from the house on suspicion of his links with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Lakhvir never returned and his whereabouts remain unknown. Over the next years, the police continued to raid the house, damaging the property and holding Dalbir and other members of the family for interrogation under torture.
Very early in the morning of 4 July 1986, Jandiala police raided Dalbir’s house once again and abducted him in front of all the relatives.
The same evening, he was shown to have been killed in an armed encounter. The next days newspapers carried the news.
The police continued to raid the house, and confiscated all the valuables, including the household things, jewellery, the irrigation motors from the fields, furniture, even utensils and bedding. The police also did not allow the family to cultivate its agricultural land. The value of confiscated property and other damages from the raids are estimated at Rs. 300,000.
Nineteen months after Dalbir’s abduction and his reported killing in an encounter, on 5 February 1988, the police again raided the house to pick up Dalbir’s father Sardool Singh. He also disappeared. Nothing is known of his whereabouts.
Dalbir’s mother Gopal Kaur could not bear the shock of these tragedies and died from a heart-attack on 8 October 1988, eight months after her husband’s disappearance.
Dalbir Singh’s widow Satwant Kaur, who has sent this complaint, claims that Gopal Kaur had herself suffered torture in custody, resulting in her death.[153]
Case No. 10: Dalbir Singh was a farmer living in village Khela under Goindwal police station in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district. He was married to Lakhwinder Kaur with two sons and two daughters. His sons Gurinderpal and Amandeep are now twenty and thirteen years old. Daughers Sharanjit and Ramandeep are eighteen and fifteen. His parents, Jassa Singh and Gurdeep Kaur also lived with them in the same house.
Dalbir, a baptized Sikh and an old member of the Sikh Students Federation, had been a politically active person. He had become locally popular as the Secretary of the Fatehabad Cooperative Society, a position he had taken in 1975.
After the Operation Blue Star, Dalbir was very vocal in protesting against the “army invasion”. In 1985, Sub-Inspector Anokh Singh of Fatehabad police post abducted Dalbir from his house and after his illegal interrogation under torture sent him to jail on a trumped up charge of indulging in arson. When he applied for release on bail, the government arrested him under the National Security Act. But the NSA was withdrawn three months later, and Dalbir came out of jail on bail.
After his release, Dalbir decided to shift to Jalandhar where he opened a dairy farm. The business was successful, so he remained occupied. The police also did not come to arrest him again for the next three years.
In 1988, SSP Gobind Ram of Batala police district led a force to raid Dalbir’s house in Baldev Singh Colony in Jalandhar. On that day, one friend of Dalbir named Kanwaljit Singh, alias Waheguru, from Gurdsaspur was visiting him. Dalbir’s wife Lakhwinder and their children Gurinderpal, then 12 years, Sharanjit Kaur, 10 years, Ramandeep Kaur, 8 years and Amandeep, then 6 years were also home.
The police under Gobind Ram’s instructions started torturing Dalbir Singh, his wife Lakhwinder and their friend Kanwaljit right there in the house to demand the weapons they had supposedly hidden. But the thorough search yielded nothing. Gobind Ram took all the three into custody. The four young children, who were continuously screaming while their parents were being tortured in their presence, were left alone to fend for themselves. The three prisoners were taken to Beeco joint interrogation center in Batala and tortured. Lakhwinder was released after three days. Kanwaljit was killed in custody, but a newspaper report said that he died in an armed encounter.
Dalbir was arrested under TADA and sent to Amritsar jail. Again, he managed to come out on bail and returned to his dairy farm business in Batala. In 1989, Dalbir singh’s father Jassa Singh died. Following this, Dalbir closed down the business in Jalandhar and returned to his village to look after his agricultural farm. The police never harassed him until the beginning of 1992 when Dalbir had an altercation with the owner of a pesticide shop in Fatehabad, who happened to be a relative of ASI Tarlochan Singh Walia.
After this incident, the police from Fatehabad, Goindwal and Tarn Taran began to raid Dalbir’s house again. Fearing torture and murder in custody, Dalbir began to stay away from the house. But the police kept up the pressure by repeatedly arresting and torturing his relatives. His younger brother Balkar was repeatedly tortured very severely, and asked to produce his brother before the police.
During one of the frequent raids, the police also damaged the house, breaking all the widow panes, other household things and demolishing the kitchen. The family estimates the value of the destroyed property to be more than Rs. 30,000.
In June 1992, ASI Dalbir Singh, in-charge of Fatehabad police post, abducted Balkar Singh again and brutally tortured him to find out Dalbir’s whereabouts. Unable to suffer the torture, Balkar Singh revealed that his brother was staying with his in-laws in Fatehpur Badeshan.
Early next morning, a police force under ASI Dalbir Singh, accompanied by Balkar Singh, raided the house of Dalbir’s in-laws. It was 4:30 in the morning and every one was sleeping. The police scaled the walls of the house to go inside. Dalbir was taken into custody in front of his wife, his father-in-law Gurbakhsh Singh, mother-in-law Swaran Kaur, his brother-in-law Nirmal Singh and his wife Paramjit Kaur.
Dalbir and his brother Balkar were taken back to Fatehabad police post where Surinderpal Singh, SHO of Goindwal police station, supervised Dalbir’s torture. Balkar was locked up in a separate room.
After some time, Balkar was taken out of the lock up into the courtyard of the police post. Dalbir, who had been chained to a tree and also handcuffed, was profusely bleeding. ASI Dalbir Singh asked Balkar to say his final good-bye to his elder brother, and taunted him to find out where his brother wanted the memorial of his martyrdom built.
Dalbir remained defiant and told the ASI, who was continuously hitting him with a rod, to do whatever he wanted. Later that evening, ASI Dalbir Singh released Balkar after instructing him to come back with Rs. 60,000 within some hours if he cared to see his brother alive.
Balkar himself was in a critical condition from his torture. He went back to the village and fell down on a cot outside a neighbor’s house. He was unable to speak from exhaustion, physical pain and mental anguish.
Some hours later, SHO Surinderpal Singh and ASI Dalbir Singh again raided the house and informed the family members that Dalbir had escaped from their custody. They arrested his mother Gurdeep Kaur, his sister Darshan Kaur and her father-in-law Darshan Singh and brought them all to Fatehabad police post.
Another group of police officers went to Fatehpur Badeshan village to arrest Dalbir’s in-laws. His brother-in-law’s wife Raramjit Kaur, his sisters-in-law Rajwinder Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur and her husband Narinder Singh were brought to Fatehabad police post. There, all of them were beaten up, Gurbaksh Singh most severely. They were released two days later at the intervention of Colonel Mukhtiar Singh, Lakhwinder Kaur’s maternal uncle.
A report published in Ajit and Jagbani on 5 October 1992 said that a militant named Dalbir Singh had been killed in an armed encounter with the police near village Behla on 3 October.
After reading the news report, Balkar Singh along with some village elders went to Tarn Taran city police station where they met SHO Gurbachan Singh Manochahal to find out if the report concerned his brother. SHO Manochahal showed him Dalbir’s identity card and asked him to go back and perform the last religious rites.
It was now established that Dalbir Singh had been killed. Balkar Singh went back home and let all the family members know. His mother immediately fainted. The last rites were performed. Mother Gurdeep Kaur was unable to recover from the trauma and died in 1996, after remaining mentally unbalanced for three and a half years.[154]
Case No. 1: Baldev Singh, 25 years old Majhabi Sikh and a casual laborer, was married with three children.
On 6 July 1990, Baldev Singh along with his wife and his father went to village Pahuwind to call on his in-laws. That day Bhikhiwind police along with CRPF units raided the village and rounded up all unidentified young men at the village Gurudwara for screening. Baldev was one of them. The entire village, including the headman of the village council, witnessed the operation. The police force was being led by Paramdeep Singh Teja, DSP.
Baldev was detained at police station Bhikhiwind where his wife Salwinder Kaur visited him a few times until 10 July 90 and even brought him food. Thereafter, she and her father-in-law were not allowed to see Baldev. Telegrams were sent to all relevant authorities, but to no effect. Since then Baldev Singh’s whereabouts are not known.
The family believes that he got killed and his body cremated or disposed of in some other way illegally. But there is no evidence. Salwinder cried while stating the dilemma that she did not know whether to consider herself a widow or not. She resents having become a burden on her parents.
Salwinder’s young children have become laborers to survive. She asks: “What more mental and physical agony I should suffer? I do not know whether my husband is alive or dead? My children have become slaves? Don’t you consider child labor to be suffering?”
Salwinder Kaur lives at village Pahuwind, near Baba Daya Singh Gurdwara under Patti subdivision of Amritsar district.[155]
Case No. 2: Eighteen years old Kuldip Singh had only finished his primary school. He came from a poor family of village Fatehabad under Khadoor Sahib subdivision of Amritsar district, which sustained itself by running a small eatery stall. It was a family of devout baptized Sikhs.
Once, towards the end of year 1990, SHO of Goindwal police station Tarlochan Singh Walia came to the house to look for Kuldip, who was not home. His parents, suspecting trouble, shifted his residence to his maternal uncle’s house in Moga. The police regularly raided the house and routinely picked up his parents, who were then held illegally and pressurized to surrender Kuldip.
Kuldip was home when early morning of 8 April 91 a group of policemen comprising Head Constable Tarlochan Singh, constables Pargat Singh and Buta Singh raided the house. The police team took Kuldip and his younger brother Hardip Singh into custody and went away with them. His father Nand Singh along with village elders went to Fatehabad police post to make inquiries. ASI Channan Singh said that both would be interrogated about suspected militant links. Later that evening, Hardip was released. He had been severely tortured; also instructed to keep silent about his experiences. For the next ten days, the family did not hear anything about Kuldip except some rumors that he had already been killed. But constable Harnek Singh reported that Kuldip was being interrogated by Goindwal police. The SHO of Verowal police station confirmed this. In the beginning, SHO Tarlochan Singh Walia of Goindwal police station denied the custody, but later demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000 to release him. After receiving the money, SHO Walia asked the family members to reach SSP Sandhu’s house where they were told that Kuldip would reach home the same evening.
Kuldip did not return home. The family now believes that he has been killed and his dead body secretly disposed of. Kuldip’s mother Darshan Kaur, who has sent this complaint, was so traumatized that she had to be treated at Amritsar Mental Hospital and later at Pathankot.[156]
Case No. 3: Twenty-one years old Sukhwant Singh alias Sukha was trained to be an electrician, but later became an apprentice driver under his father who owned a truck. He was a baptized Sikh who wore the traditional five symbols, including the mandatory 'kirpan' (a small symbolic sword), conspicuously.
On 28 April 92 morning, when Sukhwant and his father Kashmira Singh were returning to their village after reporting at the Truck Union’s office at Goindwal, they were stopped at a police check post that had been set up at the railway crossing outside Goindwal. The policemen at the check post, led by SHO Goindwal Surinderpal Singh, became suspicious of Sukhwant after seeing his yellow turban and his ritual 'kirpan' that he was wearing on the outside. The police ordered Sukhwant to get into their Maruti jeep and ordered his father to go away. Kashmira had no option. He saw the police jeep go towards Fatehabad.
Back in the village, Kashmira reported the incident to the village elders who went to Goindwal police station where they saw Surinderpal who, however, denied having taken Sukhwant into custody. Kashmira became very agitated, but SHO Surinderpal Singh abused him and forced him and other village elders to go away. The next day, Kashmira and his wife Jasvir Kaur went to the SSP’s office at Tarn Taran who met them only to announce that their son was a hardcore militant and that they should not expect mercy. They went on pleading and touched SSP AS Sandhu’s feet. The SSP got them physically thrown out of his office. Later with help from a sympathetic policemen they went to the CIA staff interrogation center and bribed an officer there to see Sukhwant who was in a bad shape from physical torture. Sukhwant told them that they should pay any amount of money demanded by the officers. Otherwise, he would be killed.
Kashmira and Jasvir met their son for the last time on 4 May 92. Thereafter, there has been no authentic news about his whereabouts. Local rumours, informally supported by policemen, suggest that Sukhwant has been killed. But the parents remain uncertain. Mother Jasvir and her daughter Nirmal Kaur suffered serious mental shock. Father has become a drug addict. He cannot do any work and cannot sleep. The family lives at Village Lohar under Police Station Sarhali in Khadoor Sahib subdivision of Amritsar district.[157]
Case No. 4: Twenty-six years old Ranjit Singh from Mangat Kaler village under Majitha police station in Amritsar was a helper in the Punjab roadways. He was unmarried.
Early morning of 12 September 92, a team of police officers picked him up from the outskirts of his village. The police officials informed his father Sewa Singh, who was with Ranjit when the abduction occurred, that they were taking him to SSP AS Sandhu for interrogation.
On 13 September, Sewa Singh met the SSP who said that his son Ranjit would be released after interrogation. On 19 September 92, some police officials brought Ranjit to his house which was searched. Nothing incriminating was recovered. However, as Ranjit had still not been released, Sewa Singh filed a petition for the habeas corpus before the High Court that was listed for hearing on 1 March 93. The petition was dismissed after DSP Majitha, Raj Kumar swore an affidavit to say that Ranjit was not taken into custody and that he was not even wanted in connection with any investigation. Sewa Singh continued to pursue the matter by sending petitions to the higher authorities of the State government, including the Governor, pleading for an inquiry and the production of his son. But they did not respond.
Sewa Singh has since been mentally deranged. He does not believe a report in daily Ajit of 22 September 92, which said that Ranjit was killed in an “encounter”. He maintains that his son is still under clandestine detention.[158]
Case No. 5: Kashmir Singh, a young unmarried farmer, was the only bread winner in the family from Sathiala village under Beas police station in Amritsar district. His sixty-five years old parents and two unmarried sisters were completely dependent on him for their livelihood.
On 29 August 92, a police team led by DSP Amar Singh Chahal from Kapurthala district and SHO CIA staff Kapurthala Joginder Singh Ghora and Tirath Ram also of Kapurthala CIA staff raided the house and took Kashmir away in front of his entire family including his parents and two sisters. Parents and the village elders went to Kapurthala and met DSP Chahal a number of times. Chahal kept on making empty promises that he would release Kashmir after interrogation.
Basic poverty did not allow Kashmir’s family members to follow up the case for his release. A lawyer in Amritsar suggested that they go to Chandigarh to file a petition before the High Court. But they did not have the money to travel. Psychologically wrecked, they have given in to the inevitable. No one knows what happened to Kashmir, whether he is alive or dead and, if dead, how and where his body got cremated. [159]
Case No. 6: Kashmir Singh Bhullar, a forty-two years old farmer, married, with four young children, lived at House No. 102, 9th Street in Jagdambe Colony under Vijay Nagar police Station in Amritsar district. Kashmir and his brother Dayal Singh owned a dairy farm with thirty buffaloes, which brought them a substantial income of 20,000 rupees a month. They were baptized Sikhs, very devout, but otherwise uninvolved in any kind of politics. They had never been arrested earlier.
On 3 November 1990 morning, a group of uniformed policemen from B. R. Model School Interrogation Center raided the house and took Kashmir into custody. They had already arrested Sukhchain Singh of Nehru colony in Amritsar. Dayal Singh requested SI Balbir Singh, in-charge of the Interrogation Center and an acquaintance, to help. Finding out that the police wanted to arrest him also, Dayal stayed away from the house that night. In his absence, the police took away his wife and her brother Balwinder Singh to the interrogation center. Fearing that they might get tortured, Dayal turned himself in. On his surrender, his wife and brother-in-law were released.
Few hours later, Dayal was taken for interrogation to a room in which Kashmir, Sukhchain and Resham Singh alias Pappu of Jagdambe Colony in Amritsar were being interrogated. They were all handcuffed and shackled. SI Balbir was himself leading the interrogation. He asked them about Dayal’s involvement in militant activities. All the three said that they did not know anything. Apparently unsatisfied with the answer, the Sub-Inspector started physically torturing Dayal to compel his confession. After some time, he was shackled and left in that room along with others. Dayal observed that Sukhchain’s physical condition from torture was bad. He also noticed that both Kashmir and Resham had also been tortured, although less severely. All four were held in that room for the next eighteen days in the course of which they used to be separately taken out to another room and interrogated under severe torture. Dayal alone was spared torture.
On 22 November 90, Dayal and Resham were separated from the rest, blindfolded and transferred to another location, which they later found out to be the “B” Division police station in Amritsar. Four other young men, whom they did not know, were already detained in the cell. After four days, Dayal and the other four in the cell were framed in a TADA case and produced before a magistrate, who committed them to the high security prison in Amritsar. Meanwhile, SI Balbir had been transferred from the BR Model School to the “B” Division Police Station. Chaudhary Gurmeet Chand had taken over the charge of the Interrogation Center. Dayal could not find out what happened to his brother Kashmir and the other prisoner Resham Singh who had also been to B Division police station. His father-in-law Jaswant Singh came to the jail to tell him that his wife Manjit Kaur and her brother Balwinder Singh had also been framed under TADA on charges of sheltering terrorists. Ninety days later, Dayal, his wife and his brother-in-law were released on bail when the prosecution failed to submit a charge-sheet.
Dayal persuaded his father-in-law to talk to SI Balbir to find out what happened to Kashmir. SI Balbir told him that he had been formally arrested and held in prison, either at Hissar or Sirsa jail. Along with his sister and other relatives, Dayal went to Hissar jail. There was a prisoner named Kashmir Singh, but his father’s name did not match and the prison officials refused their application for an interview. Dayal got back to SI Balbir who suggested that they try to find him in Sirsa jail. In that jail there was nobody under the name of Kashmir Singh. They also went to Nabha jail. Again, there was no prisoner under that name. Their investigations had come to a dead end. SI Balbir Singh refused to entertain further inquiries. Kashmir Singh’s whereabouts remain unknown. No one has seen him after 22 November 90.
Dayal had to sell off all the buffaloes of his dairy farm to sustain the efforts to locate his brother and to pursue the legal cases that had been framed against him and his family members. He also had the responsibility to marry off two daughters of his missing brother. Once prosperous family is now pauperized. His mother Sant Kaur had assumed that Kashmir Singh was also in prison. After Dayal’s release, she found out that his whereabouts are unknown. She could not take the shock and died from grief a month later.[160]
Case No. 7: Thirty years old Kulwant Singh, alias Kanta, was a constable with the Home Guards, and was posted at Police Post Khuali in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar. He was married with a small child and lived with his parents at Burj 169, Raja Taal, under police station Sarai Amanat Khan of Tarn Taran subdivision in Amritsar district.
29 Noember 92 noon, soon after Kulwant left his house to report on duty, ASI Balkar Singh Chheena and Inspector Dharam Singh of Khuali police post came to the house to tell his mother Balbir Kaur that her son had deserted his post along with his rifle. They took her and her second son Harpal Singh into custody as hostages to compel Kulwant to turn in. Balbir Kaur got in touch with Kulwant and made him surrender to ASI Kashmir Singh, incharge of police post Sarai Amanat Khan. Several village elders were present when Kashmir Singh took him into custody.
Kulwant disappeared. The family members tried to find out about his fate by repeatedly approaching the officials at Sarai Amanat Khan and Lopoke police stations who said that Kulwant got transferred to Mal Mandi Interrogation Center for questioning. Attempts to meet the concerned officials of the Interrogation Center remained unsuccessful. The mother sent several petitions to senior officials in the State government, including the Chief Minister and the IG, Border Range, beseeching them to help. But there was no response. Balbir Kaur, however, believes that her son is alive and held incommunicado. Kulwant’s wife left the house after her three years old son died from neglect.[161]
Case No.8: Kesar Singh, alias Bapu, was a forty-five years old religious Sikh, who engaged in organizing voluntary work for the Gurudwaras, Sikh temples. He was married with four grown up children and lived in village Pandori Rehmana under Jhabal police station of Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district.
In the past, the police used to routinely take him into illegal custody during search operations and torture him for information on his suspected terrorist links. In June 1992, he was picked up from the Amritsar railway station and taken to B. R. Model School interrogation center. After twenty days of illegal detention, Kesar was charged under TADA and sent to Amritsar jail.
One year later, in May 1993, while he was still in Amritsar jail, the Jhabal police obtained a judicial warrant to interrogate him in connection with some terrorist offence. Five days after taking him in, the police declared that Kesar escaped from their custody. However, the family members received a letter from him disclosing that he was still under illegal detention at Verowal police station. Reports on his supposed escape was carried by Ajj Di Awaj, Ajit, and Punjabi Tribune on 13 September 1993.
After vainly approaching several influential officials and politicians for help, including DIG Bhatti, Balwant Singh Ramoowalia, then Vice-Chairman of the Minorities Commission, Chief Minister Beant Singh, Ram Jethmalani,a famous lawyer and member of Parliament, former President of India Giani Zail Singh and KPS Gill, the family moved a petition No. 455/1994 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The court ordered a judicial inquiry, which reported that seven persons of the family, including Kesar and Baba Meja Singh, had indeed disappeared. The inquiry report, however, did not comment on the issue of culpability, and the court ordered a further CBI inquiry, which has not yet concluded. The petition before the High Court was handled by lawyer Ranjan Lakhanpal.
The family members who disappeared are (1) Baba Charan Singh, (2) Baba Meja Singh, (3) Baba Gurdev Singh, all brother of Kesar Singh, (4) Gurmej Singh, Baba Charan Singh’s brother-in-law, (5) Gurmej’s son Balwinder Singh, (6) Meja Singh’s brother-in-law Lakha Singh and (7) Kesar Singh.[162]
Case No. 9: Boor Singh was a seventy years old farmer who had become completely blind. He was married with five grown up sons, the youngest being twenty years old Arjan Singh, who the police suspected of maintaining terrorist connections. The family lived at village Sehnsra Kalan, under Jhander police station in Ajnala subdivision of Amritsar district.As the police had been routinely raiding the farm house, also harassing all the members of the family because of their suspicions on Arjan, they began to live elsewhere.
On 5 March 92, Arjan Singh was arrested from the community kitchen attached to Anandpur Sahib Gurudwara while he was eating food by a group of officers led by SHO Wassan Singh of Jhander Police Station. The next day, Arjan was shown killed in a supposed armed encounter that was orchestrated near village Sehnsra Khurd. The body was not handed over to the family. The cremation itself was traced to Amritsar cremation ground and the family collected the ashes.
This was not the end of the story. 27 August, 1992 night, a large group of policemen raided the farmhouse when Boor Singh was there alone. The police opened heavy fire on the farm house and later took the blind man into custody. The next day, members of the family along with village elders went to Police Station Khatrai Kalan. However, no official there listened to them. They went on to meet the IG Bhatti and begged him to get their totally blind and innocent father released. In stead of help, the police conducted one more raid to demolish the house and also to confiscate all household belongings.
Boor Singh could not be located and there has been no news about his fate.[163]
Case No. 10: Forty years old Gurpal Singh, alias Pala, and his wife Kamaljit Kaur were employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board at Hamira. Their family comprised Gurpal’s old father and mother, and their two young children. They lived in village Gagrewal under police station Verowal in Khadur Sahib subdivision of Amritsar district.
In the past, Gurpal had been once detained for interrogation by a team of CRPF officials from Khuaspur. In the course of his interrogation, Gurpal had also been tortured. He was released after the entire village council intervened to testify his innocence. Gurpal had no political association and did his job regularly.
9 April 1992 morning, Gurpal along with his wife Kamaljit Kaur cycled down to Gagrewal Bus Stand from where they used to catch a bus to Rayya to go to work. On that day, they wanted to help Gurpal’s brother-in-law in purchasing some household things and were waiting for him outside a hardware shop when SHO Wassan Singh of Beas police station drove up in a jeep and motioned Gurpal to come to him. As Gurpal Singh came close to the jeep, some policemen jumped out and pushed him inside the vehicle, which drove away. Kamaljeet Kaur, who witnessed the abduction, immediately informed his family and also the the Electricity Board office at Rayya on telephone. Meanwhile, Gurpal’s brother-in-law Niranjan Singh, employed by the Punjab State Electricity Board at Rayya, arrived to keep his shopping appointment. Learning about the abduction, he went to DSP Darshan Singh Mann and SHO Wassan Singh who acknowledged the arrest and promised to release Gurpal after interrogating him. They also repeated the promise to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Rayya Electricity Board who also got in touch with them to appeal for Gurpal’s release.
On 10 April 92, several members of the family again met SHO Wassan Singh who said that Gurpal had to first recover from the effects of his torture under interrogation. He promised that Gurpal would return home as soon as he felt little better, which he said would be in some days. On 15 April 92, the SHO said that Gurpal had been taken to Kapurthala for further questioning. But DSP Mann told Kamljeet, Gurpal’s wife, that they should not waste any more time as her husband had already been killed. He also suggested that she would receive compensation that her husband had been kidnapped and killed by terrorists.
The family refused to oblige and sent telegrams and petitions to the higher authorities including the Home Secretary, the DGP, the DC Amritsar, DSP Baba Bakala, Chairman Punjab State Electricity Board at Patiala, Superintending Engineer of Tarn Taran Circle, and several others. However, no one responded. Kamaljit has not even received Gurpal’s Provident Fund and other arrears from her husband’s employment with the electricity department, which has demanded a FIR regarding Gurpal’s abduction. That the police refused to register.
Six months after the incident, Gurpal’s eighty years old father Bala Singh was called by Jalalabad police officials who questioned him about Gurpal and forced him to sign some papers. Illiterate, old and afraid of the police, he had no choice. His wife Swaran Kaur had already died from the shock of her son’s disappearance.[164]
Case No. 1: Bupinder Singh, alias Toti, was a post-graduate student of geography at the university of Patiala. Bhupinder, like the rest of the family, was a baptized Sikh and was deeply involved in the Sikh community’s situation in Punjab. He used to organize religious and quasi-political functions for the students in the university, and was locally known for his activities. Bhupinder’s father Joginder Singh, a teacher in a government school, and other members of his family lived in village Alipur, under Nabha Sadar police station of Patiala district.
Inspector Surjit Singh Grewal, who later became the DSP incharge of the CIA interrogation center, disliked Bhupinder’s extracurricular activities, and had picked him up a number of times for interrogation. Grewal had also accused Bhupinder of distributing sweets in the university campus after Rajiv Gandhi got assassinated in the summer of 1991. But he could not do much as the University authorities, including the Vice Chancellor vouched for him as a good student, and interfered to get him out of illegal custody whenever Grewal took him in.
Although Grewal was later transferred to the Punjab Armed Police center at Bahadargarh in Patiala, he had developed a personal interest in Bhupinder Singh’s case. Once Grewal called some students of the Patiala University, including Maninder Singh Kaku, a student of law and now a lawyer, to his house. Grewal asked them to bring Bhupinder down to his house, so that he could talk to him and advise him on how to avoid troubles with the police. On 20 August 92, Maninder Singh Kaku, who now lives in House Number 1517 in Sector 36-D of Chandigarh took Bhupinder and his elder brother Balwinder along to DSP Grewal’s house. Balwinder waited outside, while Bhupinder and Kaku went in. After some time, Kaku came out to say that the officer wanted a private talk with Balwinder and had promised to do him no harm. Kaku and Balwinder went back, but Bhupinder never returned.
The next day, the police picked up Bhupinder’s father Master Joginder Singh and tortured him severely at the CIA staff interrogation center in Patiala. His illegal detention and torture lasted eight days. DSP Grewal personally warned him not to make any noise about his son; otherwise, he would also be eliminated. The police also abducted Bhupinder’s elder brothers Balwinder and Hardev. Their father Joginder Singh moved the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus and both were released. Later on, his elder son Balwinder was again arrested and implicated in a case under TADA.
Master Joginder Singh does not know whether Bhupinder is still alive or has been killed. His own wife has from the effect of Toti’s disappearance become almost insane.[165]
Case No. 2: Tarlochan Singh was a young unmarried farmer from village Sehke near Amargarh in Malerkotla subdivision of Sangrur district.
The police suspected Tarlochan of being involved in the Sikh militant movement and wanted to arrest him. On 10 February 1993, his father Jagjit Singh and other village elders went with Tarlochan to SSP Bedi of Khanna police so that he could ascertain his antecedents and stop harassing him in the future. Tarlochan was implicated in a TADA case and sent to Nabha jail.
On 13 March 93, DSP Sukhdev Singh Brar of Malerkotla police obtained a magisterial remand for his interrogation in connection with his investigations in some other matter. The next day itself, it was declared that Tarlochan had escaped from the police custody. Nothing is known of his whereabouts since then. His sister Swaran Kaur could not bear the shock and died. Father Jagjit Singh, who admits to being mentally disturbed, suggests that his son might still be alive under secret detention somewhere. [166]
Case No. 3: Twenty-one years old Amandip Singh was a student at Guru Nanak College in Batala. His father Balraj Singh is a teacher in the government primary school at Laddamanda and lives in Madre village under Batala subdivision of Gurdaspur district.
In December 1990, Balraj Singh was mugged on his way to the school by a group of young Sikh boys, presumably militants, who snatched his motorcycle (Registration Plate Number: PIA 135). Some days later, the Border Security Force recovered the stolen motorcycle, and deposited it at Dhariwal police station. Amandeep was taken into illegal custody and his father was asked to prove that he had purchased the motorcycle, and that it had actually been robbed. Amandeep was released from the illegal custody after eight days when Balraj Singh satisfied the authorities that he was the genuine owner and that he had been mugged. But the SHO Makhan Singh of Dhariwal police station demanded fifty thousand rupees to return the motorcycle. Balraj Singh had purchased it for eighteen thousand. Makhan Singh said that he was not demanding the value of the motorcycle but the price for his son’s life. Balraj Singh met the SSP S. K. Goyal who refused to interfere. Balraj Singh did not pay the money, but asked the SHO to keep the motorcycle.
18 March 1991 morning, Amandeep and Jasbir Singh, a fellow student from his own village, left for their college in Batala in a Punjab roadways bus No. PBN 1119. On the way, SHO Makhan Singh and ASP Gurmel Singh stopped the bus and arrested them. Many natives of village Madre, including Master Shiv Singh and Kashmir Singh, were travelling in the same bus and witnessed the arrests. Both were taken back to their village Madre where the officers searched Jasbir’s house.
Balraj Singh was at his time supervising an examination of a class in his school. Master Shiv Singh came to tell him about Amandeep’s arrest, and he immediately went back to his village where the police was still searching Jasbir’s house. Amandeep, Jasbir and a third boy, in the police custody, were standing outside. They had been blindfolded and handcuffed. Balraj Singh asked SHO Makhan Singh why he had arrested his son. The SHO told him to find out from the ASP who declared that the arrests had been made on instructions from SSP Goyal. After the search, the police took all the three boys to Dhariwal police station. Master Balraj Singh and Jasbir’s father Gurbaksh Singh, and their relatives, also went there.
At 4 in the afternoon, SSP Goyal came to Dhariwal police station when Balraj Singh managed to speak to him. The SSP said that the boys would be interrogated.
Balraj Singh was still standing outside the police station when a Suzuki Gypsi with the license plate number PAK 7978 drove in. One DSP called Basi, previously in-charge of the BIKO interrogation center and then posted in Pathankot district, got out of the vehicle. After some time, he came out along with Amandeep, forced him into the vehicle, and drove away.
Early next morning, Balraj Singh went to the office of SSP Goyal who, however, was not available. Balraj Singh managed to speak to him late in the evening at his residence. The SSP said that the interrogation was not over and that he should see him the following day. It was 20 March 1991. Punjab Kesari, a Hindi newspaper, reported two separate incidents of supposed encounters in which five ‘militants’ had been killed. The first incident was had occurred at Sakoda village in Gurdaspur district when some ‘militants’ reportedly attacked a joint patrol of the BSF and the Punjab police, who fired back in self defense and killed three militants identified as Jagbir Singh, Hardev Singh and Satnam Singh. Jagbir had been arrest along with Amandeep. The other two were also from the neighboring villages.
The second incident was reported to have taken place in Pathankot district. The newspaper story said that some militants attacked the police team to rescue Kamaljit Singh, who was being taken to village Lamiri to recover weapons. Kamajit and one unidentified militant were killed when the police fired back in self-defense. The newspaper reporting of the incidents was based on a press briefing the SSP had held on 19 March. The same evening the SSP had told Balraj Singh that Amandeep’s interrogation was in progress.
Balraj Singh suspected that the unidentified militant reported to have been killed in the second incident might be Amandeep. But SSP Goyal had told him that the interrogation was continuing. Immediately, he went to the SSP and asked him about his son’s interrogation. Goyal remained silent. Balraj asked him why he was not speaking. Then he said “go to Dhariwal police station. I will come there.” Balraj reached there and SSP Goyal also arrived. For some time he remained in conference with SHO Makhan Singh. After a while, Makhan Singh came out and told Balraj Singh that he had never arrested Amandeep. Balraj Singh became agitated and started shouting and moving towards the SHO, who threatened to shoot if he did not stop. Balraj Singh said he would not stop unless he told him what happened to his son. Makhan Singh then said that Amandeep was with the SP (Operations), and that he should go to him to find out. SSP Goyal did not come out. After waiting at the police station for some time, Balraj Singh went back home.
He had already sent telegrams about Amandeep’s illegal arrest to the Governor, the High Court, the DGP, the Deputy Commissioner and other higher officials. Later, he also sent registered letters to them. The SP (Operations) refused to meet him. Balraj Singh did not know what to do.
On 27 March, a Punjabi paper Jagbani identified the second person killed in the 18 March incident at Pathankot as Amandeep Singh of Madra village. Once again, SSP Goyal had briefed the press to clarify the identity. By then the police had already carried out the cremation. Balraj Singh went to Pathankot and met the father of Kamaljit Singh, the supposed militant Amandeep had reportedly tried to rescue from the police custody. Kamaljit Singh’s father, a priest of the local Gurudwara, told him that he had attended the cremations and had also collected the ashes of the second person, reported unidentified, who had been killed along with his son. The old man was unable to give a coherent description of the body.[167]
Case No. 4: Amrik Singh, alias Mangu, was a thirty-two year man with a wife and three young children. He owned a small grocery shop and lived in Ghanauri Kalan village under Sherpur police station of Dhuri subdivision in Sangrur district.
On 31 May 1992, SHO Darshan Singh of Dhuri police station led a police team to arrest Amrik from his shop. At that time Amrik’s younger brother Darshan Singh was also present there.
The SHO gave evasive answers when Amrik’s wife Bhupinder Kaur later met him to plead for her husband’s release from the illegal custody. Amrik’s father Bhan Singh sent petitions to several officials including the SSP of Sangrur and the DGP KPS Gill. No one acknowedged them and nothing was heard about Amrik. Some time after Bhan Singh had written to the senior officials, he and other members of the family were called to Sherpur police station and compelled to put their thumb impressions on several sheets of blank paper.[168]
Case No. 5: Forty years old Major Singh was the head of his village council Hathur under Jagraon subdivision of Ludhiana district. Jagraon is now a separate police district. Married with four children, he was a farmer, and had also invested in the transport business.
In 1992, SSP Swaran Singh of Jagraon police district had got him illegally detained and later implicated in a case under the Arms Act. Major Singh came out on bail after some months.
3 May 1993 night, SHO Rachhpal Singh of Nihal Singhwala police station in Faridkot district lead a team of officers who raided Major Singh’s house and took him into illegal custody along with his two broters-in-law Balbir Singh and Jagtar Singh, and his nephew Amarjit Singh.
One week after these arrests, SHO Ajaib Singh of Hathur police post came with another team of police men to destroy the house and to carry away all the valuable goods.
After this incident, when the family members and other village elders went to SHO Rachhpal Singh of Nihal Singhwala police station, he allowed them to meet Major Singh who was in the lock-up and under interrogation. The family members continued to meet him there till 13 May 93. The SHO was demanding two hundred thousand rupees to release Major Singh, one hundred and fifty thousand rupees each for the release of Balbir and Jagtar and Major Singh’s transport truck No. 4889.
The family members had no choice but to raise the amounts of bribe money, being demanded from them. They also handed over the truck which was, however, used subsequently to implicate Amarjit’s brother-in-law Hardeep, his nephew Amarjit, one Nachhatter Singh Fauji from Daudhar village and two others in a supposed terrorist offence. Major Singh was not released and he disappeared.
Subsequently, SSP Mithlesh Kumar Tiwari of Faridkot interfered to make SHO Rachhpal return Rs. 150,000 to Major’s mother Mahinder Kaur. This happened in the office of the SSP and was witnessed by several members of the village council. SSP Tiwari also promised to trace out Major Singh and to get him released. Later, he evaded inquiries and said that the family members should ask the SSP of Jagraon for information.
A habeas corpus petition No. 250/96 was filed before the Supreme Court, which ordered Sessions Judge Amar Dutt to carry out an inquiry. The inquiry report supported the police claim that Major Singh had been killed in an incident of armed combat between militants and the police force.[169]
Case No. 6: Thirty-five years old Manmohan Singh was employed at Guru Nanak Dev Rice Mills in Jagraon on a salary of Rs. 2500/-. He supported his family of three young children, his wife and 7o years old mother, who all lived in House number 2042, Agwar Gujran, Jagraon. Manmohan had no political or criminal involvement, and had never been arrested before.
3 May 1993 night, SI Joginder Singh and other policemen from Jagraon’s CIA staff office raided the house and took Manmohan into custody in front of the entire family.
Ten days before the abduction, Manmohan and his brother Sohan had sold a piece of their agricultural land with the intention to buy a transport truck. The money from the sale of land had been deposited in a bank, but the purchase of a truck got delayed because of Sohan’s untimely death from over drinking.
Two days after his abduction, the police officials brought Manmohan back to the house to search for his bank papers. They also forced him to withdraw 150,000 rupees from his account. Thereafter, the police claimed that Manmohan escaped from their custody. The news about the escape, based on the police handout, was carried by daily Ajit on 7 May 93.[170]
Case No. 7: Twenty-eight years old Dalbir Singh, alias Banka, was a small farmer from Behlolpur Tandian village under Kharar subdivision of Ropar district. His family comprised his mother Malkeet Kaur, his wife Sukhwant Kaur and one young son.
Early 6 February 1991 morning, SHO Ramesh Chander of Kharar police station led a raid of the house and took Dalbir in custody. The police brought him back later in the day to conduct a search of the house, but nothing incriminating was recovered.
His father Gurmukh Singh along with other village elders went to the police station where the SHO let them talk to Dalbir. He also promised to let him go later in the evening after some questioning.
Dalbir did not come home. When Gurmukh went to the police station again the next day, the SHO refused to see him and got him thrown out of the police station. Although there has been no information on Dalbir, his wife Sukhwant Kaur hopes that he might still be alive.[171]
Case No. 8: Forty years old Ranjit Kaur was married to Amar Singh, an employee of Indian Airlines, lived in village Gharuan, Patti Daggo, under Kharar police station of Ropar district. They had three grown up children. Her husband lived in 101/A7, Indian air Lines Colony, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57.
In 1992, her husband Amar Singh had been illegally detained by the police in Delhi and later on sent to jail on a trumped up charge of being a vagabond. He had no other criminal record.
Early in the morning of 22 June 92, SSP Sanjeev Gupta of Hoshiarpur led a police raid of their village house in Gharuan, Patti Daggo, to take Ranjit Kaur into custody. One of Ranjit’s daughters insisted on accompanying her to the police station. But the policemen pushed her away from the jeep in which Ranjit Kaur was driven away. No one has heard of or seen her again.
The family members visited several police stations in Hoshiarpur and Ropar districts to search for her. Their representations addressed to the higher authorities, including the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, remained unacknowledged. Ranjit’s husband has from the grief become an alcoholic. Her mother has become almost blind from continuous weeping.[172]
Case No. 9: Daljit Singh, alias Jeeta, was a forty years old farmer from Jhawan village under Tanda police station of Hoshiarpur district who also sang religious hymns at Gurudwaras during festivals.
Daljit had been detained illegally a number of times for interrogation on the suspicion that he maintained militant connections. But he was never fomally charged of any offence though in early 1990 his brother-in-law Joginder Singh, son of Mehar Singh from Kulara village in Hoshiarpur district was killed in a faked incident of armed encounter.
On 23 October 1990, Daljit along with his wife Baljinder Kaur, who has since remarried, went to Behram village to call on a relative. That night Daljit was taken into custody from the house of Bhajan Singh in Behram village by Inspector Joginder Singh Ghora of the CIA staff Hoshiarpur who raided the house. Sumedh Singh Saini was the SSP of the district.
Daljit disappeared with no news of his whereabouts. Baljinder Kaur sent telegrams and petitions to the SSP and the higher State government officials. But no one acknowledged them. Some days after Daljit’s abduction, a joint team officials from Hoshiarpur CIA staff and from Tanda police station conducted another raid of his house in Jhawan, which was demolished and all the valuables confiscated. The loss of property is estimated at Rs. 150,000. Daljit’s brother Amrik Singh and his sisters Hardev Kaur and Jasvir Kaur and his mother Jeet Kaur continue to insist on a thorough inquiry. [173]
Case No. 10: Forty years old Saroop Singh, resident of Nangal Khunga village under Tanda police station in Dasuya subdivision of Hoshiarpur district, had been discharged from the army. Married to Balvir Kaur with three children, Saroop was engaged in farming. He was also a member of the Akali Dal and had taken part in the agitation launched by Sant Longowal and had courted arrest on many occasions. He had also been arrested, in early 1989, on the charge of sheltering a terrorist. But he was released on bail in March 89.
On 30 April 1989, a police party led by Inspector Sardul Singh of Dasuya police station came to the village to arrest Saroop Singh, who was not home. The police damaged the house and other property belonging to Saroop’s father Preetam Singh who estimates the value of a Kirloskar diesel engine, a scooter and bundles of harvested wheat, damaged by the police, to be over Rs. 40,000. The police officials also humiliated other village residents, telling them that they will all be killed unless Saroop was handed over to the police.
On 26 May 89, a delegation of village elders accompanied Saroop Singh to the Dasuya police station, where he was taken into custody. Few days later, the police also picked up his father Preetam Singh and also interrogated him at Dasuya police station where he saw his son. Saroop had been badly tortured and could not even stand up. Ajit Singh Sandhu was the DSP of Dasuya.
Preetam was released after the illegal detention, after seven days. On 25 May 89, he met his son Saroop Singh again at Hajipur police station where he had been transferred for further interrogation. The next day, it was announced that Swaroop had escaped from the police custody. Although his whereabouts remain completely unknown, Inspector Sardul Singh told a local politician that Saroop was being held in a secret place and would eventually get released.
The police had also arrested Vikram Singh son of Jaswant Singh from village Khudda in Hoshiarpur Distt, along with Swaroop. Vikram has also disappeared.[174]
Case No. 1: Thirty-three years old Sawinder Pal Singh from village Jaura under Patti police station in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district was a constable with the Punjab Armed Police. Married to Sarbjit Kaur with two young children, Sawinderpal came from a reasonably wealthy land owning family. His father Jeevan Singh was a Reader in the office of the Patti’s subdivisional magistrate. His brother was also an officer (Patwari) in the Revenue Department. His uncle Sukhdev Singh was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Beas Police Station.
In November 90, ASI Sukhdev Singh along with some other policemen got ambushed and killed by terrorists. Sawinderpal took leave to attend the last rites and, under pressure from the family, decided to quit the police service. He had taken three days of leave from 6 to 9 November 90, but did not report back on duty, neglecting several official letters which called him to do so. The last letter from the department which threatened disciplinary action if he did not immediately attend his roll call was dated 18 March 91.Although he had not acknowledged the official letters, Sawinderpal remained at his village house attending to the family’s agricultural work.
On 1 April 91, Sawinderpal went to his paternal aunt’s house in village Mughal Chakk Pannuan to collect sugarcane graft for his farm, and stayed there overnight. Early 2 April morning, a joint team of the CRPF and Tarn Taran police raided the village. The police party was led by SP (Ops) Khubi Ram and SHO Major Singh from Sadar Police Station. All males were assembled at the village school and those who could not establish their permanent local residence were taken into custody. Sawinderpal and Prem Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Pargat Singh and Bhajan Singh were among those who were taken into custody. Pargat and Bhajan were released on 8 April 91.
The same day, Sawinderpal’s cousin brother Dilbag Singh informed the family about the incident. The police and the CRPF also raided Sawinderpal’s family house in village Jaura but nothing incriminating was recovered. His father Jeevan Singh, along with village elders, went to the SSP Narinderpal Singh the morning of 3rd April. The SSP promised to find out the details and let them know the next day. They went back, but he refused to see. SHO Major Singh told them that Sawinderpal was in the custody of SP (Ops) Khubi Ram.
The Congress politician Surinder Singh Kairon helped the family to meet various officials on the 5th, 6th and 7th of April. Although very evasive and sarcastic, the SSP promised to find out and let them know. On 8th April, he told them that Sawinderpal’s name did not figure in the list of detained persons.
