(5) One Mohan Singh, sarpanch of ,Kot Hrideram village, belon-ged to the Akali Dal (Longowal). There was enmity between him and his neighbour Kishan Singh, who was aligned with a Bhindranwale faction. On July 10, 1984, Kishan complained to the Army that terrorists were hiding in Mohan Singh’s house. Later, he went to Mohan Singh’s house and threatened him that he would be dealt with properly during the night. Mohan Singh and his son lay down to sleep with licensed guns by their side. At I a.m. some army personnel began scaling the walls of the house. Mohan Singh saw the shadowy figure, which he assumed to be someone sent by Kishan Singh; he fired. One Army officer was killed. The Army also began firing. One more Army personnel was killed, and one more injured