On 12 April, Jeevan Singh sent telegrams about his son’s abduction to the Governor and other officials, including the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. But there was no response. Sawinderpal Singh’s whereabouts remain unknown.[175]
Case No. 2: Forty years old Dalbir Singh from Patti Gurmukhan Di under Verowal police station in Khadoor Sahib subdivision of Amritsar district was a constable of the Punjab Armed Police. He was married to Balbir Kaur with three young children.
Dalbir became a suspect after the Operation Blue Star when he was accused of leading a protest march. Following a departmental inquiry, he was suspended from service on 1 January 1988. Dalbir challenged the order of his suspension, and won his case for reinstatement by the orders of the lower court, further confirmed by the Court of Sessions. Dalbir was to return to official duty on 28 October 1992.
In the period of his suspension, Dalbir had joined a group of religious volunteers under Baba Sewa Singh who organized free social and religious service, mainly for the renovation and maintainance of Sikh religious shrines in the area of Khadoor Sahib. On 24 October 92, he was volunteering construction work of a Gurudwara near village Ulme More and had reached there along with the group when a team of officials led by SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu of Tarn Taran, SHO Surinderpal Singh of Sarhali police station, the SHO of Naushahra Police Post and HC Jasbir Singh took him into custody. Finding out about the arrest, the family got in touch with the SSP and the SHO Surinderpal Singh, who demanded two hundred thousand rupees as a bribe for Dalbir’s release. The SHO suggested that as he had been reinstated, he would recieve a lot of money in arrears. When Dalbir’s wife Balbir and his brother Balwinder Singh demanded to first see him in the custody, the SHO let them meet him at police post Naushehra. Balbir Kaur saw him there for the last time on 31 October 1992. Balbir Kaur was unable to raise the amount demanded by the SHO.
A relative Joga Singh, an Inspector with the BSF, met several officials including the IG Border Range, the DGP, and the SSP for help. But nothing happened. The High Court ordered a magisterial inquiry following a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the family through Rajwinder Singh Bains. The findings of the inquiry are not known. Dalbir’s whereabouts remains unknown. The family suspects that he has been killed and his body disposed of illegally.[176]
Case No. 3: Twenty-four years old Dilbag Singh, alias Bagga, was an instructor at Phillaur Police Training Center in Jalandhar district. His native village was Ghania Ke Bangar in Batala subdivision of Gurdaspur district, where his parents, wife Sukhbir Kaur and their five years old son lived. At the police training Centre, Dilbagh had a good reputation as an Instructor. However, he got involved in a case that was pending trial before a court at Phillaur.
On 7 December 1991, Dilbagh and his father Tasvir Singh were returning to their village after attending the court hearing. On the way at a check post, between Guraya and Phillaur, Dilbagh was taken into custody by four policemen, three in civil clothes and one in uniform, whom Tasvir Singh could not identify. They pushed him away, when he demanded the officers to either tell him where they were taking his son or to let him come along.
Tasvir returned to his village and told the members of the village council who accompanied him to report the abduction to the senior police officials at Jalandhar. They met SP(Detective) Harinder Singh Chahal and SHO Kanwaljit Singh of Sadar police station to tell them about the abduction. The officers promised to find out. Later, the same delegation met the DIG Bhullar of Gurdaspur, and also sent telegrams to the Deputy Commissioner of Jalandhar, the Governor of Punjab, the chief of the Phillaur Police Training Center, the SSP of Batala, the DGP Punjab, IG CID Punjab, and the Chief Justice of Haryana and Punjab High Court. But no action followed. In stead, Tasvir Singh and his younger son Gurinderbir Singh were called to the police station of Ghania Ke Bangar and there both of them were severely tortured. They were told to stop all the “trouble”, or else they would also disappear. The torture of Tasvir had been so severe that he has not recovered from its effects so far. No officer acknowledged the abduction. No newspaper reported it. No court took any action. And the family does not know whether Dilbagh has been killed or not; if yes, how and when, where and how has his body been disposed of.[177]
Case No. 4: Twenty-two years old Gurdev Singh, an unmarried Sikh boy from village Raipur Kalan under police station Jandiala Guru in Amritsar district was a constable with the Punjab police. Stationed at Sathiala police post, Gurdev used to resist the pressure from the superiors to join custodial atrocities and, for that reason, not liked by them.
25 October 1992 early morning, Gurdev came home after a night shift when soon afterwards, some commandos of the Punjab police led by ASI Mohan Singh of Gurdaspur police station came to the house. They said that Gurdev had been transferred from Sathiala police post to Beas Police Station and that they had to take him along to join his new posting. Gurdev was actually taken to Gurdaspur police station, and then handed over for interrogation to Wassan Singh, Sub Inspector of the Mal Mandi Interrogation Center in Amritsar. Gurdev was never seen again.
The family sent several representations to senior officials, including the IG Border Range. But nothing happened. Gurdev’s brother Narinder Singh is a soldier of the Indian army and a member of the President’s Guard stationed at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi. His superior officer wrote a semi official memorandum No. 4046/1/A, dated 25 July 1993, addressed to SSP Majitha Sarabjit Singh Gill, SSP Gurdaspur and SSP Ferozepur to demand an inquiry. But there was no response.
Fearing the consequences for Narinder’s own career, the family did not dare to take any legal action. The incident was also not reported in any newspaper. Gurdev’s father suffered a nervous breakdown and died in July 1996.[178]
Case No. 5: Twenty years old Kuldip Singh from village Fatehpur Badeshe in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district joined the Punjab police after passing out the school. He was unmarried, and looked after his parents and his sixteen years old younger sister. His uncle Rana Pratap Singh was a known militant, but Kuldip and his family had no contact with him.
Appointed as a gunman of DSP Gurmeet Singh of Tarn Taran, Kuldip had been sent to Bahadurgarh police training center in district Patiala to be trained as a Commando. On 6 July 92, Kuldip was exercising on the grounds of the training center, when a team of CIA staff from Tarn Taran led by Inspector Charan Sharma and constable Charan Kamal Bir Singh took Kuldip into custody and brought him to the Tarn Taran CIA Staff interrogation center.
Kuldip’s father Jagir Singh, mother Mahinder Kaur, his uncle Santokh Singh and aunt Rattan Kaur met Kuldip in the lock up of the CIA staff interrogation center where he and his cousin Saroop Singh, also a Punjab police constable, were being interrogated for the whereabouts of their uncle Rana Pratap Singh. SSP A.S. Sandhu had promised to release both Kuldip and Saroop Singh, if they cooperated in their interrogation. After some days, the CIA officials refused to allow them inside on the ground that both Kuldip and Saroop Singh had been sent elsewhere for questioning. Sandhu himself denied the custody and refused to see his parents.
DIG Commando Administration of Bahadurgarh Police Training Center wrote two letters to the SSP of Tarn Taran on 7 August 92 and 4 November 92 to inquire about the whereabouts of Kuldip. Following this, the SSP Tarn Taran initiated a departmental inquiry and on 13 August 94 had Kuldip dismissed from the service on the ground that he had absented himself from duty since 6 July 1992. A former colleague of Kuldip Singh informed his parents that his interrogators had killed him and his cousin Saroop Singh under torture and had thrown their dead bodies in Harike canal. Kuldip’s uncle Rana Pratap and his cousin Saroop were also killed in 1993.[179]
Case No. 6: Twenty-two years old Sukhwinder Singh, alias Satta, joined the Punjab police immediately after passing his Higher Secondary School examination, and was posted as a constable at Dhaul Police Post under Sadar police station of Amritsar. Sukhwinder was unmarried, but was responsible for the welfare of his poor Mazhabi family comprising his old parents, three young sisters and one brother. The family lived at village Khela under Goindwal Sahib police station in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district.
18 April 93 morning, Sukhwinder came home after a night shift at Dhaul police post. The same afternoon, around 3 p.m., Sukhwinder was getting ready to go back to his duty when a group of police officers led by Sub Inspector Ram Lubhaya entered the house and took him into custody on the ground that he was found absent from his duty. They refused to disclose where they were going to take Sukhwinder.
His father Dildar Singh and mother Balbir Kaur immediately rushed to the house of former MLA Lakha Singh who, however, was not available at that time. Dildar then went to Dhaul police post and found out that Sub Inspector Lubhaya had come there on an inspection at about 1 p.m., and was annoyed to find out that constable Sukhwinder had gone home without actually completing his shift. Dildar Singh went back to former MLA Lakha Singh who talked to the sitting MLA Pawan Kumar and confirmed that Sukhwinder was in the custody of Beas police station. Dildar then went to the Beas police station whose officers promised to release him after interrogation.
The next mornig, i.e., 20 April 93, around 11 a.m., Dildar went to Beas police station to see his son along with three other village elders. The SHO Paramjit Singh and Sub-Inspector Lubhaya were not present. Dildar bribed two hundred rupees to a clerk in the police station who let them talk to Sukhwinder who was sitting in a Allwyn Nissan van, along with another constable Sarmukh Singh from Muchal village who had also been taken into custody. Sukhwinder was not able to say much as both of them were being guarded by a Sub-Inspector who drove away with them to some undisclosed place.
Dildar and few other members of the village council were able to meet the boys again at Beas police station on 22nd and 23rd of April. Dildar had met Jasbir Singh Dimpa, a Congress leader with close family ties with his wife’s parents, for help. Dimpa went with him to Baba Bakala police station to meet SP Balkar Singh who promised to get Sukhwinder released in a day or two. When nothing happened for nearly ten days, Sukhwinder’s mother, sister and some other female relatives met SSP Paramjit Singh Gill of Amritsar who assured them again to release him soon. But Sukhwinder remained in the custody. The family continued to meet the police officials for the next two years under the conviction that Sukhwinder was still being held and used for some clandestine operation. The conviction was based on information that Sukhwinder’s former colleagues informally gave them. It was reported that Sukhwinder was in the custody of Division No. 4 police station in Ludhiana.
Meanwhile, Paramjit Singh Gill had been transferred to Fatehgarh Sahib, where again Dildar went to meet him. Gill asked him to see SSP Prabodh Kumar of Majitha who apparently deputed DSP Makhan Singh to make an inquiry. Makhan called Dildar several times, but nothing came of the inquiry.
Dildar also met Jaswant Singh Khalra who advised him to contact the relatives of Surmukh Singh, the other police constable who had also disappeared, to file a joint petition before the High Court. But Surmukh’s father was too afraid to take any action. So, no petition could be filed.
Subsequently, an officer of the CBI recorded Dildar’s statement in connection with their inquiry into the matter of illegal cremations of unidentified bodies. Following this, one Inspector Udham Singh posted at Doburji police station contacted Dildar to suggest that the police officials responsible for his son’s abduction were willing to pay Rs. 300,000/-, if he would agree to make no statement to the CBI. But Dildar rejected the offer. Dildar, who has sent this complaint, holds the police responsible not only for the disappearance of Sukhwinder Singh, but also for the killing of his uncle and of his own parents who apparently died from the shock of this incident.[180]
Case No. 7: Thirty-five years old Kirpal Singh, a constable of the Border Security Force posted at CIA Staff interrogation center in BahadurSingh Wala, was the resident of Village Benra under Dhuri subdivision in Sangrur district. He was married to Harjit Kaur, with a five years old daughter, but was also responsible for the maintenance of his parents and his paternal uncle.
In the night of 1st February 1993, a group of policemen raided the house with the intention of taking Kirpal into custody. He was not home.
The next morning, the village council of elders accompanied Kirpal to the CIA staff office at BahadurSingh Wala and handed him over to Sub-Inspector Harpreet, ASI Gurmeet Singh and ASI Sardara Singh. Many people witnessed the surrender.
Kirpal was never seen again. The attempts by his sixty-five years old father Gurdayal Singh to locate him were in vain. Unable to cope with the disappearance of his son, Gurdayal Singh himself died. His wife Jagir Kaur has also fallen ill and is being cared for by Kirpal’s brother Nachhattar Singh.[181]
Case No. 8: Twenty-two years old Nirbhai Singh, a constable of the Punjab police, was resident of village Alal under Sherpur police station of Dhuri subdivision in Sagrur district. Intelligent and a trained Commando, Nirbhai was liked by his superiors and colleagues alike until early October 1991 when they developed suspicions that his brother Avtar Singh was connected with militant activities. Avtar was illegally arrested and tortured. Nirbhai also came under suspicion and he deserted his post.
The police began to raid his house and harass other family members to produce Nirbhai. On 14 October 91, his father Dharam Singh along with many prominent persons from his area, including several politicians, took Nirbhai to Jasvir Singh Sandhu, SP (Operations) of Sangrur who promised to release him after the necessary investigations. Nirbhai was made over to Inspector Sant Kumar of Patiala CIA staff for interrogation where he was once allowed to meet brother Gurmel Singh. Few days later, Inspector Sant Kumar told Dharam Singh that Nirbhai had been handed over for interrogation to Sumedh Singh Saini of Chandigarh police. DSP Surjit Singh Grewal at Patiala told him that as his son was innocent he had nothing to fear and would eventually come out. His brother Avtar, though brutally tortured in the custody, had already been released.
After some days, Dharma Singh met Grewal again who said that Nirbhai was helping the Ludhiana police in resolving some sensitive terrorist offences. He also mentioned that Inspector Narinder Kumar Bhargo, in-charge of Sadar Police station also called Focal Point No. 6 station, was looking after him.
In the middle of December 91, Dharam Singh saw his son sitting in a police vehicle under the custody of Inspector Sant Kumar at a popular religious fair in Sirhind. Apparently, he had been taken there to identify those with militant connections who might come to attend the fair. When Dharam Singh requested the Inspector to either release his son or to produce him before a magistrate, he flatly denied having him in his custody. Dharam Singh was frightened and assumed that the Inspector would kill his son if he insisted on the matter.
Some months later, Inspector Sant Kumar was transferred to Patiala Sadar police station and Dharam Singh heard that he had taken Nirbhai along with him. In May 1992, Dharam Singh met him there. Nirbhai was in the police lock-up and coming to the iron bars began to weep on hearing his father’s voice. Dharam Singh waived at him but pretended not to have seen his son from the fear that the Inspector might otherwise kill him. Dharam Singh begged the Inspector Sant Kumar to help him and to either release Nirbhai or to bring him to judicial custody. The inspector looked hesitant, and promised to do something about it in four or five days.
Five days later, Dharam Singh met Inspector Sant Kumar again. But this time he was rude and categorically denied having Nirbhai in his custody. Dharam Singh never saw or heard of his son again. He met almost the entire police hierarchy in Punjab, including DGP Gill, D. R. Bhatti, DIG of Patiala range, SSP Satish Kumar Sharma of Patiala, SP (Operations) Sangrur Jasvir Singh Sandhu, SSP Ludhiana Anil Kumar Sharma, SSP Bedi of Ludhiana, DSP Shiv Kumar of Ludhiana police, SP (Operations) Cheema of Ludhiana, Narinder Kumar Bhargava of Ludhiana’s Focal Point Police Station and of course, Inspector Kumar. But no one cared to help.
Nirbhai’s brother Avtar Singh had been so brutally tortured in the custody that he became a physical wreck. Their mother has become almost insane. Dharam Singh himself believes that Nirbhai might still be alive and wants a thorough inquiry. He would like to perform the religious rites in case the police have killed him. But he must know where, when and how he got killed.[182]
Case No. 9: Thirty-five years old Sardool Singh, a constable with the Punjab Armed Police, lived with his wife Manjit Kaur and their three young daughters at village Rahal Chahal near Khadoor Sahib in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district.
In 1987, he was posted at the headquarters of the Punjab Armed Police at Jalandhar when he was arrested on the charge of belonging to the conspiracy to murder DGP Ribeiro, following an unsuccessful bid to assassinate him. Sardool spent three years in Sangrur jail, but was released on bail in 1990. The trial dragged on and he regularly attended the court proceedings.
For his livelihood, Sardool started a dairy farm. He also became the Secretary to the Verka Co-Operative Society, which provided short term loans to farmers to help them cope with seasonal financial pressures between harvesting and sale of their produce. Thus, Sardool was living a busy life. The police did not harass him in any way.
One day in early October 1992, a group of police officials from the CIA Staff Tarn Taran raided Sardool’s house with the intention to arrest him. Sardool had gone out in connection with his dairy farm work. The police officials told the family members that he should appear before SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu at Tarn Taran as soon as he returned home. Sardool did not report to the SSP Sandhu.
After fifteen days, the same group of officials raided the house again and took his wife Manjit Kaur into custody and went away with her to Tarn Taran. Manjit Kaur was held illegally for twelve days at the CIA staff interrogation center in Tarn Taran and, thereafter, for six days at Goindwal police station under the custody of all male officers.
Sardool contacted Amrik Kaur of Amarkot village, a police informer, and requested her to help him and his wife out of the crisis. Amrik Kaur took him to Baba Ajit Singh Poohla, a Nihang leader, also a police operative and the head of a vigilante group. Baba Poohla talked to Sandhu and told Sardool Singh that his wife would be released if he agreed to live in his camp. Sardool agreed and went over to Poohla’s camp.
After her release, Manjit Kaur had to spend one night at Baba Poohla’s residence where Sardool asked her to pay Rs. 14,000 to be paid to Amrik Kaur for his own release. Some days later his brother Harbans Singh came to Baba Poohla’s camp to inform him that the money had been paid to Amrik Kaur who then told him that Sardool Singh was now free to go away. But Baba Poohla asked Harbans to come back the next day, when he said that Sardool had run away from his camp. Some days later Harbans received a message at his house that Sardool was being held at Khalra police station.
Manjit Kaur and her brother Mangal Singh went to Khalra Police Station. SHO Suba Singh was not there, but his subordinate allowed them to talk to Sardool who was in a very bad shape from the thrashing and torture. Sardool told them that unless they managed to get him out soon, he would not live.
Harbans and Mangal met SSP Sandhu at his office who told them to persuade Sardool to get Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal, a known militant, arrested. They pleaded that Sardool had nothing to do with the militant activities, as he must have already found out from his interrogation in the custody. Sandhu asked them to see him again after few days. Two days later, Harbans and Mangal went to SSP Sandhu again at his office in Tarn Taran who asked them to check out from Khalra police station if Sardool was still there or not.
On the way to Khalra, they read a newspaper called Jagbani which carried a report on the killing of four unidentified militants in an armed encounter near a bridge at village Udhoke under Bhikhiwind police station. The newspaper also carried photographs of the slain militants. Sardool’s photograph was also there, although he had been described as an unidentified militant.
After seeing the news report, they returned to the village where the people had already read the news report. This was approximately ten days after the Dipawali of 1992.
The family found out that the Bhikhiwind police had taken Sardool’s body for cremation, declaring it as unidentified, to the Patti cremation ground. When the family reached there, the body had already been burnt. They could not even collect the ashes, which had been dispersed.
One year after this incident Sardool’s mother Kesar Kaur, who suffered a paralytic stroke on learning of his murder in a supposed encounter, died. His wife Manjit, although mentally disturbed, bears the responsibility of bringing up their three daughters. In 1997, the family managed to get the identification of Sardool endorsed on the FIR of the supposed armed-encounter that had been registered at Bhikhiwind police station. This helped them to recover an amount of Rs. 11,000/- that was due to him from his General Provident Fund at the police department.[183]
Case No. 10: Thirty-three years old Paramjit Singh, a constable with the Punjab police, was from a orthodox Sikh family that lived in village Bahmani Wala under Patti subdivision of Amritsar district. Paramjit was married to Sukhwant Kaur, with two young children, and also looked after his old parents. Paramjit’s elder brother Heera Singh is a soldier in the Indian army.
Having joined the police force in 1982, Paramjit was first posted in Gurdaspur district. Some time later, he was transferred to Kapurthala. His family was continuously worried about his well being as Punjab witnessed the escalation of conflict between the Sikh militants and the State agencies.
Police personnel and their family members were becoming targets of militant attacks. Paramjit’s own family members received many threats from the militants insisting that unless he quit the police force, they would eliminate them. Once his sixty-five years old father Narinder Singh was badly beaten up by militant agents, who let him off with the instruction to seriously discuss the matter over with his son. This was in the middle of 1989.
The incident emotionally disturbed Paramjit who came home on casual leave, but did not return to his duty. Scared and confused about the course of action that was correct for him to take, he also did not send a resignation. Paramjit ignored the letters from the department to account for himself and to report on duty.
For livelihood, Paramjit began to ply a taxi, which he purchased after mortgaging one and a half acres of family agricultural land. Once in early 1990, Paramjit was taken into custody by the Kapurthala police. His interrogators were apparently satisfied that he had quit the police force to spare his family members from the humiliation, violence and threats of elimination. No criminal case was registered against him, and Paramjit was allowed to go back to his work as a taxi operator.
On 2 June 1993, a group of fifteen or sixteen police officers led by one Sub Inspector, raided Paramjit’s house while he was washing his Maruti van just outside. Some policemen got hold of Paramjit and started manhandling him. His wife Sukhwant Kaur and father Narinder Singh rushed out to intervene. But they were pushed away and Paramjit was forced into their Allwyn Nissan vehicle. The policemen demanded the keys of the Maruti van, but Paramjit’s wife said that she did not have them. The policemen did not care to search for the keys, but attached the van to the backside of their large vehicle and towed it away.
Darshan Singh of Bahmani Wala village, who was visiting the family, recognized Sub-Inspector Rashpal Singh of Tarn Taran police. The Sub-Inspector was from his in-laws village of Sakhira. Paramjit’s parents met SI Darshan Singh who demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000 to get their son out of the trouble. They were still trying to raise the bribe money when a policeman informed them that Paramjit was being held at Kairon police post.
Narinder Singh and brother Heera, who had taken leave from the army on learning about his brother’s abduction, went to Kairon police post where ASI Naurang Singh allowed them to meet Paramjit. He was in a very bad shape from the custodial torture. Paramjit said that his interrogators did not believe his statements of innocence, and asked for confessions. He also suggested that they should bribe the the Sub Inspector if he was able to spare his life for money. They should move fast if he was to live, Paramjit exhorted.
Narinder and Heera went back to the Kairon police post on 12th and 13th of June. But they could not meet Paramjit.
On 15 June 93, Ajit newspaper reported that a militant named Paramjit Singh of Bahmani Wala village had been killed in an armed encounter with the Punjab police. Although the newspaper had identified Paramjit by his name and village, the police did not return the dead body to the family, which does not even know how, when, where and by whom it got cremated.
Paramjit’s widow Sukhwant Kaur, who now lives with her parents in Jaura village in Patti subdivision of Amritsar district, reports that her mother-in-law has from the trauma of this incident become mentally imbalanced.[184]
Case No. 1: Forty-six years old Charan Singh, a retired non-Commissioned officer of the Indian army, lived in village Gosalan under Khanna police station within Samrala subdivision of Ludhiana district. After his retirement, Charan Singh returned to agriculture,also starting a dairy farm to supplement the family income. His thirty-seven years old son Navraj Singh shared the workload. The immediate family comprised Charan Singh’s wife Kuldip Kaur, their son Navraj, his wife Jatinder Kaur and two grand children. Charan Singh had no political affiliation.
17 May 94 night, SSP Harinder Singh Chahal of Jagraon police district led a large group of policemen to raid Charan Singh’s house. The SSP wanted to know from him the whereabouts of Amarjit Singh, a resident of the same village. When Charan Singh said he did not know, the SSP asked him to come along.
On 19 May, a large delegation of village elders and the family members met several police officials of Khanna, including SSP Raj Kishan Bedi.The SSP asked them to meet him the next day, when he told them that Charan Singh had been taken away by Jagraon police and that they should go there for relief.
This was confirmed by Nasib Singh, Charan Singh’s brother, who was picked up by ASI Hakim Singh of police post Barwali on 20th of May and released on 21st. In custody, Nasib Singh had found out that his brother was with the Jagraon police. The village delegation met the SSP Jagraon for the first time on 20th of May. But he refused to disclose anything to them. A number of subsequent meetings with the SSP, also with the SHO of Jagraon police station yielded no results. Charan Singh’s whereabouts remained unknown.
The SSP Jagraon got transferred to Patiala where the village delegation met him again to press for Charan Singh’s release on the1st and 2nd of June 94. The SSP advised them to meet Inspector Puri of Sirhind police station. But the Inspector Puri would not disclose anything. Eventually, the family found out that Charan Singh had already been killed in a faked encounter, which they had orchestrated in the night of the 20th of May. Amarjit Singh, son of Balam Singh of the village, who had been picked up from Nabha city on 20th evening, had also been killed. Formally, there had been no acknowledgement of either the detentions or the murders in the so-called encounter. The family could never verify what happened to the dead bodies.
Following Charan Singh’s “enforced disappearance”, the army authorities stopped sending his monthly pension. When his widow met the concerned officials in this connection, they told her to produce some evidence in the form of either a death certificate or a FIR about his abduction by the police. Following this, Kuldip Kaur accompanied by several village elders went to the Khanna police station to ask them to either register a FIR or to give some document to say that he had been killed. Khanna police refused. But they proposed to register a FIR to say that Charan is missing since May 17th when he left his home to visit his agricultural farm. They entered this report on 6 July 1995.
Subsequently, the Jagraon police has also sent some intermediaries to Kuldip Kaur to negotiate a compromise so that she would not legally pursue the matter. For this, they proposed to give her a substantial sum of money. The Jagraon police also engaged the services of the District Sainik Welfare Officer of Ludhiana, who sent a letter dated 22 April 98 to invite Kuldip Kaur to see him in his office to settle the matter.
In spite of financial hardship, Kuldip Kaur has so far resisted these pressures and inducements to compromise. She complains that the police not only killed her husband but also physically ruined her brother-in-law Nasib Singh. He is unable to do any work because of his brutal torture in the custody.[185]
Case No. 2: Twenty-five years old Sukhmandar Singh, a soldier in the 113 Engineers Regiment of the Indian Army stationed at Nasirabad, was from a poor Mazhabi Sikh family of village Dalla under Jagraon subvision in Ludhiana district. He was unmarried, and looked after his seventy-five years old fathr Major Singh, his mother Surjit Kaur and his younger twenty years old brother Balvir Singh. Sukhmandar had no political affiliation, and had never been arrested before.
On 20 July 1992, he was coming to village Dalla on leave from his unit. On the way, the police had set up a check post near village Bhamipura where he was questioned and later taken to some unkwown place for further interrogation about his antecedents by SHO Bhag Singh Leehan. Sukhmandar “disappeared” and nothing could be ascertained about his fate in spite of all the efforts made by his father and young brother.
Jagraon police station refused to even register a FIR about his disappearance. Major Singh wrote to the army authorities requesting them to persuade the police officials responsible for his abduction to either release Sukhmandar or to produce him before a magistrate. He also demanded an independent inquiry. But in his knowledge, the army officials have not taken any action. Although Sukhmandar remains disappeared for seven years, the family members still hope that he might yet be alive.[186]
Case No. 3: Forty years old Kashmir Singh from village Kuthiali under Dorangla police station in Gurdaspur district had retired as an officer of the Indian Air Force. Married to Piar Kaur with three children, Kashmir Singh also supported his ninety years old father Charan Singh. His monthly pension of Rs. 2200/-, supplemented by income from agriculture, took care of the family needs.
The area in which he lived was intensely affected by the militancy and anti-insurgency operations carried out by the State forces. The police used to reguarly raid houses and randomly pick-up people for interrogation to gain knowledge on suspected militants and their sympathizers. Kashmir Singh’s house was also subjected to several such raids which harassed and inconvenienced the family. There was always the threat that some one picked up randomly for interrogation might not survive interrogation under torture.
Kashmir Singh led a delegation of village elders to IG Border Range, D. R. Bhatti to complain about intense harassment to normal people that resulted from arbitrary police actions and to find solutions to these problems. Bhatti suggested that they discuss their concerns SSP S. K. Goyal whom they met on 18 March 1993. While they were still discussing their concerns with the SSP, SHO Prabhjot Singh of Sadar Police Station and Sub-Inspector Malkiat Singh asked Kashmir Singh to come with them and dragged him away in front of the entire delegation, also including the head of the village council Jasbir Singh. The SSP told them that these officers would find out what to do about the problems Kashmir Singh had come to discuss.
Finding out that Kashmir Singh was being held at Dorangla police station, the village delegation went there, and managed to meet him in the lock-up on 20 March 93. The SHO said that Kashmir was required for further discussions, but would be released in couple of days. When the villagers went to the police station the next day, they were not allowed to see him.
Kashmir Singh was killed the same night. According to the FIR No. 32/93 dated 21 March 93 registered at Dorangla police station, three supposedly unidentified persons had been killed in an armed encounter with the police that occurred the previous night. Village elders found out that the other two shown to have been killed in the same action were Malook Singh and Gurmeet Singh.
The police took the bodies for post-mortem to the Civil Hospital in Gurdaspur where Kashmir Singh’s family members and other villagers were already gathered. They recognized the body, and demanded that they be allowed to carry out the cremation. The police officials refused, and themselves burnt it as an unidentified body.
Kashmir Singh’s eldest eighteen years old son Lakhwinder could not cope with the trauma of the incident that died a year later. The death has left no responsible male member in the family, as his brothers Gurbaksh, Manjit and Jagmohan are only 14, 9 and 7 years old. Their mother Piar Kaur demands a thorough inquiry, exemplary punishment to the guilty and just compensation.[187]
Case No. 4: Satnam Singh was a twenty-eight years old baptized Sikh from an orthodox family of village Dhapei under Qadian police station in Batala subdivision of Gurdaspur district. He was married to Harpal Kaur, but had no children. As his father Sohan Singh had expired, and his younger brother Surjit Singh was an officer in the 55 Engineers Regiment of the Indian army, Satnam had the responsibility to manage the family’s agricultural farm. His mother Chhindo and twenty-two years younger brother Baljit lived with him in the village.
As a baptized young Sikh, actively involved in Gurudwara’s religious activities, Satnam was looked upon with suspicion by the local police officials who had picked him up regularly for interrogation. He had also been tortured for confessions.The police in the border districts had developed a routine of harassing the local young Sikhs, who were also the source for their regular income. Several times, the family had to pay extortion money to get him released from the illegal custody. The head of the village council was a retired Major of the Indian army and used to sympathize with the family’s plight, especially because Satnam’s younger brother was a serving officer of the Indian army. But his interventions were of no avail as it was a total “police raj”. Over the years, his mother Chhindo had paid approximately Rs. 100,000/- to the police to get him out of the harm’s way when they picked him for interrogation. But she could not afford to go on paying.
On advice from the village elders, Chhindo complained to the senior police officers including the SSP, the IG , other Civil Officers and the Deputy Commissioner of Gurdaspur. She met them with written representations and testimonials from the local people saying that Satnam had a good character and did not have any criminal associations. She also asked her second son Surjit to intercede on his behalf by involving his own superior officers of the army.
On 10 January 1991, Surjit submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Gurdaspur through his Commanding Officer. The application gave a short history of his brother’s harassment by the corrupt and ruthless police officials, and demanded action against them. Surjit’s application also said that his entire salary was getting exhausted in paying the corrupt officials of Qadian. Copies of the application, endorsed by Surjit’s Company Commander, were sent also to the District Magistrate and the SSP.
On 26 February 1991 afternoon, the Qadian police led by SHO Rajbir Singh, ASI Dilbag Singh, Gurnam Singh and others raided their house, located inside the agricultural farm by the side of an irrigation canal. Satnam was getting onions planted in a part of his fields. For this purpose, he had hired the labour of one Balwant Singh, son of Dara Singh of village Dhapei from his own village. The police officials took both of them into custody, and tied their hands to their backs. The officials had brought another young Sikh with them, whose hands were also tied in the like fashion. The police officials kicked the threee prisoners with their boots, and asked them to move deeper into the fields where a crop of sugarcane was standing. Chhindo and her daughter-in-law beseeched the police officers to have mercy on them, and not to do anything inhuman. The policemen physically hit both the women and forced them to stay back. When Chhindo tried to follow them in spite of her manhandling, one constable came back to kick her into the ground and to hold her back.
Satnam and the two others were moved to the side of the sugarcane and shot dead. Chhindo and Harpal Kaur were not allowed to go near the bodies. Soon the reinforcements arrived, and the policemen carried the bodies away. Because of the virtual house arrest, Chhindo and her daughter-in-law were not able to go after them. They do not know how, when and where the bodies were disposed of. The Punjabi Tribune, in its issue dated 14 May 1991, carried a detailed report on the incident, along with the background of Satnam’s harrassment and the attempts by his soldier brother to intervene, which instigated the police to kill him in revenge.
Chhindo wrote to the Punjab governor to demand a judicial inquiry. But her representation has not even been acknowledged. She does not know the identity of the third person who was also killed along with Satnam and Balwant.[188]
Case No. 5: Forty-two years old Mithu Singh from Kot Dunna village under Dhanaula police station in Barnala Subdivision of Sangrur district had taken premature retirement from the Indian army on medical grounds. He was married to Jasbir Kaur and had two sixteen and nine years old boys and one eleven years old daughter. He supplemented his monthly pension with income from agriculture. Mithu had no criminal record, and everyone in the village recognized him as a peace-loving and law-abiding person. However, his brother-in-law Naib Singh, his sister’s husband, was a known militant. For this reason, the police kept a close watch on the family and had also picked up Mithu for interrogation.
Once in July 1991, SHO Baljinder Singh of Joga police station in Mansa district picked him up again for interrogation. He was tortured for information on Naib Singh, which he did not have. The village elders intervened, and Mithu was released after one week.
Early in the morning of 3 September 1991, a strong group of policemen from Joga police station in district Mansa, led by SHO Budh Singh, raided the house again. Entering the house, they started beating Mithu and later pushed him into a vehicle and went away.
Since then, Mithu’s whereabouts are not known. The family members and village elders approached Jasbir Singh Sandhu, then SP (Operations) of Sangrur district with the plea to locate and release Mithu Singh as he was absolutely innocent. Sandhu said that Mithu would not be released until Naib Singh surrendered. Naib Singh was subsequently nabbed and killed in a faked encounter reported in 1992. But Mithu was not released. No one knows what happened to him, although the family suspects that the police has killed him in their custody and disposed of the body in some secret way.
With help from the village council, Mithu’s wife Jasbir Kaur approached the Supreme Court of India for a writ of habeas corpus. Her petition No. 187 of 1993, dated 15 November 91 was argued by lawyers R. Venkataramani and S. M. Garg. The Punjab police argued that Mithu may have been abducted by the militants operating in that area. The court disposed of the petition with the direction, recorded on 20 March 95 - Record of Proceedings No. 584961 -, that the Punjab police had to investigate and trace out Jasbir’s husband as was their duty under the law.
Under the direction of the court, Dhanaula police Station in Barnala subdivision of Sangrur district recorded a FIR No. 89 dated 05 October 93 under section 365 of IPC. However, no investigation has been carried out in the case since the policemen. Jasbir Kaur reports that she is unable to cope with the mental agony and the responsibility of bringing up all the children on her own.[189]
Case No. 6: Fifty-five years old Ajit Singh from village Jama Rai under Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district retired from the Indian army as a Lance-Naik, a rank of non-commissioned officer, in April 1979. He had joined the army immediately after the Chinese aggression in 1962, and had seen action in 1965 and 1971. Ajit came from a poor family with very little land. Following his retirement, Ajit took up a job as a security guard and gradually built a small dairy farm to supplement his income. In 1989, his nineteen years old son Gurdev Singh joined the Punjab police as a constable after completing the tenth standard of his school. First he was posted at Tarn Taran. Then he was transferred to Amritsar, where he used to get his posting on the day to day basis.
Two months after joining the police, Gurdev was afflicted with jaundice and became bed ridden. Ajit went to Amritsar where Gurdev ’s immediate officer asked him to take his son back home and to bring him back when he recovered. Ajit Singh asked if his going away, so soon after joining the police, would not adversely affect his career. The officer told him not to worry. Gurdev reported back for duty after three months when his health was completely restored. All was well for the next year. In between, Gurdev used to come home on a few days of leave. He also got married to Amarjit Kaur.
In early April 1991, Gurdev took leave to be with his six months pregnant wife, whose brother Gurnam Singh s/o Jora Singh from Khara village in Tarn Taran was also visiting them. On 9 April 1991 afternoon, a large group of policemen raided the house. The house was crowded with many guests including Gurdev’s brother-in-law, his uncle Karnail Singh, his father’s sister’s husband who lived in a neighboring village and was the elected head of its council. They were all drinking afternoon tea when the police force from Goindwal police station accompanied by the officers of the police post in Jama Rai raided the house.
Sub-Inspector Daya Singh and constable Madha Singh of Jama Rai police post caught hold of Gurdev and dragged him out of the house to a CRPF post that had been set up inside the village. Others officials dragged his brother-in-law Gurnam Singh. The policemen were beating Gurdev even as he was being dragged to the CRPF post. SHO Walia of Goindwal police station loudly announced that he would be taught a lesson, which he would never forget and invited all to watch. SHO Walia then kicked Gurdev repeated on his ribs before dragging him inside the CRPF post. Many village residents had by then gathered there. All heard Gurdev’s loud screams as he was tortured inside the CRPF post. After some time, some policemen dragged Gurdev out and threw him in the backside of a jeep and went away to Fatehabad police post. Gurnam who had been spared the torture was also taken away, but was later shifted to Goindwal police station. He was allowed to go away late that evening.
The next day, one prominent person of the village Kabul Singh, also known as Khabbe Rajput, went to Goidwal police station to request SHO Walia to release Gurdev. Walia said that he would let him go after a day or two, but nothing happened. Kabul Singh met Walia several times and he vaguely repeated the promise.
On 15 April, Ajit Singh received a message to say that Gurdev has been transferred to Tarn Taran CIA interrogation center and that he might get killed if the police officials responsible for his interrogation are not immediately bribed. The message came from the father of another boy who had been transferred to Amritsar jail after a period of illegal detention at Tarn Taran CIA interrogation center, where he had seen Gurdev. The messenger said that Gurdev was physically in a bad shape. Ajit Singh was not wealthy and did not know how to raise a substantial amount of money for the bribe. He went to the office of SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu who started abusing him on hearing that he had come to plead for his son Gurdev. The SSP ordered his constables to make him stand in the scorching sun outside. So, he was dragged out and made to stand in the sun for one hour. He then asked the constables to tell the SSP that he was still pleading for his son. The constables advised him to drink some water and go back home. They also suggested that it was too late to rescue his son. The Punjabi words were: tu chala ja appne ghar aur ro pitt ke baith ja!
Ajit Singh had no choice but to go back home. He could not obtain any definite information on what happened to Gurdev. In the prevailing atmosphere of terror, he was unable to pursue the case and believes that his son had succumbed to torture. He has written to the army authorities to help a soldier, who had fought for India in many wars, in getting justice, but has not even received an acknowledgement.[190]
Case No. 7: Twenty-five years old Harmanjit Singh, a Lance-Naik in the 3/6 Sikh regiment of the Indian army, is from Dhotian village under Sarhali police station in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district. In September 97, when we interviewed him, he had come on leave from his posting Kupwara in Kashmir. Harmanjit is also a witness to the illegal abduction and the custodial murder of his cousin brother Sukhdev Singh, which happened in December 1992. Sukhdev’s father Bhan Singh, a small farmer with three acres of fragmented land, had died two years before the incident. Born in 1962, Sukhdev was the eldest of his four children. Two younger brothers Sarabjit and Dalbir were employed as truck drivers with a transport company in Bombay. His sister Sukhbir Kaur was married, and lived with her husband in Jama Rai village. Sukhdev was married to Vir Kaur with three sons, the youngest now being six years old. Eldest boy Malkiat was four years old when Sukhdev was abducted by the police.
Since the younger brothers were generally away as truck drivers, Sukhdev looked after the farming and also had several buffaloes and cows whose milk he sold for extra-income. He had no political affiliation, and no police record. The family responsibilities and chores of work kept him busy.
In the second week of November 1992, Harmanjit had came home on annual leave. That night he sat with Sukhdev, chatting into late hours about family matters. Sukhdev told him that the conditions in Punjab were improving and that he was doing well in his work. Early next morning, a group of eight or nine police men in a large Allwyn Nissan vehicle came to the village. Sukhdev Singh had just come out of the house with the intention to milk his buffaloes and cows. A man sitting in the police vehicle identified Sukhdev who was immediately grabbed and pushed into the vehicle. The policemen did not search the house. Vir Kaur saw that the policemen were taking her husband away. She rushed out and begged them to let him go. To bid for more time, she offered to make tea for all. But the officer in-charge of the group refused. Sukhdev Singh told her not to cry and that the police would not harm him as he had not done nothing wrong. She asked the policemen to tell her where they were taking her husband. The officer asked her to come to Sarhali police station.
Harmanjit had also witnessed the abduction. But did not think it wise to interfere. Immediately, Vir Kaur and some other members of the family went to Sarhali police station. On the way, they stopped at Naushera Pannua police post but Sukhdev Singh was not there. The policemen at the post also did not know anything about the abduction. Two constables went with them to Sarhali police station, where it was confirmed that the local police had not taken Sukhdev. The family did not know what to do.
Four or five days after the abduction, Sukhdev was again brought to the village in a Maruti van with dark tinted glasses. The car stopped just outside the house, and some policemen stepped out. It was three or four in the afternoon and Harmanjit was sitting on a cot outside reading a newspaper. Suspecting that the policemen had something to do with his cousin’s abduction, he went up to the Maruti van, in which one officer, identified by others as ASI Budh Singh, was sitting. Sukhdev was also sitting in the van and looked very haggard, but there were no external injuries on his body. Some other young Sikhs from the village were also sitting in the van. Harmanjit recognized three of them: Bir Singh, son of Dara Singh, Tarsem Singh son of Mangal Singh and Bakshish Singh, son of Sohan Singh. Perhaps, the police had forced Sukhdev to implicate them in some way.
Harmanjit introduced himself to the officer. Bir Singh asked Harmanjit if he could give ASI Budh Singh a bottle of rum, which he had brought from his army canteen. Harmanjit gave him a bottle and asked where he was going to keep Sukhdev. Budh Singh asked him to reach Sarhali police station. Sukhdev did not open his mouth, but grimaced to suggest that the officer was lying. Sukhdev asked Harmanjit about his fields, which he prepared to sow wheat. Sukhdev wanted his cousin to help with the work. Harmanjit promised to do so. Satisfied with the bottle of rum, ASI Bhudh Singh went away with his prisoners.
Approximately ten days later, the family received a letter from Sukhdev who was apparently detained at Joga police station in Mansa district. He had managed to send the letter through a resident of the village who was visiting the police station in connection with his own work. The letter said that Budh Singh, in-charge of Joga police station in Mansa district, was responsible for his abduction and illegal custody. Sukhdev requested the family to negotiate his release through a relative of Budh Singh, one Gurbachan Singh of Harike, a fish contractor. Harmanjit himself read the letter, which has now been lost.
The family was still trying to get in touch with Gurbachan, Budh Singh’s relative, when on 6 December 92 they saw Jagbani, the Punjabi newspaper, which reported that killing of three militants near Manbidiyan village in Mansa district. The newspaper said that the killings occured in an incident of armed combat between the militants and the police force. Two slain militants were identified as Resham Singh Thande, Chief of the Khalistan Liberation Force and Jagwinder Singh Fauji from Dhotian village. The report said that the third militant was unidentified. The newspaper report carried the photopraphs of the slain militants. One of the photographs was Sukhdev’s. He was described as an unidentified terrorist killed in the action.
The dead body was not returned to the family, which also does not know how, when and where was the cremation was carried out. In the prevailing atmosphere of terror, the family could not do anything to pursue the matter. Harmanjit went back to Kupwara, to fight the separatist insurgency in the State. He did not even report the case to his CO from the fear that suspicion of association with supposed militants would be bad for his career. But he wants justice. If there would ever be any official inquiry, he would testify. Harmanjit’s regimental address is 3391968 Lance Naik Harmanjit Singh, Tikamgarh FPL 3/6 Sikh regiment c/o 56 APO.[191]
Case No. 8: Fifty-seven years old Harbhajan Kaur was the second wife of Ajaib Singh from Janian village under Jandiala Guru police station in Amritsar district. Ajaib Singh did not have male children from his first marriage. Four sons were born from the wedlock: Harjinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Rajinder Singh and Sukhjinder Singh alias Sukha. The eldest son was born in 1966 and the youngest Sukhjinder Singh in 1972. The second son Balwinder did not have a strong physical constitution like his elder brother Harjinder who became a good boxer.
In October 1986, Harjinder and Rajinder joined the Indian army at the Sikh regimental center at Ramgarh in Bihar. Lieutenant Colonel Kashmir Singh Sandhu, the Commanding Officer of the regimental center, was a distant relative of Harbhajan Kaur. Harjinder and Rajinder are now Junior Commissioned Officers, posted at Dibrugarh in Assam, itself a disturbed area. Both are married.
Balwinder, the second son with a weak physical constitution, stayed at home and helped in the agricultural work. He was also married, with a son born in 1992.
The youngest son Sukhjinder Singh, alias Sukha was not good in school and wanted to join his maternal uncle Prithpal Singh who had a prosperous tranaport company called Assam-Bombay Carrier Transport, based in Gauhati. In December 1989, eighteen year old Sukhjinder Singh went to Gauhati to become an apprentice truck driver in his uncle’s company. His mother Harbhajan Kaur was happy that he too would be away from a bleeding Punjab. Although Sukhjinder did not have any formal political association, he had taken part in the election campaign of Simranjit Singh Mann, a successful parliamentary candidate from Tarn Taran, in the winter of 1989. Harbhajan did not want him to do anything with politics, which she said only bred trouble.
Ajaib Singh, now old, had been a hard working farmer. Nine acres of irrigated land yielded profitable harvests and he had already built a good house. Harbhajan and her daugher-in-laws helped Balwinder with the agricultural work. There was little to complain about the rough and tumble of life until the middle of February 1990, when Sukhjinder returned to his village to attend the marriage of a girl in the neighbourhood. The two families had close friendly relations.
Mother was very happy at his return. Sukhjinder attended to the household work, helped his brother in repairing the store house for farm products, and planted carrots on a piece of land, besides taking part and organizing various things for the marriage. After the marriage ceremony, he came back home. The next evening, a large police force raided the village under SHO Swaran Singh of Jandiala Guru police station when several young men of the village, including Sukhjinder, had been hanging around the market place. Young men of the village who knew the circumstances of Punjab immediately dispersed. But Sukhjinder was fearless and did not see any reason to run away. The officer leading the police force called him up and asked to identify himself. After some initial questioning, he was forced to get into the police vehicle and taken away. Harbhajan did not know anything about it, but began to worry when Sukhjinder did not return home.
She came to know about the police raid after it became very dark. Immediately, she went to the head of the village council for advice. Sarpanch Satwant Pal Singh asked her not to get agitated and suggested that her son might have gone to some friend’s place to spend the night. This was not his habit, and Harbhajan was very worried. But she could not do anything. She did not even know the identity of the policemen who had raided the village. The next day, some village elders led by the head of the village council met SHO Swaran Singh who denied the custody. Harbhajan Kaur did not know what to do. Villagers feared the police, and did not wish to take active part in complaining or agitating.
On 3 March 1990, newspapers carried a report about the killing of four militants in a supposed armed encounter with the police, reported to have occured the previous night. The report also carried photographs of all the killed. Sukhjinder’s photograph was also there. But he was mentioned as an unidentified militant. The other three were identified as Bhupinder Singh Phula, son of Sajjal Singh of Jandiala village; Ranjit Singh, son of Harbhajan Singh, also of Jandiala, and Dilbagh Singh Bagga. The armed encounter had allegedly taken place near a village called Jahangir under Tarn Taran.
The police carried out the cremation at Tarn Taran without informing the family. Harbhajan came to know about it from the parents of the other boys who later contacted her. Harbhajan could not take any action. Her elder sons in the army were in Assam. Her husband was very old and could not do any running around.
Sukhjinder’s abduction and his reported murder as an unidentified militant made a destructive impact on his elder brother Balwinder, who became inconsolable and bed-ridden. Hospitalization at Guru Nanak Dev hospital in Amrisar did not help, and Balwinder died on 28 January 94, one day before his wife gave birth to their second child, a daughter named Gaganjot Kaur.
Ajaib Singh also could not cope with the shock. He fell in a deep depression, became more and more silent and has now altogether given up talking. Now there is no one to look after the agriculture. Animals have been sold. The land has been rented out. Harbhajan looks after the widow of Balwinder Singh, their young children, and her old silent husband.[192]
Case No. 9: Chanchal Singh is a ninety years old resident of village Naurangabad in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district. As a small farmer with six acres of land to look after eight children, Chanchal had a tough life. His eldest surviving son is now fifty-two years old. His youngest son Sukhdev Singh was a soldier in the Indian army and was twenty-seven years old when the Punjab police abducted and killed him. The case is bizarre and highlights the manner in which the contextualization of Punjab has succeeded in desensitizing the State institutions, including the judiciary, to the elementary principles of justice and due process.
Sukhdev Singh finished his higher secondary school and joined the armoured regiment of the Indian army in 1984, the year of the Operation Blue Star. Eventually posted at Ferozepur, Sukhdev later married Darshan Kaur and had one six months old daughter when the police abducted him in July 1990. After his marriage, Sukhdev used to come home once in six months, on leave. Few times, he over stayed the leave, for domestic reasons, as he did also in July 1990. Chanchal Singh later found out that the army authorities had issued a warrant for his production.
On 26 July 1990 evening, a team of police officers from Tarn Taran led by SHO Jagdev Singh and ASI Gurcharan Singh of Sadar police station raided the house and took Sukhdev into custody. A CRPF unit of fifteen or twenty constables was with them. Sukhdev was forced into a police jeep along with Balwinder Singh, son of Ajit Singh, a resident of Naurangabad and the elected head of the village council. Balwinder was a ninth grade student and only fifteen years old.
It was already dark and nothing could be done to trace them that evening. The next morning, Chanchal Singh and Ajit Singh, along with a large number of village elders, went to the Sadar police station where the SHO told them that the boys would be released after their interrogation, possibly the next day. The delegation also included members of the village council and Shavinder Singh Bajwa who had a printng press in the main bazar of Tarn Taran. They regularly visited the police station for the next three days, but the boys were not released. On 29th, the police officers refused to meet them.
On 30 July 1990, Chanchal and Ajit sent telegrams about the illegal arrest and detention to the higher authorities, including the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, beseeching them to intervene. The telegrams mentioned that Sukhdev had over-stretched his leave from the army whose officers had probably issued a warrant for his production. In that case, the police should be instructed to return him to his unit. Chanchal Singh’s telegram recounted that when Sukhdev stayed beyond his leave on two previous occasions, he himself had gone along to produce him before his unit. On 31 July, they again sent detailed petitions addressed to the Governor, the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary and the DGP Punjab. A copy of the letters, dispatched under registered post, was sent to Ajit Singh Bains, Chairman of the PHRO.
Meanwhile, the High Court of Punjab treated the telegram sent by Chanchal Singh as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and sent notices to the Punjab government.[193] In response, SHO Jagdev Singh filed an affidavit to say that although both Sukhdev and Balwinder were required in connection with several cases, they could not be apprehended by the police so far. The affidavit mentioned that the police had initiated the proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code to obtain a declaration that Sukhdev Singh was a proclaimed offender. The proceedings were pending in the court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate H. S. Sandhu of Tarn Taran. The police officials also managed to get an affidavit from Balwinder’s father Ajit Singh, which said that his son had not been picked up by the police and that Sukhdev had for long been absconding from the army. On the basis of these affidavits, the High Court dismissed the petition with the observation that no further action was called for. The order of the High Court was delivered by Judge A. P. Chaudhary on 25 February 1991. Chanchal Singh claims that he had no knowledge of the proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C, which the police claimed to have initiated against Sukhdev. In any case, no notice of these proceedings had been sent to him. Chanchal Singh thinks that these proceedings are afterthoughts, aimed to cover up the illegal abduction that had been witnessed by the entire family.
Ajit Singh, who denied the abduction of Balwinder under police pressure, had earlier been a signatory to the telegrams and the petitions which had been sent to various authorities on 30th and 31st of July 1990. He had also gone with the village delegation, comprising more than fifty persons, to the Sadar police station in Tarn Taran on 27th, 28th and 29th of July when the officers said that the boys would be released after interrogation. The High Court should at least have asked the army authorities as they had also issued a warrant for his production. It was also the duty of the army officials to intervene and save one of their serving personnel from the custodial murder.
But ninety years old Chanchal Singh was helpless. Sukhdev’s father-in-law Dayal Singh from Dassuwal village in Patti subdivision of Amritsar made his own inquiries. He met some senior police officers who confirmed that Sukhdev had been killed and that the family should perform the last rites.[194]
Case No. 10: Dr. Tarlochan Singh Walia is a private medical practioner from Adda Umarpura of Batala, in district Gurdaspur. Major Sudhneet Singh Walia was his eldest of son. Sudhneet’s younger brother is a lawyer practising in Chandigarh. Their mother retired as the head mistress of a government High School.
Sudhneet joined the Indian army in September 1974 and took voluntary retirement in March 1989 from the rank of a Major. After retirement, Sudhneet settled down in the township of Mohali in Ropar district, in the outskirts of Chandigarh, along with his wife and two minor sons. Apparently, he also maintained very close contact with the Intelligence Wing of the Army under the direct supervision of Col. S. T. Manimala, Commandant of the Liason Unit in the Western Command Head Quarters stationed at Chandi Mandir.
Colonel Manimala and Sudhneet visited each other very frequently. Sudhneet also went on long tours in a car provided by Col. Manimala. By all indications, Sudneet was still working for the army intelligence on covert missions.
On 26 May 1992, Sudhneet left for Delhi after telling his wife that he was going to Bangkok on an official mission. Col. Manimala had arranged his passport, his visa and the air-tickets.
The family began to worry and contacted Col. Manimala when after four weeks there was no news from Sudhneet. Manimala assured the family that he was on an official mission and would come back after completing it. Sudhneet did not come back, nor did he send any message.
On 1 September 1992, Dr. Walia visited Major Balbir Sangha and Col. Manimala at the Army Command Head Quarters at Chandimandir. They told him that Sudhneet had gone to Delhi with the intention to leave for Bangkok. But while he was still in Delhi, Intelligence Bureau officials arrested him for interrogation on some sensitive matters. Col. Manimala, however, asked Dr. Walia not to worry as his son was a very intelligent officer and was also helping the government on important matters involving national security.
Col. Manimala also advised Dr. Walia to contact Brigadier Srivastava, then posted at the Army Head Quarters in Delhi. Dr. Walia called him on telephone immediately after his meeting with Major Balbir Sangha. Srivastava told him that as he was leaving on an official tour, he would be able to help only after two weeks. In the third week of September 92, Srivastava confirmed that Sudhneet had been arrested by the IB. Dr. Walia wrote to Srivastava requesting him to trace his son and to save him from further calamities.
On 4 June 1993, Dr. Walia met the DGP Punjab on hearing from Col. Manimala that his son’s custody had been transferred to the Punjab police who were now interrogating him. DGP Gill gave him an appointment, however only his personal assistant Mr. Sethi met him and got the details of his complaint. Sethi promised to get back after making the necessary inquiries. Not hearing from Sethi on the progress of his inquiries, Dr. Walia called him on 21 June. Sethi said that his complaint has been marked for inquiry to the Crime Branch.
On 23 August 93, one Sub-Inspector Sohan Singh from the Civil Lines Police Station in Batala called Dr. Walia and asked him to come down to the police station to give details of his complaint. Dr. Walia complied. Five months later, on 1 February 94, one ASI Gehal Singh from the Civil Lines Police Station in Batala came to him to ask for another report on the case. On 6 April 1994, Dr. Walia again wrote a long petition to the DGP Punjab, reminding him of his earlier visit to his office and his dealings with his personal assistant Sethi. The petition was not acknowledged.
On 4 January 95, Dr. Walia wrote a long petition to the Governor of Punjab B.K.N. Chibber, whom he had already met on the 20 June 1993 when he was still serving as the Lt. General of the Indian army. Chibber had then promised to personally investigate the case, and to inform him about the outcome, however nothing came out of this. In his 4 January 95 petition, Dr. Singh reminded him of the promise he had made during their earlier meeting and also of his 2 January announcement as the Governor of Punjab to personally interfere in getting justice against atrocities, if supported with evidence were brought to his notice. When no action followed, Dr Walia sent him yet another letter on 3 August 95.
On 18 December 95, Dr. Walia sent a long petition to then Prime Minister of India P. V. Narsimha Rao, giving the full background of the case and also mentioning the information he had received from Col. Manimala and Brigadier Srivastava. The petition said that after his interrogation at the Red Fort in Delhi, Sudhneet had been transferred to the custody of the CRPF Mess in Chandigarh. Thereafter, he was taken to Patiala, Faridkot and the Joint Interrogation Center at Amritsar. The letter also cited Brigadier Srivastava and Col. Manimala’s conversations with DGP Gill and ADGP (Intelligence) O. P. Sharma, who said that Major Sudhneet was very useful to them and would be released after he completed his missions. The petition asked for an independent inquiry at the highest level.
Prime Minister’s Office acknowledged the petition with a letter dated 18 December 95, No. 16/20/95-PMP-II/181347, under the signature of I. B. Sharma, which said that the complaint has been forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence for appropriate action. Dr. Walia does not know what action, if any, followed.
Several politicians, including Member of Parliament Bhupinder Singh Mann, former member of Parliament Kirpal Singh, and Member of Legislative Assembly from Batala Jagdish Sahny also wrote letters to the successive Prime Ministers, Home Ministers and the Defence Ministers. However, Dr. Walia has not received any coherent explanation on what happened to his son. Findings of any inquiry, if held, have not been made known to the family. Sudhneet ’s wife and their two young children, remain traumatised, as they do not know whether he is alive or dead. The High Court has not taken any action on writ petition filed before the High Court so far.[195]
Case No. 1: Forty-two years old Gurdeep Singh was a Jat farmer from Village Rumana Chak under Majitha police station of Amritsar district. He was married with a twelve years old son Amrindervir Singh and a ten year old daughter Ranjit Kaur, but was also responsible for the care of his parents in their late sixties who stayed with him.
Suspected of involvement with the militant build-up after the Operation Blue Star, the police began to harass him soon after June 1984. He was regularly picked up and tortured in illegal custody. Fed up by the harassments, Gurdeep went away from his home.
His younger brother Paltej Singh, who was a college graduate, also went away from the house for similar reasons.
The police presumed that they had become terrorists and began to interrogate and humiliate other family members. Paltej was apprehended and killed in what the family describes as a faked armed encounter staged in Gurgaon district of Haryana on 8 July 1989. All household goods and the money belonging to Sarbjit Kaur, Paltej’s wife employed as a police constable in Delhi, were confiscated. Between sixty to seventy thousand rupees had been lost.
Sarbjit was also arbitrarily dismissed from the service without the benefit of her dues. She had been married to Paltej only for five months when he got killed, and had given birth to a son after his death.
Gurdeep was arrested on 14 June 91 by the Delhi police and produced before a Magistrate in the Tis Hazari court on 10 July 91, after nearly twenty-five days of illegal detention. The same day, he was taken to Hoshiarpur in Punjab by Inspector Joginder Singh alias Ghora and handed over to the custody of Mahilpur police station under the supervision of SHO Harbans Singh who obtained Gurdeep’s police remand upto 14 July 91. Gurdeep was lodged in the lock-up of Garhshankar police station although his remand for interrogation had been obtained by Mahilpur police. It was subsequently explained that the building of Manilpur police station was under renovation.
On 14 July 91, Gurdeep’s remand was extended for one more day. The same night, he was shown to have escaped from the police custody by breaking out of the lock up in Garhshankar police station. Since then his whereabouts are not known.
The family maintains that the story of his escape from the Garhshankar police station is false and that he was actually killed in the custody.
On 29 July 1991, Gurdeep’s thirty-nine years old brother Paljit Singh along with his friend Gurnam Singh went to search for him, as they did not believe the report about his escape from the police custody. In stead of discovering Gurdeep, both of them disappeared. Gurnam is the son of Ajaib Singh from village Kotla Sultan Singh under Majitha police station in Amritsar district.
Paljit, married to Amarjit Kaur with two young sons, used to be a constable with the Delhi police. He was dismissed from the police service, without any legal notice, after his brother Paltej got killed in a supposed armed encounter with the Haryana police on 8 July 1989. He did not even receive his dues from the Provident Fund although he had been dismissed without any legal basis and without an opportunity to state his case. There was also no criminal case registered against him. That Paljit was also captured and killed by the police illegally became evident when in October 1991, SP (Operations) of Hoshiarpur H. R. Banga came to the village and openly boasted about having killed all the three brothers, namely Paltej, Gurdeep and Paljit. He wanted the villagers to learn from the example and purge their own sympathies for the militant cause.
Continuously for five years from 1989, the police did not allow the family to work their agricultural fields, and destroyed whatever crops grew on them.
The police also took away the tube-well motors to prevent them from irrigating the fields. Their livestock suffered due to insufficient fodder.
Sixty years old Bakshish Kaur was unable to bear the successive loss of her sons and the subsequent plight of their widows and her grandchildren. She died on 2 January 1998 from a heart attack.[196]
Case No. 2: Thirty-five years oldBaljit Singh, son of Mohan Singh, was an employee of the Electricity Board who lived in village Chachowali under police station Kathu Nangal in Amritsar district. His was a large extended family comprising his old parents, his wife Kashmir Kaur, three children, two younger brothers Kulwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh’s wife Paramjit Kaur and their two children.
Thirty years old Kulwinder was a driver and had a monthly income of Rs. 4000. His children Baljinder Kaur and Malkiat Singh are eight and six years old. Jaswinder was unmarried and did odd jobs,also worked on the small one acre family farm.
Jaswinder had been under police surveillance since 1985 and had also been arrested once under TADA, but was released on bail one year later. After his release, Jaswinder took up a job in a garage, an automobile workshop, and tried to live a normal life. But the police continued to harass him, often raiding the house, taking him in illegal custody and interrogating him under torture. These operations were carried by Kathunangal police. Finally in 1988, Jaswinder was so fed up that he left the house and joined the ranks of Sikh militants.
For the same reasons, his cousin Gurmej, son of his uncle Sulakhan Singh, had earlier became a fugitive. Under the pressure of the police, his father Sulakhan produced him before the SHO of Ram Bagh police station who arrested him under TADA. He was released on bail after six months. However, the police continued to harrass him and compelled him to again become an outlaw. This was a disaster for the family as Gurmej, a matriculate, managed a Finance Company, which brought a monthly income of more than Rs. 6000/-. He had additional income from farming. Gurmej was married to Manjit Kaur with a six years old son.
After Jaswinder and Gurmej absconded from their homes, the police repression against other family members intensified. After every terrorist incident in the area, Kathunangal police officers would raid their houses and pick them up for interrogation under torture. Jaswinder’s brothers Baljit and Kulwinder, their father Mohan Singh, their uncles Sulakhan Singh and Satnam Singh, and four other uncles - husbands of their father’s sisters -, their children and their in-laws, had all been picked up on number of occasions to be held under illegal custody for days together and inhumanly tortured for information on whereabouts of the fugitives.
On 11 August 1992 night, a large police party in two Allwyn Nissan vehicles led by SHO Dilbag Singh and ASI Joginder Singh entered the house by scaling the walls. It was drizzling and the family members were sleeping. While SHO Dilbag, along with one team of policemen, went to another house in the village to arrest Satnam Singh, son of Surain Singh, a resident of the village, ASI Joginder Singh asked Baljit and Kulwinder to get dressed to go with them to the police station. ASI Joginder drove the two brothers to their farmhouse in the outskirts of the village where their uncles Sulakhan Singh and Satnam Singh were also taken into custody. All the five were taken to Kathunangal police station, and locked up in one room. To avoid the confusion of names, we shall once again list the five prisoners with the names of their fathers:
[1] Baljit son of Mohan Singh, [2] Kulwinder son of Mohan Singh, [3] Satnam Singh son of Surain Singh, [4] Satnam Singh son of Bhagwan Singh and [5] Sulakhan Singh.
After about half an hour, one ASI Ajit Singh drove them all to the Mall Mandi joint interrogation center and locked them up in a room along with fifty or sixty others, already in detention.
Two hours later, both Satnam s/o of Bhagwan Singh and Satnam s/o Surain Singh were taken out of the room and, as it became known later, locked up separately in Jandiala Guru and Lopoke police stations.
The other three, namely Sulakhan, Baljit and Kulwinder were being continuously interrogated by DSP Balbir Singh Bapu, in-charge of the Interrogation Center and retired DSP Gurmail Singh Bai, who had again been recruited as the SPO. The interrogation focussed on the whereabouts of Jaswinder, and Gurmej.
Four days later, on 15 August 1992 evening around 7 p.m., the police nabbed Gurmej s/o Sulakhan Singh outside the Majitha town where he had gone to see his maternal uncle. He was first shot and then administered with poison. The body was then carried to Mal Mandi joint interrogation center, where his father Sulakhan, and his cousins Baljit and Kulwinder were asked to identify the body. At this time, SSP Paramjit Singh Gill and DSP Raj Kumar were also along. After the identification, the police cremated the body without informing the family.
After that night, the interrogation of Sulakhan, Baljit and Kulwinder became more severe. They were brutally tortured under electric shocks, their legs were pulled apart and pressed under heavy rollers. The interrogators wanted them to reveal the whereabouts of Kulwinder and to reveal the locations in which they had hidden arms and ammunitions. SSP Paramjit Singh Gill and SPO Gurmel Singh Bai led these interrogation sessions.
The three of them were held in the same room till the night of the 27th. The police also continued to raid the village house, probably hoping to nab Jaswinder. On the night of 27 October 92, a large group of policemen surrounded the house and started firing heavily towards the house. Later they broke open the doors and damaged the walls. They removed all valuables including a television set, ceiling fans and other household goods, furniture, beddings, even clothes and utensils. The loss is estimated at Rs. 200,000. Fortunately, due to the police fear, the family had slept at a neighbor’s house that night when the police blazed and plundered it. The next morning, the family and other villagers witnessed the destruction but fearing reprisal could not take any action.
The same night, after 11 P.M., Baljit and Kulwinder were taken out of the lock-up in the Mal Mandi interrogation center. When Sulakhan asked the police why they were taking his nephews out, they said that there were instructions to segregate them. The policemen who took them away were armed with AK 47 rifles. That was the last time, Baljit and Kulwinder were seen alive. The family could not verify if the two brothers were killed the same night, or later.
The same night,the police raided the houses of many relatives to pick them up. Baljit’s maternal uncle Bhan Singh, s/o Gurdit Singh was arrested from his village Rangar Nangal in Batala subdivision of Gurdaspur district. Bhan Singh has since disappeared.
The police also raided Baljit’s sister’s house at village Rasulpur with the intention to pick up her husband Kashmir Singh who,was not home at the time. The police also raided the houses of two absconding militants, Gulab Singh at village Abdal in Amritsar district and Narinder Singh at village Vegowal. As Gulab and Narinder were not found in their houses, the police fired on the houses, burnt and plundered them.
On 5 September 1992, Sulakhan was released from the Mal Mandi interrogation center at the intervention of Ranjit Singh from Wariam Nangal, a sitting MLA, whom the family had approached for help. Sulakhan was taken to Rambagh police station where Wariam himself came to escort him home.
Few days later, Satnam, who had also been tortured severely at Mall Mandi Interrogation Center, was also released.
But Baljit and Kulwinder could not be liberated in spite of interventions from such politicians as Ranjit Singh, MLA, and Raghunandan Lal Bhatia, who had become a central minister. Telegrams regarding their abduction and illegal detention were sent to the Sessions Judge of Amritsar, the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court and also the In-charge of the CBI at Sainik Rest House in Amritsar. However nothing happened.
On 9 January 1993, Punjab newspaper Jagbani and Ajit reported the alleged killing of Jaswinder, the brother of Baljit and Kulwinder in an armed encounter with the police. No one in the family was in a position to verify the details. They could not find out when, by whom and where Jaswinder had been taken into custody.
Their grandfather Lachhman Singh died under trauma in the next days. His father Mohan Singh was also unable to bear the disappearance and the killing of all his three sons. Three months later, Mohan Singh also died. No male member is left in the family to look after the widows and their six children.
Also, there is no source of income, as the family possessed only one acre of land which has now been rented out on contract.
The people who have disappeared and/or were killed in this episode are:
Baljit Singh and Kulwinder Singh, and their maternal uncle Bhan Singh is missing; their brother Jaswinder Singh and cousin Gurmej Singh have also been killed.[197]
Case No. 3: Twenty-one years old Manjinder Singh was the only son of Mukhtar Singh and Sukhminder Kaur who, along with their six daughters, lived in Gagrewal village under Verowal police station in Khadur Sahib subdivision of Amritsar district. Manjinder was married to Kuldeep Kaur and had a one year old daughter Tajinder Deep Kaur.
Manjinder did not have any criminal background and had never been detained or interrogated by the police. After passing the Higher Secondary School examination in 1986, Manjinder joined the jail department as a constable. Four months after joining the jail service, Manjinder got married to Kuldeep on 24 December 1990.
Eight days after the marriage, his father Mukhtar Singh, a well known and respected figure in the area, died suddenly after vomiting blood. The sudden death of his father compelled Manjinder to give up the jail service, and to look after the family occupation of farming.
On 25 September 1991, Manjinder went with his mother in a bus to Khadoor Sahib, where they alighted around 12 noon. Immediately, some policemen in uniforms, whom the mother could not identify, pounced on him and pushed him inside a jeep without a number license plate, then drove away to some unknown destination.
Mother Sukhminder came back to the village and informed the village elders, including the head of the village council Dial Singh, about the abduction. As it was already dark, they promised to make inquiries the next day, when a delegation went and met SHO Swaran Singh and ASI Teg Bahadur Singh of Khadoor Sahib police station. They denied having taken Manjinder into custody, but pointed out that police from some other district might have picked him up, specifically, suspecting the Kapurthala police.
Members of the family then went to Bhulath and Kapurthala police stations to make the inquiries, which did not yield any information. Following the disappointment, they met SSP Narinderpal Singh of Tarn Taran who again said that Kapurthala police might have taken him away. Unfortunatley, their attempts to locate Manjinder did not yield results.
Ten days after the abduction, a large police force that arrived in three vehicles raided the house.Manjinder’s mother Sukhminder and his wife Kuldeep were not home, as they had gone to visit their respective parents. Manjinder was also along with the raiding police party.
First the police searched the house, then they plundered it. All the household goods, trunk loads of clothing, even bedsteads were taken away. The loss is estimated to be more than Rs. 130,000/-. After removing all the items from the house, the police thrashed Manjinder, who was already in a bad shape from custodial torture, publicly before the gathering of villagers even as he abjectly pleaded to be spared. He was killed the same night in an orchestrated armed encounter that was reported to have taken place on Fatehabad/Amritsar road. The dead body was not returned to the family.
Mother Sukhwinder, who has sent this complaint, hold ASI Teg Bahadar Singh of Khadur Sahib police station and SHO Swaran Singh of Verowal police station responsible for her son’s illegal abduction and murder. She also complains of acute mental depression. She pleads for financial assistance and other facilities for the welfare of her widowed daughter-in-law and the upbringing of their seven years old minor daughter.[198]
Case No. 4: Thirty-years old Amarjit Singh, twenty-four years old Sahab Singh and sixteen years old Angrez Singh were brothers, born in a poor landless Mazhabi Sikh family of Gagrewal village under police station Verowal in Khadur Sahib subdivision of Amritsar district. All the brothers worked as casual labourers, doing whatever work they could find. Their sixty years old father Dara Singh was not keeping very well, and could not do much work. The brothers, whose combined income was approximately Rs. 4000/- a month, looked after their father and mother Piar Kaur.
Amarjit was married to Balwinder, and had one thirteen years old daughter Harpreet Kaur. Sahab Singh and his wife Raj Kaur had two children: Eight years old Jaspal Singh and six years old Mandeep Kaur. The brothers were also responsible for their twenty-two years old sister Lakhwinder Kaur, who was yet unmarried.
Apart from working as casual laborers, the brothers also distilled alcohol at home, prohibited under the law, which they sold to supplement their income. The practice was very common in the area, especially among landless Mazhabi Sikhs and was lucrative not only to the distillers but also to the police, which regularly collected protection amount to overlook the illicit trade. Amarjit, Sahab and Angrez also regularly paid hush money to the Verowal police who, nevertheless, registered few cases under the Excise Law against both Amarjit and Sahab to put pressure on them to pay regularly.
Meanwhile, the Sikh militants made a call for abstinence and threatened reprisals if people still indulged in the vice. From the fear of the Sikh militant vengeance, the brothers decided to give up the business altogether. However, the Verowal police did not like their decision to quit the illicit trade. The decision not only showed the Sikh militant influence, it also took away their monthly money. So, the police began to harass them again suggesting that their decision not to engage in distillation and sale of alcohol showed militant links. The police began to regularly raid their house, take them in illegal custody and torture them. Harassed by all this, both Amarjit and Sahab Singh began to live with their in-laws; Amarjeet at village Biharipur and Sahab Singh in village Talwandi in Amritsar district. Only sixteen years old Angrez, being unmarried, stayed in the village to look after the old parents.
Village Gagrewal is situated on the banks of river Beas in district Amritsar, the other side of the river being in district Kapurthala. A police post named Khall belonging to the Kapurthala police was located right in front of the hovel in which the family of Amarjit lived. Joga Singh, incharge of this police post, began to raid the house, as also the Verowal police, to find out where the brothers had gone. There was also a police post at Gagrewal under Verowal.
On 13th Maghar 1990, (28 November 1990?), Joga of Khall police post abducted young Angrez and tortured him under custody until he revealed that Sahab Singh had moved to his in-laws in Talwandi village. After Angrez gave this information, he was asked by the constables of the police post to go away, later described as escape from the custody which, in the first place, had been illegal. Following his release, parents of Angrez Singh asked him to go away to Baroda in Gujarat State to save himself from the constant police harassment.
Early morning of 14 Maghar 1990, DSP Amar Singh Chahal and SI Tirath Singh from the Kapurthala CIA staff, and SI Joga Singh incharge of Gagrewal police post raided the house of Sahab’s in-laws at Talwandi village, where he was staying. The police officials took him and his father-in-law Dalbir Singh into custody in the presence of several relatives including his wife Raj Kaur. Sahab was taken to Police Post of Gagrewal and Dalbir Singh to Kapurthala.
Earlier that morning, on 14 Maghar 1990, SI Joga Singh, SI Tirath Singh and constable Pehalwan had raided the house of Hazura Singh in village Gagrewal, across the river Beas, and had taken two of his sons Sukhraj and Tarsem Singh into custody. They were Sahab’s cousins.
These abductions had taken place in front of several relatives who were told that they should come with Rs. 30,000 to Gagrewal police post if they wished to get Sukhraj released. Later that day, Sahab’s wife Raj also returned to village Gagrewal to inform her father-in-law Dara Singh about the raid of Talwandi village and the arrest of Sahab and her father Dalbir. But Dara Singh was so scared of the police that he did not go to them to make inquiries.
SI Joga Singh released Dalbir Singh from Gagrewal police post after telling him that both Sukhraj and Sahab Singh had been killed and that their family members should carry out the last rites. Although, no relative has seen Sahab’s dead body, he is presumed killed. Sukhraj’s brother Tarsem was released after ten days. Sukhraj’s wife Sukhwinder went away from the house, deserting her eleven years old daughter Ranjit Kaur and nine years old son Avtar Singh who have since been living as orphans.
Angrez lived in Baroda till early July 1992, when he returned to Punjab. First he went to his sister Lakhwinder Kaur at Jandiala Guru and then to another sister at village Ema, near Bir Baba Budha. From there he went to Rayya Mandi, on the way to his village, where he met a woman from his neighbourhood. This woman from his village Chhindo, wife of Harbans Singh, was accompanied with another woman named Kamla, wife of Bakshish Singh of Fatehabad village. Angrez was acquainted with her also. Angrez told them he was on the way to his village.
Around twelve noon, Angrez got abducted by DSP Amar Singh Chahal while he was getting his wrist watch repaired in a shop near the bus stand, still in Rayya Mandi. In the evening, Chhindo and Kamla went to Angrez’s house in Gagrewal and told his parents that they had met him at Rayya Mandi in the afternoon when he was on his way home. His parents got worried when Angrez did not return home till late in the evening. The next morning, Dara Singh and other village elders went to Rayya Mandi and found out the details of Angrez’s abduction from the owner of the watch shop where his suitcase was still lying. Immediately, they took a bus to Kapurthala and met DSP Amar Singh Chahal at his CIA staff office. The DSP admitted Angrez’s custody and promised to release him after his interrogation. But Angrez was never released.
On 20 Asharh, 1992 -(5 August 92)-, a group of officers from Kapurthala police under DSP Chahal raided the house of Harbans Singh in Hassanpur village under Batala police station where Baldev Singh, son of Bhajan Singh of Gagrewal village and a relative, had come to attend a marriage. Baldev Singh was Angrez’s cousin brother, his father’s sister’s son. During the raid, Angrez was also along with the police team. Baldev was taken into custody in front of several relatives.
Two days after this incident of abduction, newspapers reported that Angrez Singh, son of Dara Singh and Baldev Singh son of Bhajan Singh, both residents of Gagrewal village, have been killed in an armed encounter with the police, which occurred at village Desal under Kapurthala Sadar police station. The bodies were not returned to their families.
Dara Singh, who could not do anything, accepted the custodial murder of his second son and his nephew Baldev also as God’s Will!
Meanwhile, Amarjit had been living in Biharipur, earning his livelihood as a laborer.
In the third week of December 1993, SHO Kashmir Singh and ASI Baldev Singh of Khadoor Sahib police station raided Amarjit’s house in Gagrewal village and took his mother Piar Kaur, and his two sisters Aman Kaur and Dalbir Kaur into custody. SHO Kashmir Singh instructed his team of constables to confiscate all valuable objects in the house. All household things including utensils, clothes and some silver ornaments were taken away.
Piar Kaur and her two daughters were detained at Khadoor Sahib police station for eight days in the course of which they were physically and sexually tortured. Piar Kaur was compelled to accompany a team of officials led by SHO Kashmir Singh to raid the Amarjit’s house in Biharipur. Once again, all the money in the house, some gold ornaments and all other objects of value were confiscated. Amarjit was arrested in front of all his relatives, including his in-laws.
His wife Balwinder Kaur, father-in-law Madha Singh, mother-in-law Gurdeep Kaur were also taken into custody and brought to Khadoor Sahib police station where Amarjit was brutally tortured. Meanwhile, the police also detained two sisters-in-law of Amarjit, his wife’s sisters, from village Vei Pui. They were also brutally tortured so much so that they lost consciousness several times in the span of a few days. Amarjit had himself been so badly beaten that he was no longer in a position to move and was segregated from the rest of the family who were all detained there, including his mother Piar, for one month.
Thereafter, Piar Kaur, Madha Singh, Gurdeep Singh, his wife Balwinder Kaur and her sister Babbu were taken to Verowal police station, where they remained for the next six days. They were again brought back to Khadoor Sahib police station where Madha Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Balwinder Kaur and Babbu were released.
A week later, Piar Kaur was also released at the intervention of a local politician Lakha Singh.
There was no trace of Amarjit.
Over the next month, Dara Singh metSHO Kashmir Singh of Khadoor Sahib police station several times to find out about Amarjit. Everytime, SHO Kashmir Singh and ASI Baldev Singh to “go away and save his own life.”
Dara Singh could not do anything. He and his wife have since become completely lifeless, and spend their time crying for his disappeared and dead sons. Amarjit’s wife Balwinder has gone away, leaving their daughter Harpreet Kaur behind with her in-laws.[199]
Case No. 5: Twenty-two years old Harjit Singh, resident of Sultanwind under Dobourji police station in Amritsar, was a mechanic who repaired tube wells and other heavy electric engines. He earned about Rs. 3000 a month. He was married to Sawinder Kaur, but did not have children. The couple lived along with Harjit Singh’s fifty-seven years old father Balbir Singh, mother Harjinder Kaur and his eighteen years old sister Bibi Bao.
A police party from Doburji led by SHO Narinder Singh Malhi, raided the house on 26 November 1992 afternoon around 3 p.m. Both Harjit and his father Balbir were taken to the the Police Station Doubrji.
SHO Narinder Singh also confiscated all valuables in the household: television, furniture, beds and mattresses, even utensils. The value of all these items, which belonged to father Balbir and were never returned to him, is estimated to be more than fifty thousand rupees.
The same evening, a delegation of village elders called on SHO Malhi at the police station to request him to either release the two or to produce them before a magistrate. The SHO told them not to worry and that he needed them only for questioning. Late that night, Balbir Singh was allowed to return home, but Harjit was not released.
On 20 December 1992, Balbir sent a written representation to the DGP, Punjab, giving all the details of the abduction and illegal detention of his son. But no action followed.
On 4 February 1993, SHO Malhi took Balbir Singh into illegal custody again. Harjit was still in the police lock-up and his condition was critical due to severe physical torture. Harjit told him that he had been continuously tortured to reveal the whereabouts of some supposed terrorists he knew nothing about. Balbir was also manhandled and questioned that night, but was allowed to go back home the next day. SHO Malhi told him that Harjit would be released when his condition became better.
Balbir went to the police station again on 11 February 93 to find out about his son. SHO Malhi told him that he could not meet his son and became evasive when asked about his whereabouts. Balbir was not convinced when he said that Harjit had been sent somewhere else for further questioning. For some weeks, Balbir held hope that his son would eventually come back. When he could not even ascertain his whereabouts for many weeks, Balbir Singh sent further representations to the DGP Punjab and the Chief Minister. But nothing happened.
The obtaining situation of police terror allowed him no scope to take any action until March 1997 when, following a change in the government, Balbir Singh again wrote to the new Akali Chief Minister. The letter was not even acknowledged.
Balbir Singh engaged a lawyer at Chandigarh to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or for an independent inquiry, before the High Court of Punajb and Haryana. The writ petition - Cr. W. P. No. 533/97 filed on 11 November 1997 - is still pending before the court.
Balbir Singh hopes that his son Harjit Singh might yet be alive since there has neither been an official corroboration of his death nor have newspapers reported his death in any form.
Balbir Singh also says that all the relatives, particularly Harjit Singh’s sister, have since been under great mental agony. His grand mother Harbans Kaur is stated to have expired under the shock of his disappearance.[200]
Case No. 6: Sixty-five years old Ajit Singh, resident of Kairon village in Patti subdivision of Amritsar district, was a farmer with no political associations. He was married to Darshan Kaur and had two grown up sons.
Early in the morning of 12 March 1992, SI Walia from the CIA staff of Tarn Taran led a large police force to Ajit Singh’s residence and abducted him in front of several members of the family. During the raid, the police confiscated Rs. 90,000 that was found in the house.
Over the next days, the police also forcibly harvested the standing crops of wheat from Ajit Singh’s fields and took the produce away. The loss of the produce is valued at Rs. 125,000.
No one ever saw or heard of Ajit Singh again.[201]
Case No. 7: Twenty-fiveyears old Baljeet Singh was a farmer from village Lehra Bega under Nathana police station in Bhatinda district. He was married to Jasmel Kaur and had three children: two thirteen and eleven years old boys and one nine years old daughter. His sixty-five years old father Gurcharan Singh and mother Harbans Kaur also lived with them. Baljeet neither had any political association, nor had he been arrested before.
On 2 November 1992, ASI Balbir Singh Grewal from Nathana police station led a police force to take Baljeet Singh into custody from his house, ostensibly to interrogate him on militant activities in his area. All the family members witnessed the abduction. Baljeet Singh disappeared never to be seen again. Although there has been no official confirmation of his fate, the family believes that Baljeet was eliminated in custody and his body disposed of in some clandestine manner.
During the raid, the police also demolished the house, and took away all valuable things. The total loss is estimated to be around Rs. 900,000/-. The property destroyed by the police belonged to Baljeet’s father Gurcharan Singh.
Baljeet’s mother Harbans Kaur, who has sent this complaint, holds then SSP A. K. Sharma of Bhatinda responsible for the destruction and theft of property.[202]
Case No. 8: Twenty-five years old Bhola Singh was a young Sikh farmer who lived at Tiona under Sadar police station in Bhatinda along with his father Mithu Singh, mother Surjit Kaur and brother Hakam Singh. Bhola Singh was a baptized Sikh. For this reason, the local police kept him under surveillance and picked him up for interrogation on suspected militant connections. In May 92, he was arrested under sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and sent to jail. Later he was released on bail.
In the night of 25 October 1992, a group of police officers from the Bhatinda Sadar Station and the CIA staff raided the house of Bhola Singh. The force was led by DSP Balvir Singh Khehra, SHO Hardeep Singh, ASI Sukhdev Singh and Baljinder Kumar. All of them wore plain clothes, and tied long towels on their heads as loose turbans. Clearly, they were attempting to disguise themselves as Sikh militants.
These officers ordered the destruction of the cotton crop that was standing in eight acres of the family agricultural land. To carry out the order, the policemen took a tractor and ploughed up the field.
After supervising destruction of the crop, the police force picked up both Bhola Singh and Hakam Singh and took them to Sadar Police station where both of them were severely thrashed and asked to speak out on their militant connections. After some time the two brothers got segregated and interrogated separately. Hakam was held at Sadar police station. Bhola was removed to some other place.
The next day, the village elders went to the Sadar police station to request the officers to either release illegally detained brothers or to produce them before a magistrate as required under the law. Village elders went to the police station a number of times over the next days. The police officials promised to let them go after interrogation.
On 31 October 92, Punjabi newspaper Ajit carried a report which said that Bhola Singh has been killed in an armed encounter with the police. The dead body was not returned to the family. Hakam Singh, who has sent this complaint, was eventually released.[203]
Case No. 9: Twenty-six years old Major Singh, son of Dasaundha Singh, lived at House No. 2559, Mehna Mohalla of Bathinda, along with his parents, his wife Gurbinder Kaur and eight years old son Channanprit Singh. A farmer by profession, Major Singh was by no means a very orthodox Sikh, even cutting his hair, although his elder brother Harpal Singh Zaildar was active in the Akali politics and had been arrested a number of times for his association with political agitations. Major Singh had also been detained on few occasions, as a hostage, when the latter managed to dodge arrest.
On 28 April 1991, Major Singh went on a bus to meet his friend Hardev Singh at village Chathe Wala. After talking to Hardev, Major Singh borrowed his scooter No. PJB-4933 and went to the house of another friend Paramjit Singh at village Mahi Nangal in Talwandi Sabo subdivision of Bhatinda district. Paramjit was also a farmer. Married to Angrej Kaur, Paramjit was the father of three young children. Paramjit also trimmed his hair and beard regularly, and was by no means a regular orthodox Sikh. He also had no connection with any political organizaion.
When Major Singh arrived, Paramjit was about to leave his house with the intention to visit his sister Moorti who lived in village Tarkhan Wala. Major Singh offered to drive him there on his scooter. Just outside the village of Tarkhan Wala on the Sukhladhi road Rama Mandi police station had set up a check post under the supervision of SHO Manohar Lal.
Major Singh and Paramjit were stopped at the police post, and taken into custody. They were forced into a jeep and one constable drove their scooter to the police station Rama Mandi. On the way, the police stopped at the house of one Jaswant Singh, alias Leelu, who was not home. The police men asked for drinking water, which Jaswant’s son Gurdeep gave. Major Singh and Paramjit also drank water. Meanwhile, Jaswant’s brother Gurtej, who was acquainted with Major Singh and Paramjit, arrived. Paramjit took out Rs. 475/- from his pocket and requested Gurtej Singh to give the money to his sister Moorti or to her husband Gamdur Singh at Tarkhan Wala, and also to inform them about the arrests. After this transaction, the police took them to Rama Mandi police station.
Later that evening, Gamdur Singh and his father Gurdev Singh went to the police station and requested SHO Manohar Lal to release the two. The SHO said that they would be released the next day after questioning. The SHO allowed Gamdur Singh and Gurdev Singh to talk to Major Singh and Paramjit Singh in the police lock-up. Gamdur Singh and Gurdev Singh went to the police station again the next day when the SHO said that he had never arrested Major Singh and Paramjit, although their scooter was still in the compound of the police station.
Gamdur Singh then went to Paramjit’s house and informed his family about the development. Major Singh’s family learnt about the situation from Paramjit’s relatives. Major Singh’s elder brother Harpal Singh collected few personal friends and sympathizers, including Pirthi Singh and Manjit Singh, and went to the police station where the officials denied having taken Major Singh and Paramjit into custody.
Later it became known that the police had already killed them in a supposed armed encounter, claiming that two unidentified terrorists opened fire when stopped at the police post for a routine check. Becoming suspicious, their relatives asked the police to show the clothes which the supposed unidentified terrorists had been wearing. SHO refused. He also challenged them to do whatever they wanted if they thought he had killed Major Singh and Paramjit Singh after taking them in custody. The bodies of the unidentified terrorists had already been cremated by the police at Bhatinda crematoria, he said.
The relatives and the friends of Major Singh and Paramjit Singh went on to hold a sit-in in front of the Deputy Commissioner’s office who eventually relented to hold an inquiry into the episode by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Talwandi Sabo. The police officials resented this and threatened all the witnesses of fatal consequences if they deposed against them before the Inquiry Officer. To scare the relatives off, SHO Manoharlal carried out further raids of Major Singh and Paramjit’s houses, confiscating all valuable goods including clothes, shoes, ornaments, all electronic items and cash. The police also damaged the house, breaking down all doors and windows and also destroyed the standing cotton crop on twenty acres of land that was ready for harvest.
The total loss from these destructive operations is valued at more than Rs. 200,000. The police also took Major Singh’s brothers Jaspal and Harpal into illegal custody and brutally tortured them. From the torture, Jaspal has become almost a cripple and Harpal also suffered damage of his legs. Eventually, they were released but not before they promised to forget Major Singh’s murder.[204]
Case No. 10: Kuldip Singh, alias Keepa, was a twenty-four years old Jat Sikh mechanic from Fatehgarh Sahib who earned his livelihood by working in a tractor repair shop at Khamano. His fifty years old father Sucha Singh was a small farmer who rented some acres of land for cultivation. Kuldip Singh was married to Sukhwinder Kaur, but did not have any children. Apart from the couple, the joint family comprised Kuldip Singh’s parents, Sucha Singh and Mahinder Kaur, two younger sisters - then thirteen years old Amandeep Kaur and nine years old Kulwinder Kaur - and eleven years old younger brother Rajdeep Singh.
As the eldest son in the family, Kuldip had the responsibility not only to educate his yonger brother but also to marry his sisters, which required a lot of money. Kuldip worked hard. He had no political affiliation and had never been arrested before. The family lived in Thikriwal village under Khamano police station in district Fatehgarh Sahib.
Early in the morning of 24 February 1994, a group of police officials raided Kuldip’s house. All the members of the family were sleeping. The police woke up Kuldip and asked him to come along with them to the police station. They did not disclose the name of the police station where they would be taking him.
After the sunrise, around 8 a.m., Kuldip’s mother Mahinder Kaur went with a neighbor Mewa Singh to find help for her son’s release. For mobility, Mewa Singh had taken Kuldip’s scooter. The owner of a grocery shop in Khamano town, whose name was also Kuldip Singh, agreed to visit the Khamano police station to find out. He went there on the scooter of Mahinder Kaur’s abducted son. After some time, he came back without the scooter to report that the SHO of the police station had confiscated it. The SHO, however, denied holding Kuldip Singh, whose scooter with its numberplate - PBR-5508 - he had confiscated.
Mahinder Kaur returned home to discover that during her absence from the house, the SHO of Khamano had conducted a raid and had searched the house thoroughly in the presence of some neighbours including Jodha Singh and Amrik Singh, then head of the village council. But nothing incriminating had been discovered.
The next day, Kuldip’s father Sucha Singh and his grand-father Kuldip Singh went along with a group of village elders to meet the SHOs of Khamano and Bassi Pathana police stations. They also met the SSP of the police district of Khanna. All the officers denied having Kuldip Singh in their custody.
In spite of these denials, groups of police officials, including the CIA staff from Khanna, continued to raid the house to carry out more searches over the next week. The CIA staff of Khanna conducted another search of the house in April 1994. At that time Sucha Singh was not home. The raiding officials went away with his son-in-law Balbir Singh, husband of his eldest daughter Karamjit Kaur, who was visiting them to help out with the harvesting in the absence of his son. While taking Balbir Singh away, the officials declared that he would be released when Sucha Singh produced himself for interrogation before the CIA staff Khanna.
Two days later, Sucha Singh appeared before the CIA staff at Khanna and was held there illegally for interrogation under severe torture for the next five days. The torture must have been so severe that he became completely silent after his release.
Another mysterious incident, which happened six months later, destroyed his mental balance completely. On 12 October 1994, Sucha Singh was sleeping in the verandah of the house while other members of the family slept inside. Early next morning, his wife Amarjit Kaur found him lying there in an unconscious state with his head profusely bleeding. Someone had hit his head with a heavy object in the night. The family suspects the police involvement. Sucha Singh was admitted in a Ludhiana hospital for a week. But he lost his memory completely, becoming an absolute mental wreck.
Kuldip remains untraced. His younger brother Rajdip has given up school to work as a casual labourer. But his income is not sufficient to maintain the family. Amandeep Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur remain unmarried. Mother Mahinder Kaur has not only to cope with the grief of her son’s disappearance and the condition of her husband, but also shoulder the responsibility of bringing up the children. She has not been able to take any legal action because of the serious financial hardship. Also, the Khamano police threatened to eliminate her younger sons if she took the matter Kuldip Singh’s abduction to the court. The Bajaj Chetak scooter, registration number PBR 5508, 1986 model, which the Khamano police confiscated on 25 February 94, has not been returned. The scooter is valued at Rs. 12,000.[205]
Case No. 1: Kashmir Singh was a Special Police Officer from Jhander village under Majitha police station of Ajnala subdivision in Amritsar district.
On 2 January 91, Kashmir Singh was abducted from his uncle’s house in village Arrana, in Assandh subdivision of Panipat district following a police raid that was led by DSP Kirpal Singh of Majitha. Interrogated under torture at Mal Mandi Interrogation Center in Amritsar, Kashmir Singh was killed in a supposed armed encounter that was staged on 5 January 1991. Although the body was not returned to the family, it was able to collect the ashes from Sheetla Mandir Cremation ground in Amritsar where his cremation carried out by the police was recorded.
Kashmir Singh’s mother Mahinder Kaur complains that his brother-in-law Kulwant Singh was also later killed by police agents. She also mentions the illegal abduction of one Tasbir Singh from Jhander village who was apparently declared killed in an armed encounter that supposed took place on 9 September 1992.[206]
Case No. 2: Twenty years old Harpinder Singh was a student of Malwa College at Phool. His father Jawant Singh, a retired army officer, was the resident of Hargobindpura, near Gurusar Maharaj, under Police Station and subdivision Phool in Bhatinda district.
The police used to harass Harpinder Singh and his family for the reason of his association with All India Sikh Students Federation. Once in August 1991, the SHO Baljinder Singh of Phool police station picked up his father, mother and his elder sister Amandeep Kaur, held them at various police stations and tortured them brutally. Senior police officers including SSP Anil Kumar Sharma took part in their torture. The police also confiscated and destroyed the family property.
Harpinder Kaur was unable to bear the insult offered to his elder sister. After this incident, he left his home and became a fugitive in September 1991. On 21 January 1992, Amandeep Kaur was shot dead outside the house by two unidentified gunmen who the family believes to be the agents of SSP Bhatinda. It is said that the motive was to silence her from speaking about her custodial experiences.
Harpinder himself was killed in a supposed armed encounter, as reported in the Punjabi Tribune and Ajit newspapers dated 26 and 27 June 92. Father Jaswant Singh claims that the so called encounter was faked.
Harpinder was shown killed along with Darshan Singh Kotli and Jasbir Singh Latala. All were cremated by the police at Bhatinda cremation ground as unclaimed and unidentified dead bodies.
According to father Jaswant Singh, the police had also picked up Gurjant Singh Joga from Gurudwara Gurusar on 15 September 1991 and killed him in an so called encounter faked the next day.
According to him, Surinder Pal Singh of Sarhali police station abducted Baba Hardayal Singh and his daughter Baljit Kaur and later killed them.[207]
Case No. 3: Nineteen years old Gurdeep Singh, a resident of House No. 268, Ward No. 11, Singhpura road in Kurali under Kharar subdivision of Ropar district, was studying for an engineering diploma at the local ITI.
On 5 February 1993, Gurdeep’s mother Manjit Kaur was taken into illegal custody by Ropar CIA and interrogated there under torture about the family’s militant connections. SHO Avtar Singh of Kharar police station personally tortured her for information on Jagtar Singh Panjaula, supposedly a member of the Babbar Khalsa, and the son of her husband’s sister. Manjit Kaur did not know his whereabouts and could not offer any information. She was released after one week following pressure from the residents of the locality.
On 6 March 1993 morning, SHO Avtar Singh led a raid on the house of Manjit Kaur’s parents in Kubaheri village in Ropar district, where her son Gurdeep was staying at that time. SHO Avtar Singh took Gurdeep into custody.
When village elders of Kubaheri, along with Manjit Kaur, went to the Kharar police station later that day, they found Gurdeep in the police lock up. He had already been tortured very badly and was bleeding. SHO Avtar Singh told them that Gurdeep Singh would be released after his interrogation in some days.
On 11 March 93, Manjit Kaur along with members of village council of Kubaheri met DSP H. P. Singh of Kharar and gave him a written petition on the illegal detention of her son. DSP H. P. Singh said that her son would be released after the investigations.
In the next days, Manjit Kaur sent written petitions to the Chief Minister of Punjab, the DGP and several other senior officials. She went on to meet DIG Chander Shekhar of Ludhiana range on 27 March, and also gave him a written representation. He promised to take action and asked her to meet SSP Sanjeev Gupta.
When Manjit Kaur went to meet him, SSP Gupta ordered his subordinates to take her into custody. At his command, Manjit Kaur was detained again for fifteen days at CIA staff interrogation center in Ropar and later Kharar police station and again tortured under interrogation. Her father Dharam Singh and mother Gurdial Kaur were also arrested and held in Kharar police station with the view to terrorize them into silence.
While Manjit Kaur was being illegally detained at CIA Satff office in Ropar, she claims to have seen the police administer cyanide to two separate groups of six young Sikhs, after brutally torturing them.
Manjit Kaur’s brother Bant Singh Aujla was also arrested and interrogated at Chamkaur Sahib police station where he saw Gurdeep Singh on 7 April 1993.
SHO Avtar Singh released Manjit Kaur and her parents fifteen days later after receiving a bribe from her family. The tale of her woes was published in the English Tribune dated 27-9-1995 and in the Punjabi Ajit on 17-12-1995.
Gurdeep Singh was not released from the custody. Nor was he seen or heard of after Manjit Kaur’s brother met him in Chamkaur Sahib police station on 7 April 93. There was also no report on his death in an armed encounter or on his escape from the custody.
The higher officials Manjit Kaur had approached with written petitions did not respond.
On 18 August 97, Manjit Kaur filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Punjab and Haryana High Court through advocate Ranjan Lakhanpal. On 20 April 98, the petition - Cr. W. P. No. 978/97 - was disposed of by Judge R. L. Anand with the observation that the petitioner was free to file a criminal complaint in the local court of competent jurisdiction.[208]
Case 4: Twenty-two years old Balwinder Singh was a truck driver from Jalalabad village under Verowal police station in Khadur Sahib subdivision of Amritsar district. He was married to Baljit Kaur but had no children. His father Charan Singh and mother Swaran Kaur lived in the same house. Balwinder, a mazhabi Sikh, had no political association and had never been arrested before.
On 14 March 1992 forenoon, Balwinder came to the house after parking the truck at its owner’s place in the city. He took a bath and was relaxing when some police officials in uniform along with four soldiers from the 4 Sikh Light Infantry raided the house and took Balwinder into custody. The police officials refused to identify themselves and said that they wanted Balwinder Singh for questioning.
On 16 March evening, the same police officials took Balwinder and another boy Gurbachan Singh to Mand area for some search operations. The same evening, Balwinder’s father Charan Singh was also taken into custody when he was returning home after grazing his cattle. All the family members witnessed the arrest and also saw Balwinder who had apparently been tortured.
Charan Singh was taken to Fatudhinga police station and held there for a night. Balwinder was taken away to some unknown place. In the police lock-up, Charan Singh found out from a constable that Balwinder was being taken to Sultanpur in Kapurthala district and that the officer responsible for his arrest and interrogation was one DSP Chahal. That was the last time Balwinder was seen alive.
Charan Singh was let off the next day when he went to Sultanpur and Kapurthala to trace his son. But the officials there denied Balwinder’s custody.
On 17 March 1992, Punjabi newspapers reported that one Balwinder Singh has been killed in an armed encounter with the police. Punjabi Ajit carried the same report on 18 March. The body was not returned to the family.
Father Charan Singh reports that after this incident the police abducted and killed at least five other persons from his village. He mentions the names of Swaran Singh, Sodhi Lakha Singh, Sakattar Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Dalbir Singh Maddu, all from his village.[209]
Case No. 5: Nineteen years old Harjit Singh, a first year student at the university of Patiala, used to live with his parents Jarnail Singh and Raj Kaur at Janherian, under Sadar police station of Patiala. He was unmarried. A baptized Sikh, Harjit Singh was also a keen sportsman and never had any trouble with the police before.
On 7 April 1991 morning, he went to the university to take private tuition from a professor, but did not come back home. Around 10.30 that evening, SHO Harbhajan Singh from Sadar police station came to the house with other policemen to ask about Harjit. His father Jarnail Singh told him that he had gone to the university in the morning, but had not come back home, that the family was worried because of that.
On hearing this, SHO Harbhajan Singh asked him to come along to the Sadar police station. The next day, several members of the village council led by its elected head Pooran Singh Boharpur and retired Captain Surat Singh and others, went to the police station and persuaded the SHO to release Jarnail Singh with the promise that they would look for Harjit Singh and produce him at the police station.
SHO Harbhajan Singh allowed Jarnail Singh return home. He also told the village delegation that they were free to look Harjit, but they would not find him anywhere. The delegation was intrigued and worried about the implication of the statement, but left the police station along with Jarnail Singh. Harjit Singh did not come back home. The family searched for him at all relatives’ places, but no one had seen him.
Nineteen days after Harjit disappeared, SHO Harbhajan Singh again took Jarnail Singh into custody on 26 April, holding him at Sadar police station for three days. He was not interrogated in this period and was released on 29th after the village delegation met SSP Satish Sharma of Patiala.
The SHO Harbhajan Singh sent a head constable along with him ostensibly to look for Harjit in the houses of all his close relatives. It was only a ploy, as it later turned out, to identify their locations.
On 2 May, Jarnail Singh along with the village elders met SSP Satish Sharma again, and told him about his harassment and that he suspected the police of having already kidnapped his son. Satish Sharma told him that no one will harass him in the future, if he did not create any trouble.
On 3 May morning, Jarnail Singh read a statement issued by SSP Muhammad Mustafa Ropar, which said that two terrorists, Nishan Singh Saifdipur and Harjit Singh Janherian, were killed in an encounter with the police near village Manakpur Kaler under police station Sohana.
After reading the newspaper report, Jarnail Singh met the SSP of Ropar in his office who told them that Harjit Singh had been killed in an encounter, and that he should meet DSP Jagdish Chand at Mohali police station to collect his ashes.
The delegation then went to Mohali police station but could not meet the DSP. SHO Didar Singh told them that as the encounter had taken place under Sohana police station, he would ask the concerned officers to hand over the ashes to him. Jarnail Singh and the delegation with him to the Sohana police station whose SHO took them to the Cremation Ground in Mohali. There, two pyres were still smouldering. Not knowing the pyre in which Harjit Singh had been cremated, Jarnail Singh collected the ashes from both. He was also asked to sign a written statement without reading it.
SHO Sohana, who was seen weeping by the side of the pyres, also asked him to sign several sheets of blank paper. The SHO’s driver took Jarnail aside and told him that the boys had been in the police custody for some time, that they were killed and that the story of the encounter was concocted. He requested Jarnail Singh not to divulge their conversation to anyone.
Concrete evidence of Harjit Singh having been killed in custody emerged only one year later, when the family organized a religious ceremony to mark the first anniversary of Harjit’s death. One Baldev Singh from village Baran in Patiala also came to attend the ceremony. He told Jarnail Singh that Sub-Inspector Balwant Singh Kauharia of Ropar CIA had raided his house on 1 May 91. During the raid, both Harjit Singh and Nishan Singh Saifdipur were also in the police custody. Balwant Singh’s mother, who was present in the house during the raid, also saw Harjit Singh and Nishan Singh. Balwant Singh was arrested and taken to the CIA Interrogation Center in Ropar along with Harjit and Nishan. Later that night, the three of them were segregated. Balwant Singh, who had now come out on bail, was sent to prison after ten days of illegal custody.
Later on, Deputy Commissioner of Ropar ordered an enquiry into the incident, entrusting the investigation to one officer Dalip Singh of Ropar. When Jarnail Singh met him to pursue the inquiry, this officer told him that he was under the police pressure and, for that reason, was opting out of the inquiry. Dalip Singh asked him to pursue the matter with the Deputy Commissioner of Ropar. Finding out few days later that the inquiry had been transferred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kharar, Jarnail went the SDM’s office to find out. There a lady clerk showed him the file and told him that the SDM would not be able to complete the inquiry because of the police pressure that was coming from very high levels. Jarnail Singh affirms that Nishan Singh Saifdipur was also abducted and killed in the custody of Ropar police. The files on these incomplete inquiries should be able to shed more light on what really happened.[210]
Case No. 6: Forty-eight years old Sewa Singh was a long standing member of the Akali Dal from village Gharuan Uchand under Kharar subdivision in Ropar district. Sewa Singh was married to Ajaib Kaur with two daughters, eighteen and eleven, and one son who is now fourteen.
Sewa Singh was a baptized Sikh and a member of the Akal Dal. He had been arrested for protesting against the Emergency regime of Indira Gandhi between June 1975 and March 1977, and had also been to jail many more times in the course of the Akali agitation for the implementation of Anandpur Sahib resolution between 1982 ane 1983.
After the Operation Blue Star, the police began to harass him and his family, picking them up arbitrarily, holding them in illegal detention for long periods and torturing them during interrogation. The police also used to regularly abduct Sewa Singh’s twenty-two years old nephew Jagjit Singh, son of Hardial Singh, and torture him during interrogation.
On 6 May 1987, Jagjit was arrested formally under TADA and sent to jail where he remained for ten months, securing release on bail thereafter. But the police continue to illegally detain and torture him. Fed up by the harassment, Jagjit left his house and joined the ranks of militants.
The police began to harass the family much more after Jagjit became a fugitive. In 1989, Sewa Singh was implicated in a case under the Arms Act and sent to Patiala jail. He secured release on bail after three months.
Meanwhile, Jagjit had been killed in an armed encounter, along with four others, that had supposedly taken place on 28 Octgober 1990 between a group of militants and the Ludhiana police near village Ucha Pind. Even after his death, the police continued to harass the family, regularly detained Sewa Singh illegally, and questioning him under torture about his militant connections.
In June 1991, Sewa Singh contested the aborted election to the Punjab Assembly from the Kharar constituency as a condidate of the Sikh Students Federation affiliated to Manjit Singh. The local Congress leader Harnek Singh Gharuan felt threatened by Sewa Singh’s popularity in the area, and began to instigate the police to harass him. The elections were eventually cancelled by the Congress Party that was able to form a government at the Center following Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination.
In 1992, Harnek Singh was a candidate to the Punjab Assembly from Kharar constituency when all the major Akali groups and also all the factions of the Sikh Students Federation decided to boycott the elections. Harnek Singh did not like the call to boycott, and fearing violence, instigated the police to control Sewa Singh’s family. Sewa Singh complained in a petition addressed to the higher authorities, including the Prime Minister of India, the Governor and the DGP of Punjab that he had received death threats from Harnek Singh. The petition was ignored. Harnek Singh became a Minister in the government formed by the Congress Party under Beant Singh.
On 16 August 1992, few months after Beant Singh had become the Chief Minister of Punjab, Sewa Singh was against picked up by DSP H. P. Singh Kalewal of Kharar and tortured severely at CIA staff office in Ropar for a month. When on 17 September 92, Sewa Singh was brought back home by his brothers, Nasib Singh and Hardial Singh, his physical condition from custodial torture was very critical. He was not even able to walk.
Exactly two days later, early in the morning of 18 September 92, a strong police force led by DSP Gurcharan Singh of Mohali again raided Sewa Singh’s house. Sub-Inspector Bhavkhandan Singh, a relative and security guard of Harnek Singh Gharuan was also in the police party. Sewa Singh was physically lifted and thrown into a waiting vehicle and driven away. The entire neighborhood and the family members, including Hardial Singh, his wife Charan Kaur and Sewa Singh’s wife Ajaib Kaur witnessed the abduction.
Sewa Singh’s brothers went on to meet several senior police officials, including DIG of Ludhiana Range Chandershekhar to plead for their intervention to save Sewa Singh from torturers and murderers. All of them ignored their plea with routine statements that the matter would be looked into. Also, their efforts to secure Sewa Singh’s release with the intervention of Bhai Manjit Singh and Professor Sarup Singh, a friend of DGP Gill, yielded no results.
Failing in all other ways, brother of Sewa Singh Nasib Singh and his wife Charan Kaur went to the Congress leader and now a Minister Harnek Singh Gharuan to plead for his mercy. But Harnek Singh abused them in a foul language and told them that they were reaping the wages of their sins. He refused to help and asked them to leave the house.
Sewa Singh’s whereabouts remain unknown.
Nasib Singh who has sent this complaint also affirms that following Sewa Singh’s abduction, the police also picked up Ranjit Kaur, wife of Amar Singh, who also disappeared. She has neither returned nor has there been any news of her fate. Nasib Singh also affirms that police from Bassi Pathana killed Narinder Singh Kuka, son of Gurcharan Singh, in a faked encounter after abducting him. Earlier, the police had killed Sewa Singh’s nephew Jagjit Singh in an encounter at Ucha Pind Sanghol, along with four others, on 28 October 1990.[211]
Case No. 7: Fifty-five years old Arur Singh from Manochahal Kalan village under Jhabal police station in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district was an employee of the SGPC and was also related to the militant leader Gurbachan Singh Manochahal. Married to Jasbir Kaur, Arur Singh was the father of six children, four daughters and two sons. The eldest son Harwinder Singh is now twenty-four years old. The youngest daughter Rajkulwinder Kaur is now eleven years.
In the first week of December 1992, SHO Suba Singh of Khalra police station had arrested him but let him go after taking a bribe of Rs. 30,000.
Again on 12 December 92, Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar and Assistant-Sub-Inspector Nachhatterpal from Manochahal Kalan police post raided his house when Arur had gone to Tarn Taran on some work for the SGPC. The two officers said that Arur Singh should present himself at the police post as they had to ask him some questions regarding his tractor which some unidentified persons had taken away on 31 June 1992. This was an old incident, and the police had already questioned him in that connection.
Arur Singh returned home on 15 December and immediately went to the Manochahal police post along with Balwinder Singh, son of Darshan Singh, Harpal Singh, son of Ajit Singh and some others from the village. At the police post, Sub Inspector Raj Kumar asked his companions to go away since he wanted Arur Singh to identiy the tractor that had been reported stolen. He asked them to come back in the evening to take Arur Singh.
When they came back in the evening, along with Arur Singh’s wife Jasbir Kaur, he told them that he would not be released as yet. Inspector Raj Kumar asked Jasbir Kaur to bring a quilt for her husband’s use at the police station, which she did.
The next morning, Jasbir Kaur went back to the police post and requested for permission to see her husband. ASI Nachhatterpal asked her to first fetch some food for her husband. Jasbir Kaur came back with some food and was allowed to meet him. He had visibly been tortured very badly. He was not even able to eat.
Early in the morning of 17 December, Jasbir Kaur went to the police post again. Arur Singh had been taken out of the lock to go to toilet. Jasbir Kaur saw him as he was being walked back from the toilet to the lock-up. Both his hands were hanging limp. They had been fractured. Arur Singh told her to pursue his case vigorougly. “Otherwise, I would be killed,” he told her.
When Jasbir Kaur went to the police post again on 18 December, he could not meet her husband. Inspector Raj Kumar told her that he has been sent to some other place for further interrogation. Unofficially, she came to know that he had been taken to CIA staff interrogation center in Tarn Taran. She went immediately to the CIA staff interrogation center at Tarn Taran, but was not allowed to go inside, nor was she given any information on her husband’s whereabouts.
On 28 December evening, Jasbir Kaur met SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu at his office through someone who was close to him and paid Rs. 150,000, which he had demanded for Arur Singh’s release. SSP Sandhu told her to collect Arur Singh from Jhabal police station the next day morning. When Jasbir Kaur, accompanied by several relatives, went to Jhabal police station on 29th morning, the SHO there told them that there was no one with that name in their lock-up. He also told them that as an armed encounter had taken place on the Canal road near village Dode, they should go to the Civil Hospital in Tarn Tarn to find out if Arur Singh is among the killed.
By now someone had seen the newspapers that reported an armed encounter in which three identified and one unidentified militants had been killed near Dode. Arur Singh’s name was in the list of the identified terrorists. Immediately, Jasbir Kaur and other relatives went to the Civil Hospital in Tarn Taran where the Jhabal police brought four dead bodies for post-mortem. Jasbir Kaur was not allowed to go near them, but she was able to identify Arur Singh’s body from a distance. The family members did not dare to demand the body for cremation. They were afraid.
Jasbir Kaur went back to the village to persuade the village elders to accompany her to claim the dead body for the cremation. But they also refused from fear. The police carried out the cremations at Tarn Taran Cremation grounds. The other two, who had been identified, were Ram Singh from village Sur Singh and Resham Singh from village Kuharka. Jasbir Kaur, who has sent this complaint, also claims that the police had itself stolen Arur Singh’s tractor, costing Rs. 300,000, which he had purchased on a bank loan. The loan remains to be paid back.[212]
Case No. 8: Sixty-four years old Gurmej Kaur was the mother of Gurbachan Singh Manochahal, a member of the Panthik Committee and the head of the Bhindranwale Tiger Force. She lived at the family village house at Manochahal Kalan, Patti Mehmu Ki, under Sarhali Kalan police station in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district.
Her husband Atma Singh was a farmer. They had four sons: Gurbachan Singh, Nirvail Singh, Tarlochan Singh and Narinder Singh. The first two have been killed by the police.
Like other members of the family, Gurmej Kaur was being constantly harassed for the reason that she was Gurbachan’s mother. She had already been detained and tortured a number of times. To avoid further torture, she had been shifting her residence and, at the time of her abduction, was living at the house of Surjit Singh at Katra Sher Singh in Amritsar.
On 15 September 1992, DSP Gurmeet Singh Randhawa from the Tarn Taran CIA staff raided the house of Surjit Singh in Amritsar and took her to the CIA staff office in Tarn Taran. Apparently, she was detained and tortured there, and later on shifted to other police stations. Gurmej Kaur was seen alive for the last time on 16 March 1993, at Verowal police post, by Charan Kaur and Swaran Kaur, her sisters, also in the illegal custody, who were later released.
Tarlochan Singh, the sender of this complaint, was also tortured and interrogated their during his illegal custody that lasted six months. There he found out from SHO Tarlochan Singh Walia that his mother Gurmej Kaur had been killed after the capture of Gurbachan Singh. Her dead body was thrown into the river near Harike Pattan. After his release from the illegal custody, Tarlochan Singh Manochahal met the SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu to find out what happened to his mother. He said: “We intended to liquidate the Manochahal family completely. I do not know how you managed to escape! Anyhow, now you should forget the past, and concentrate on the future.” Tarlochan Singh, in his Incident-Report, gives the following list of people belonging to the family and other associates, who got abducted and killed in illegal police custody:
1. Father Atma Singh
2. Brother Nirvail Singh Manochahal
3. Cousin Balwinder Singh Manochahal
4. Cousin Mahinder Singh Manochahal
5. Cousin Harjinder Singh Manochahal
6. Arur Singh Manochahal
7. Balwinder Singh from village Pandori Golan
8. Dial Singh from Chohla Sahib
9. Nirmal Singh, alias Nimma, from Pandori Golan
10. Tarlok Singh Bhullar from Karam Singh Wala
Sender of this complaint Tarlochan Singh Manochahal also reports that while the entire family was either in illegal police custody or living elsewhere to save themselves, Tarn Taran police destroyed and confiscated almost all their property, both movable and immovable. Their houses, shops, cattle and cash were all either destroyed or taken away. Their standing crops were burnt down. Their agricultural implements, including tube-well motors to irrigate the lands, were removed. The total value of property lost by Manochahal family alone is estimated at Rs. 4,000,000.[213]
Case No. 9: Thirty-seven years old Sarpanch Major Singh was a farmer and a transporter from Burj Kalara village under Hathur police Station in Jagraon subdivision of Ludhiana district. Married to Daljit Kaur, he was the father of three daughters and a son. The eldest daughter Sukhjinder Kaur is now fifteen. The youngest son Karanbir Singh is only six.
In 1992, Major Singh had been illegally held and tortured by then SSP Swaran Singh of Jagraon who later implicated him in a case under the Arms Act. But as the case was completely false, he was able to come out on bail.
Late in the evening of 3 May 1993, Rachpal Singh, SHO of Nihal Singh Wala police station, raided Major Singh’s house along with other policemen and took him, his two brothers-in-law, Balbir Singh and Jagtar Singh, and his nephew Amarjit Singh into custody. All of them were taken to Nihal Singh Wala police station.
Immediately, the family members went to the police station where SHO Rachpal Singh demanded Rs. 150,000 to release Major Singh, Rs. 200,000 to release his brothers-in-law, and his transport truck belonging to Major Singh No. 4889 to arrest his nephew Amarjit on a formal charge. SHO Rachpal Singh was so earnest about his demands that the family had no way but to fulfill them in order to save the four lives. They gave him the money as also the truck that he demanded.
SHO Rashpal Singh used the truck to show an encounter in which Amarjit Singh and four other unidentified persons were shown killed. Later on, newspapers reported that Major Singh’s own death in a supposed encounter. But the body was not returned to the family, nor were they given information on where the cremation had taken place. Balbir Singh and Jagtar Singh were later released.
Major Singh’s mother Mahinder Kaur filed a petition before the Supreme Court through advocate R. S. Sodhi. The matter came up before Justice Kuldip Singh who ordered an inquiry by Chandigarh’s Session’s Judge Amar Dutt, to be completed in three months.
While the inquiry was underway, Justice Kuldeep Singh retired. In the course of the inquiry, the family produced Major Singh’s brothers-in-law who had been picked up along with him but were later released. The entire village council of village Burj Kalara gave statements, corroborating the complaint. But the judge accepted the police version and said that the complaint remained unproven.
While the inquiry was underway, SSP Mithlesh Kumar of Faridkot returned to Mahinder Kaur Rs. 150,000/-, which SHO Rachhpal Singh had taken from her. The SSP returned the money to her in his own office in the presence of all the members of the village council. He also told them that Major Singh was still in custody and would be released after two months. Contacted after two months, he dodged inquiries and told them to meet the SSP of Jagraon.
Mahinder Kaur, who has filed this Incident-Report, says that Hardeep Singh, whose address she does not know, was killed along with Major Singh. Nephew Amarjit Singh was shown killed in a separate incident of supposed encounter along with Nachhatter Singh Fauji from village Daudhar and two others. Major Singh was the only son of Mahinder Kaur, a widow. She now suffers from cancer. Major Singh’s widowed sister suffered a stroke some days after the incident and is now paralytic.[214]
Case No. 10: Twenty-five years old Gurnam Singh was from village Dabwala Kalan under Ghaniye Ke Bangar police station in Batala subdivision of Gurdaspur district. He was unmarried and lived with his parents. Gurnam was a baptized Sikh and was active in Sikh religious and political activities.
After the Operation Blue Star in June 1984, Gurnam was picked up illegally by Batala police and tortured brutally in their custody. The police continued to raid the house and harass all the family members. Fed up by the constant harassment, Gurnam left his house and joined the ranks of Sikh militants.
Gurnam’s becoming a fugitive meant unceasing troubles for the rest of the family. Sadar Batala police began to pick up other members of the family, including his father Shingara Singh, his mother Mahinder Kaur, his brothers Avtar Singh and Rachhpal Singh, Rachhpal’s wife Harjit Kaur and several other relatives. They were kept regularly in illegal custody and tortured for information on Gurnam’s whereabouts. His father Shingara Singh, and his brothers Avtar Singh and Hardial Singh were implicated in cases under TADA on charges of harboring terrorists. They were acquitted after trial by special courts.
In November 1988, Gurnam’s third brother Rachhpal Singh and his wife Harjit Kaur were picked up by Inspector Santa Singh of CIA staff and SHO Gurpal Singh of Batala Sadar Station. First, both of them tortured brutally within the village itself in front of all people. They were beaten up with canes. Harjit Kaur was publicly humiliated and tortured with a thick wooden roller pressed on her thighs by four police men, and by other methods. After their public torture in the village itself, Rachhpal Singh and Harjit Kaur were taken to the Sadar police station. There again, they were tortured brutally under the supervision of Anil Kumar Sharma, SP (Head Quarters), but were finally released after one week at the intervention from the village council. Throughout this period, the family members, including their women, suffered extreme brutality.
On 13 December 1988, the family got to know that Gurnam had been arrested by Batala police from village Umarpura. Before that on 8 December, the police had abducted Gurmej Singh son of Jagir Singh and Harbhajan Singh son of Darshan Singh from the village. Gurmej Singh was a constable in the Punjab police who was held at Beeco Interrogation Center and tortured there.
Gurnam’s father Shingara Singh was in Gurdaspur jail under TADA, so were his two brothers. Other members of the family had left the village to escape police torture. In these circumstances, they could not do anything to pursue the matter of Gurnam’s illegal detention.
The family members found out that Gurnam Singh was tortured at Beeco Interrogation Center and in the night of 21 January 1989 shot dead near the bridge of village Jagle, in a so-called armed encounter, along with Sukhdev Singh from village Khode. Gurnam was described as an unidentified terrorist.
Punjabi Ajit carried a report on the so-called encounter in its issue dated 23 Janury 1989. The encounter was reported to have taken place between a group of militants and Batala police officers led by SP (Operations) Harbhajan Singh. The body was not returned to the family and was cremated by the police, the family does not know where. The information was corroborated by Gurmej Singh, former police constable who had been sent to jail after his interrogation at Beeco, when he came out of jail at the end of 1989.
Gurmej Singh revealed that he had been lodged at Beeco Interrogation Center along with Gurnam Singh from 11 December 1988 to 21 January 1989. That night the police had taken Gurnam Singh out of the lock up and killed him in a supposed encounter. According to him, Gurnam Singh had been tortured brutally, before his murder, by SSP Gobind Ram, SP (Head Quarters) Anil Kumar Sharma and Inspector Santa Singh.
Gurnam Singh’s mother Mahinder Kaur became bed ridden after receiving the news of his arrest and murder, and died two years later. His father Shingara Singh, who had been tortured severely, died in 1995. After his release from jail, he was unable to do any physical work and had breathing difficulties, possibly from injuries on his chest received during torture.
Gurnam’s brother Rachpal Singh, who has sent this Incident-Report, says that the police did not allow the family to cultivate their sixteen acres of land for one year, which caused a loss of Rs. 200,000.
Rachpal Singh reports that the police also abducted a cousin Manjit Singh, son of of Arjan Singh from Dargabad village and killed him. Another relative Gurinder Singh, son of Preetam Singh from Bhagowal village in Gurdaspur district was also captured and killed. Gurinder Singh had joined the ranks of Sikh militants.
Apart from these two relatives and Sukhdev Singh, who had been killed in the so-called encounter along with Gurnam Singh, the police also kidnapped and killed two others from Daabawali Kalan village: Sukhwinder Singh, son of Bakhshish Singh and Rachhpal Singh son of Harbhajan Singh.[215]
Details of firewood and cloth ('kaffan') issued for unclaimed bodies as per stock register of municipal council, Faridkot.
Fragmented entries from March 1986 to September 1992, altogether excluding the record from April 1989 to April 1991
Date |
No. of Bodies |
|
Date |
No. of Bodies |
|
Date |
No. of Bodies |
|
Date |
No. of Bodies |
29/03/87 |
2 |
|
08/12/87 |
1 |
|
17/10/88 |
1 |
|
29/03/89 |
1 |
24/04/87 |
1 |
|
19/12/87 |
1 |
|
07/11/88 |
1 |
|
01/04/89 |
1 |
24/04/87 |
1 |
|
22/12/87 |
1 |
|
27/11/88 |
1 |
|
01/04/89 |
1 |
05/05/87 |
1 |
|
29/12/87 |
1 |
|
15/12/88 |
1 |
|
10/04/89 |
1 |
05/05/87 |
1 |
|
07/01/88 |
1 |
|
22/12/88 |
1 |
|
10/04/89 |
1 |
16/05/87 |
2 |
|
08/01/88 |
1 |
|
13/02/89 |
1 |
|
18/04/89 |
1 |
31/05/87 |
1 |
|
05/04/88 |
1 |
|
21/02/89 |
2 |
|
18/04/89 |
1 |
12/06/87 |
1 |
|
04/05/88 |
1 |
|
23/02/89 |
2 |
|
21/04/89 |
1 |
12/06/87 |
1 |
|
26/06/88 |
1 |
|
25/02/89 |
2 |
|
21/04/89 |
1 |
16/06/87 |
1 |
|
28/06/88 |
1 |
|
28/02/89 |
1 |
|
02/05/89 |
1 |
16/06/87 |
1 |
|
07/07/88 |
1 |
|
28/02/89 |
1 |
|
02/05/89 |
1 |
28/06/87 |
1 |
|
08/07/88 |
1 |
|
04/03/89 |
1 |
|
08/04/91 |
1 |
10/07/87 |
1 |
|
13/07/88 |
1 |
|
04/03/89 |
1 |
|
08/04/91 |
1 |
12/08/87 |
1 |
|
02/08/88 |
1 |
|
04/03/89 |
3 |
|
23/04/91 |
1 |
12/08/87 |
1 |
|
14/08/88 |
1 |
|
04/03/89 |
3 |
|
23/04/91 |
1 |
26/08/87 |
2 |
|
18/08/88 |
1 |
|
20/03/89 |
1 |
|
28/04/91 |
1 |
11/09/87 |
1 |
|
21/08/88 |
1 |
|
20/03/89 |
1 |
|
28/04/91 |
1 |
12/10/87 |
1 |
|
06/09/88 |
1 |
|
21/03/89 |
1 |
|
03/05/91 |
1 |
13/10/87 |
1 |
|
08/09/88 |
1 |
|
21/03/89 |
1 |
|
05/05/91 |
1 |
14/10/87 |
1 |
|
20/09/88 |
1 |
|
24/03/89 |
1 |
|
18/05/91 |
2 |
24/10/87 |
1 |
|
22/09/88 |
1 |
|
24/03/89 |
1 |
|
20/06/91 |
1 |
28/10/87 |
1 |
|
09/10/88 |
1 |
|
29/03/89 |
1 |
|
30/06/91 |
2 |
10/07/91 |
1 |
|
03/10/91 |
1 |
|
30/03/92 |
1 |
|
13/07/92 |
1 |
16/07/91 |
2 |
|
05/10/91 |
1 |
|
04/04/92 |
1 |
|
15/07/92 |
1 |
19/07/91 |
1 |
|
07/10/91 |
1 |
|
06/04/92 |
1 |
|
15/07/92 |
2 |
15/08/91 |
1 |
|
23/11/91 |
2 |
|
06/04/92 |
1 |
|
20/07/92 |
1 |
20/08/91 |
4 |
|
23/11/91 |
2 |
|
23/04/92 |
1 |
|
25/07/92 |
1 |
27/08/91 |
1 |
|
23/12/91 |
4 |
|
14/05/92 |
1 |
|
26/07/92 |
1 |
31/08/91 |
1 |
|
29/12/91 |
1 |
|
25/05/92 |
1 |
|
01/08/92 |
1 |
06/09/91 |
2 |
|
10/01/92 |
1 |
|
30/05/92 |
1 |
|
10/08/92 |
2 |
06/09/91 |
2 |
|
19/01/92 |
1 |
|
04/06/92 |
1 |
|
12/08/92 |
1 |
12/09/91 |
1 |
|
23/01/92 |
1 |
|
05/06/92 |
1 |
|
02/09/92 |
1 |
16/09/91 |
1 |
|
04/02/92 |
1 |
|
11/06/92 |
1 |
|
10/09/92 |
1 |
16/09/91 |
2 |
|
16/02/92 |
1 |
|
12/06/92 |
1 |
|
|
|
21/09/91 |
1 |
|
04/03/92 |
2 |
|
25/06/92 |
1 |
|
|
|
REGISTER, SHIV MANDIR SHAMSHAN BHOOMI
SHRI SANATAN DHARAM SABHA, KAPURTHALA
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
ADDRESS |
SIGN OF PERSON MAKING ENTRY |
900 |
20.1.88 |
Unclaimed Male |
MC Kapurthala,Cvil Hospital |
Sd/- |
969 |
22.4.88 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1043 |
15.7.88 |
Unidentified |
do |
Sd/- |
1093 |
19.9.88 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
1187 |
10.12.88 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1315 |
03.01.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1329 |
16.01.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1338 |
17.01.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1389 |
29.03.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1391 |
03.04.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1394 |
04.04.89 |
Unidentified Woman |
do |
Sd/- |
1395 |
05.04.89 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
1401 |
10.04.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1403 |
11.04.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1405 |
13.04.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1409 |
16.04.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1410 |
17.04.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1424 |
02.05.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1426 |
02.05.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1429 |
05.05.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1484 |
11.07.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1485 |
12.07.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1486 |
12.07.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1611 |
14.08.89 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1657 |
10.01.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1658 |
11.01.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
ADDRESS |
SIGN OF PERSON MAKING ENTRY |
1669 |
29.01.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1692 |
12.02.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1803 |
27.02.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1806 |
02.03.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1814 |
12.03.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1822 |
19.03.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1836 |
01.04.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1837 |
01.04.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1848 |
14.04.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1866 |
05.05.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1867 |
05.05.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1878 |
18.05.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1838 |
27.05.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1839 |
27.05.90 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
1842 |
29.05.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1883 |
02.06.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1886 |
09.06.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1887 |
09.06.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1901 |
24.06.90 |
Unclaimed Woman |
do |
Sd/- |
1928 |
17.07.90 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
1929 |
17.07.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1930 |
17.07.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1930 |
17.07.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1931 |
17.07.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1968 |
16.08.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1969 |
16.08.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1970 |
16.08.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
1984 |
03.09.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2037 |
25.10.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2049 |
03.11.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
ADDRESS |
SIGN OF PERSON MAKING ENTRY |
2062 |
13.11.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2067 |
15.11.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2068 |
15.11.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2075 |
21.11.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2107 |
17.12.90 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2127 |
02.01.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2130 |
02.01.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2131 |
02.01.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2134 |
03.01.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2169 |
02.02.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2170 |
02.02.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2200 |
27.02.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2206 |
04.03.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2225 |
30.03.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2230 |
08.04.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2232 |
09.04.91 |
Unclaimed Girl |
do |
Sd/- |
2287 |
17.06.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2442 |
18.08.91 |
Unclaimed Woman |
do |
Sd/- |
2455 |
02.09.91 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
2473 |
18.09.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2485 |
02.10.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2492 |
05.10.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2499 |
07.10.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2500 |
07.10.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2513 |
16.10.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2535 |
04.10.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2550 |
23.11.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2551 |
23.11.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2553 |
24.11.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2563 |
30.11.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
ADDRESS |
SIGN OF PERSON MAKING ENTRY |
2589 |
20.12.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2595 |
20.12.91 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2603 |
01.01.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2649 |
21.02.92 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
2672 |
17.03.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2692 |
09.04.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2694 |
10.04.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2719 |
07.05.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2733 |
21.05.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2734 |
22.05.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2752 |
11.6.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2753 |
11.6.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2754 |
11.6.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2781 |
05.07.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2782 |
05.07.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2785 |
06.07.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2799 |
21.07.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2908 |
30.07.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2909 |
30.07.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2915 |
02.08.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2921 |
08.08.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2944 |
21.08.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2946 |
24.08.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2953 |
29.08.92 |
Unclaimed Woman |
do |
Sd/- |
2957 |
03.09.92 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
2958 |
05.09.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2964 |
09.09.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
2986 |
25.09.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3002 |
14.10.92 |
Unclaimed Woman |
do |
Sd/- |
3007 |
17.10.92 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
ADDRESS |
SIGN OF PERSON MAKING ENTRY |
3029 |
09.11.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3030 |
09.11.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3041 |
15.11.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3065 |
02.12.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3079 |
08.12.92 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3122 |
05.01.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3154 |
27.01.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3198 |
25.03.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3218 |
26.04.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3224 |
02.05.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3229 |
04.05.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3230 |
04.05.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3349 |
24.05.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3350 |
24.05.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3351 |
24.05.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3358 |
31.05.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3359 |
31.05.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3373 |
14.06.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3381 |
23.06.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3382 |
23.06.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3401 |
08.07.93 |
Unclaimed Girl |
do |
Sd/- |
3414 |
24.07.93 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
3415 |
25.07.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3442 |
21.08.93 |
Unclaimed Woman |
do |
Sd/- |
3445 |
22.08.93 |
Unclaimed Male |
do |
Sd/- |
3445 |
31.08.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3449 |
10.09.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3486 |
21.10.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3989 |
24.10.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3515 |
17.11.93 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
ADDRESS |
SIGN OF PERSON MAKING ENTRY |
3578 |
20.01.94 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3580 |
21.01.94 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
3599 |
11.02.94 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
RAMGARHIA CREMATION GROUND COMMITTEE (REGD.), MILLER GANJ, LUDHIANA
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
FATHER’S NAME |
AGE |
CAUSE OF DEATH |
ADDRESS |
SIG. OF PERSON WHO BROUGTH THE BODY |
15345 |
6-5-87 |
Unclaimed |
|
25-30 |
|
|
|
15436 |
6-7-87 |
do |
|
26 |
|
|
|
15592 |
do |
do |
|
18 |
|
|
|
265 |
24-6-88 |
Manjit Singh |
Lal Singh |
26 |
|
VPO. Doburji |
Sarpanch & Nambardar of Vill. Doburji |
269 |
26-6-88 |
Unidentified |
|
19-20 |
|
|
|
451 |
18-10-88 |
Unidentified Sikh Youth |
|
25 |
Encounter |
|
Sd/- by an A.S.I. |
452 |
do |
do |
|
26 |
do |
|
do |
596 |
27-12-88 |
Shaminder Singh |
Jaimal Singh |
|
|
Vill. Daad |
Kuldeep Singh of CIA Staff |
628 |
11-1-89 |
Balwant Singh |
Bawa Singh |
30/32 |
Police encounter |
PS Fatehpur Churian |
P.S. Payal |
629 |
11-1-89 |
Unidentified |
|
19/20 |
do |
|
do |
658 |
27-1-89 |
Unidentified Male |
|
20 |
Police encounter at Vill.Khaira Bet |
P.S. Sadar |
Darshan Singh H.C. |
659 |
do |
do |
|
40/45 |
do |
do |
do |
660 |
do |
do |
|
26/27 |
do |
do |
do |
202 |
12-8-89 |
Unidentified |
|
25-26 |
Encounter |
|
P.S. Dehlon |
203 |
do |
do |
|
23-24 |
do |
|
do |
801 |
12-9-90 |
do |
|
28 |
|
|
Satpal Singh of P.S. Payal |
128 |
16-3-91 |
do |
|
30/32 |
Police encounter |
|
P.S. Dehlon |
129 |
do |
do |
|
27/28 |
do |
|
do |
185 |
19-4-91 |
do |
|
32/33 |
do |
|
Police Chowki Shimlapuri-6 |
186 |
do |
do |
|
26/27 |
do |
|
P.S. Payal |
214 |
4-5-91 |
Blind Murder |
|
25 |
|
|
Harbhajan Singh ASI; PS Payal |
223 |
9-5-91 |
Unidentified |
|
29/30 |
Firing Incident |
|
Virsa Singh; P.S. Dehlon |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
FATHER’S NAME |
AGE |
CAUSE OF DEATH |
ADDRESS |
SIG. OF PERSON WHO BROUGTH THE BODY |
224 |
10-5-91 |
Gurmit Singh |
Sansara Singh |
20/22 |
do |
Vill.Teja Veehla- Fatehgarh Churian - Distt.Gurdaspur |
P.S. Focal Point |
225 |
10-5-91 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Bachit Singh |
25/26 |
Firing Incident |
Vill. Moosian Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak - Distt. Gurdaspur |
P.S. Focal Point |
226 |
10-5-91 |
Unidentified |
|
20/22 |
do |
|
do |
227 |
10-5-91 |
do |
|
20/22 |
do |
|
do |
373 |
6-8-91 |
do |
|
25 |
|
|
|
379 |
8-8-91 |
do |
|
35 |
|
|
P.S. Payal; Sadhu Singh No. 687 |
398 |
17-8-91 |
do |
|
25 |
|
|
Sd/- Mangat Ram |
399 |
do |
do |
|
30 |
|
|
Sd/- |
410 |
22-8-91 |
do |
|
29 |
Gun Shot |
|
Sd/- |
411 |
22-8-91 |
do |
|
22 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
441 |
3-9-91 |
Avtar Singh Tari |
Sadhu Singh |
27 |
|
|
Sd/- |
442 |
3-9-91 |
Unidentified |
|
25 |
|
|
Sd/- |
572 |
30-10-91 |
Nachhattar Singh @ Bholu @ Yadu Ram Singh |
|
20 |
Police encounter |
Vill.Kaddo PS Payal |
Sd/- Dilawar Singh |
573 |
30-10-91 |
Bhupinder Singh @ Bhupa |
Mohinder Singh |
20 |
do |
Vill.Bilaspur PS Payal |
Sd/- Dilawar Singh |
574 |
30-10-91 |
Boota Singh |
Bhag Singh |
20 |
do |
Vill.Kote PS Payal |
Sd/- Dilawar Singh |
575 |
30-10-91 |
Unidentified |
|
26 |
Sudden |
|
Sd/- |
576 |
30-10-91 |
do |
|
27 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
577 |
31-10-91 |
do |
|
30/32 |
|
Vardhman |
Sd/- Ranjit Singh |
591 |
6-11-91 |
do |
|
|
|
Sd/- |
|
601 |
11-11-91 |
Jagroop singh |
|
29 |
Encounter |
Jagraon |
Sd/- Balbir Singh |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
FATHER’S NAME |
AGE |
CAUSE OF DEATH |
ADDRESS |
SIG. OF PERSON WHO BROUGTH THE BODY |
602 |
11-11-91 |
Unidentified |
|
28 |
do |
Jagraon |
Sd/- Balbir Singh |
603 |
12-11-91 |
do |
|
40 |
|
|
Sd/- |
609 |
14-11-91 |
Unidentified |
|
35/36 |
Murder |
|
Sd/- |
629 |
2-12-91 |
Unidentified (Old man) |
|
70 |
|
P.P. Doraha |
Sd/- Dilawar Singh HC |
639 |
6-12-91 |
Unidentified |
|
38 |
|
Vardhman Chowki |
Sd/- Jaswant Singh HC |
641 |
7-12-91 |
Unidentified |
|
35 |
|
|
Sd/- |
647 |
10-12-91 |
do |
|
22/23 |
Gun Shots |
|
Sd/- |
701 |
7-1-92 |
do |
|
20 |
|
P.P. Vardhman |
Sd/- |
800 |
1-3-92 |
do |
|
18/20 |
Bomb Blast |
|
Sd/- |
843 |
20-3-92 |
Unidentified |
|
24 |
|
|
Sd/- |
848 |
22-3-92 |
Jeet Singh |
Bachan Singh |
35 |
Firing Incident |
Vill.Ghangrala - PS Dehlon - Tehsil & Distt.Ludhiana |
Sd/-Lakhwinder Singh |
862 |
29-3-92 |
Unidentified |
|
35 |
|
|
Sd/-Darshan Singh ASI Div. C |
863 |
29-3-92 |
do |
|
27 |
|
P.S. Sahnewal |
P.S. Sahnewal |
864 |
30-3-92 |
Niranjan Singh |
Preetam Singh |
35 |
|
Vill.Kohara (Ludhiana) |
Sd/- |
872 |
5-4-92 |
Unidentified |
|
24/25 |
Gun Shots |
|
Sd/- Varinder Singh |
890 |
16-4-92 |
do |
|
35/36 |
Firing Incident |
P.S. Sahnewal |
Sd/- HC No. 366 |
897 |
18-4-92 |
do |
|
20/22 |
|
Natha Singh Nambardar r/o Vill. Jandali |
Sd/- |
924 |
12-5-92 |
do |
|
24/25 |
Police encounter |
P.S. Payal |
Sd/- |
925 |
do |
do |
|
26/27 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
926 |
do |
do |
|
22/23 |
do |
do |
Sd/- |
943 |
26-5-92 |
do |
|
35/40 |
|
Ajit Singh |
Sd/- Ajit Singh |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
FATHER’S NAME |
AGE |
CAUSE OF DEATH |
ADDRESS |
SIG. OF PERSON WHO BROUGTH THE BODY |
979 |
21-6-92 |
do |
|
21/22 |
|
|
Sd/- Surjit Singh |
980 |
do |
do |
|
23/24 |
|
|
Sd/- Surjit Singh |
981 |
do |
do |
|
25/26 |
|
|
Sd/- Surjit Singh |
982 |
do |
do |
|
28/29 |
|
|
Sd/- Surjit Singh |
986 |
22-6-92 |
do |
|
34/35 |
|
|
Sd/- |
17 |
14-7-92 |
Unidentified Sikh Youth |
|
25 |
Police Encounter |
P.S. Payal |
Sd/- |
38 |
23-7-92 |
Unidentified |
|
27/28 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
54 |
3-8-92 |
do |
|
21/22 |
|
P.S. Div. 'C' |
Sd/- Jaswant Singh ASI |
55 |
do |
do |
|
25/26 |
|
do |
Sd/- Jaswant Singh ASI |
181 |
6-10-92 |
do |
|
|
Sudden |
Vill. Jarkhar PO. Ghaloti |
Sd/- Santokh Singh |
301 |
16-12-92 |
do |
|
35 |
|
|
Sd/- |
178 |
17-2-93 |
Unidentified |
|
23/24 |
Encounter |
|
Sd/- Gurbakhsh Singh No. 277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205 |
2-3-93 |
do |
|
27/28 |
do |
|
Sd/- P.S. Focal Point |
318 |
8-4-93 |
do |
|
30/32 |
do |
|
Sd/- Kuldeep Singh of Malaud Chowki |
356 |
5-5-93 |
do |
|
28 |
do |
|
Sd/- P.S. Focal Point Ludhiana |
357 |
5-5-93 |
do |
|
29 |
do |
|
Sd/- P.S. Focal point Ludhiana |
387 |
23-5-93 |
do |
|
24/25 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
424 |
12-6-93 |
do |
|
25/26 |
do |
Sd/- Hari Singh |
|
425 |
12-6-93 |
Mohinder Singh |
Bachan Singh |
25/26 |
|
|
Sd/- Hari Singh |
433 |
16-6-93 |
Unidentified |
|
|
|
P.S. Focal Point |
Sd/- Mohan Singh |
472 |
8-7-93 |
Ranjit Singh |
|
40 |
|
Sherpur Chowki |
Sd/- |
521 |
28-7-93 |
Harbans Singh Banga |
|
32 |
Encounter |
P.S. Sadar Ludhiana |
Sd/- |
582 |
27-8-93 |
Unidentified |
|
50 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
SL.No. |
DATE |
NAME |
FATHER’S NAME |
AGE |
CAUSE OF DEATH |
ADDRESS |
SIG. OF PERSON WHO BROUGTH THE BODY |
583 |
do |
do |
|
do |
|
|
Sd/- |
584 |
do |
do |
|
20 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
585 |
do |
do |
|
21 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
586 |
do |
do |
|
45 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
587 |
do |
do |
|
22 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
588 |
do |
do |
|
29 |
do |
|
Sd/- |
592 |
29-8-93 |
do |
|
24/25 |
do |
P.S. Focal Point (Prem Singh) |
Sd/- |
629 |
20-9-93 |
do |
|
60 |
|
Police Post Doraha |
Sd/- |
UNIDENTIFIED BODIES CREMATED AT MANSA CREMATION GROUND
DATE |
WODD SUPPLIER |
CLOTH/WEIGHTOF WOOD/K’OIL |
COST |
CREMATION DONE BY |
23/04/92 |
Surinder Kumar |
6.30 Mound |
256.00 |
Police |
20/05/92 |
Ram Lal Lakkarwala |
Do |
Do |
Got it done by Baldev and Giani Sw eepers |
04/06/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Bhan and Mahavir |
12/06/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Bhan and Karamvir |
15/06/92 |
Do |
Body No. I |
Do |
Bhan and Itwari |
|
|
Body No. II |
Do |
Do |
|
|
Body No. III |
Do |
Do |
29/06/92 |
|
Do |
Do |
Sweepers |
30/06/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Kehar Singh & Surta |
05/07/92 |
Do |
Body I |
Do |
Mithu & Bhan Sweepers |
|
|
Body II |
Do |
Do |
|
|
Body III |
Do |
Do |
|
|
Body IV |
Do |
Do |
17/07/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Itwari & Om Prakash Sweepers |
18/07/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Preetam & Sanjay |
21/07/92 |
Ram Lal Lakkarwala |
Do |
Do |
Giani & Preetam |
25/07/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Giani & Mahavir |
26/07/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Roop & Om Prakash |
18/08/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Preetam & Haria |
03/09/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Itwari & Haria |
13/09/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Itwari & Haria |
19/09/92 |
Do |
Body I |
Do |
Mahavir & Itwari |
|
|
Body II |
Do |
Do |
20/09/92 |
Do |
Body I |
Do |
Bhan & Itwari |
|
|
Body II |
Do |
Do |
23/09/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Mahavir & Itwari |
27/09/92 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Itwari & Krishan |
01/11/92 |
Ram Lal Lakkarwala |
6.30 Mound |
310.00 |
Sweepers |
02/11/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Roop & Om Prakash |
01/12/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Mahavir & Itwari |
03/12/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Haria & Itwari |
05/12/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Pala Ram & Itwari |
05/12/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Do |
05/12/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Do |
07/12/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Itwari & Preetam |
16/12/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Mahavir & Itwari |
27/12/92 |
Do |
Do |
|
Itwari & Bhan |
11/01/93 |
Do |
Do |
|
Mahavir & Itwari |
28/01/93 |
Do |
Body I |
Do |
Badlu Ram & Itwari |
|
|
Body II |
Do |
Do |
14/02/93 |
Ram Lal Lakkarwala |
Do |
Itwari & Mahavir |
|
17/02/93 |
Do |
Body I |
Do |
Mahavir & Itwari |
|
|
Body II |
Do |
Do |
06/03/93 |
Do |
Do |
Itwari & Ram Bhagat |
|
21/03/93 |
Do |
Body I |
Do |
Bhan & Haria |
|
|
Body II |
Do |
Do |
|
|
Body III |
Do |
Do |
13/04/93 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Haria & Itwari |
13/05/93 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Do |
16/06/93 |
Do |
Body I |
Do |
Subhash & Preetam |
|
|
Body II |
Do |
Do |
18/06/93 |
Surinder Kumar Lakkarwala |
Do |
Do |
Subhash & Mahavir |
22/06/93 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Sohan & Surta |
07/08/93 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Pala & Haria |
15/08/93 |
Surinder Kumar Lakkarwala |
Do |
Do |
Sohan & Preetam |
05/10/93 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Itwari & Ram Bhagat |
19/10/93 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Mahavir & Sohan |
22/10/93 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Do |
21/11/93 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Matru & Sohan |
04/01/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Badlu & Giani |
18/01/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Giani & Itwari |
03/03/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Itwari |
06/05/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Ram Bhagat |
07/05/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Subhash & Itwari |
12/05/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Do |
14/05/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Itwari & Subhash |
19/05/94 |
Surinder Kumar Lakkarwala |
Do |
Do |
Mahavir & Subhash |
16/06/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Preetam & Itwari |
21/08/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Itwari & Rana |
15/09/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Giani & Itwari |
21/09/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Giani & Haria Ram |
04/10/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Giani & Ramala |
26/11/94 |
Do |
Do |
Do |
Giani & Itwari |
STOCK REGISTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MOGA
DATE |
POLICE STATION |
NO OF BODIES CREMATED |
|
DATE |
POLICE STATION |
NO OF BODIES CREMATED |
20.4.88 |
Mehna |
1 |
|
1.6.90 |
do |
1 |
1.5.88 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
|
17.6.90 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
24.5.88 |
Mehna |
1 |
|
18.6.90 |
Mehna |
1 |
24.5.88 |
do |
1 |
|
19.6.90 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
20.6.88 |
Moga |
1 |
|
20.6.90 |
Moga |
1 |
20.6.88 |
do |
1 |
|
26.7.90 |
do |
1 |
26.6.88 |
do |
1 |
|
28.7.90 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
1.9.88 |
do |
1 |
|
7.8.90 |
Moga |
1 |
21.9.88 |
do |
1 |
|
10.8.90 |
Mehna |
1 |
22.9.88 |
Bagha Purana |
1 |
|
25.8.90 |
do |
1 |
18.10.88 |
Moga |
1 |
|
5.9.90 |
do |
1 |
29.1.89 |
Mehna |
1 |
|
17.9.90 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
19.3.89 |
do |
1 |
|
24.9.90 |
do |
1 |
5.4.89 |
Sadar |
1 |
|
9.10.90 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
24.4.89 |
Moga |
1 |
|
24.10.90 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
4.5.89 |
do |
1 |
|
4.11.90 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
2 |
17.5.89 |
do |
1 |
|
5.11.90 |
do |
2 |
22.6.89 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
|
15.11.90 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
29.6.89 |
Mehna |
1 |
|
20.11.90 |
Mehna |
1 |
12.7.89 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
|
22.11.90 |
Moga |
1 |
16.7.89 |
Sadar Moga |
3 |
|
13.12.90 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
2 |
5.8.89 |
Moga |
1 |
|
14.12.90 |
do |
2 |
7.10.89 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
|
30.12.90 |
Police |
1 |
29.11.89 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
|
6.1.91 |
Bagha Purana |
1 |
6.4.90 |
Moga |
1 |
|
18.1.91 |
Mehna |
1 |
14.4.90 |
Sadar Moga |
1 |
|
22.2.91 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
2 |
7.5.90 |
Bagha Purana |
1 |
|
24.2.91 |
do |
1 |
26.5.90 |
Sadar Moga |
1 |
|
2.3.91 |
Moga |
1 |
12.3.91 |
Mehna |
1 |
|
4.2.92 |
Mehna |
2 |
15.3.91 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
|
9.2.92 |
City Moga |
1 |
31.3.91 |
Moga |
1 |
|
23.3.92 |
Sadar |
1 |
7.4.91 |
Badhni Kalan |
1 |
|
3.4.92 |
Badhni |
2 |
11.4.91 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
|
8.4.92 |
Moga |
1 |
21.4.91 |
Mehna |
1 |
|
12.4.92 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
23.4.91 |
Moga |
2 |
|
19.4.92 |
Badhni Kalan |
2 |
5.5.91 |
do |
2 |
|
27.4.92 |
Sadar |
1 |
6.5.91 |
do |
1 |
|
30.4.92 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
2 |
11.5.91 |
do |
1 |
|
6.5.92 |
Sadar Moga |
1 |
11.5.91 |
do |
3 |
|
8.5.92 |
Railway Police |
1 |
19.7.91 |
Badhni |
2 |
|
23.5.92 |
Mehna |
1 |
28.7.91 |
Mehna |
2 |
|
27.5.92 |
do |
1 |
30.7.91 |
Moga |
1 |
|
1.6.92 |
do |
1 |
1.8.91 |
Badhni |
2 |
|
4.6.92 |
do |
1 |
17.8.91 |
Mehna |
1 |
|
20.7.92 |
Sadar Moga |
1 |
21.8.91 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
|
30.7.92 |
Mehna |
1 |
22.9.91 |
Bagha Purana |
1 |
|
4.8.92 |
do |
1 |
26.9.91 |
Sadar |
1 |
|
10.8.92 |
Badhni |
2 |
6.10.91 |
Mehna |
4 |
|
27.8.92 |
Sadar Moga |
1 |
11.10.91 |
Moga |
1 |
|
3.9.92 |
do |
1 |
12.10.91 |
do |
1 |
|
14.9.92 |
Bagha Purana |
1 |
15.10.91 |
do |
1 |
|
3.10.92 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
16.10.91 |
do |
1 |
|
27.10.92 |
Mehna |
1 |
3.11.91 |
do |
1 |
|
30.10.92 |
Sadar Moga |
2 |
4.11.91 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
|
4.11.92 |
Nihal Singh Wala |
1 |
2.1.92 |
do |
1 |
|
10.11.92 |
Bagha Purana |
1 |
20.1.92 |
Bagha Purana |
1 |
|
15.11.92 |
Sadar Moga |
1 |
29.1.92 |
Badhni |
1 |
|
17.11.92 |
Mehna |
1 |
2.2.92 |
Moga |
1 |
|
2.1.93 |
Badhni |
1 |
13.2.93 |
Mehna |
3 |
|
18.6.93 |
Bagha Purana |
1 |
20.2.93 |
Sadar Moga |
1 |
|
19.6.93 |
Div.-2 |
1 |
23.2.93 |
Badhni |
2 |
|
6.7.93 |
Moga |
1 |
18.3.93 |
Mehna |
2 |
|
9.9.93 |
Div.-2 |
1 |
27.4.93 |
C.I.A. |
3 |
|
14.9.93 |
Mehna |
2 |
2.5.93 |
Mehna |
2 |
|
16.9.93 |
City Moga |
1 |
4.5.93 |
Moga |
1 |
|
29.9.93 |
Mehna |
1 |
14.5.93 |
Mehna |
1 |
|
11.4.94 |
do |
1 |
17.6.93 |
Moga Sadar |
1 |
|
12.9.94 |
Mehna |
1 |
Details of Cremation of Unindentified Bodies in Distt: Ferozepur
Municipal Committee: Zira
During the Year: 1988-89
Sl. No. |
Date |
FIR No. |
P.S. |
Name (if any) |
C/O Wood |
C/O Cloth |
1 |
04/06/88 |
FIRNo.70 dt. 03/06/88 u/s 302/201 IPC |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified body of a woman |
250.00 |
|
2 |
02/08/88 |
FIR No.93/88 dt. 02/08/88, DDR No. 13 dt. 02/08/88 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
|
3 |
03/09/88 |
FIR No. 117dt. 03/09/88,. DDR No. 23 dt. 03/09/88 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
|
4 |
14/10/88 |
FIR No.16 dt. 12/10/88 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
175.00 |
|
5 |
14/10/88 |
FIR No.16 dt. 12/10/88 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
245.00 |
21.00 |
6 |
17/10/88 |
FIR No.7 dt. 16/10/88 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
245.00 |
21.00 |
7 |
02/11/88 |
FIR No.45 dt. 01/11/88 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
|
8 |
16/12/88 |
FIR No.24 dt. 15/12/88 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
22.75 |
9 |
05/01/89 |
FIR No. 9 dt. 04/01/89 u/s 302/307/IPC, 25/54/59 A. Act, ¾ & 5/6 TDA (P) Act |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
315.00 |
|
10 |
07/01/89 |
FIR No. 17 dt. 06/01/89 u/s 174 Cr. P.C. |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
|
11 |
04/02/89 |
Case DDR No. 24 dt. 03/02/89, FIR No. 20/89 u/s 37/34 IPC & 24/54/59 A. Act |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
21.00 |
12 |
07/02/89 |
Case DDR No. 23 dt. 06/02/89, FIR No. 21/82 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/54/59 A. Act |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
|
13 |
02/15/89 |
FIR No. 9 dt. 15/02/89 u/s 174 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
|
14 |
19/02/89 |
FIR No. 33 dt. 18/02/89 of PS Dharamkot |
Zira |
Unidentified |
270.00 |
|
15 |
01/03/89 |
FIR No. 15 dt. 01/03/89 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
315.00 |
|
16 |
08/03/89 |
FIR No. 5 dt. 08/03/89 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
315.00 |
32.80 |
17 |
22/03/89 |
FIR No. 51 dt. 21/03/89 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
285.00 |
32.50 |
During the Year: 1989-90
Sl. No. |
Date |
FIR No. |
P.S. |
Name (if any) |
C/O Wood |
C/O Cloth |
1 |
14/04/89 |
Case FIR No. 63 dt. 13/04/89 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
|
2 |
25/05/89 |
FIR No. 90 dt. 24/05/89 |
Dharamkot |
Two unidentified bodies |
545.00 |
62.50 |
3 |
18/06/89 |
FIR No. 100 dt. 18/06/89 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/54/59 |
Dharamkot |
Balwant Singh Raja s/o Kartar Singh r/o Fatehgarh Panitoor |
270.00 |
|
4 |
23/0789 |
Case No. 112 dt. 23/07/89 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 A. Act |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
330.00 |
|
5 |
01/08/89 |
FIR No. 120 dt. 01/08/89 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 A. Act |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
250.00 |
|
6 |
26/08/89 |
FIR No. 174 dt. 26/08/89 u/s u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
25.00 |
7 |
03/09/89 |
FIR No. 149 dt. 03/03/89 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Dharamkot |
Two Unidentified bodies |
632.50 |
45.00 |
8 |
12/09/89 |
FIR No. 151 dt. 12/09/89 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Dharamkot |
Two Unidentified bodies |
632.50 |
50.00 |
9 |
14/09/89 |
FIR No. 141 dt. 14/09/89 u/s 307 IPC & 25/24, 54/59 A. Act |
Makhu |
Two Unidentified bodies |
632.50 |
50.00 |
10 |
15/09/89 |
FIR No. 159 dt. 15/9/89 u/s 302/307, 148/149 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Dharamkot |
Two Unidentified bodies |
632.50 |
48.75 |
11 |
17/09/89 |
FIR No.184 dt. 17/08/89 u/s 302/34 & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Zira |
Three Unidentified bodies |
549.00 |
83.00 |
12 |
18/09/89 |
DDR No. 8 dt. 18/09/89 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
21.00 |
13 |
23/09/89 |
FIR No.168 dt. 22/09/89 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
20.00 |
14 |
24/09/89 |
FIR No. 120 dt. 24/09/89 u/s 302/307, 148/149 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Zira |
Swaran Singh Pipal Singh |
632.50 |
49.00 |
15 |
05/10/89 |
FIR No. 152 dt. 04/10/89 u/s 302/307 IPC & 25/27/ 54/59 A. Act |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
35.00 |
16 |
06/10/89 |
FIR No.11 dt. 06/10/89 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
35.00 |
17 |
12/10/89 |
FIR No. 196 dt. 12/10/89 of P.S. Zira (P.P. Fatehgarh Panjtoor) |
Zira |
Unidentified |
315.00 |
35.00 |
18 |
16/10/89 |
FIR No.8 dt. 16/10/89 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
25.00 |
19 |
18/10/89 |
FIR No.183 dt. 18/10/89 u/s 302/ IPC & 25/54/59 A. Act |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
30.00 |
20 |
24/10/89 |
FIR No.206 dt. 23/10/89 u/s 302 IPC, 307/34 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Zira |
Unidentified |
315.00 |
25.00 |
21 |
25/10/89 |
FIR No.207 dt. 25/10/89 u/s.307/34 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act |
Zira |
Bodies of two Unidentified men |
622.00 |
42.50 |
22 |
01/11/89 |
FIR No.103 dt. 31/10/89 u/s 302/34 IPC & 25 A. Act |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
14.00 |
23 |
05/11/89 |
FIR No.134 dt. 05/11/89 u/s 302/34 IPC & 25 A. Act |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
24 |
13/11/89 |
FIR No.214 dt. 13/11/89 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act of P.P. Fatehgarh |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
19.00 |
25 |
16/11/89 |
FIR No.216 dt. 16/11/89 u/s 302/148/149 IPC & 25, 54/59 A. Act |
Zira |
Kashmir Singh Sira, Pappu s/o Faqir, Anta widow of Faqir |
802.00 |
57.00 |
26 |
23/11/89 |
FIR No.225 dt. 23/11/89 u/s 460 IPC |
Zira |
Unidentified |
317.00 |
20.00 |
27 |
07/12/89 |
FIR No.117 dt. 06/12/89 u/s 307/148, 149 IPC, Exp. Act & 25, 54/59 A. Act |
Malanwala |
Unidentified (Ranjit Singh) |
316.00 |
25.00 |
28 |
07/02/90 |
FIR No. 7/90 u/s 302/34 IPC & 25/27, 54/59 A. Act dt. 07/02/90 |
Makhu |
Two Unidentified |
562.50 |
45.00 |
29 |
15/03/90 |
FIR No.7 dt. 15/03/90 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
20.00 |
During the Year: 1990-91
Sl. No. |
Date |
FIR No. |
P.S. |
Name (if any) |
C/O Wood |
C/O Cloth |
1 |
15/04/90 |
FIR No. 7 dt. 15/04/90 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
2 |
04/05/90 |
FIR No. 58 dt. 04/05/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
3 |
25/05/90 |
FIR No. 55 dt. 25/05/90 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
4 |
28/05/90 |
FIR No.73 dt. 28/05/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
4031.00 |
637.50 |
5 |
28/05/90 |
FIR No. 73 dt. 28/05/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
40.00 |
6 |
24/06/90 |
FIR No.85 dt. 24/06/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
40.00 |
7 |
30/06/90 |
FIR No.84 dt. 30/06/90 |
Dharamkot |
Two Unidentified |
632.00 |
75.00 |
8 |
28/07/90 |
FIR No.109 dt. 28/07/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
40.00 |
9 |
29/07/90 |
FIR No. 102/dt. 29/07/90 |
Zira |
Two Unidentified |
632.00 |
66.00 |
10 |
30/07/90 |
FIR No. 111 dt. 30/07/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
30.00 |
11 |
31/07/90 |
FIR No. 103/ dt. 31/07/90 |
Dharamkot |
Bodies of Two Unidentfied young men |
632.00 |
|
12 |
03/08/90 |
FIR No.116 dt. 02/08/90 |
Zira |
Bodies of Two Unidentified persons |
632.00 |
70.00 |
13 |
05/08/90 |
FIR No. 120 dt. 05/08/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
14 |
17/08/90 |
FIR No. 112 dt. 16/08/90 |
Dharamkot |
Two Unidentified bodies |
632.00 |
63.00 |
15 |
22/08/90 |
FIR No.22/08/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
35.00 |
16 |
23/08/90 |
FIR No.137 dt. 22/08/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
35.00 |
17 |
03/09/90 |
FIR No. 110 dt. 04/09/90 |
Zira |
Undentified |
316.00 |
27.00 |
18 |
04/09/90 |
FIR No.143 dt. 04/09/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
70.00 |
19 |
04/09/90 |
FIR No.151 dt. 03/09/90 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
20 |
14/09/90 |
FIR No.8 of Chowki Kot Isse Khan |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
28.00 |
21 |
23/09/90 |
FIR No.87 dt. 23/09/90 |
Makhu |
Two Unidentified bodies |
612.00 |
70.00 |
22 |
24/09/90 |
FIR No.158 dt. 24/09/90 of Chowki Fatehgarh Panjto or |
Zira |
Unidentified |
318.00 |
30.00 |
23 |
08/10/90 |
FIR No.169 dt. 07/10/90 of Chowki Fatehgarh Panjto or |
Zira |
Unindentified |
318.00 |
|
24 |
09/10/90 |
FIR No. 10 dt 08/10/90 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
318.00 |
|
25 |
12/10/90 |
Makhu |
Two Unidentified bodies |
632.00 |
|
|
26 |
15/11/90 |
FIR No. 183 dt. 14/11/90 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
27 |
16/11/90 |
FIR No. 160 dt. 16/11/90 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
28 |
21/11/90 |
|
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
29 |
23/11/90 |
FIR No. 21 dt. 22/11/90 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
30 |
09/12/90 |
FIR No. 31 dt. 08/12/90 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
336.00 |
|
31 |
03/01/91 |
FIR No. 174 dt. 03/01/91 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
318.00 |
|
32 |
04/01/91 |
FIR No. 28 dt. 04/01/91 |
Zira |
Darbara Singh S/o Channan Singh |
316.00 |
|
33 |
20/01/91 |
FIR No. 7 dt. 20/01/91 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
34 |
21/01/91 |
FIR No. 14 dt. 20/01/91 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
1580.00 |
|
35 |
04/02/91 |
FIR No. 42 dt. 04/02/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
36 |
08/02/91 |
FIR No. 14 dt 07/02/91 |
Zira |
Mangal Singh |
316.00 |
|
37 |
08/02/91 |
FIR No. 45 dt. 07/02/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
38 |
10/02/91 |
FIR No. 40 dt. 10/02/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
39 |
20/02/91 |
FIR No. 48 dt 20/02/91 |
Dharamkot |
Two Unidentified bodies |
492,00 |
|
40 |
21/02/91 |
FIR No. 13 dt. 21/02/91 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
41 |
08/03/91 |
FIR No. 19 dt. 08/03/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
316.00 |
|
42 |
28/03/91 |
FIR No. 73 dt. 27/03/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
355.00 |
|
During the Year: 1991-92
Sl. No. |
Date |
FIR No. |
P.S. |
Name (if any) |
C/O Wood |
C/O Cloth |
||
1 |
16/04/91 |
FIR No. 87 dt. 16/04/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
345.00 |
240.00 |
||
2 |
29/04/91 |
FIR No. 9 dt. 29/04/91 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
355.00 |
|
||
3 |
03/05/91 |
FIR No. 6 dt. 03/05/91 |
Dharamkot |
Four unidentified bodies |
1420.00 |
|
||
4 |
03/06/91 |
FIR No. 73 dt. 03/06/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
355.00 |
|
||
5 |
19/06/91 |
FIR No. 120 dt. 19/06/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
6 |
21/06/91 |
FIR No. 121 dt. 21/06/91 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
7 |
11/07/91 |
FIR No. 136 dt. 11/07/91 |
Zira |
Three Unidentified bodies |
1080.00 |
105.00 |
||
8 |
13/07/91 |
FIR No. No. 83 dt 12/07/91 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
30.00 |
||
9 |
20/07/91 | FIR No. 89 dt. 20/07/91 |
Makhu |
Two Unidentified bodies |
720.00 |
70.00 |
||
10 |
21/07/91 |
FIR No. 147 dt. 21/07/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
11 |
23/07/91 |
FIR No. 94 dt. 22, 23/07/91 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
12 |
23/07/91 |
FIR No. 93 dt. 23/07/91 |
Makhu |
Two Unidentified bodies |
720.00 |
70.00 |
||
13 |
23/07/91 |
FIR No. 144 dt. 23/07/91 |
Dharamkot |
Two unidentified bodies |
720.00 |
70.00 |
||
14 |
29/07/91 |
FIR No. 159 dt. 29/07/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
||
15 |
02/08/91 |
FIR No. 164 dt. 01/08/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
1380.00 |
105.00 |
||
16 |
04/08/91 |
FIR No. 100 dt. 04/08/91 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
17 |
05/08/91 |
FIR No. 165 dt. 05/08/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
18 |
11/08/91 |
FIR No. 7 dt. 11/08/91 |
Zira |
Two Unidentified bodies |
720.00 |
80.00 |
||
19 |
12/08/91 |
FIR No. 168 dt. 11/08/91 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
20 |
16/08/91 |
FIR No.8 16/08/91 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
21 |
20/08/91 |
FIR No. 20/08/91 |
Zira/Malanwala |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
22 |
28/08/91 |
FIR No. 181 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
23 |
31/08/91 |
FIR No. 183 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
|
||
24 |
09/09/91 |
FIR No. 189 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
25 |
13/09/91 |
FIR No. 192 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
26 |
15/09/91 |
FIR No. 174 |
Dharamkot |
Four Unidentified bodies |
1440.00 |
140.00 |
||
27 |
22/09/91 |
FIR No. 176 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
28 |
25/09/91 |
FIR No. 9 |
Zira |
Four Unidentified bodies |
1080.00 |
140.00 |
||
29 |
28/09/91 |
FIR No. 115 |
Makhu |
Two unidentified bodies |
720.00 |
70.00 |
||
30 |
28/09/91 |
FIR No. 116 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
31 |
05/10/91 |
FIR No. 97 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
32 |
07/10/91 |
FIR No. 120 |
Makhu |
Eight Unidentified bodies |
|
280.00 |
||
33 |
09/10/91 |
FIR No.28 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
34 |
17/10/91 |
FIR No. 199 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
35 |
24/10/91 |
FIR No. 128 |
Makhu |
Three unidentified bodies |
1080.00 |
105.00 |
||
36 |
29/10/91 |
FIR No. 11 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
37 |
29/10/91 |
FIR No. 225 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
38 |
23/10/91 |
FIR No. 210 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
39 |
05/11/91 |
FIR No. 231 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
40 |
12/11/91 |
FIR No. 236 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
||
41 |
28/11/91 |
FIR No. 243 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
42 |
30/11/91 |
FIR No. 141 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
43 |
02/12/91 |
FIR No. 246 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
44 |
03/12/91 |
FIR No. 247 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentifed |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
52 |
25/02/92 |
FIR No. 25 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
53 |
02/03/92 |
FIR No. 22 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
54 |
14/03/92 |
FIR No. 13 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
55 |
14/03/92 |
FIR No. 33 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
|
56 |
19/04/92 |
FIRNo.33 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
| 57 |
27/04/92 |
FIRNo. 15 |
Fatehgarh Panjtoor |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
58 |
19/05/92 |
FIRNo. 94 |
Dharamkot |
Two unidentified bodies |
720.00 |
70.00 |
|
|
59 |
21/06/92 |
FIRNo. 78 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
60 |
05/07/92 |
FIRNo. 85 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
61 |
11/07/92 |
FIRNo. 14 |
Dharamkot |
Three Unidentified bodies |
1080.00 |
120.00 |
|
|
62 |
27/06/92 |
FIRNo. 10 |
Kot Isse Khan |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
63 |
15/07/92 |
FIRNo. 119 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
|
|
64 |
15/07/92 |
FIRNo. 129 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
65 |
15/07/92 |
FIRNo. 129 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
66 |
30/07/92 |
FIRNo. 22 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
80.00 |
|
|
67 |
30/07/92 |
FIRNo. 34 |
Kot Isse Khan (Chowk) |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
80.00 |
|
|
68 |
31/07/92 |
FIR No. 7 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
|
|
68 |
03/08/92 |
FIR No. 102 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
80.00 |
|
|
69 |
08/08/92 |
FIR No. 26 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
|
|
70 |
13/08/92 |
FIR No. 28 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
71 |
20/08/92 |
FIR No. 160 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
|
|
72 |
23/08/92 |
FIR No. 161 |
Dharmakot |
Unidenntified |
1440.00 |
140.00 |
|
|
73 |
05/09/92 |
FIR No. 152 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
70.00 |
|
|
74 |
13/09/92 |
FIR No. 27 |
Fatehgarh Panjjtoor |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
75 |
24/09/92 |
FIR No. 160 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
70.00 |
|
|
76 |
26/09/92 |
FIR No. 161 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
|
|
77 |
24/10/92 |
FIR No. 173 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
1080.00 |
120.00 |
|
|
78 |
01/11/92 |
FIR No. 183 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
1800.00 |
175.00 |
|
| 79 |
07/11/92 |
FIR No. 133 |
Fatehgarh Sabhra |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
70.00 |
|
80 |
13/11/92 |
FIR No. 180 dt. 12/11/92 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
70.00 |
||
81 |
18/11/92 |
FIR No. 181 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
80.00 |
||
82 |
26/11/92 |
FIR No. 140 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
35.00 |
||
83 |
02/12/92 |
FIR No. 143 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
6120.00 |
665.00 |
||
84 |
02/01/93 |
FIR No. 4 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
80.00 |
||
85 |
13/02/93 |
FIR No. 20 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
350.00 |
35.00 |
||
86 |
13/02/93 |
FIR No. 27 |
Malanwala |
Unidentified |
1080.00 |
108.00 |
||
During the Year : 1993-94
1 |
25/04/93 |
FIR No. 87 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40 |
2 |
30/04/93 |
FIR No. 9 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
3 |
22/05/93 |
FIR No. 29 dt. 22/05/93 u/s 174 Cr. P.C. |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
|
4 |
10/06/93 |
FIR No. 16 dt. 09/06/93 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
|
5 |
22/06/93 |
FIR No. 19 dt. 22/06/93 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
6 |
27/06/93 |
FIR No. 112 dt. 27/06/93 u/s 362 IPC |
Zira |
Unidentifed |
360.00 |
40.00 |
7 |
03/07/93 |
FIR No. 21 dt. 02/07/93 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
|
7 |
29/08/93 |
FIR No. 90 dt. 28/08/93 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
80.00 |
8 |
08/10/93 |
FIR No. 27 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
96 |
13/10/93 |
FIR No. 171 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
80.00 |
97 |
06/11/93 |
FIR No. 177/2 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
360.00 |
40.00 |
98 |
02/04/94 |
FIR No. 15/2 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
720.00 |
120.00 |
99 |
24/04/94 |
FIR No. 19 |
Makhu |
Unidentified |
410.00 |
49.50 |
100 |
05/05/94 |
FIR No. 8 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
410.00 |
|
101 |
19/05/94 |
FIR No. 9 |
Zira |
Unidentified |
410.00 |
49.50 |
102 |
19/05/94 |
FIR No. 63 |
Dharamkot |
Unidentified |
820.00 |
99.00 |
Sl.No. |
CC.No. |
Name |
Father Name |
Vill. & P.O. |
Distt. |
Date of Abduction / Killing |
1 |
159 |
Ajit Singh |
Boota Singh Jathedar |
Bhakthana Boharwala PO. Bhakthana Tulian |
Gurdaspur |
21/06/91 |
2 |
203 |
Ajit Singh |
Late S. Jata Singh |
Bhajauli PO. Allapur |
Ropar |
25/02/89 |
3 |
334 |
Ajit Singh |
Balkar Singh |
Kaptgarh PO. Sosran Kalan |
Amritsar |
30/04/92 |
4 |
344 |
Ajit Singh |
Mangal Singh |
Behla PO. Rataul |
Amritsar |
08/06/92 |
5 |
572 |
Ajit Singh |
Narian Singh |
Kairon |
Amritsar |
12/03/92 |
6 |
481 |
Ajmer Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Sihora |
Ludhiana |
04/03/94 |
7 |
719 |
Ajmer Singh |
Late S. Maghar Singh |
Khanpur H.No. 1245 |
Ropar |
09/10/91 |
8 |
755 |
Ajmer Singh |
Gurmukh Singh |
Bhuchar Khurd PO Bhuchar Kalan |
Amritsar |
08/08/87 |
9 |
296 |
Amandeep Singh |
Balraj Singh |
Vill. Madhre PO. Udanwal |
Gurdaspur |
25/03/91 |
10 |
354 |
Amar Singh |
Harchand Singh |
Aloar Arakh PO. Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
27/10/91 |
11 |
526 |
Amar Singh |
Major Singh |
Talwandi Dasundha Singh |
Amritsar |
08/12/92 |
12 |
053 |
Amarjit Singh |
Inder singh |
Alal PO. Mulowal |
Sangrur |
09/11/92 |
13 |
058 |
Amarjit Singh |
Hajura Singh |
Dhilwan |
Sangrur |
10/10/91 |
14 |
063 |
Amarjit Singh |
Gulzar Singh |
Hans Kalan |
Ludhiana |
26/02/92 |
15 |
076 |
Amarjit Singh |
Tarlochan Singh |
Kheri Salabatpur |
Ropar |
16/10/91 |
16 |
119 |
Amarjit Singh |
Dara Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
17 |
415 |
Amarjit Singh |
Late S. Balam Singh |
Gauslan |
Ludhiana |
20/05/94 |
18 |
426 |
Amarjit Singh |
Late S. Sohan Singh (Subedar) |
Kohala |
Amritsar |
25/1/88 |
19 |
485 |
Amarjit Singh |
Gurbakhsh Singh |
Noohon PO. Ghanauli |
Ropar |
07/02/93 |
20 |
537 |
Amarjit Singh |
Late S. Harbans Singh |
Kairon |
Amritsar |
25/11/92 |
21 |
618 |
Amarjit Singh |
Late S. Gurmel Singh |
Mehal Kalan |
Sangrur |
03/05/93 |
22 |
685 |
Amarjit Singh |
Nachhater Singh |
Landran |
Ropar |
26/06/92 |
23 |
713 |
Amarjit Singh |
Late S. Hardial Singh |
Gagon PO. Bhaku Majra |
Ropar |
29/12/92 |
24 |
810 |
Amarjit Singh |
Dharam Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
03/06/84 |
25 |
495 |
Amarjit Singh Longia |
Preetam Singh |
Malakpur |
Ropar |
28/08/89 |
26 |
145 |
Amarjit Singh Sandhu |
Arjan Singh |
Marari Khurd PO. Marari Kalan |
Amritsar |
14/09/91 |
27 |
038 |
Amrik Singh |
Faqir Singh |
Amargarh |
Sangrur |
01/10/92 |
28 |
179 |
Amrik Singh |
Sewa Singh |
Kauli |
Patiala |
Unspecified |
29 |
544 |
Amrik Singh |
Mohinder Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
03/06/84 |
30 |
621 |
Amrik Singh |
Bhan Singh |
Ghanauri Kalan |
Sangrur |
31/05/92 |
31 |
808 |
Amrik Singh |
Sulakhan Singh |
Narli PO. Khalra |
|
|
|
Amritsar |
02/01/89 |
|
|
|
|
32 |
033 |
Amritpal Singh |
Avtar Singh |
Rajomajra |
Sangrur |
22/03/92 |
33 |
072 |
Angrej Singh |
Gulzar Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
34 |
121 |
Angrej Singh |
Dara Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
35 |
654 |
Angrej Singh |
Sewa Singh |
Amritsar PO. Chire Wala Chowk |
Amritsar |
13/07/92 |
36 |
403 |
Arjan Singh |
Ajaib Singh |
Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
05/06/91 |
37 |
829 |
Arjan Singh |
Boor Singh |
Sehnsra Kalan |
Amritsar |
06/03/92 |
38 |
543 |
Arur Singh |
Late S. Bhamma Singh |
Manochahal Kalan |
Amritsar |
15/12/92 |
39 |
680 |
Atam Parkash Singh |
Mewa Singh |
Manak Majra PO. Rangeel Pur |
Ropar |
09/03/91 |
40 |
597 |
Atamjit Singh Mavi |
Gurbachan Singh Mavi (Dr.) |
9/19, PAU Ludhiana - 141004 |
Ludhiana |
05/02/91 |
41 |
573 |
Atma Singh |
Naurang Singh |
Mano Chahal Kalan |
Amritsar |
27/08/92 |
42 |
165 |
Avtar Singh |
Banta Singh |
Thetherke PO. Dera Baba Nanak |
Gurdaspur |
03/06/89 |
43 |
170 |
Avtar Singh |
Veer Singh |
Roopowali |
Gurdaspur |
24/12/87 |
44 |
184 |
Avtar Singh |
Sampooran Singh |
Mohmmadpur PO. Bahadurgarh |
Patiala |
05/04/91 |
45 |
227 |
Avtar Singh |
Sewa Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
46 |
255 |
Avtar Singh |
Naib Singh |
Rangian PO. Morinda |
Ropar |
18/01/91 |
47 |
274 |
Avtar Singh |
Saudagar Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
05/03/91 |
48 |
372 |
Avtar Singh |
Jarnail Singh |
Man Khaira |
Gurdaspur |
06/09/89 |
49 |
504 |
Avtar Singh |
Gurbakhsh Singh |
Amritsar, 35-F, Jodh Nagar, Gali No.3 |
Amritsar |
06/06/84 |
50 |
512 |
Avtar Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Badla PO. Kotla Badla |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
Unspecified |
51 |
602 |
Avtar Singh |
Kundan Singh |
Ludhiana, H.No.289, Shaheed K.S. Nagar |
Ludhiana |
15/03/88 |
52 |
639 |
Avtar Singh |
Karnail Singh |
Akar PO. Sehra |
Patiala |
12/02/93 |
53 |
707 |
Avtar Singh |
Telu Singh |
Fatehgarh Sivian |
Ludhiana |
01/08/92 |
54 |
746 |
Babu Singh |
Jota Singh |
Boparai Kalan PO. Khasa |
Amritsar |
09/11/91 |
55 |
657 |
Bachan Singh |
Mastan Singh |
Dalla |
Ludhiana |
22/12/92 |
56 |
678 |
Bachan Singh |
Late S. Heera Singh |
Silh PO. Garanga |
Ropar |
09/10/91 |
57 |
676 |
Bachitter Singh |
Late S. Bachan Singh |
Silh PO. Garanga |
Ropar |
09/10/91 |
58 |
351 |
Bahadur Singh |
Late S. Hari Singh |
Bakhtari PO. Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
20/12/92 |
59 |
275 |
Bahadur Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Jionda PO. Rampura |
Bhatinda |
Unspecified |
60 |
191 |
Bakhtawar Singh |
Banta Singh |
Mulowali PO. Dera Baba Nanak |
Gurdaspur |
07/07/93 |
61 |
501 |
Balbir Kaur |
Tarlok Singh |
Thande PO. Jwala Flour Mill |
Amritsar |
24/02/87 |
62 |
133 |
Balbir Singh |
Bhagat Singh |
Shahura |
Amritsar |
11/02/88 |
63 |
770 |
Balbir Singh |
Bhag Singh |
Indergarh |
Ferozepur |
23/12/93 |
64 |
008 |
Baldev Singh |
Prem Singh |
Eesee PO. Meemsan |
Sangrur |
18/04/93 |
65 |
123 |
Baldev Singh |
Bhajan Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
66 |
503 |
Baldev Singh |
Virsa Singh |
Sarchur |
Gurdaspur |
23/10/89 |
67 |
538 |
Baldev Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Kairon |
Amritsar |
25/11/92 |
68 |
549 |
Baldev Singh |
Jangir Singh |
Burj Dhilwan PO. Ubha |
Mansa |
04/10/91 |
69 |
645 |
Baldev Singh |
Karnail Singh Raja (Nai) |
Bhikhiwind |
Amritsar |
12/07/89 |
70 |
666 |
Baldev Singh |
Sajjan Singh |
Sakhira |
Amritsar |
06/07/90 |
71 |
724 |
Baldev Singh |
Achhar Singh |
Bhamri |
Gurdaspur |
12/11/91 |
72 |
750 |
Baldev Singh |
Late S. Harbhajan Singh |
Sheikh Chakk PO. Lalpur |
Amritsar |
25/02/88 |
73 |
824 |
Baldev Singh |
Budha Singh |
Ghariali PO. Ghariala |
Amritsar |
21/04/89 |
74 |
254 |
Baljeet Singh |
Krishan Singh |
Salana Jeevan Singh Sala PO. Salana |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
14/06/90 |
75 |
284 |
Baljeet Singh |
Gurcharan Singh |
Lehra Bega Po. Bhucho Mandi |
Bathinda |
02/11/92 |
76 |
541 |
Baljeet Singh |
Hari Singh |
Malluwal Kalan |
Amritsar |
07/08/91 |
77 |
137 |
Baljinder Singh |
Gurmej Singh |
Sodhi Wala |
Ferozepur |
18/03/91 |
78 |
146 |
Baljinder Singh |
Virsa Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
22/03/93 |
79 |
295 |
Baljinder Singh |
Sadhu Singh |
Partap Nagar Bathinda, Ph.0164-280610 |
Bathinda |
19/02/92 |
80 |
827 |
Baljinder Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Khanowal PO. Pucca Shehar (Chamiari) |
Amritsar |
14/04/90 |
81 |
096 |
Baljit Singh |
Late S. Mohan Singh |
Chachowali PO. Jaintipur |
Amritsar |
27/08/92 |
82 |
345 |
Baljit Singh |
Ajmer Singh |
Lashkari Nangal PO. Guru Ka Bagh |
Amritsar |
02/01/93 |
83 |
542 |
Baljit Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Sohal |
Amritsar |
15/07/91 |
84 |
547 |
Baljit Singh |
Ram Singh |
Bhujrawal PO. Jhabal Kalan |
Amritsar |
27/11/92 |
85 |
692 |
Baljit Singh |
Kunan Singh |
Jagrian |
Gurdaspur |
04/01/92 |
86 |
396 |
Balkar Masih |
Suraj Masih |
Pabarali Kalan |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
87 |
151 |
Balkar Singh |
Sadhu Singh |
Sahpur PO. Batala |
Amritsar |
12/05/88 |
88 |
339 |
Balkar Singh |
Bacahan Singh |
Kaler PO. Raja Sansi |
Amritsar |
21/04/91 |
89 |
778 |
Balkar Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Takhu Chakk Jandoke PO. Jandoke |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
90 |
836 |
Balkar Singh |
Bhagat Singh |
Natt PO. Chahal Kalan |
Gurdaspur |
20/07/92 |
91 |
044 |
Balraj Singh |
Swaran Singh |
Manal PO. Kurad |
Sangrur |
05/08/92 |
92 |
416 |
Balraj Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Sarhali |
Jalandhar |
29/03/89 |
93 |
774 |
Balraj Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Kotla Gujjaran |
Amritsar |
27/08/89 |
94 |
307 |
Baltej Singh |
Ajmer Singh |
Poohla PO. Nathana |
Bathinda |
12/05/92 |
95 |
391 |
Balwant Singh |
Bawa Singh |
Pabarali Khurd PO. Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
01/11/88 |
96 |
722 |
Balwant Singh |
Dara Singh |
Dhapei |
Gurdaspur |
26/02/91 |
97 |
745 |
Balwinder Kumar |
Late Chaudhary Ram |
Kaler PO. Rajasansi |
Amritsar |
02/05/92 |
98 |
136 |
Balwinder Singh |
Charan Singh |
Jalalabad |
Amritsar |
16/03/92 |
99 |
162 |
Balwinder Singh |
Sadha Singh |
Mulowali PO. Dera Baba Nanak |
Gurdaspur |
22/03/93 |
100 |
166 |
Balwinder Singh |
Shangara Singh |
Nikko Saran PO. Talwandi Rama |
Gurdaspur |
30/04/92 |
101 |
168 |
Balwinder Singh |
Bawa Singh |
Thetherke PO. Dera Baba Nanak |
Gurdaspur |
12/10/86 |
102 |
194 |
Balwinder Singh |
Harjit Singh |
Lalpur PO. Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
22/03/93 |
103 |
195 |
Balwinder Singh |
Amar Singh |
Jhabhal Kalan |
Amritsar |
04/10/92 |
104 |
225 |
Balwinder Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
105 |
253 |
Balwinder Singh |
Karnail Singh |
Rangian PO. Morinda |
Ropar |
22/02/94 |
106 |
404 |
Balwinder Singh |
Gurdial Singh |
Veela Tejan |
Gurdaspur |
04/08/92 |
107 |
491 |
Balwinder Singh |
Shamsher Singh |
Bhama Kalan PO. Uppal |
Ludhiana |
18/08/91 |
108 |
577 |
Balwinder Singh |
Avtar Singh |
Jhabal Khurd PO. Jhabal Kalan |
Amritsar |
08/03/93 |
109 |
608 |
Balwinder Singh |
Bachan Singh |
Gandhi Nagar PO. Nogwan Thagu |
Udham Singh |
17/06//89 |
110 |
620 |
Balwinder Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Vill. Kanderori |
Kangra (H.P.) |
05/05/92 |
111 |
624 |
Balwinder Singh |
Naurata Singh |
Pamaur |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
20/01/93 |
112 |
661 |
Balwinder Singh |
Charan Singh |
Sultanwind |
Amritsar |
03/05/92 |
113 |
697 |
Balwinder Singh |
Prem Singh (Retd. Subedar) |
Panjaula PO. Mianpur |
Ropar |
17/11/92 |
114 |
756 |
Balwinder Singh |
Karaj Singh |
Manochahal Kalan |
Amritsar |
22/03/93 |
115 |
804 |
Balwinder Singh |
Tarlok Singh |
Chohla Sahib |
Amritsar |
15/06/92 |
116 |
817 |
Balwinder Singh |
Gurmej Singh |
Sakhira |
Amritsar |
20/03/93 |
117 |
823 |
Balwinder Singh |
Dalip Singh |
Kalu Dian Jhugian PO. Bhangala |
Amritsar |
01/11/92 |
118 |
833 |
Balwinder Singh |
Pal Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
03/06/84 |
119 |
435 |
Balwinder Singh |
Sohan Singh |
Jatana PO. Bela |
Ropar |
04/09/91 |
120 |
144 |
Balwinder Singh |
|
Gumtala, Amritsar |
Amritsar |
04/10/92 |
121 |
524 |
Bawa Singh |
Tarsem Singh |
Mohalla Guru Ka Khooh, Tarn Taran |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
122 |
607 |
Bhabhinder Singh |
Harbhajan Singh |
Kamalpura |
Ludhiana |
06/06/84 |
123 |
022 |
Bhagat Singh |
Uttam Singh |
Salempur PO. Ghanauri Kalan |
Sangrur |
17/06/93 |
124 |
019 |
Bhagwan Singh |
Chitan Singh |
Kumbharwal |
Sangrur |
20/12/93 |
125 |
459 |
Bhagwan Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Hinsowal |
Ludhiana |
25/05/93 |
126 |
423 |
Bhan Singh |
Gurdit Singh |
Ranghar Nangal (Nawan) |
Gudaspur |
29/08/92 |
127 |
355 |
Bharpur Kaur |
Preetam Singh |
Jakhepal PO. Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
29/09/91 |
128 |
301 |
Bhola Singh |
Mithu Singh |
Tiona |
Bhatinda |
25/10/92 |
129 |
288 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Hardial Singh |
Doomwali PO. Sangat Mandi |
Bhatinda |
24/07/91 |
130 |
319 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Amar Singh |
Rangian PO. Morinda |
Ropar |
29/09/93 |
131 |
359 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Naranjan Singh |
Balad Kalan |
Sangrur |
22/06/91 |
132 |
366 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
133 |
413 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Dilawar Singh |
Amritsar |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
134 |
428 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Dalbir Singh Sidhu |
Jandiala |
Jalandhar |
18/12/92 |
135 |
632 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Alipur PO. Chheetan Wala |
Patiala |
20/08/92 |
136 |
636 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Balwant Singh |
Yamuna Nagar, H.No.920-C |
Yamuna Nagar |
Unspecified |
137 |
687 |
Bhupinder Singh |
Harbans Singh |
Balpurian PO. Bal |
Gurdaspur |
08/04/92 |
138 |
017 |
Bikkar Singh |
Prithi Singh |
Gurbakshpura PO. Tibba |
Sangrur |
20/12/93 |
139 |
049 |
Bikkar Singh |
Jagroop Singh |
Ghunsan |
Sangrur |
12/11/92 |
140 |
819 |
Boor Singh |
Visakha Singh |
Sehnsra Kalan |
Amritsar |
27/08/92 |
141 |
130 |
Boota Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Dugri PO. Dhotian |
Amritsar |
25/10/87 |
142 |
490 |
Boota Singh |
Darbara Singh |
Ghaniye Ke Bangar |
Gurdaspur |
14/02/92 |
143 |
791 |
Boota Singh Baggar |
Nirvail Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
21/03/89 |
144 |
026 |
Budh Singh |
Babu Singh |
Mangewal PO. Kurad |
Sangrur |
27/07/92 |
145 |
056 |
Budh Singh |
Kandal Singh |
Jagjit Pura |
Sangrur |
15/03/93 |
146 |
533 |
Buta Singh |
Gurdeep Singh |
Bhoora Kohna |
Amritsar |
29/08/93 |
147 |
704 |
Buta Singh |
Kaur Singh |
Moom |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
148 |
266 |
Chamkaur Singh |
Sohan Singh |
Rode |
Moga |
21/04/93 |
149 |
313 |
Chamkaur Singh |
Harbachan Singh |
Badla PO. Kotla Badla |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
17/01/91 |
150 |
467 |
Chamkaur Singh |
Sajjan Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
20/10/91 |
151 |
652 |
Chamkaur Singh |
Nazar Singh |
Naraingarh Sohian PO. Gehal |
Sangrur |
01/12/93 |
152 |
628 |
Chand Singh |
Late S. Nachhatter Singh |
Chowki Mann |
Ludhiana |
29/09/93 |
153 |
405 |
Channan Singh |
Harbans Singh |
Bhole Ke |
Gurdaspur |
01/04/88 |
154 |
594 |
Channan Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Ghariala |
Amritsar |
12/03/93 |
155 |
089 |
Charan Singh |
Bhagat Singh |
Gosalan |
Ludhiana |
17/05/94 |
156 |
813 |
Charan Singh (Baba) |
Late S. Banta Singh |
Pandori Rehmana PO. Takhat Mal |
Amritsar |
23/04/93 |
157 |
208 |
Charanjeet Singh |
Avtar Singh |
Rampura Phool |
Bathinda |
06/04/91 |
158 |
252 |
Charanjit Kaur |
|
Chhandra |
Ludhiana |
16/06/92 |
159 |
118 |
Charanjit Singh |
Gurmej Singh (Ex-serviceman) |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
160 |
479 |
Charanjit Singh |
Tara Singh |
Sangatpur Bhoki PO. Kalan Majra |
Patiala |
25/07/92 |
161 |
444 |
Charanjit Singh Channa |
Ram Kishan |
Jhalian Khurd |
Ropar |
04/09/91 |
162 |
803 |
Chhinda Singh |
Hajara Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
03/06/84 |
163 |
562 |
Chhinderpal Singh |
Gurmej Singh |
Manihala Jai SinghPO. Katcha Pucca |
Amritsar |
21/07/91 |
164 |
763 |
Daat Kaur |
Malagar Singh |
Dhotian |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
165 |
164 |
Dalbir Singh |
Channan Singh |
Talwandi Goraya PO. Dera Baba Nanak |
Gurdaspur |
27/03/89 |
166 |
239 |
Dalbir Singh |
Kapoor Singh |
Khadoor Sahib |
Amritsar |
24/10/92 |
167 |
310 |
Dalbir Singh |
Dasandha Singh |
Dhaliwal PO. Cheema Khuddi |
Gurdaspur |
22/04/93 |
168 |
340 |
Dalbir Singh |
Late S. Harbhajan Singh |
Dhardeo |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
169 |
605 |
Dalbir Singh |
Sardool Singh |
Varpal PO. Vadde Varpal Khurd |
Amritsar |
04/07/86 |
170 |
606 |
Dalbir Singh |
Gurmukh Singh |
Behlolpur Tandian |
Ropar |
06/02/91 |
171 |
615 |
Dalbir Singh |
Jassa Singh |
Khela, PO. Fatehabad |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
172 |
270 |
Daljit Singh |
Sukhwant Singh | Gokhuwal PO. Batala |
Gurdaspur |
07/07/93 |
173 |
576 |
Daljit Singh |
Pirat Singh |
Jhawan |
Hoshiarpur |
23/10/90 |
174 |
626 |
Daljit Singh |
Bakhtawar Singh |
Pathreri Jattan |
Ropar |
Unspecified |
175 |
634 |
Daljit Singh |
Sher Singh |
Sohana |
Ropar |
16/11/92 |
176 |
105 |
Dalveer Singh |
Shiv Ram |
Bhauwal PO. Ropar |
Ropar |
11/03/92 |
177 |
325 |
Dalvir Singh |
Balwant Singh |
Dhandra PO. Bararwala |
Sangrur |
22/11/93 |
178 |
329 |
Dalwinder Singh |
Achhar Singh |
Khiala Khurd PO. Khiala Kalan |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
179 |
091 |
Darbara Singh |
Basta Singh |
Bhambri PO. Khamano |
Fatehgrah Sahib |
13/11/93 |
180 |
402 |
Darbara Singh |
Chainchal Singh |
Ramdas Arian PO. Ramdas |
Amritsar |
18/04/88 |
181 |
035 |
Darshan Singh |
Tarlok Singh |
Longowal |
Sangrur |
28/06/92 |
182 |
059 |
Darshan Singh |
Amar Singh |
Barnala |
Sangrur |
18/03/93 |
183 |
093 |
Darshan Singh |
Man Singh |
Goslan |
Ludhiana |
24/10/93 |
184 |
210 |
Darshan Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Lasoi |
Sangrur |
16/08/92 |
185 |
244 |
Darshan Singh |
Hardial Singh |
Dalla |
Ludhiana |
Unspecified |
186 |
610 |
Darshan Singh |
Ujagar Singh |
Sohian |
Ludhiana |
18/02/91 |
187 |
631 |
Darshan Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Sehke PO. Guara |
Sangrur |
05/10/92 |
188 |
083 |
Deputy Singh Dhillon |
Late Bishan Singh |
Sangrur |
Sangrur |
16/10/93 |
189 |
030 |
Devinder Singh |
Achhat Singh |
VPO. Kakkar |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
190 |
206 |
Devinder Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Dhangrali |
Ropar |
05/01/91 |
191 |
264 |
Devinder Singh |
Malkit Singh |
Rajeana |
Moga |
29/04/92 |
192 |
478 |
Devinder Singh |
Gian Singh |
Lehran |
Ludhiana |
20/08/93 |
193 |
749 |
Devinder Singh |
Late S. Gurbachan Singh |
Kheri Salabatpur |
Ropar |
Unspecified |
194 |
784 |
Devinder Singh |
Manjit Singh |
Amritsar City, Ghannupur Kala |
Amritsar |
14/08/89 |
195 |
050 |
Dhanna Singh |
Mehar Singh |
Ghunsan |
Sangrur |
12/11/92 |
196 |
737 |
Dhanna Singh |
Piara Singh |
Bariar |
Kapurthala |
12/07/89 |
197 |
129 |
Dharam Singh |
Mukhtar Singh |
Jaura |
Amritsar |
02/04/91 |
198 |
174 |
Dharam Singh |
Piara Singh |
Kashtiwal |
Gurdaspur |
28/12/92 |
199 |
759 |
Dharam Singh |
Mangal Singh |
Bhangali |
Ferozepur |
25/07/91 |
200 |
320 |
Dharamvir Singh |
Late S. Harnam Singh |
Kammoke PO. Butala |
Amritsar |
12/05/95 |
201 |
267 |
Dilbag Singh |
Tasvir Singh |
Ghania Ke Bangar |
Gurdaspur |
07/12/91 |
202 |
190 |
Dilabagh Singh |
Ravel Singh |
Bhakthana Tulian |
Gurdaspur |
21/12/91 |
203 |
326 |
Dilbagh Singh |
Naranjan Singh |
Kohali |
Amritsar |
06/01/91 |
204 |
646 |
Dilbagh Singh |
Dalip Singh |
Jhabal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
205 |
650 |
Dilbagh Singh |
Ram Singh |
Kuharka |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
206 |
767 |
Dilbagh Singh |
Mehnga Singh |
Pheruman |
Amritsar |
13/08/92 |
207 |
809 |
Dilbagh Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
06/08/84 |
208 |
433 |
Dwarki Kaur |
Atma Ram |
Kurali, Ward No. 5 |
Ropar |
30/08/91 |
209 |
199 |
Ekam Singh |
Narang Singh |
Hathan |
Sangrur |
20/11/87 |
210 |
135 |
Gian Singh |
Lal Singh |
Lakha Singh Awan |
Amritsar |
01/02/94 |
211 |
644 |
Gian Singh |
Milkha Singh |
Sajada |
Amritsar |
27/05/92 |
212 |
212 |
Gulab Singh |
Gurmel Singh |
Dhamot Kalan |
Ludhiana |
08/06/87 |
213 |
477 |
Gulab Singh |
Dhian Singh |
Lehra |
Ludhiana |
10/09/93 |
214 |
114 |
Gulshan Kumar |
Chaman Lal |
Tarn Taran, Jandiala Road |
Amritsar |
22/06/93 |
215 |
781 |
Gulwinder Singh |
Balwant Singh |
Khadoor Sahib Town |
Amritsar |
10/02/93 |
216 |
328 |
Gulzar Singh |
Achhar Singh |
Khiala Khurd PO. Khiala Kalan |
Amritsar |
18/04/87 |
217 |
452 |
Gulzar Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Dhandra PO. Bararwal |
Sangrur |
10/12/91 |
218 |
497 |
Gulzar Singh |
Teja Singh |
Kharar, H.No. 1700-B |
Ropar |
08/04/91 |
219 |
671 |
Gulzar Singh |
Tara Singh Sandhu |
Manj Phaguwal PO. Ladhowal |
Ludhiana |
04/03/88 |
220 |
578 |
Gura Singh |
Pal Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
221 |
796 |
Gura Singh |
Late S. Pal Singh |
Sur Singh Wala |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
222 |
616 |
Gurbaj Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Mehndipur |
Amritsar |
17/06/89 |
223 |
422 |
Gurbhej Singh |
Mukhtar Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
10/10/92 |
224 |
527 |
Gurbir Singh |
Swaran Singh |
Panjwar Khurd |
Amritsar |
15/12/92 |
225 |
316 |
Gurbogh Singh |
Bachan Singh |
Bhame Kalan |
Mansa |
05/06/90 |
226 |
024 |
Gurcharan Singh |
Jeet Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
15/11/87 |
227 |
182 |
Gurcharan Singh |
Raghvir Singh |
Daun Kalan |
Patiala |
31/07/88 |
228 |
265 |
Gurharan Singh |
Bahadar Singh |
Rode |
Moga |
Unspecified |
229 |
455 |
Gurcharan Singh |
Mukhtiar Singh |
Dhanaula |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
230 |
510 |
Gurcharan Singh |
Tehal Singh |
Panaichan PO. Sanghlo |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
29/10/91 |
231 |
570 |
Gurcharan Singh |
Ganda Singh |
Nagoke |
Amritsar |
18/06/93 |
232 |
729 |
Gurcharan Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Rongla PO. Sidhuwal |
Patiala |
21/05/92 |
233 |
305 |
Gurdarshan Singh Mann |
Jagjit Singh Mann |
Gehri Bar Singh PO. Mehsar Khana |
Bathinda |
Unspecified |
234 |
067 |
Gurdeep Singh |
Chamel Singh |
Rumana Chak PO. Tarpai |
Amritsar |
14/07/91 |
235 |
095 |
Gurdeep Singh |
Charan Singh |
H.N.268, Ward No.11,Singhpura Road, Kurali |
Ropar |
06/03/93 |
236 |
550 |
Gurdeep Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Kairon |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
237 |
551 |
Gurdeep Singh |
Mukhtar Singh |
Jeobala |
Amritsar |
23/07/92 |
238 |
638 |
Gurdeep Singh |
Jagir Singh Randhawa |
Bhauwal PO. Ropar |
Ropar |
08/09/92 |
239 |
695 |
Gurdeep Singh Bola |
Surjit Singh |
Halwara |
Ludhiana |
09/07/90 |
240 |
029 |
Gurdev Singh |
Santa Singh |
Moom |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
241 |
181 |
Gurdev Singh |
Harnek Singh |
H.No. E-9 Tripri Town |
Patiala |
25/10/91 |
242 |
196 |
Gurdev Singh |
Sulakhan Singh alias Shah |
Panj Graeen |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
243 |
209 |
Gurdev Singh |
Gurbachan Singh |
Dhirpur PO. Dialpur |
Jalandhar |
01/07/87 |
244 |
233 |
Gurdev Singh |
Gurmit Singh |
Kale Ke |
Amritsar |
14/11/92 |
245 |
263 |
Gurdev Singh |
Lakha Singh |
Riali Kalan |
Gurdaspur |
17/07/89 |
246 |
341 |
Gurdev Singh |
Late S. Harbhajan Singh |
Dhardeo |
Amritsar |
21/09/90 |
247 |
446 |
Gurdev Singh |
Gurdial Singh |
Kaunke Kalan |
Ludhiana |
25/12/92 |
248 |
462 |
Gurdev Singh |
Late S. Santokh Singh |
Raipur Kalan |
Amritsar |
25/10/92 |
249 |
623 |
Gurdev Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Vill. Jamarai |
Amritsar |
09/04/91 |
250 |
826 |
Gurdev Singh |
Late S. Banta Singh |
Pandori Rumana PO. Pandori Takhat Mal |
Amritsar |
20/08/92 |
251 |
835 |
Gurdev Singh |
Balvir Singh |
Kot Khalsa |
Amritsar |
14/08/89 |
252 |
178 |
Gurdial Singh |
Amar Singh |
Kauli |
Patiala |
27/05/92 |
253 |
587 |
Gurdial Singh |
Karnail Singh |
Nawan Pind PO. Bhagowal |
Gurdaspur |
23/04/88 |
254 |
684 |
Gurdial Singh |
Channan Singh |
Ghariala |
Amritsar |
12/03/93 |
255 |
765 |
Gurdial Singh |
Late S. Sucha Singh |
Dhotian |
Amritsar |
09/10/92 |
256 |
777 |
Gurdial Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Lal Pur |
Amritsar |
11/07/91 |
257 |
643 |
Gurinder Singh |
Jaswant Singh |
Khairabad PO. Phool Khurd |
Ropar |
26/07/89 |
258 |
741 |
Gurinder Sigh |
Bakhshish Singh |
Baserke Gillan |
Amritsar |
05/08/91 |
259 |
003 |
Gurjant Singh |
Dhanna Singh |
Rureke Kalan |
Sangrur |
05/04/92 |
260 |
046 |
Gurjant Singh |
Gurnam Singh |
Dhilwan |
Sangrur |
03/04/92 |
261 |
664 |
Gurjant Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Dhadogal |
Sangrur |
29/04/93 |
262 |
213 |
Gurjit Singh |
Bhag Singh |
Kamma PO. Isru |
Ludhiana |
Unspecified |
263 |
472 |
Gurjit Singh |
Surjit Singh |
Barnala, Rahi Basti, Nanaksar |
Sangrur |
15/08/92 |
264 |
004 |
Gurlal Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Kaleke |
Sangrur |
21/07/92 |
265 |
142 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Balmit Singh |
Bharthala |
Nawanshahar |
12/11/88 |
266 |
337 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Gian Singh |
Bopa Rai Kalan |
Amritsar |
21/11/90 |
267 |
373 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Lakha Singh |
Kaleke |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
268 |
470 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Ravinder Singh (Ghari Wala) |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
15/05/91 |
269 |
498 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Tugalwala |
Gurdaspur |
07/02/84 |
270 |
500 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Choohar Singh |
Guru Ki Wadali |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
271 |
511 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Dhanna Singh |
Chhaju Majra Colony PO. Landran |
Ropar |
27/02/92 |
272 |
699 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Nachhatter Singh |
Mehraj |
Bathinda |
22/03/91 |
273 |
747 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Boparai Kalan PO. Khasa |
Amritsar |
10/01/92 |
274 |
782 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Late S. Bachan Singh |
Ganja PO. Dorangla |
Gurdaspur |
15/03/93 |
275 |
790 |
Gurmeet Singh |
Bhan Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
01/08/88 |
276 |
574 |
Gurmej Kaur |
Ujagar Singh |
Manochahal Kalan |
Amritsar |
15/09/92 |
277 |
099 |
Gurmej Singh |
Sulakhan Singh |
Chachowali PO. Jaintipur |
Amritsar |
15/08/92 |
278 |
153 |
Gurmej Singh |
Sant Singh |
Dhilwan PO. Kotli Soorat Malli |
Gurdaspur |
24/06/86 |
279 |
163 |
Gurmej Singh |
Jaswant Singh |
Dharamkot Randhawa |
Gurdaspur |
31/01/91 |
280 |
395 |
Gurmej Singh |
Lakha Singh |
Pabarali Kalan PO. Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
281 |
505 |
Gurmej Singh |
Chanan Singh |
Marhian Wala |
Gurdaspur |
06/06/84 |
282 |
816 |
Gurmej Singh |
Late S. Kehar Singh |
Sakhira |
Amritsar |
20/03/93 |
283 |
064 |
Gurmel Singh |
Hamir Singh |
Kumbharwal |
Sangrur |
28/04/91 |
284 |
205 |
Gurmel Singh |
Gurdial Singh |
Dhangrali |
Ropar |
23/07/91 |
285 |
216 |
Gurmel Singh |
Tej Singh |
Aluna Palla |
Ludhiana |
Unspecified |
286 |
318 |
Gurmel Singh |
Zora Singh |
Raipur |
Mansa |
08/09/91 |
287 |
332 |
Gurmel Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Khiala Kalan |
Amritsar |
05/03/88 |
288 |
445 |
Gurmel Singh |
Hari Singh |
Kotla Nihang |
Ropar |
24/12/91 |
289 |
565 |
Gurmel Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Bhauwal PO. Ropar |
Ropar |
Unspecified |
290 |
054 |
Gurmit Singh |
Jagroop Singh |
Barnala |
Sangrur |
17/03/93 |
291 |
261 |
Gurmit Singh |
Lakhbir Singh |
Jalalabad |
Amritsar |
15/03/92 |
292 |
417 |
Gurmit Singh Bhucho |
Lakha Singh |
Bhucho Mandi |
Bathinda |
14/10/90 |
293 |
094 |
Gurmukh Singh |
Preetam Singh |
Manupur Kalan |
Ludhiana |
28/11/91 |
294 |
409 |
Gurmukh Singh |
Kundan Singh |
Zafarwal |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
295 |
107 |
Gurnam Singh |
Ajaib Singh |
Kotla Sultan Singh |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
296 |
155 |
Gurnam Singh |
Late S. Sardul Singh |
Mehta PO. Singhpura |
Gurdaspur |
02/04/92 |
297 |
349 |
Gurnam Singh |
Bua Singh |
Gunopur PO. Saidowal Khurd |
Gurdaspur |
26/02/92 |
298 |
536 |
Gurnam Singh |
Thakar Singh |
Dulachipur PO. Kalha |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
299 |
805 |
Gurnam Singh |
Late S. Shingara Singh |
Daabawala Kalan |
Gurdaspur |
11/12/88 |
300 |
392 |
Gurnam Singh |
Daleep Singh |
Pabarali Khurd PO. Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
301 |
001 |
Gurpal Singh |
Babu Singh |
Mangwal |
Sangrur |
30/11/92 |
302 |
421 |
Gurpal Singh |
Bela Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
09/04/92 |
303 |
596 |
Gurpreet Singh |
Bahadar Singh |
Datewal PO. Kot Isse Khan |
Ferozepur |
19/04/92 |
304 |
237 |
Gursahib Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Mandiala PO. Boharu |
Amritsar |
22/01/90 |
305 |
200 |
Gursewak Singh |
Dalbara Singh |
Kotla Nihang |
Ropar |
17/08/95 |
306 |
655 |
Gurtej Singh |
Hamir Singh |
Ghuman Kalan |
Bhatinda |
11/07/92 |
307 |
744 |
Gurvel Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Khiala Kalan |
Amritsar |
06/03/88 |
308 |
052 |
Gurvinder Singh |
Harbhajan Singh |
Dhadiala Natt |
Gurdaspur |
17/07/89 |
309 |
420 |
Gurwinder Singh |
Joga Singh |
Ludhiana, H.No.2846 |
Ludhiana |
18/09/93 |
310 |
703 |
Gurwinder Singh |
Kaur Singh |
Kumbharwal |
Sangrur |
10/09/92 |
311 |
471 |
Hakam Singh |
Jagdev Singh @ Gama |
Bhaini Kalan PO. Himmatana |
Sangrur |
23/10/92 |
312 |
125 |
Halvinder Singh |
Inder jit Singh |
VPO. Kakkar |
Amritsar |
22/09/92 |
313 |
427 |
Hamir Singh |
Hardev Singh |
Asron |
Nawanshehar |
22/09/92 |
314 |
375 |
Hansa Singh |
Late S. Teja Singh |
Khiala Khurd PO. Khiala Kalan |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
315 |
109 |
Harbans Singh |
Mangal Singh |
Kumagar Basti PO. Piareana |
Ferozepur |
28/01/93 |
316 |
451 |
Harbans Singh |
Taru Singh |
Wajidpur Badhesha PO. Mahamadpur |
Sangrur |
14/01/91 |
317 |
599 |
Harbhajan Singh |
Santa Singh |
Bibi Pur |
Patiala |
28/07/90 |
318 |
672 |
Harchand Singh |
Jagat Singh |
Salana Jeevan Singh Wala |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
17/09/91 |
319 |
187 |
Harcharan Singh |
Surjit Singh |
H.No. 152/B Azad Nagar Sirhind Road |
Patiala |
05/06/90 |
320 |
032 |
Hardeep Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
25/02/94 |
321 |
192 |
Hardeep Singh |
Gopal Singh |
Dharamkot Randhawa |
Gurdaspur |
27/10/92 |
322 |
523 |
Hardeep Singh |
Harbans Singh |
Parowal |
Gurdaspur |
04/06/86 |
323 |
659 |
Hardeep Singh |
Late S. Prem Singh |
Balaspur |
Ludhiana |
Unspecified |
324 |
700 |
Hardeep Singh |
Jora Singh |
Hamidi |
Sangrur |
02/02/93 |
325 |
831 |
Hardeep Singh |
Inder Singh |
Chakk Sahu PO. Ghugiana |
Faridkot |
20/05/93 |
326 |
005 |
Hardev Singh |
Garib Singh |
Rurke Kalan |
Sangrur |
13/04/92 |
327 |
197 |
Hardev Singh |
Late S. Sulakhan Singh |
Panjgraeen |
Gurdaspur |
18/03/91 |
328 |
308 |
Hardev Singh |
Ajmer Singh |
Poohla PO. Nathana |
Bathinda |
08/04/91 |
329 |
585 |
Hardev Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Thatha PO. Ema Kalan |
Amritsar |
27/09/92 |
330 |
812 |
Hardev Singh |
Narinder Singh |
Dehriwala PO. Baba Bakala |
Amritsar |
23/09/92 |
331 |
110 |
Hardial Singh |
Hari Singh |
Dhotian |
Amritsar |
18/08/88 |
332 |
383 |
Hardip Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Dhindsa PO. Kot Todar Mal |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
333 |
062 |
Hari Krishan |
Jagdev Raj |
Kali Ke |
Sangrur |
20/06/92 |
334 |
327 |
Harinder Singh |
Piara Singh |
Kohali |
Amritsar |
15/07/90 |
335 |
092 |
Harjinder Singh |
Gurmel Singh |
Charhi Kalan |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
Unspecified |
336 |
140 |
Harjinder Singh |
Amarjit Singh |
Adowali PO. Ranger Nangal |
Gurdaspur |
02/04/92 |
337 |
246 |
Harjinder Singh |
Lal Singh |
Manuke |
Ludhiana |
04/05/93 |
338 |
323 |
Harjinder Singh |
Gurmit Singh |
Butala |
Amritsar |
08/06/92 |
339 |
489 |
Harjit Kumar |
Harbans Lal (Vaid) |
Phool Town |
Bathinda |
19/10/92 |
340 |
068 |
Harjit Singh |
Jarnail Singh |
Chakk Ramsingh Wala PO. Bhucho Mandi |
Bathinda |
12/11/91 |
341 |
128 |
Harjit Singh |
Pooran Singh |
Valtoha |
Amritsar |
11/09/91 |
342 |
180 |
Harjit Singh |
Jarnail Singh |
Janherian |
Patiala |
07/04/91 |
343 |
568 |
Harjit Singh |
Balbir Singh |
Sultanwind |
Amritsar |
11/02/93 |
344 |
545 |
Harmanpreet Singh |
Harbhajan Singh |
Verka |
Amritsar |
24/05/92 |
345 |
442 |
Harmeet Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Bhauwal PO. Ropar |
Ropar |
Unspecified |
346 |
292 |
Harmej Singh |
Labh Singh |
Gill Kalan |
Bhatinda |
23/07/91 |
347 |
522 |
Harminder Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Shahpur PO. Tajpur |
Ropar |
26/05/91 |
348 |
183 |
Harnam Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Haji Gate |
Bhatinda |
16/12/91 |
349 |
221 |
Harnam Singh |
Gura Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
02/11/91 |
350 |
247 |
Harnek Singh |
Naranjan Singh |
Dalla |
Ludhiana |
17/05/89 |
351 |
425 |
Harnek Singh |
Gurnam Singh |
Mallha |
Ludhiana |
16/06/93 |
352 |
315 |
Harpal Singh |
Jarnail Singh |
Bhame Kalan |
Mansa |
31/10/91 |
353 |
369 |
Harpal Singh |
Bhagwan Singh |
Bhindran PO. Hermitage |
Sangrur |
22/12/92 |
354 |
408 |
Harpal Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Zafarwal |
Gurdaspur |
26/04/89 |
355 |
443 |
Harpal Singh |
Malkiat Singh |
Chaunta Kalan PO. Jhalian Khurd |
Ropar |
28/01/91 |
356 |
506 |
Harpal Singh |
Makhan Singh |
Jammu, Simbal Camp |
Jammu |
28/04/94 |
357 |
753 |
Harpal Singh |
Chanchal Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
01/12/90 |
358 |
622 |
Harpal Singh Mann |
Didar Singh |
Gharkhna PO. Mannki |
Ludhiana |
14/06/90 |
359 |
552 |
Harphul Singh |
Piara Singh |
Jeobala |
Amritsar |
23/07/92 |
360 |
086 |
Harpinder Singh |
Jaswant Singh (Retd. Hav.) |
Hargobindpura |
Bhatinda |
Unspecified |
361 |
075 |
Harpreet Kaur |
Ajit Singh |
Sultanwind |
Amritsar |
25/06/92 |
362 |
322 |
Harpreet Singh |
Gurmit Singh |
Butala |
Amritsar |
02/04/93 |
363 |
513 |
Harpreet Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Badla PO. Kotla Badla |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
28/08/91 |
364 |
432 |
Harsimranjit Singh |
Avtar Singh |
Datarpur |
Ropar |
30/08/91 |
365 |
087 |
Harvinder Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Tahla Sahib PO. Maur Mandi |
Bhatinda |
19/04/92 |
366 |
681 |
Harwinder Singh |
Gurdeep Singh |
Dhanetha |
Patiala |
29/03/93 |
367 |
584 |
Heera Singh |
Dial Singh |
Kasel |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
368 |
569 |
Hoshiar Singh |
Harpal Singh |
Leharka PO. Chawinda Devi |
Amritsar |
12/08/89 |
369 |
172 |
Inder Singh |
Naranjan Singh |
Shahpur Goraya |
Gurdaspur |
02/02/92 |
370 |
228 |
Inderjit Singh |
Harbhajan Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
13/06/91 |
371 |
389 |
Inderjit Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Maulvi Kot PO. Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
372 |
441 |
Inderjit Singh |
Bachan Singh |
Jatana PO. Bela |
Ropar |
10/06/88 |
373 |
456 |
Inderjit Singh |
Gurbakhsh Singh |
Rattan Garh |
Ropar |
16/04/89 |
374 |
612 |
Inderjit Singh |
Harchand Singh |
Sohian |
Ludhiana |
27/07/92 |
375 |
493 |
Iqbal Singh |
Bachint Singh |
Bahga PO. Garhdiwala |
Hoshiarpur |
24/06/93 |
376 |
521 |
Jadwinder Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Fattu Dhinga |
Kapurthala |
06/06/84 |
377 |
730 |
Jagbir Singh |
Sardul Singh |
Nagoke |
Amritsar |
04/03/93 |
378 |
466 |
Jagdeep Singh |
Krishan Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
02/02/93 |
379 |
828 |
Jagdeep Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Amritsar, Bahadur Nagar, H.No.3477 |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
380 |
363 |
Jagdev Singh |
Gurbakhsh Singh |
Kapial |
Sangrur |
07/12/91 |
381 |
154 |
Jagir Singh |
Gurbakhsh Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
13/04/92 |
382 |
273 |
Jagir Singh |
Late S. Darshan Singh |
Kallu Sohal PO. Dehriwal Daroga |
Gurdaspur |
08/06/84 |
383 |
335 |
Jagir Singh |
Dharam Singh |
Sehnsra Kalan |
Amritsar |
21/09/89 |
384 |
099 |
Jagir Singh |
Mohan Singh |
Kala Afghana |
Gurdaspur |
08/01/92 |
385 |
382 |
Jagjit Singh |
Santokh Singh |
Kesar Singh Wala |
Bathinda |
25/02/92 |
386 |
241 |
Jagjit Singh |
Pooran Singh |
Manuke |
Ludhiana |
21/05/93 |
387 |
248 |
Jagjit Singh |
Zora Singh |
Jagraon |
Ludhiana |
21/06/93 |
388 |
519 |
Jagjit Singh |
Amar Singh |
Booh PO. Fattu Dhinga |
Kapurthala |
06/06/84 |
389 |
649 |
Jagjit Singh |
Avtar Singh Kanwal |
VPO. Khajiala |
Gurdaspur |
23/04/88 |
390 |
188 |
Jagraj Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
N.Ho.1543/, B-II Sector 60 Mohali |
Ropar |
14/01/95 |
391 |
473 |
Jagseer Singh |
Arjan Singh |
Surjitpura PO. Barnala |
Sangrur |
17/04/91 |
392 |
134 |
Jagtar Singh |
Dalip Singh |
Kairon |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
393 |
312 |
Jagtar Singh |
Surjit Singh |
Galowal Bahga PO. Garhdiwala |
Hoshiarpur |
22/10/92 |
394 |
330 |
Jagtar Singh |
Dharam Singh |
Khiala Khurd PO. Khiala Kalan |
Amritsar |
25/03/93 |
395 |
668 |
Jagtar Singh |
Maghar Singh |
Kuharka PO. Shahbazpur |
Amritsar |
04/04/91 |
396 |
589 |
Jagwinder Singh |
Sarwan Singh |
Sirhind City |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
06/05/90 |
397 |
486 |
Jang Singh |
Atma Singh |
Nathewala PO. Nathuwala Garbi |
Moga |
24/06/92 |
398 |
561 |
Jang Singh |
Atma Singh |
Nathewala PO. Nathuwala (Garbi) |
Moga |
24/06/92 |
399 |
277 |
Jarnail Singh |
Bachan Singh |
Bhame Kalan |
Mansa |
16/03/93 |
400 |
509 |
Jarnail Singh |
Naranjan Singh |
Badla PO. Kotla Badla |
Fatehgrah Sahib |
30/06/93 |
401 |
520 |
Jarnail Singh |
Ranga Singh |
Booh PO. Fattu Dhinga |
Kapurthala |
21/05/92 |
402 |
042 |
Jasbant Singh |
Maghar Singh |
Kaul Chheli PO. Bhullar Heri |
Sangrur |
22/06/92 |
403 |
235 |
Jasbir Singh |
Preetam Singh |
Burj Wali Gali, Mustafabad, Amritsar |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
404 |
240 |
Jasbir Singh |
Harnek Singh |
Manuke |
Ludhiana |
29/04/93 |
405 |
297 |
Jasbir Singh |
Gurbaksh Singh |
Vill. Madre, PO. Udanwal |
Gurdaspur |
18/03/91 |
406 |
820 |
Jasbir Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Amritsar, H.No.3477, Bahadur Nagar |
Amritsar |
16/08/89 |
407 |
431 |
Jasmer Kaur |
Bachan Singh |
Salempur |
Ropar |
30/08/91 |
408 |
458 |
Jasmer Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Khant |
Fatehgrah Sahib |
29/06/92 |
409 |
682 |
Jaspal Singh |
Late S. Rachan Singh |
Garanga |
Ropar |
07/06/89 |
410 |
838 |
Jaspal Singh |
Bhagat Singh |
Natt PO. Chahal Kalan |
Gurdaspur |
30/03/92 |
411 |
214 |
Jaspal Singh Fajui |
Jarnail Singh |
Sihaura |
Ludhiana |
Unspecified |
412 |
218 |
Jasvir Singh |
Nirmal Singh |
Doraha PO. Doraha Mandi |
Ludhiana |
30/12/90 |
413 |
257 |
Jasvir Singh |
Bhupinder Singh |
Pandori Bibi |
Hoshiarpur |
04/01/93 |
414 |
368 |
Jasvir Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Kakara |
Sangrur |
27/03/92 |
415 |
653 |
Jasvir Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Hargana |
Fatehgrah Sahib |
Unspecified |
416 |
736 |
Jasvir Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Khuddi Khurd |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
417 |
229 |
Jaswant Singh |
Sewa Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
04/04/90 |
418 |
231 |
Jaswant Singh |
Mohan Singh |
Chand Ke PO. Dharmkot Bagga |
Gurdaspur |
03/08/90 |
419 |
269 |
Jaswant singh |
Roor Singh |
Kalanuar |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
420 |
289 |
Jaswant Singh |
Nachhattar Singh |
Budhsingh Wala |
Moga |
Unspecified |
421 |
457 |
Jaswant Singh |
Darbara Singh |
Chaklan |
Ropar |
06/11/92 |
422 |
714 |
Jaswant Singh |
Gurmel Singh |
DeharPO. Chamkaur Sahib |
Ropar |
24/03/93 |
423 |
825 |
Jaswant Singh |
Isar Singh |
Bhaini (Bhajan Singh) PO, Patti |
Amritsar |
13/07/91 |
424 |
055 |
Jaswinder Singh |
Ajaib Singh |
Jahangir PO. Kaheru |
Sangrur |
01/02/93 |
425 |
098 |
Jaswinder Singh |
Late S. Mohan Singh |
Chachowali PO. Jaintipur |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
426 |
106 |
Jaswinder singh |
Shiv Ram, |
Bhuwal PO. Ropar |
Ropar |
29/10/91 |
427 |
483 |
Jaswinder Singh |
Braham Singh |
Rajoana |
Ludhiana |
27/03/92 |
428 |
560 |
Jaswinder Singh |
Mangal Singh |
Singhpura |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
429 |
414 |
Jatinder Singh |
Dilawar Singh |
Amritsar |
Amritsar |
31/08/90 |
430 |
609 |
Jatinder Singh |
Harnek Singh |
Sohian |
Ludhiana |
28/08/87 |
431 |
709 |
Jatinderpal Singh |
Amrik Singh |
N.No2210, Phase X, Mohali |
Ropar |
16/01/88 |
432 |
555 |
Jeet Singh |
Chanan Singh |
Sidhwan Dona |
Kapurthala |
17/09/91 |
433 |
633 |
Jeet Singh |
Sajju Singh |
Dadhera PO. Kalyan |
Patiala |
21/11/91 |
434 |
752 |
Jeet Singh |
Pooran Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
435 |
278 |
Jeevan Jot Singh |
Lakhwant Singh |
Hans Nagar Bathinda |
Bathinda |
30/07/93 |
436 |
715 |
Jhilmil Singh |
Preetam Singh |
Dehar |
Ropar |
17/09/91 |
437 |
728 |
Jinderpal Singh |
Ram Saroop |
Gagar Pur |
Kaithal |
18/08/91 |
438 |
367 |
Joga Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Kakara |
Sangrur |
19/02/93 |
439 |
793 |
Joga Singh |
Gurcharan Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
01/08/89 |
440 |
531 |
Joginder Kaur |
Kirpa Singh (Husband) |
Panjwar Khurd |
Amritsar |
03/10/92 |
441 |
424 |
Joginder Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Folariwal |
Jalandhar |
28/03/92 |
442 |
690 |
Joginder Singh |
Boota Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
17/04/92 |
443 |
769 |
Joginder Singh |
Late S. Wassan Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
444 |
299 |
Joginder Singh Bains |
Babu Singh Bains |
Guru Teg Bahadar Nagar Bathinda |
Bathinda |
26/07/91 |
445 |
282 |
Kala Singh |
Amrik Singh |
Bega Lehra PO. Bhucho Mandi |
Bathinda |
30/05/92 |
446 |
321 |
Kamaljit Kaur |
Piara Singh |
Butala |
Amritsar |
29/02/92 |
447 |
411 |
Kamaljit Singh |
Naranjan Singh |
Ghaniye Ke Bangar |
Gurdaspur |
19/04/93 |
448 |
300 |
Kanwaljit Singh |
Bhagwan Singh (Capt. Retd.) |
Bhatinda, Guru Arjun Dev Nagar |
Bhatinda |
27/07/92 |
449 |
708 |
Kanwaljit Singh |
Gulzar Singh |
Verka |
Amritsar |
24/05/92 |
450 |
822 |
Kanwaljit Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Amritsar, Ramsar Road, H.No.7 |
Amritsar |
14/02/91 |
451 |
502 |
Karaj Singh |
Makhan Singh |
Thande PO. Jwala Flour Mill |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
452 |
014 |
Karnail Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Tibba |
Sangrur |
08/04/91 |
453 |
185 |
Karnail Singh |
Bachan Singh |
Khanpur Barring PO. Suron |
Patiala |
22/05/91 |
454 |
412 |
Karora Singh |
Dial Singh |
Badwali PO. Rattan Garh |
Ropar |
26/05/91 |
455 |
104 |
Kartar Singh |
Swaran Singh |
Mann PO. Ghariala |
Amritsar |
30/04/92 |
456 |
343 |
Kartar Singh |
Aasa Singh |
Behla PO. Rataul |
Amritsar |
08/06/92 |
457 |
595 |
Kartar Singh |
Bali Singh |
Chuglewal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
458 |
077 |
Kashmir Singh |
Gulzar Singh |
Dander |
Amritsar |
02/01/91 |
459 |
113 |
Kashmir Singh |
Dalip Singh |
Dhun, Dhahe Wale |
Amritsar |
24/12/92 |
460 |
317 |
Kashmir Singh |
Labh Singh |
Bhame Kalan |
Mansa |
Unspecified |
461 |
776 |
Kashmir Singh |
Sucha Singh |
Sathiala |
Amritsar |
29/08/92 |
462 |
801 |
Kashmir Singh |
Charan Singh |
Kuthali PO. Behrampur |
Gurdaspur |
18/03/93 |
463 |
786 |
Kashmir Singh Bhullar |
Late S. Dalip Singh |
Amritsar, H.N.102, Gali 9, PO. Vijay Nagar |
Amritsar |
03/11/90 |
464 |
358 |
Kesar Singh |
Jangir Singh |
Balad Kalan |
Sangrur |
02/06/91 |
465 |
815 |
Kesar Singh |
Banta Singh |
Pandori Rehmana PO. Pandori Takhatmal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
466 |
698 |
Kewal Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Burj Gill PO. Phul |
Bathinda |
22/03/91 |
467 |
356 |
Khem Singh Fauji |
Nachhattar Singh |
Balad Kalan PO. Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
468 |
437 |
Khushwinder Singh |
Shamsher Singh |
Booth Garh PO. Morinda |
Ropar |
21/07/89 |
469 |
167 |
Kiranpal Singh |
Sewa Singh |
1446/21 Phase XI Mohali |
Ropar |
21/03/92 |
470 |
530 |
Kirpa Singh |
Surain Singh |
Panjwar Khurd |
Amritsar |
03/10/92 |
471 |
020 |
Kirpal Singh |
Gurdial Singh |
VPO. Benra |
Sangrur |
02/02/93 |
472 |
469 |
Krishan Kumar |
Lajja Ram |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
25/09/92 |
473 |
309 |
Kulbir Singh |
Major Singh |
Simbal Majra |
Nawanshehar |
15/03/92 |
474 |
434 |
Kulbir Singh |
Khush Hall Singh |
Jatana PO. Bela |
Roapr |
Unspecified |
475 |
012 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Vill. Sangha |
Amritsar |
26/06/93 |
476 |
150 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Swaran Singh |
Kotla Sahian PO. Bhullar |
Gurdaspur |
12/05/88 |
477 |
336 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Jarnail Singh |
Bopa Rai Kalan |
Amritsar |
12/12/92 |
478 |
419 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Ajaib Singh |
Amrali PO. Hawara Kalan |
Ropar |
24/10/90 |
479 |
440 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Nirmal singh |
Lodhi Majra |
Ropar |
14/01/93 |
480 |
480 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Mehar Singh |
Sahora |
Ludhian |
03/02/93 |
481 |
535 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Fatehpur Badeshe |
Amritsar |
06/07/92 |
482 |
604 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Kuhali PO. Rai Chakk |
Gurdaspur |
25/03/91 |
483 |
642 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Tar Singh |
Dansingh Wala PO. Sawai Mehma |
Bathinda |
30/01/93 |
484 |
679 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Rachan Singh |
Manak Majra PO. Rangeel Pur |
Ropar |
09/03/91 |
485 |
711 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Tarlok Singh |
Usman Shaheed |
Hoshiarpur |
03/09/91 |
486 |
837 |
Kuldeep Singh |
Massa Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
487 |
141 |
Kuldeep Singh Gill |
Sikandar Singh Gill |
Gill |
Ludhiana |
13/06/92 |
488 |
013 |
Kuldip Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Kuthala |
Sangrur |
17/10/92 |
489 |
015 |
Kuldip Singh |
Makand Singh |
Tibba |
Sangrur |
08/04/91 |
490 |
057 |
Kuldip Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Bhullarheri |
Sangrur |
31/05/93 |
491 |
088 |
Kuldip Singh |
Sucha Singh |
Thikriwal PO. Cahrhi |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
24/02/94 |
492 |
748 |
Kuldip Singh |
Nand Singh |
Fatehabad |
Amritsar |
08/04/91 |
493 |
082 |
Kuljinder Singh |
Harbans Singh |
Kheri Salabatpur |
Ropar |
02/02/92 |
494 |
101 |
Kulwant Singh |
Mohan Singh |
Maur Khurd PO. Maur Mandi |
Bhatinda |
23/03/94 |
495 |
156 |
Kulwant Singh |
Late S. Shingara Singh |
Kotli Soorat Malli |
Gurdaspur |
22/05/89 |
496 |
293 |
Kulwant Singh |
Bachitter Singh |
Lehra Bega |
Bathinda |
22/12/92 |
497 |
516 |
Kulwant Singh |
Sohan Singh |
Booh PO. Fattu Dhinga |
Kapurthala |
Unspecified |
498 |
567 |
Kulwant Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Bhanuwal PO. Ropar |
Ropar |
13/01/93 |
499 |
583 |
Kulwant Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Kairon |
Amritsar |
23/09/92 |
500 |
658 |
Kulwant Singh |
Prem Singh |
Balaspur |
Ludhiana |
12/02/92 |
501 |
733 |
Kulwant Singh |
Bahadur Singh |
Sehke PO. Guara |
Sangrur |
20/01/94 |
502 |
797 |
Kulwant Singh |
Sajjan Singh |
Burj 169 PO. Raja Taal |
Amritsar |
29/11/92 |
503 |
800 |
Kulwant Singh |
Fauja Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
03/06/84 |
504 |
073 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Gulzar Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
505 |
097 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Late S. Mohan Singh |
Chachowali PO. Jaintipur |
Amritsar |
27/08/92 |
506 |
100 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Ajaib Singh |
Otthian |
Amritsar |
20/12/91 |
507 |
147 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Amrik Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
27/11/88 |
508 |
157 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Bachan Singh |
Mastkot PO. Dargabad |
Gurdaspur |
22/06/91 |
509 |
215 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Late S. Kaka Singh |
Palla Aluna |
Ludhiana |
09/06/92 |
510 |
362 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Harnek Singh |
Kapial |
Sangrur |
31/07/93 |
511 |
449 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Balvir Singh |
Dhuri, Guru Nank Nagar |
Sangrur |
03/06/94 |
512 |
677 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Late S. Bachan Singh |
Silh PO. Garanga |
Ropar |
Unspecified |
513 |
768 |
Kulwinder Singh |
Tara Singh |
Pheruman |
Amritsar |
08/12/93 |
514 |
287 |
Labh Singh |
Bhupinder Singh |
Doomwali PO. Sangat Mandi |
Bathinda |
Unspecified |
515 |
465 |
Labh Singh |
Chhota Singh @ Sukhdev Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
22/03/92 |
516 |
111 |
Lakha Singh |
Virsa Singh |
Algon Kothi PO. Kothi |
Amritsar |
17/03/87 |
517 |
818 |
Lakha Singh |
Swaran Singh |
Mannan PO. Aima Kalan |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
518 |
226 |
Lakhbir Singh |
Late S. Bhan Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
02/06/92 |
519 |
331 |
Lakhbir Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Khiala Khurd PO. Khiala Kalan |
Amritsar |
28/07/87 |
520 |
669 |
Lakhbir Singh |
Sardool Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
02/06/84 |
521 |
734 |
Lakhwinder Singh Sandhu |
Late S. Balbir Singh |
Anandpur Sahib, Academy Road |
Ropar |
19/07/91 |
522 |
361 |
Lakhvir Singh (Patwari) |
Bachan Singh |
Kapial |
Sangrur |
12/08/92 |
523 |
138 |
Lakhwinder Singh |
Bua Singh |
Gehri Mandi |
Amritsar |
08/06/91 |
524 |
224 |
Lakhwinder Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
525 |
379 |
Lakhwinder Singh |
Chanan Singh |
Behla PO. Rataul |
Amritsar |
08/06/92 |
526 |
738 |
Lakhwinder Singh |
Ajaib Singh |
Adliwala |
Amritsar |
27/05/91 |
527 |
775 |
Lal Singh |
Apar Singh |
Kotla Gujjaran |
Amritsar |
27/08/89 |
528 |
735 |
Lehmbar Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Khaddi Khurd PO. Hindiaya |
Sangrur |
18/01/93 |
529 |
439 |
Maan Singh |
Sarwan Singh |
Dehar PO. Chamkaur Sahib |
Ropar |
15/03/91 |
530 |
060 |
Maghar Singh |
Labh Singh |
Thuliwal |
Sangrur |
18/10/92 |
531 |
701 |
Maghar Singh |
Mukhtiar Singh |
Ladewal PO. Jabbo Majra |
Sangrur |
24/08/91 |
532 |
528 |
Mahinder Kaur |
Kashmir Singh (Husband) |
Panjwar Khurd |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
533 |
258 |
Mahinder Singh |
Karam Singh |
Bhappal |
Patiala |
12/02/93 |
534 |
230 |
Mahinder Singh (Bijliwal) |
Mohan Singh |
Bijliwal PO. Sarwali |
Gurdaspur |
15/11/91 |
535 |
061 |
Major Singh |
Kaka Singh |
Changali |
Sangrur |
15/02/92 |
536 |
302 |
Major Singh |
Dasaundha Singh |
H.No.2559 Mehna Mohalla Bathinda |
Bathinda |
28/04/91 |
537 |
580 |
Major Singh |
Jaswant Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
11/07/90 |
538 |
598 |
Major Singh |
Karnail Singh |
Kamalpur |
Patiala |
25/05/90 |
539 |
717 |
Major Singh |
Ujagar Singh |
Rattangarh |
Ropar |
13/02/92 |
540 |
740 |
Major Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Sahoora |
Amritsar |
14/09/87 |
541 |
220 |
Major Singh & Mohan Singh |
Mohan Singh & Ganga Singh |
Kot Hirde Ram PO. Chawinda Devi |
Amritsar |
10/07/84 |
542 |
617 |
Major Singh (Sarpanch) |
Late S. Kartar Singh |
Burj Kalara PO. Hathur |
Ludhiana |
03/05/93 |
543 |
081 |
Makhan Singh |
Kehar Singh |
Wiring Suba Singh |
Amritsar |
20/03/93 |
544 |
161 |
Makhan Singh |
Kabal Singh |
Chaura |
Gurdaspur |
05/04/93 |
545 |
018 |
Mal Singh |
Prithi Singh |
Gurbakshpura PO. Tibba |
Sangrur |
10/01/94 |
546 |
262 |
Malkeet Singh |
Saroop Singh |
Alowal PO. Balowal |
Hoshiarpur |
08/03/93 |
547 |
464 |
Malkeet Singh |
Bhinder Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
02/02/93 |
548 |
564 |
Malkeet Singh |
Amar Singh |
Budhapur PO. Phool Khurd |
Ropar |
11/03/92 |
549 |
712 |
Malkeet Singh |
Late S. Santa Singh |
Chappar Chiri Khurd PO. Landran |
Ropar |
30/07/93 |
550 |
279 |
Malkit Singh |
Baldev Singh |
Virk Kalan |
Bathinda |
01/03/92 |
551 |
566 |
Mandeep Singh |
Mehar Singh |
Kharar |
Ropar |
15/06/92 |
552 |
694 |
Mandeep Singh |
Surjit Singh |
Halwara |
Ludhiana |
08/07/90 |
553 |
294 |
Mangal Singh |
Swaran Singh |
Butala |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
554 |
394 |
Mangal Singh |
Ujagar Singh |
Pabarali PO. Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
15/11/91 |
555 |
760 |
Mangal Singh |
Dula Singh |
Bhangali |
Ferozepur |
07/08/91 |
556 |
739 |
Mangal Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Adliwala |
Amritsar |
31/05/91 |
557 |
116 |
Manjinder Singh |
Late S. Mukhtar Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
25/09/91 |
558 |
582 |
Manjinder Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Tarn Taran |
Amritsar |
21/04/92 |
559 |
460 |
Manjit Inder Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Bhai Roopa |
Bathinda |
10/10/91 |
560 |
571 |
Manjit Kaur |
Chanan Singh |
Sehnsra Kalan |
Amritsar |
17/02/93 |
561 |
108 |
Manjit Singh |
Sohan Singh |
H.No.273, Phase VII, Mohali |
Ropar |
16/01/88 |
562 |
126 |
Manjit Singh |
Iqbal Singh |
VPO. Nangali |
Amritsar |
24/02/92 |
563 |
132 |
Manjit Singh |
Sardool Singh |
Tanda PO. Tur |
Amritsar |
31/05/92 |
564 |
176 |
Manjit Singh |
Sucha Singh |
Alipur Arian PO. Patiala |
Patiala |
01/01/93 |
565 |
304 |
Manjit Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Nathana |
Bathinda |
24/10/91 |
566 |
342 |
Manjit Singh |
Late S. Harbhajan Singh |
Dhardeo |
Amritsar |
17/09/91 |
567 |
673 |
Manjit Singh |
Gurbachan Singh |
Lohara PO. Pratapura |
Jalandhar |
12/08/92 |
568 |
727 |
Manjit Singh |
Balbir Singh |
Alawal Pur PO. Bhambli |
Gurdaspur |
19/03/91 |
569 |
742 |
Manjit Singh |
Late S. Japan Singh Lahal |
Dudhrai PO. Bhala Pind |
Amritsar |
30/04/92 |
570 |
283 |
Manmohan Singh |
Ranjit Singh |
D-127 Thermal Colony Bhatinda |
Bathinda |
10/05/92 |
571 |
557 |
Manmohan Singh |
Narinder Singh |
110, Nawi Dana Mandi, Jalandhar City |
Jalandhar |
05/08/87 |
572 |
487 |
Manna Singh |
Gurdeep Singh |
Nathewala PO. Nathuwala Garbi |
Moga |
16/08/92 |
573 |
430 |
Manpreet Kaur |
Ramdass Singh |
Jatana PO. Bela |
Ropar |
30/08/91 |
574 |
268 |
Mastan Singh |
Budha Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
575 |
002 |
Mehma Singh |
Gulzar Singh |
Dhilwan |
Sangrur |
14/12/92 |
576 |
814 |
Meja Singh (Baba) |
Late S. Banta Singh |
Pandori Rehmana PO. Takhat Mal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
577 |
702 |
Mithu Singh |
Surjit Singh |
Kot Dunna |
Sangrur |
03/09/91 |
578 |
201 |
Mohan Singh |
Surjan Singh |
Khanpur PO. Kharar |
Ropar |
01/02/91 |
579 |
518 |
Mohan Singh |
Santa Singh |
Fattu Dhinga |
Kapurthala |
06/06/84 |
580 |
600 |
Mohan Singh |
Baldev Singh |
Araincha PO. Doraha |
Ludhiana |
05/02/91 |
581 |
613 |
Mohan Singh |
Surjan Singh @ Sajjan Singh |
H.No.2042, Agwar Gujran, Jagraon |
Ludhiana |
03/05/93 |
582 |
047 |
Mohinder Singh |
Ram Rakha Singh |
Balian |
Sangrur |
06/03/93 |
583 |
306 |
Mohinder Singh |
Arjan Singh |
Bhai Bakhtaur PO. Maisar Khana |
Bathinda |
27/09/92 |
584 |
830 |
Mohinderpal Singh |
Manjit Singh |
Amritsar, H.N.1334/III-21, Gali Jeevanmal |
Amritsar |
14/02/91 |
585 |
665 |
Mukand Singh |
Bhajan Singh |
Dhaula |
Sangrur |
12/12/91 |
586 |
051 |
Mukhtiar Singh |
Mahala Singh |
Pakhoke |
Sangrur |
11/03/93 |
587 |
548 |
Mukhtiar Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Leharka |
Amritsar |
28/12/90 |
588 |
799 |
Mukhtiar Singh |
Balwinder Singh |
Bhago Kawan PO. Magar Mudian |
Gurdaspur |
02/04/93 |
589 |
102 |
Nachhattar Singh |
Balkar Singh |
Mann PO. 37*12 Ghariala |
Amritsar |
18/02/92 |
590 |
667 |
Nachhatter Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Raiwal Bet PO. Lohian Khas |
Jalandhar |
Unspecified |
591 |
286 |
Naginderpal Singh |
Bhupinder Singh |
Doomwali PO. Sangar Mandi |
Bathinda |
24/07/91 |
592 |
554 |
Nahar Singh |
Atma Singh |
Alipur Khalsa PO. Mahamadpur |
Sangrur |
04/06/93 |
593 |
625 |
Nahar Singh |
Inder Singh |
Pamaur |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
12/01/85 |
594 |
418 |
Naib Singh |
Sardara Singh |
Gill Khurd PO. Balianwali |
Bathinda |
09/09/91 |
595 |
048 |
Narain Singh |
Bant Singh |
Dhilwan |
Sangrur |
14/12/92 |
596 |
3910 |
Narain Singh |
Mohinder Singh |
Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
597 |
272 |
Naranjan Singh |
Dalbir Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
01/08/91 |
598 |
731 |
Naranjan Singh |
Sher Singh |
Chabba |
Amritsar |
25/02/92 |
599 |
028 |
Narinder Siongh |
Baldev Singh |
Dangarh |
Sangrur |
16/07/92 |
600 |
546 |
Narinder Singh |
Hukam Singh |
Thathi Khara PO. Doburji |
Amritsar |
17/07/91 |
601 |
647 |
Narinder Singh |
Mehar Singh (Sukhdev Singh) |
Dawali PO. Jandiali |
Jalandhar |
28/12/94 |
602 |
675 |
Narinder Singh |
Inder Mohan Verma |
Bhago Majra |
Ropar |
23/08/92 |
603 |
725 |
Narinder Singh |
Lakhwinder Singh |
Batala |
Gurdaspur |
12/08/89 |
604 |
757 |
Narinder Singh |
Balwant Singh |
Vegowal |
Amritsar |
11/04/94 |
605 |
027 |
Nasib Kaur |
Dal Singh |
Thuliwal |
Sangrur |
18/10/92 |
606 |
438 |
Nasib Singh |
Preetam Singh |
Dahir |
Ropar |
21/03/93 |
607 |
762 |
Navroop Singh |
Kashmir Singh |
Burj Rai Ke PO. Sirhali |
Amritsar |
03/12/92 |
608 |
069 |
Nazar Singh |
Bachan Singh |
Dhilwan (Nabha) |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
609 |
641 |
Nehru Singh |
Natha Singh |
Dansingh Wala PO. Mehma Sawai |
Bathinda |
30/01/93 |
610 |
378 |
Niranjan Singh |
Boor Singh |
Behla PO. Rataul |
Amritsar |
08/06/92 |
611 |
023 |
Nirbhai Singh |
Dharam Singh |
Alal PO. Moolowal |
Sangrur |
14/10/91 |
612 |
034 |
Nirmal Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
11/02/93 |
613 |
347 |
Nirmal Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Nepal PO. Jastarwal |
Amritsar |
12/08/88 |
614 |
766 |
Nirmal Singh |
Piara Singh |
Dhotian |
Amritsar |
14/11/98 |
615 |
496 |
Nirmal Singh Sarpanch |
Mohan Singh |
Hothian |
Amritsar |
25/10/92 |
616 |
575 |
Nirvail Singh |
Atma Singh |
Manochahal Kalan |
Amritsar |
08/08/92 |
617 |
779 |
Nirvair Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Kotla Bajja Singh PO. Dadiala Nazara |
Gurdaspur |
08/11/89 |
618 |
637 |
Nirwair Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Bhauwal PO. Ropar |
Ropar |
06/04/93 |
619 |
393 |
Nishan Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Pabarali Kalan PO. Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
27/01/91 |
620 |
461 |
Nishan Singh |
Bahal Singh |
VPO. Raniya |
Amritsar |
06/07/89 |
621 |
450 |
Pala Singh |
Taru Singh |
Wajidpur Badhesha PO. Mahmadpur |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
622 |
066 |
Palijit Singh |
Chamel Singh |
Rumana Cahk PO. Tarpai |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
623 |
065 |
Paltej Singh |
Chamel Singh |
Ramana Chak PO. Tarpai |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
624 |
039 |
Palwinder Singh |
Gurbachan Singh |
Gehlan PO. Mehsampur |
Sangrur |
19/05/93 |
625 |
260 |
Palwinder Singh |
Ajit Singh |
Khalehra PO. Gehri Mandi |
Amritsar |
15/04/88 |
626 |
271 |
Param Satinderjit Singh |
Sawinder Singh Gambhir |
Jangla PO. Nash Chak |
Gurdaspur |
18/05/92 |
627 |
031 |
Paramjit Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Gehla Bagha Patti PO. Mahisampur |
Sangrur |
19/05/93 |
628 |
070 |
Paramjit Singh |
Harnam Singh |
Heera Nagar, PO. Netaji Nagar, Salem Tabri |
Ludhiana |
08/09/90 |
629 |
217 |
Paramjit Singh |
Late S. Naranjan Singh |
Dhamot |
Ludhiana |
Unspecified |
630 |
232 |
Paramjit Singh |
Gurmukh Singh |
Talwandi Nahar |
Amritsar |
21/05/92 |
631 |
245 |
Paramjit Singh |
Gurmel Singh |
Manuke |
Ludhiana |
30/04/93 |
632 |
276 |
Paramjit Singh |
Gurdit Singh |
Guru Gobind Singh Nagar Bathinda |
Bathinda |
17/07/92 |
633 |
303 |
Paramjit Singh |
Chand Singh |
Mahi Nangal PO. Rama Mandi |
Bathinda |
28/04/91 |
634 |
401 |
Paramjit Singh |
Tehal Singh |
Fazalabad |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
635 |
447 |
Paramjit Singh |
Darshan Sigh (Ex-Subedar) |
H.No.10-L, Model House, Jalandhar |
Jalandhar |
05/09/95 |
636 |
532 |
Paramjit Singh |
Sawinder Singh |
Mallian |
Amritsar |
18/05/91 |
637 |
591 |
Paramjit Singh |
Harnek Singh |
Phoolewala |
Moga |
Unspecified |
638 |
611 |
Paramjit Singh |
Harchand Singh |
Sohian |
Ludhiana |
10/05/89 |
639 |
761 |
Paramjit Singh |
Narinder Singh |
Bahmani Wala |
Amritsar |
14/06/93 |
640 |
792 |
Paramjit Singh |
Mohan Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
16/03/88 |
641 |
772 |
Pardeep Singh |
Beant Singh Malhi |
Baoli Inderjit |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
642 |
084 |
Pargat Singh |
Avtar Singh |
Bhangali Kalan |
Amritsar |
22/04/92 |
643 |
579 |
Pargat Singh |
Preetam Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
16/09/89 |
644 |
794 |
Pargat Singh |
Charan Singh |
Sur Singh Wala |
Amritsar |
Uspecified |
645 |
243 |
Parivar Singh |
Dalip Singh |
Dalla |
Ludhiana |
12/12/90 |
646 |
821 |
Parjinder Singh |
Parminder Singh |
Sehnsra Kalan |
Amritsar |
10/05/93 |
647 |
290 |
Parminder Singh |
Bant Singh |
Gill Kalan |
Bathinda |
23/07/91 |
648 |
429 |
Parminder Singh |
Piara Singh |
Amritsar, H.No.13, Gurnam Nagar |
Amritsar |
19/11/92 |
650 |
540 |
Parminder Singh |
Hardeep Singh |
Jhabal Kalan |
Amritsar |
09/10/92 |
650 |
710 |
Parminder Singh |
Amrik Singh |
1263 Phase 3B-II, Mohali |
Ropar |
07/05/91 |
651 |
352 |
Piara Singh |
Bhagwan Singh |
Alo Arakh PO. Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
29/09/91 |
652 |
553 |
Piara Singh |
Meja Singh |
Jeobala |
Amritsar |
23/07/92 |
653 |
691 |
Piara Singh |
Surain Singh |
Tibbar |
Gurdaspur |
21/07/90 |
654 |
177 |
Pipal Singh |
Gurbachan Singh |
Dholewal |
Ferozepur |
08/08/91 |
655 |
592 |
Prabhjit Singh |
Harnek Singh |
Phoolewala |
Moga |
Unspecified |
656 |
370 |
Prem Singh Dalladi |
Ghuman Singh |
Dalladi PO. Nabha |
Patiala |
Unspecified |
657 |
780 |
Pritam Singh |
Bhan Singh |
Narpur PO. Chor Sidhwan |
Gurdaspur |
13/12/88 |
658 |
117 |
Prithipal Singh |
Sucha Singh |
Gokalpur |
Amritsar |
26/11/91 |
659 |
689 |
Punjab Singh |
Bachan Singh |
VPO. Khajala |
Gurdaspur |
13/08/91 |
660 |
721 |
Punjab Singh |
Mahan Singh |
Dhapei |
Gurdaspur |
11/12/91 |
661 |
148 |
Rachhpal Singh |
Late S. Jagir Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
23/03/92 |
662 |
149 |
Rachhpal Singh |
Late S. Banta Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
14/11/86 |
663 |
732 |
Rachhpal Singh |
Hari Singh |
Faridkot |
Faridkot |
19/03/93 |
664 |
806 |
Rachhpal Singh |
Anokh Singh |
Jhander |
Amritsar |
07/10/92 |
665 |
250 |
Rachhpal Singh Chhandra |
Late S. Ranjit Singh |
Chhandra |
Ludhiana |
11/06/92 |
666 |
783 |
Raghuveer Singh |
Bant Singh |
Goslan |
Ropar |
28/10/92 |
667 |
407 |
Rajbir Singh |
Preetam Singh |
Zafarwal |
Gurdaspur |
27/04/89 |
668 |
357 |
Rajinder Singh |
Nachhatter Singh |
Balad Kalan |
Sangrur |
12/08/92 |
669 |
746 |
Rajinder Singh |
Saudagar Singh |
Fategarh Sivian |
Ludhiana |
Unspecified |
670 |
718 |
Rajinder Singh |
Late S. Ajmer Singh |
Khanpur, H.No.1245 |
Ropar |
09/10/91 |
671 |
529 |
Rajwinder Singh |
Kashmir Singh |
Panjwar Khurd |
Amritsar |
21/02/95 |
672 |
143 |
Rakesh Kumar |
Vishwa Mitter |
Chachowali PO. Jaintipur |
Amritsar |
21/12/92 |
673 |
482 |
Ram Saroop Singh |
Hukam Singh |
Sihora |
Ludhiana |
15/05/91 |
674 |
186 |
Ram Singh |
Gurmail Singh |
Daun Kalan |
Patiala |
Unspecified |
675 |
795 |
Ram Singh |
Late S. Gura Singh |
Sur Singh Wala |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
676 |
832 |
Ram Singh |
Bahadar Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
03/06/84 |
677 |
011 |
Ram Singh Billing |
Himmat Singh |
Dhadogal |
Sangrur |
03/01/92 |
678 |
324 |
Ranbir Singh Manshahia |
Jarnail Singh Manshahia |
Dabwali Road Bathinda |
Bathinda |
10/09/91 |
679 |
036 |
Randhir Singh |
Sinder Pal Singh |
Amargarh Dhuri Road |
Sangrur |
24/03/93 |
680 |
285 |
Randhir Singh |
Mastan Singh |
Dangian |
Ludhiana |
13/02/94 |
681 |
074 |
Randhir Singh (Jathedar) |
Chanan Singh |
Mal Chak PO. Kang |
Amritsar |
15/05/92 |
682 |
593 |
Ranjit Kaur |
Rachan Singh |
Gharuan |
Ropar |
22/06/92 |
683 |
009 |
Ranjit Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Jakhlan |
Sangrur |
31/07/94 |
684 |
090 |
Ranjit Singh |
Swaran Singh |
Bhambri PO. Khamano |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
10/07/91 |
685 |
171 |
Ranjit Singh |
Kirpal Singh |
Thetharke PO. Dera Baba Nanak |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
686 |
219 |
Ranjit Singh |
Lal Singh |
Guara |
Ludhiana |
25/11/91 |
687 |
251 |
Ranjit Singh |
Late S. Sampooran Singh |
Chhandra |
Ludhiana |
02/10/91 |
688 |
492 |
Ranjit Singh |
Inder Singh |
Nagoke |
Amritsar |
29/01/93 |
689 |
629 |
Ranjit Singh |
Gurdev Singh |
Chowki Mann |
Ludhiana |
01/10/93 |
690 |
640 |
Ranjit Singh |
Sardara Singh |
Pathan Majra PO. Gharam |
Patiala |
Unspecified |
691 |
648 |
Ranjit Singh |
Harnek Singh |
Bathinda, 22162, Gali No. 11/1 |
Bathinda |
Unspecified |
692 |
716 |
Ranjit Singh |
Pala Singh |
Datarpur PO. Rattangarh |
Ropar |
Unspecified |
693 |
771 |
Ranjit Singh |
Sewa Singh |
Kaler Mangat PO. Luddar |
Amritsar |
12/09/92 |
694 |
693 |
Rattan Singh |
Virsa Singh |
Amam Nagar PO. Karhali |
Patiala |
20/11/95 |
695 |
499 |
Ravinder Singh |
Bela Singh |
Dugalwal |
Gurdaspur |
12/07/91 |
696 |
514 |
Resham Singh |
Bhagwan Singh |
Booh PO. Fattu Dhinga |
Kapurthala |
06/06/84 |
697 |
726 |
Resham Singh |
Tara Singh |
Kuharka PO. Shahbazpur |
Amritsar |
11/12/92 |
698 |
785 |
Resham Singh |
Bakshish Singh |
Amritsar, PO. Vijay Nager, Gali 8, H.N. 55-56 |
Amritsar |
02/11/90 |
699 |
507 |
Rulda Singh |
Dharam Singh |
Atari PO Bela |
Ropar |
08/02/93 |
700 |
085 |
Rupinderjit Singh |
Bhajan Singh |
Kang, Patti Talwandi Di |
Amritsar |
01/06/92 |
701 |
525 |
Sadhu Singh |
Bant Singh |
G.T.B. Garh Rode |
Moga |
26/11/90 |
702 |
603 |
Sadhu Singh |
Teja Singh |
Phoolewala |
Moga |
18/06/87 |
703 |
122 |
Sahab Singh |
Dara Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
704 |
175 |
Sahib Singh |
Piara Singh |
Kashtiwal |
Gurdaspur |
16/05/92 |
705 |
374 |
Sahib Singh |
Piara Singh |
Kaleke |
Amritsar |
14/11/92 |
706 |
588 |
Sahib Singh |
Kirpal Singh |
Sangan |
Kaithal (Haryana) |
06/06/84 |
707 |
743 |
Sahib Singh |
Late S. Soorta Singh |
Sahoora |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
708 |
834 |
Salwant Singh |
Mukhtar Singh |
Jeobala |
Amritsar |
31/07/91 |
709 |
558 |
Salwinder Singh |
Mangal Singh |
Singhpura |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
710 |
662 |
Salwinder Singh |
Shabaig Singh |
Manihala Jai Singh PO. Kutcha Pucca |
Amritsar |
30/08/92 |
711 |
764 |
Salwinder Singh |
Late S. Sucha Singh |
Dhotian |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
712 |
380 |
Santokh Singh |
Saroop Singh |
Behla PO. Rataul |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
713 |
448 |
Santokh Singh |
Sher Singh |
Saron |
Sangrur |
04/07/91 |
714 |
559 |
Sarbjit Singh Jauhal |
Balvir Singh Jauhal (Jathedar) |
Jauhal |
Hoshiarpur |
10/09/87 |
715 |
016 |
Sarbjit Singh |
Balbir Singh |
Bhadarvadh |
Sangrur |
10/07/93 |
716 |
080 |
Sardara Singh |
Late Bur Singh |
Kaleke PO. Khilchian |
Amritsar |
10/11/91 |
717 |
751 |
Sardool Singh |
Late S. Pooran Singh |
Rahal Chahal PO. Sangatpur |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
718 |
124 |
Sardul Singh |
Aasa Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amritsar |
29/07/93 |
719 |
311 |
Saroop Singh |
Preetam Singh |
Nangal Khunga |
Hoshiarpur |
26/05/89 |
720 |
534 |
Sarup Singh |
Santokh Singh |
Fatehpur Badeshe PO. Mian Wind |
Amritsar |
06/07/92 |
721 |
040 |
Satgur Singh |
Kaku Singh |
Palasaur PO. Bhalwan |
Sangrur |
20/07/90 |
722 |
103 |
Satnam Singh |
Harbans Singh |
Dalla PO. Leel Kalan Qadian |
Gurdaspur |
02/06/92 |
723 |
127 |
Satnam Singh |
Gulzar Singh |
Jalalabad |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
724 |
563 |
Satnam Singh |
Prem Singh |
Mahadian |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
10/08/88 |
725 |
683 |
Satnam Singh |
Jarnail Singh |
Kairon |
Amritsar |
04/06/92 |
726 |
720 |
Satnam Singh |
Sohan Singh |
Dhapei |
Gurdaspur |
26/02/91 |
727 |
773 |
Satnam Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Jallupur Khaira |
Amritsar |
10/03/93 |
728 |
207 |
Satpal Singh Satyal |
Late S. Surjit Singh Stayal |
H.No. 250, Satyal Niwas |
Ropar |
21/09/92 |
729 |
043 |
Saudagar Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Mangewal PO. Kurad |
Sangrur |
26/07/90 |
730 |
071 |
Savinder Singh |
Joginder Singh |
Bagge Khurd PO. Bagge Kalan |
Amritsar |
05/09/87 |
731 |
131 |
Sawinder Pal Singh |
Jeevan Singh |
Jaura |
Amritsar |
02/04/91 |
732 |
189 |
Sawinder Singh |
Dalip Singh |
Athwal PO. Fatupur Dehar |
Gurdaspur |
20/06/93 |
733 |
234 |
Sawinder Singh |
Pooran Singh |
Kale Ke PO. Khilchian |
Amritsar |
27/03/93 |
734 |
314 |
Sawinder Singh |
Amar Singh |
Kalanaur |
Gurdaspur |
05/11/87 |
735 |
619 |
Sawinder Singh |
Bhagat Singh |
Padde, PO. Pheruman |
Amritsar |
03/04/91 |
736 |
202 |
Sewa Singh |
Late S. Cheta Singh |
Gharuan Uchand |
Ropar |
18/09/92 |
737 |
398 |
Sewak Singh |
Balkar Singh |
Kala Afghana |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
738 |
353 |
Shamsher Singh |
Chhota Singh |
Aloa Rakh PO. Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
27/02/94 |
739 |
333 |
Sher Singh |
Bakhshish Singh |
Khiala Kalan |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
740 |
291 |
Shingara Singh |
Jagar Singh |
Bega Lehra PO. Bhucho Mandi |
Bathinda |
Unspecified |
741 |
517 |
Shingara Singh |
Atma Singh |
Booh PO. Fattu Dhinga |
Kapurthala |
06/06/84 |
742 |
807 |
Shingara Singh |
Boota Singh |
Rose PO. Pakiwan |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
743 |
281 |
Sikandar Singh |
Harnek Singh |
Lehra Bega PO. Bhucho Mandi |
Bathinda |
30/05/92 |
744 |
377 |
Skattar Singh |
Niranjan Singh |
Behla PO. Ratual |
Amritsar |
08/06/92 |
745 |
298 |
Sohan Singh Butter |
Phoola Singh @ Tar Singh |
Dan Singh Wala |
Bathinda |
29/01/93 |
746 |
079 |
Soma |
Tirath Ram |
Ghanupur PO. Chheharta, Bhangali Wala Khu |
Amritsar |
27/03/89 |
747 |
158 |
Suba Singh |
Late S. Lakha Singh |
Shahpur Goraya |
Gurdaspur |
08/11/90 |
748 |
696 |
Suba Singh |
Gurbachan Singh |
Shakoor |
Ferozepur |
28/03/91 |
749 |
556 |
Subash Singh |
Diwan Singh |
Jathuwal |
Amritsar |
10/04/91 |
750 |
789 |
Subeg Singh |
Dhian Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
21/03/89 |
751 |
112 |
Sucha Singh |
|
VPO. Thande |
Gurdaspur |
13/08/91 |
752 |
397 |
Sucha Singh |
Teja Singh |
Pabarli Kalan PO. Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
05/06/91 |
753 |
802 |
Sucha Singh |
Pal Singh |
Varpal |
Amritsar |
14/03/92 |
754 |
350 |
Sudagar Singh |
Late S. Hari Singh |
Bakhtari PO. Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
20/12/92 |
755 |
381 |
Sudama Singh |
Sahib Singh |
Dheri |
Ludhiana |
19/03/88 |
756 |
041 |
Sukh Sagar Singh |
Jatinder Singh |
Beehla |
Sangrur |
18/08/93 |
757 |
249 |
Sukhbir Singh Khalsa |
Tara Singh |
Sujo |
Nawanshehar |
26/04/94 |
758 |
494 |
Sukhbir Singh Kunnar |
Jagpal Singh |
Kot Gangu Rai |
Ludhiana |
21/07/91 |
759 |
037 |
Sukhchain Singh |
Santokh Singh |
Mann Khehra |
Gurdaspur |
18/03/91 |
760 |
468 |
Sukhdeep Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
15/05/92 |
761 |
007 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Bhan Singh |
Vill. Dhotian |
Amritsar |
04/12/92 |
762 |
025 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Santa Singh |
Moom |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
763 |
173 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Late S. Kesar Singh |
Qadian Gujran PO. Shahpur Goraya |
Gurdaspur |
27/08/91 |
764 |
371 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Sudagar Singh |
Daun Khurd PO. Boharpur Janherian |
Patiala |
09/09/91 |
765 |
386 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Shingara Singh |
Kala Afghana |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
766 |
388 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Maulvi Kot PO. Paracha |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
767 |
474 |
Sukhdev Singh |
|
Main Bazar, Ghanupur |
Amritsar |
31/10/92 |
768 |
539 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Chanchal Singh |
Vill. Naurangabad |
Amritsar |
26/07/90 |
769 |
581 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Sardool Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
01/11/93 |
770 |
627 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Late S. Nachhatter singh |
Chowki Mann |
Ludhiana |
29/09/93 |
771 |
635 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Sher Singh |
Sohana |
Ropar |
13/11/92 |
772 |
651 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Dan Singh |
Baba Bhan Singh Kothe |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
773 |
674 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Surjit Singh |
Loham |
Ferozepur |
05/07/89 |
774 |
758 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Karam Singh |
Chachowali PO. Jaintipur |
Amirisar |
03/01/94 |
775 |
787 |
Sukhdev Singh |
Late S. Sardool Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amirisar |
01/11/92 |
776 |
198 |
Sukhdev Singh Lali |
Sulakhan Singh |
Panjgraeen |
Gurdaspur |
29/05/91 |
777 |
476 |
Sukhjinder Singh |
Ajaib Singh |
Vill. Janian PO. Bundala |
Amirtsar |
02/03/90 |
778 |
463 |
Sukhjit Singh |
Harpal Singh |
Rajo Majra |
Sangrur |
04/02/93 |
779 |
242 |
Sukhmandar Singh |
Major Singh |
Dalla |
Ludhiana |
20/07/92 |
780 |
385 |
Sukhpal Singh |
Jagir Singh (Babe Ke) |
Kala Afghana |
Gurdaspur |
13/08/94 |
781 |
120 |
Sukhraj Singh |
Hazara Singh |
Gagrewal |
Amirtsar |
Unspecified |
782 |
400 |
Sukhwant Singh |
Preetam Singh |
Bamb PO. Rai Mall |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
783 |
406 |
Sukhwant Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Marhian Wala PO. Batala |
Gurdaspur |
05/02/91 |
784 |
754 |
Sukhwant Singh |
Kashmir Singh |
Lohar PO. Jauhal Dhahe Wala |
Amritsar |
28/04/92 |
785 |
387 |
Sukhwinder Kaur |
Ram Singh |
Kala Afghana |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
786 |
010 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Ram Dhan Singh |
Wajidpur Badeshan PO Mahamadpur |
Sangrur |
08/07/93 |
787 |
115 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Gian Singh Nambardar |
Mallian |
Amritsar |
13/12/91 |
788 |
160 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Niranjan Singh |
Chaura PO. Dera Baba Nanak |
Gurdaspur |
05/05/93 |
789 |
211 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Punjab Singh |
VPO. Kakkari |
Amirtsar |
09/08/91 |
790 |
238 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Shingar Singh |
Batala |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
791 |
360 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Randhir Singh |
Masani PO. Nadampur |
Sangrur |
24/06/92 |
792 |
376 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Atar Singh |
Kohali |
Amritsar |
26/11/86 |
793 |
590 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Darshan Singh |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
13/04/88 |
794 |
614 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Dildar Singh |
Khela PO. Fatehabad |
Amritsar |
18/04/93 |
795 |
656 |
Sukhwinder Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Manihala Jai Singh PO. Kutcha Pucca |
Amritsar |
24/01/90 |
796 |
488 |
Sukhwinder Singh Bhatti |
Tara Singh |
Badbar |
Sangrur |
12/05/94 |
797 |
193 |
Sulakhan Singh |
Late S. Sohan Singh |
Panj Graeen |
Gurdaspur |
29/05/91 |
798 |
475 |
Sulakhan Singh |
|
Vill. Bhakna |
Amritsar |
31/10/92 |
799 |
798 |
Sulkhan Singh |
Kulbir Singh |
Hemraj Pur |
Gurdaspur |
09/05/92 |
800 |
006 |
Suleman Khan |
Jora Khan |
Sehna |
Sangrur |
14/12/90 |
801 |
348 |
Sumitter Singh |
Faqir Singh |
Mulanwal |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
802 |
259 |
Surinder Singh |
Ram Chand |
Chunni Kalan |
Fatehgarh Sahib |
28/09/90 |
803 |
453 |
Surinder Singh |
Nachhattar Singh |
Dhandra PO. Barawal |
Sangrur |
Unspecified |
804 |
788 |
Surinder Singh |
Late S. Veer Singh |
Sur Singh |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
805 |
686 |
Surinderpal Singh |
Inder Singh |
Dhudhipura PO. Naushehra Majha Singh |
Gurdaspur |
03/02/88 |
806 |
688 |
Surjan Singh |
Surain Singh |
Tibbar |
Gurdaspur |
04/01/92 |
807 |
045 |
Surjit Singh |
Amar Singh |
Kathu |
Sangrur |
16/04/92 |
808 |
204 |
Surjit Singh |
Dharam Singh |
Attari PO.Bela |
Ropar |
08/02/93 |
809 |
222 |
Surjit Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
02/06/92 |
810 |
346 |
Surjit Singh |
Sher Singh |
Guru Har Sahai |
Ferozepur |
Unspecified |
811 |
586 |
Surjit Singh |
Inder Singh |
Tharu |
Amritsar |
02/07/93 |
812 |
723 |
Surjit Singh |
Mahnider Singh |
Bhamri |
Gurdaspur |
11/12/91 |
813 |
660 |
Sukhwinder Kaur |
Hardial Singh |
Sultanwind |
Amritsar |
07/09/92 |
814 |
384 |
Swaran Kaur |
|
Dhindsa PO. Kot Todar Mal |
Gurdaspur |
06/06/84 |
815 |
554 |
Swaran Singh |
Kartar Singh |
Naubad Mari PO. Algon Kothi |
Amritsar |
23/07/92 |
816 |
410 |
Swaranjit Singh |
Channan Singh |
Aladinpur |
Amritsar |
12/11/87 |
817 |
811 |
Talwinder Singh |
Hardial Singh |
Tola Nangal PO. Raja Sansi |
Amritsar |
20/11/90 |
818 |
169 |
Tara Singh |
Wasawa Singh |
Sagarpura PO. Chaudharywala |
Gurdaspur |
24/12/87 |
819 |
670 |
Tara Singh Sandhu |
Ishar Singh |
Manj Phaguwal PO. Ladhowal |
Ludhiana |
13/07/87 |
820 |
152 |
Tarlochan Singh |
Late S. Harbhajan Singh |
Sadhpura Chogawan |
Amritsar |
08/10/90 |
821 |
256 |
Tarlochan Singh |
Daulat Singh |
VPO. Ghuman |
Ludhiana |
18/01/91 |
822 |
364 |
Tarlochan Singh |
Man Mohinder Singh |
Kapial |
Sangrur |
21/09/92 |
823 |
601 |
Tarlochan Singh |
Kundan Singh |
Ludhiana, H.No. 289, Shaheed K.S. Nagar Ludhiana |
Ludhiana |
15/03/88 |
824 |
630 |
Tarlochan Singh |
Jagit Singh |
Sehke PO. Guara |
Sangrur |
13/03/93 |
825 |
663 |
Tarlok Singh Khalsa |
Gajjan Singh |
Rurka Kalan |
Ludhiana |
27/06/90 |
826 |
223 |
Tarsem Singh |
Ashar Singh |
Sanghna |
Amritsar |
01/09/92 |
827 |
236 |
Tarsem Singh |
Sohan Singh |
Vero Nangal PO. Rangar Nangal |
Gurdaspur |
Unspecified |
828 |
078 |
Tasbir Singh |
Jathedar Anoop singh |
Dander |
Amritsar |
09/09/91 |
829 |
280 |
Tej Kaur |
Harnek Singh (Husband) |
Lehra Bega PO. Bhucho Mandi |
Bathinda |
02/09/91 |
830 |
705 |
Teja Singh |
Basant Singh |
Fatehgarh Sivian |
Ludhiana |
01/08/92 |
831 |
508 |
Tejinderpal Singh |
Sukhdev Singh |
VPO.Satkoha |
Gurdaspur |
24/04/91 |
832 |
436 |
Tejpal Singh |
Hazara Singh |
Bhaku Majra |
Ropar |
Unspecified |
833 |
021 |
Veer Singh |
SundarSingh |
Jahangir PO. Kaheru |
Sangrur |
10/02/93 |
834 |
338 |
Vir Singh |
Mahinder Singh |
Kaler PO. Raja Sansi |
Amritsar |
Unspecified |
835 |
515 |
Virsa Singh |
Jagir Singh |
Booh PO. Fattu Dhinga |
Kapurthala |
09/10/92 |
836 |
139 |
Waryam Singh |
Nazar Singh |
Bure Nangal PO. Rangar Nangal |
Gurdaspur |
05/09/90 |
837 |
365 |
Yadvinder Singh |
Bhajan Singh |
Bhawanigarh |
Sangrur |
23/08/91 |
838 |
484 |
Yadwinder Singh |
Angrej Singh |
Harike Pattan |
Amritsar |
25/12/92 |
The Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab
Chandigarh Secretariat: 742, Sector 8, Chandigarh. Tel. 544920
New Delhi Secretariat: 56 Todarmal road, (Bengali Market) N Delhi. Tel. 3714531
A Design for Incident Report Form
Name of the disappeared/ dead person:
Caste:
Father's name:
Mother's name:
Address:
...............................................................................................................(top sheet : to tear along the dotted line)
Name of the disappeared/ dead person:
Alias, if any:
Caste:
Father's name:
Mother's name:
Address:
Alias if any:
Age (Give date of birth if possible):
Educational qualification:
Profession/ occupation:
Monthly earning:
Other sources of income:
Marital status:
Name of the spouse and the address:
Age:
Employed/ unemployed/ details:
Spouse's parents:
Father's name and age:
Mother's name and age:
Profession/occupation:
Residence:
Children:
Names/age/sex:
Names of other dependants within the joint family:
General background of the disappeared/ dead person:
(Specially relevant would be details of hostile interaction with the security forces since 1984.)
Date and time of disappearance:
Location of disappearance:
(Include as much detail as possible)
Circumstances of disappearance:
(Short narrative statement with names of people responsible)
Are there witnesses? Yes/No.
Details of witnesses: Names/ addresses:
(Note: Specify if you do not wish to divulge the names of witnesses for the present. In which case do not fill this column.)
Perpetrator/s:
Name/s:
Age/ Physical description:
The security agency to which the perpetrator/s belong:
Rank
Uniformed or in plainclothes?
Description of uniform/dress:
Attached to which police station when the incident happened?
The present posting:
Any other details which you might want to add:
When was the person last seen?
By whom?
Where?
Steps taken to trace the "disappeared" and the results:
First Information Report filed? Yes/No
If yes, the number and the date:
The name of the police station:
Name of the officer who recorded the report:
Outcome, if any:
Habeas Corpus Petition filed? Yes/No
If yes, the number, date, and the court:
Name of the lawyer:
Address:
Telephone No.
Outcome:
Appeals made to local and national authorities. Give details. Photocopies if possible:
Ourcome:
Is it possible that the disappeared person may be alive? Yes/ No
Give reasons why you believe this:
If believed to be alive, name the location where the person might be found:
Is it assumed that the person has been killed and cremated? Yes/ No
If yes, why you believe this:
Is it assumed that the dead-body was disposed of in any other manner? Yes/ No
If yes, explain why you believe this:
Was the incident reported in newspapers? Yes/No
If yes, name the newspaper/s:
Date/s on which the report appeared:
Was there ever any report in the press about the disappeared/ dead prior to this incident? Yes/ No
Give details:
Enclose copies if possible.
Have you had any official or unofficial communications with police officials concerning the fate of the person at any time? Yes/No
If yes, give details:
Has any other person known to you has also "disappeared"/ abducted/ reported killed in armed encounter in connection with the reported incident? Yes/No
If yes, give details:
Do you know of the "disappearance" of any other person?
Has any other member/s of your family "disappeared"? Yes/No
If yes, give details:
you receive the dead body for performing the last rites? Yes/ No.
If yes, from whom?
Was any property (structures, possessions, live stock or other chattel) damaged/ destroyed/ stolen/ expropriated in the course of the incident or subsequently? Yes/ No
If yes, give details:
Who owned the property which was damaged/ destroyed/ stolen/ expropriated?
Who damaged/ destroyed/ stole/ expropriated?
Names:
Agency to which they belong:
Rank-designation:
Description for identification:
Age:
Physical description:
Describe the property:
1. Damaged: Value:
2. Destroyed: Value:
3. Stolen: Value:
4. Expropriated: Value:
Has the event of "disappearance" had any psychological/medical consequences in the family? Yes/No:
If yes, give details:
Hospitalization/ Expenses:
Has there been any death in the family connected/ subsequent to the event of "disappearance"? Yes/No:
If yes, give details:
Other comments:
Signature of the person giving details of the incident:
Name in full:
Father's name:
Mother's name:
Relationship to the missing/ killed/ cremated person:
Present Address:
Date/Place
HUMAN RIGHTS WING (S.A.D)
HEAD OFFICE: KOTHI NO. 30, Sec. 5, Chandigarh-160005 (INDIA)
Ph. (0172) 541244 P.P.
___________________________________________________________________________
Ref. No. 103/95 Dated: 16-01-95
"DISAPPEARED:" CREMATION GROUNDS.
The cases of "disappeared" persons has been a source of constant concern for all human rights groups working in the Punjab. An estimated 2000 families from the district of Amritsar alone, wait agonisingly for the return of their near and dear ones. Some families, who cannot bear the uncertainty any more, just want to know if their son, brother, husband or daughter is dead or alive so that they can perform the last religious rites and accept the tragedy as the will of God.
The Human Rights Wing (HRW) of the Shiromani Akali Dal constituted a two member team to investigate into the matter and try to get some leads, at least to the "disappearances". The investigation team came across some astounding facts which are being released as under.
The investigation team decided to work in the Amritsar area and its neighbouring police districts. It was learnt that the police regularly bring bodies to the municipality cremation grounds for cremation, declaring them as unclaimed. The team found that 400 unclaimed bodies had been brought for cremation to the Patti municipality cremation grounds. Bodies brought to the Patti municipal committee's cremation grounds came from as far as Khalra - 40 Kms, Kairon - 10 Kms, Harike - 15 Kms, Valtoha - 30 Kms, Bhiki - 25 Kms. 700 unclaimed bodies to the Tarn Taran municipality cremation grounds. The only record of these unclaimed bodies is available from the receipt book through which firewood was issued for the disposal of the bodies. The receipt book has the date and number of bodies brought, recorded on it.
In Amritsar district, the maximum unclaimed bodies brought for cremation was to the cremation grounds near the Durgiana Mandir. From 1st June 1984 to the end of 1994 about 2000 bodies have been cremated as unclaimed. The officials of the Durgiana Mandir cremation grounds expressed their inability to show any records, but suggested that details will be available with the Amritsar registrar of Births and Deaths. The details which could be gathered at the registrar's office are given below.
During the 1st year of the Govt. of Mr. Beant Singh, 300 unclaimed bodies were brought to the Durgiana Mandir cremation grounds by the police department. Out of these 300 bodies names of 112 have been given and the rest were declared as unidentified. 41 persons have been recorded to have died of bullet injuries or police encounters. No reason has been recorded for the cause of the death of 259 persons. Postmortems were conducted only on 24 bodies by the Amritsar Medical College. No postmortem was conducted on 276 bodies. 5 bodies of females, as per the record, out of which names of 3 have been recorded. The details of the 3 female bodies are:- Harpal Kaur, Village Dhulka. Dated 25.12.92. Achint Kaur & companion. Dated 30.9.92.
Two bodies are those of Kashmiris of Sopore, cause of death, "encounter". One unclaimed body is from near Chamkaur Sahib, in Ropar district.
Baghel Singh alias Gurdarshan Singh of village Deriwal was nabbed by the Punjab Police in Bihar. News of his "arrest" was reported in the Punjab press. Various organisations in Punjab apprehended him being eliminated in a faked encounter. This was around the last week of Nov/first week of Dec/91. On the 19th.1.92, the police knowing fully well the identity of Baghel Singh and his village, brought his body to the Durgiana Mandir cremation grounds for cremation as unidentified and unclaimed.
Mr. Piara Singh s/o Shingara Singh, Director of Central Co-operative Bank in Amritsar, paternal uncle of Harminder Singh Sultanwind (Militant), Mr. Piara Singh had gone to a relative's farm in Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh. One morning, a jeep drove up to the farm house, a team of doctors attired in white coats, sporting stethoscopes approached the residents of the farm requesting them that a V.I.P. was coming to the neighbouring village to inaugurate a Govt. medical clinic and some respectable citizens should also grace the occasion. They requested Mr. Piara Singh to come with them. Mr. Piara Singh ended up at the Durgiana Mandir cremation ground on 16-12-92.
Mr. Pargat Singh "Bullet" was undergoing treatment at the Guru Nanak Hospital Amritsar. He was abducted by the Raja Sansi police and his "unidentified" body was brought to the Durgiana Mandir cremation grounds on 3-11-92.
As per the Punjab Police Rules No. 3, Rule 25.38 in Chapter XXV states the procedure to be adopted in cases of dead bodies which are unidentified. The rule is quoted as below: 25.38. If a body is unidentified, the officer making the investigation shall record a careful decription of it, giving all marks, peculiarities, deformities and distinctive features, shall take the finger impressions and in addition to taking all other reasonable steps to secure identification, shall, if possible, have it photographed and in case where such action appears desirable, a description published in the criminal intelligence Gazette.
Unidentified corpses should be handed over to any charitable society which is willing to accept them, and if no such society comes forward, they should then be buried or burned.
What is surprising is that the police has given the identity of the body and also the village and yet disposed off the body as "unidentified" or "unknown". The police has not bothered to give the nature of deaths.
HRW would like to add here that this disposal of bodies is in addition to bodies that are weighed down and dumped into the various rivers and canals.
HRW places on record details of just a few cremation grounds. Similar will be the picture from the remaining cremation grounds.
HRW demands that keeping in view the seriousness of the case in mind, the High Court order a CBI inquiry into the matter, and the deaths placed on record. So that the agonising wait of thousands of families may end. Dependents can get death certificates issued so that those who were employed, can proceed with the departmental formalities.
The investigation team comprised of Mr. Jaswant Singh Khalra and Jaspal Singh Dhillon.
Sd/- Sd/-
(JASWANT SINGH KHALRA) (JASPAL SINGH DHILLON)
[1] Now India’s Foreign Minister
[2] The Indian Express, 2 June 1997
[3] IE, 8 June 1997
[4] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Vintage Books, NY, 1997; Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, Edward Arnold, London, 1993; Michael R. Marrus, The Holocaust in History, Hanover, 1987; Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, Bantam Books, NY, 1975; Gerald Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, Berkely, 1984; Klaus Hildebrand, The Third Reich, Allen & Unwin, 1984; Robert Jay Lofton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, Basic Books, NY, 1986, and several others.
[5] The Tribune, 24 April 1984, Let army control Punjab: Advani; 4 May 1984, Get tough with terrorists; 18 May 1984, Akali Dal, Center in Dilemma; May 28, 1984, Madhook for army rule in Punjab; 6 May 1984, Eight organizations of Hindus merge; 23 May 1984, Poll outcome a jolt for Congress-I.
[6] Ram Narayan Kumar & Georg Sieberer, The Sikh Struggle: Origin, Evolution and Present Phase, Delhi, 91, pp. 287-291.
[7] Kartar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1994 2 JT SC 423: 1994 1 Apex Decisions SC(Criminal)413: 1994 Cri LJ 3139
[8] M. Lerner, The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion, Plenum Press, NY, 1980
[9] David Weissbrodt and James McCarthy, Fact-Finding by NGOs, in B. G. Ramcharan, International Law and Fact Finding in the Field of HumanRights, Martinus Nijhoff, Hague, 1982, p. 190.
[10] Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, Boston, South End Press, 1989
[11] Stanley Cohen, Denial and Acknowledgement: The Impact of Information About Human Rights, Chapter One
[12] Fortnightly Circular, 14 November 97.
[13] Second Newsletter, 16 December 1997
[14] Shahadat International, Editor Karamjit Singh, Publisher and Printer Jaspal Singh Dhillon, Chandigarh, June 98.
[15] The draft on the issues of Inquiry and their terms of reference, presented to Justice Kuldip Singh by R. N. Kumar and RS Bains on 2 June 98 morning
[16] Times of India, 8 August 1994
[17] Philip Woodruff, The Men who Ruled India, Vol. I. pp. 263-4
[18] IOL:R, London, Mss. Eur. D. 1065/1, F. 180/70, R. 161
[19] Mss. Eur. F. 180/69, IOL:R
[20] David Rose, In the name of the Law, Jonathan Cape, London, 96, pp. 1-13; Independent, 18 October 1989
[21] HT. 7 October 1983. Extremists kill eight bus, train passengers; HT. 15 October 1983, 3 dead in Chandigarh Ramlila explosion; HT. 16 October 1983. Grenades thrown into Ludhiana temple: 2 hurt; HT. 14 October 1983. Blasts rock two Delhi cinemas; Tribune. 20 November 1983. Murder of 4 bus passengers: Pande rushes to Amritsar;; The Tribune, 16 April 1984. 37 railway stations set on fire; 16 April. 3 More railway stations burnt; The Tribune, 26 July 1986, Terrorists gun down 15: Curfew in Muktsar; 8 July 1987, Bus Massacre toll 40; 5 March 1987, Village massacre toll 35; 23 March 1991, militants gun down 30; 4 April 1991, Blast kills 6 in Amritsar; 10 April 1991, Thirteen Dalits gunned down in Faridkot village;23 March 1991, Nine relatives of cops shot; 25 March 1991, Eight relatives of cops shot; 29 April 1991, Dam[M] candidate cremated; 14 May 1991, One hundred and eleven candidates untraceable: Jalundhar poll countermanded; 28 May 1991, AISSF candidate shot dead; 29 May 1991, AISSF's Muktsar candidate killed; , 11 May 1991, Militants kill six farm laborers; 13 May 1991, Dalits gunned down in Faridkot village; 17 May 1991, 11 Massacred in farmhouse; The Tribune, 17 June 1991, Train massacre toll 74; 28 December 1991, KLF behind massacre: 3 guards among 51 killed; 17 June 1991, Train massacre toll 74; 9 January 1992, Militants kill 18 in Kharar, Sangrur.
[22] Volume One, Chapter One, para 54
[23] Volume One, Chapter One, Para 70; Volume Two, Chapter Six
[24] Volume One, Chapter Four, para 7; Volume Two, Chapter Four, paras 4-7
[25] Lawrence T. Farley, Plebiscites and Sovereignty: The Crisis of Political Illegitimacy, Boulder, Westview Press, 1986, p. 17; Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World, NY, Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 150-9.
[26] Philip Allott, Eunomia: New Order for a New World, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990: p. 298; Ethnic Conflicts Worldwide, Current History, 92 April 1993: 167-8; Lawrence T. Farley, ibid, pp. 11-12; Jeff Greenwald, "The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: Diplomacy's Cutting Edge," Whole Earth Review, Winter 1992: 32-36; Morton Halperin and David J. Scheffer with Patricia L. Small, Self-Determination in the New World Order, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1992; 123-60; Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization brochure.
[27] Article on the Quetta earthquake written in August 1935 and reprinted in India and the World, London, 1936, p. 147.
[28] The Springing Tiger, A Study of Subhas Chandra Bose, Hugh Toye, Cassell, London, 1959, p. 21.
[29] M. N. Das, India under Morley and Minto, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1964 pp. 144-5
[30] Morley Collection, IOL, Eur. D. 573,84. Letter dated 8th December 1908
[31] Edwin Montagu, A Memoir and an Account of his visits to India, S. D. Waley, Asia Publishing House, Bombay 1964. pp. 197-203
[32] The Indian calendars divide a year of 360 days into 12 lunar months of 28 or 29 days, adjusting the discrepancy with a complicated system of intercalating a leap month. The names of the months are: Caitra or Chait (March-April), Vaishakha or Baisakh (April-May), Jyaistha or Jeth (May-June), Asadha or Ashad (June-July), Shravana or Savan (July-August), Bhadrapada or Bhadon (August-September), Ashvina or Asvan (September-October), Karttika or Kattik (October-November), Margashirsa or Makar (November-December), Pausa or Paus (December-January), Magha (January-February), and Phalguna or Phagon (February-March). Confusion and error, without a correct comparison, is inevitable because the Indian months overlap two Gregorian months.)
[33] On 9 July 97, the Tribune carried a lengthy report with the caption, “Frustrated father ends life”. The story referred to his five and a half years of battle for justice and his diappointment with the entire system, which compelled him to take his own life. Ajayab Singh had met almost all the Chief Ministers and police Chiefs of Punjab. But no one was able to even tell him what happened to his son lifted by SHO Ajaib Singh from a barrier outside Amritsar railway station on 20 December 91.
[34] CCDP Incident-Report Proforma No. 00100. Ajaib Singh’s second son Jagbir Singh lives at House No. 24, Sahabjada Jujhar Singh Nagar, Post Office Gumtala, Ajnala road, Amritsar. I interviewed the family members of Ajaib Singh for the first time in the third week of September 1997 during a field visit to Amritsar along with Amrik Singh, Secretary Documentation of the Committee.
[35] Ram Narayan Kumar & Georg Sieberer, The Sikh Struggle: Origin, Evolution and Present Phase, Delhi 91, p. 270. Longowal was assassinated on 20 August 1985, twenty-six days after he signed the Accord with the Indian Prime Minister.
[36] The Tribune, 23 January 1986, Indira murder case: Satwant two others to die
[37] The Tribune, 26 January 1986, Punjab, Haryana decisions deferred - Mathew Panel Report: City status unchanged.
[38] The Tribune, 27 January 1986, Sarbat Khalsa dissolves SGPC: Akal Takht Chief sacked; 28 January 1986, New Takht chief installed.
[39] The Tribune, 13 April 1986, Sarbat Khalsa Today: Plan to avert showdown; 14 April 1986, Severe attack on Akali Ministry: Sarbat Khalsa for new SGPC
[40] The Tribune, 1 May 1986, Security men enter Temple complex: Curfew in 18 Localities; Resolve to Launch fight to the finish; 2 May 1986, Police action successful: One killed in firing
[41] The Tribune, 3 May 1986, Badal Tohra leave Dal Panel: Two Punjab Ministers quit; 7 May 1986, Twenty seven Dal MLAs form new party: Government reduced to minority
[42] Julio Ribeiro, Bullet for Bullet: My Life as a Police Officer”, Penguin Books, 1998
[43] ibid, p. 349
[44] ibid, pp. 350-352
[45] ibid, p. 310
[46] ibid, p. 329
[47] The Tribune, 1 April 1986, Barnala on the right track; 21 July 1986, The hardcore identified; 30 July 1986, PM for free hand to police: help promised to Barnala; 18 August 1986, Police given six months to finish terrorist: Police wants more powers; 12 February 1987, BSF pins hopes on operation bird; The Tribune, 5 October 1986, Dal[B] leaders praise assailants of PM, Ribeiro.
[48] ibid, p. 318
[49] The Indian Express, 24 March 1988, Article by V. M. Tarkunde; 23 March 1988, Article by F. S. Nariman; 4 April 1988, Article by Ram Jethmalani
[50] Kartar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, (1994 2 JT SC 423: 1 Apex Decisions SC [Criminal] 413: 1994 Cri LJ 3139) was pronounced on 11 March 1994. According to the National Human Rights Commission, the police registered 17, 529 cases under TADA in Punjab between 1985 and 1994. The Commission mentioned the total number of prisoners under TADA in three states of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and Gujrat as 47,000. (The Time of India, 8 August 94)
[51] My involvement with the documentation of human rights violations in Punjab started with the formation of the Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab, which can trace its origins to Delhi’s anti-Sikh mayhem of November 1984. As all know, the bloody carnage, in the wake of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination, had been orchestrated by politicians and silently condoned by the security forces. Most members of the Committee, all non-Sikhs, were involved in the rescue and relief efforts.
[52] The Times of India, 11 April 1988, Is the Tiwana Report only for the record?; The Indian Express, 9 April 1988, 59th Amendment condemned; Onlooker, October 16-31, 1988, Extra-judicial executions in Punjab; Sunday Mail, April 17-23, 1988, Tiwana Report blames police, & May 29 - June 4, 1988, Tortured but not subdued; the Indian Express, 10 April 1989, Government not to allow Sarbat Khalsa: Gill; The Times of India, 8 April 1989, Report on “State Terrorism” in Punjab released; The Tribune, 8 April 1989, Report on State terrorism; The Hindustan Times, 20 February 1989, Police atrocities in Punjab alleged; The Times of India, 20 Feb., 1989, State terrorism in Punjab alleged; The Hindustan Times, 8 April 1988, Punjab police charged with atrocities; The Indian Express, 19 June 1988, Sidhu in illegal police custody; The Times of India, 8 May 1990, Report indicts India on Punjab; The India Express, 26 May 1990, Need for true federalism stressed; The Indian Express, October 31, 1990, PunjabStudies Circle floated; The Statesman, 6 November 1990, Documenting the history of the Khalistan campaign; The Statesman, 2 February 1990, Rally by human rights activists; The Pioneer, 8 April 1992, No one is spared & An outrage in Punjab; Mainstream, 25 April 1992, Rule of Law in Punjab.
[53] The Tribune, 21 January 1988, Complex hotbed of terrorism?; 1 August 1988, Temple Complex under sway of KCF
[54] Ram Narayan Kumar, The Sikh Unrest, ibid, pp. 262-3; The Indian Express, 25 May 1988
[55] The Sikh Unrest, ibid, pp. 241-2, 274-276;
[56] ibid, pp. 275-276
[57] The Tribune, 4 December 89
[58] Kumar, Sieberer, The Sikh Struggle, ibid, pp. 383
[59] The Tribune, 7 December 89
[60] Kumar, Sieberer, ibid, p. 384; The Tribune, 4 December 1989
[61] The Tribune, 17 March 1991, Poll possible in Punjab, J&K: PM; 1 April 1991, PM firm on solving Punjab problem; The Tribune, 25 March 1991, All efforts to hold poll in Punjab, J&K: PM; 1 April 1991, PM firm on solving Punjab problem; 12 April 1991, Lok Sabha, Assembly poll in Punjab, Assam; 17 March 1991, Govt keen on holding poll in Punjab; 19 March 1991, RV may resist poll in Punjab; 21 March 1991, Punjab poll now to destroy democracy; 4 April 1991, RV urged not to hold poll in Punjab
[62] The Tribune, 21 March 1991, Bomb Found on Governor's route; The Tribune, 3 February 1991, DGP Mangat hurt in Blast; 6 March 1991, Buta singh's relative kidnapped; 20 March 1991, Militants release Bhatia's relative; The Tribune, 29 February 1991, Mann calls for Azadi; 16 April 1991, EC asked to take note of Mann's statements; The Tribune, 4 April 1991, RV urged not to hold poll in Punjab; 16 April 1991, EC asked to take note of Mann's statements; The Tribune, 19 April 1991, Reply to RV'S Memo: Cabinet sticks to poll decision; 12 May 1991, The deal behind Punjab poll; 20 April 1991, Poll challenge to Nationalists: Yash; CPM not to take part in Punjab poll; 25 April 1991, Fair poll in Punjab impossible: Rajiv; 26 April 1991, Cong[I] to boycott poll in Punjab; 12 June 1991, Left to boycott Punjab poll; The Tribune, 30 April 1991, Rajiv's reservations on Punjab poll; 15 May 1991, Punjab poll won't be fair: Rajiv; 5 May 1991, No direct talks with militants: PM; 3 May 1991, US Report: 5000 civilians died in Punjab; 7 February 1992, USA praises India's anti-militancy steps; The Tribune, 14 May 1991, Govt-Militant talks in Amritsar stalled; 15 May 1991, Talks outside Punjab, militants told; 23 May 1991, Army curfew in several areas; How Rajiv began his fateful day; Lakhs file past Rajiv's body; 25 May 1991, Plastic belt bomb killed Rajiv Gandhi; 25 May 1991, No change in poll dates: EC; The Tribune, 17 June 1991, Cong [I] heads for big win; 18 June 1991, Cong[I] continues victory march; 19 June 1991, Cong[I], Allies still short of majority; The Tribune, 21 June 1991, Rao elected CPP[I]
[63] The Tribune, 18 January 1992, Akalis to boycott poll; The Tribune, 28 December 1991, Tohra for boycott of elections; The Tribune, 29 December 1991, Badal for debate on C'wealth issue; The Tribune, 5 January 1992, Akali factions to boycott poll; The Tribune. January 3, 1992. Ordinance on poll law approved; 20 January 1992, Campaigning cut to 14 days.
[64] The Tribune, 18 Feb., 1992, Army to protect voters; 20 Feb., 92, Peaceful poll, low turnout; 24 Feb., 92, Yogendra Yadav, Lowest turnout, uneven spread; 21 Feb., 92, Two thirds majority for the Congress; 25 Feb., 92, Beant to form ministry today.
[65] Mainstream, 25 April 1992, Rule of Law in Punjab
[66] 1984 (3) SCC 161
[67] 1987 (1) SCC 395
[68] .Neelabati Behara Vs. State of Orissa 1993 (2) SCC - 746; D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal 1996 (9) Scale - 298 and PUCL Vs. Union of India (1997) 2 JT 311
[69] 1997 2 JT 311
[70] 1981 (2) SCR 516
[71] para 16. pp. 19-20
[72] A Manual for Action, ibid, Chapt. 10, 1
[73] Para 1
[74] 37 1950 Supreme Court 27
[75] AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1295, para 15
[76] Field J, in Munn Vs. Illinois, 1876 94 US 113 at p. 142
[77] Wolf Vs. Colorado, 1948 338 US 25
[78] Paras 31 & 32
[79] AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1207
[80] Paras 248 & 250
[81] AIR 1978 SC 597, Paras. 54-56-63
[82] DD Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, 7th Edition, Prentice-Hall, p. 132
[83] Minerva Mills Ltd., Vs. Union of India, 1980 3 SCC 625, 643, 675-679
[84] 1980 3 Supreme Court Cases 625
[85] CAD. Vol. VII, p. 953
[86] AIR [37] 1950 Supreme Court 124
[87] AIR [36] Nagpur 58
[88] 1959 Supp [2] SCR 316, p. 325
[89] AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1621
[90] Para 74
[91] AIR [38] 1951 Supreme Court 41
[92] AIR 1963 Supreme Court 222
[93] : para 50, page 34
[94] 1979 1 Supreme Court Cases 380
[95] Fram Nuseewanji Balsara Vs. State of Bombay, 52 Bomb. L. R. 7999: AIR 38 1951 Bom. 210: 52 Cr. L. J. 80; Dwarkadas Sriniwas Vs. The Sholapur Spg. & Wvg. Co, AIR 38 1951 Bombay 86; Chanranjit Lal Chowdhury Vs. The Union of India, AIR 38 1951 Supreme Court 41; Moti Lal Vs. The Govt., of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 38 1951 Allahabad 257; Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan Vs. The State of Madras, AIR 38 1951 Madras 120; Kathi Raning Rawat Vs. State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435 - AIR 1952 SC 123; The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 39 1952 Supreme Court 75; Lachmandas Kewalram Vs. State of Bombay 1952 SCR 710: AIR 1952 SC 235; Qasim Razvi Vs. State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 661: AIR 1953 SC 287; Habeeb Mohammad Vs. State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 661: AIR 1953 SC 287; Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh Vs The State of Vindhya Pradesh 1953 SCR 30: AIR 1953 SC 394; Kedas Nath Bajoria Vs. The State of West Bengal 1954 SCR 30: AIR 1953 SC 404; Dwarka Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1954 SCR 803: AIR 1954 SC 224; Dhirendra Kumar Mandal Vs. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, 1955-1 SCR 224: AIR 1954 SC 424; Budhan Choudhry Vs. The State of Bihar, 1955 1 SCR 1045: AIR 1955 SC 191; Pannalal Binjraj Vs. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 397; Asgarali Nazarali Singaporawalla Vs. The State of Bombay, 1957 SCR 678: AIR 1957 SC 503) Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi and Rajasthan, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 149; C. I. Emden Vs. State of UP, 1960 2 SCR 646: AIR 1960 SC 548; Kangsari Haldar Vs. State of West Bengal, 1960 2 SCR 646: AIR 1960 SC 457; Jyoti Pershad Vs. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi, 1962 2 SCR 125: AIR 1961 SC 1602; State of Gujrat Vs. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd, 1974 3 SCR 760: 1974 4 SCC 656
[96] AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597, para 14
[97] 1974 2 SCR 348: AIR 1974 SC 555
[98] para 50
[99] (paras 67 & 68) 1959 SCR 12: AIR 1958 SC 578; 1962 3 SCR 842: AIR 1962 SC 305; AIR 1969 SC 1004
[100] AIR 1958 SC 538, para 11
[101] AIR 1959 Supreme Court 149
[102] 1980 3 Supreme Court Cases 625, para 61
[103] PUCL Vs. Union of India 1997 2 JT 311; D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal 1996 (9) Scale - 298
[104] Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Edward Lawson, Taylor & Francis Ltd, London, 1991, p.x
[105] CCPR/C/76/Add.6, 17 June 1996, Human Rights Committee, Addendum, India/1, Paras. 5, 8-9
[106] The Tribune, 18 February 1992, Army to protect votes; 20 Feb., 92, Peaceful poll, low turnout; 24 Feb., 92, Yogendra Yadav, Lowest turnout, uneven spread; 21 Feb., 92, Two thirds majority for the Congress; 25 Feb., 92, Beant to form ministry today.
[107] CCPR/C/76/Add. 6, 17 June 1996, ibid, Para 50
[108] E/CN. 4/Sub.2/1982/15
[109] E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/19, 23 June 1997, Tenth annual report by Leandro Despouy, paras. 12-14
[110] ibid, paras 20, 34-35, 42, 45, 48, 53-61, 68, 77, 103-107
[111] E/CN. 4/1997/60, 24 December 1996, Commission on Human Rights, Report by the Special Rapporteur, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, paras 6, 46, 69, 134
[112] G. A. Res. 43/173, Annex, 43 UN GAOR Su pp. No. 49 at 298, UN Doc. A/43/49, 1988; G. A. Res. 39/46, Annex, 39 UN GAOR Su pp. No. 51 at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51, 1984 entered into force on June 26, 1987
[113] A/Conf. 157/24, Part II, para. 91
[114] The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, prepared by Special Rapporteur Theo Van Boven, E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/1996/17
[115] E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/1997/20/Rev. 1, 2 October 1997, The administration of justice and the human rights of detainees, paras 16-18, 26-29, 40-43
[116] The full text of the court’s judgment can be found in OAS Decisions and Judgments, Series C. No. 4; Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Edward Lawson, Taylor & Francis Ltd, London, 1991, pp. 735-751; and Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 1989, pp. 123-139.
[117] Encyclopedia of Human Rights, ibid, pp. 735-751; and Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 1989, pp. 123-139.
[118] E/CN. 4/1996/38, Commission on Human Rights, Fifty-second session, Report of the Working Group on Enforced on Involuntary Disappearances, paras. 236-240; E/CN. 4/1997/34, para 181
[119] Ibid, paras. 31, 184, 249, 251
[120] E/CN. 4/1998/38, 24 December 1997, Observations
[121] E/CN. 4/1998/38, 24 December 1997
[122] E/CN. 4/1997/60, 24 December 1966, Report by the Special Rapporteur, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Para. 96; 228
[123] E/CN.3/1998/43, paras 25, 61, 212
[124] E/CN. 4/1996/38, para 248
[125] 1996 [9] Scale - 298
[126] Udyoga Parvam, Chapt. 34
[127] W. Michael Reisman, “Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law,” American Journal of International Law, 84 - October 1990 - 867
[128] Reisman, ibid, p. 868
[129] Reisman, ibid, p. 868
[130] E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/1997/19, Question of Human Rights and States of Emergency, paras, 1, 27-28
[131] Quoted in United Nations, “The Limits of Sovereignty,” UN Department of Public Information, February 1992: 1
[132] Michael Walzer, “The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9, Spring 1980: 223
[133] Thomas G. Weiss & Jarat Chopra, Sovereignty Under Siege: From Intervention to Humanitarian Space, presented at the Conference on National Sovereignty and Collective Intervention, Dartmouth College, May 18-20, 1992, pp. 19-20
[134] United Nations, “The Limits of Sovereignty,” pp. 3-4
[135] Article 7 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg (UNTS. Vol. 82, p. 279) [7]; Article 7(2) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ILM 32 (1993), p. 1192); Article 6(2) of the Statute for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ILM 33 (1994), p. 1602); 1950 Report of the International Law Commission, para 103; The 1954 International Law Commission draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind p, Article III; House of Lords Session 1998-99, Regina Vs. Bartle & the Commissioner of Police for the Matropolis & others, Ex-Parte Pinochet (On Appeal from Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division), Judgment of Lord Hutton, 24 March 1999
[136] E/CN. 4/1994/31, Question of the human rights of all persons subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment, Report of the Special Rapporteur, para. 12
[137] E/CN. 4/1994, 31, ibid, paras, 13, 316
[138] United Nations, “The Limits of Sovereignty,” pp. 3-4
[139] UN Doc. E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/416
[140] UN Doc. E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/1985/6
[141] E/CN. 4/1997/60, 24 December 1996, Report by the Special Rapporteur Mr Bacre Waly Ndiaye
[142] Amnesty International - News Release - IOR 40/18/98, 15 June 1998, WORLD Justice Now: Time for an effective International Court
[143] Philip Allott, Eunomia: New Order for a New World, New York, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. xvii
[144] Alexander Wendt, Anarcy is what States make of it: The social construction in power politics, International Organization, 46 [Spring 1992]: 413
[145] Case No. CCDP/00298
[146] Case No. CCDP/00145
[147] Case No. CCDP/00283
[148] Case No. CCDP/00090
[149] Case No. CCDP/00380
[150] Case No. CCDP/00496
[151] Case No. CCDP/00501
[152] Case No. CCDP/00538
[153] Case No. CCDP/00605
[154] CCDP/00615
[155] Case No. CCDP/00666
[156] Case No. CCDP/00748
[157] Case No. CCDP/00754
[158] Case No. CCDP/00771
[159] Case No. CCDP/00776
[160] Case No. CCDP/00786
[161] Case No. CCDP/00797
[162] Case No. CCDP/00815
[163] Case No. CCDP/00819
[164] Case No. CCDP/00126
[165] Case No. CCDP/00632
[166] Case No. CCDP/00630
[167] CCDP/00296
[168] Case No. CCDP/00621
[169] Case No. CCDP/00617
[170] Case No. CCDP/00613
[171] Case No. CCDP/00606
[172] Case No. CCDP/00593
[173] Case No. CCDP/00576
[174] Case No. CCDP/00311
[175] Case No. CCDP/00131
[176] Case No. CCDP/00239
[177] Case No. CCDP/00267
[178] Case No. CCDP/00462
[179] Case No. CCDP/00535
[180] Case No. CCDP/00614
[181] Case No. CCDP/00020
[182] Case No. CCDP/00023
[183] Case No. CCDP/00751
[184] Case No. CCDP/00761
[185] No. CCDP/00089
[186] Case No. CCDP/00242
[187] Case No. CCDP/00801
[188] Case No. CCDP/00720
[189] Case No. CCDP/00702
[190] The report of this case is based on a long interview with Ajit Singh on 20 September 1997 evening, at his village Jama Rai. Case No. ccdp/00462
[191] The report of this case is based on lengthy interviews I conducted with the surviving family members, including Harmanjit Singh, in their village on 20 September 1997. The Case No. CCDP/0007
[192] This report is based on a long interview with Harbhajan Kaur at her village Janian, Post Office Bundala, Police Station Jandiala Guru, Amritsar, on 22 September 1997. Case No. CCDP 00476
[193] Criminal Misc petition No. 13460/M of 1990.
[194] This report is based on an extensive interview with ninety years old Chanchal Singh, father of Sukhdev Singh, recorded on 24 September 97 at his village Naurangabad, Subdivision Tarn Taran, Amritsar. Case No. CCDP/00511
[195] The report of this case is based on information contained in a petition for the writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Criminal Writ Petition No. 228 of 1997, filed by Navkiran Singh. To clarify several sensitive points involving the army, the investigating team held several rounds of discussions with Dr. Tarlochan Singh Walia, father of Major Walia, in September 1997. Case No. CCDP/00256
[196] Cases No. CCDP/00065, CCDP/0066, 00067
[197] Case Nos. CCDP/00096, CCDP/00097,CCDP/00098, CCDP/00099
[198] Case No. CCDP/00116
[199] Case Nos. CCDP/00119,00121,00122,00120,00123
[200] Case No. CCDP/00568
[201] Case No. CCDP/00572
[202] Case No. CCDP/00284
[203] Case No. CCDP/00301
[204] Case Nos. CCDP/00302 and 00303
[205] Case No. CCDP/00088
[206] Case No. CCDP/00077
[207] CCDP/00086
[208] CCDP/ 00095
[209] CCDP/00136
[210] CCDP/180
[211] CCDP/00202
[212] CCDP/00543
[213] CCDP/00574
[214] CCDP/00617
[215] CCDP/00805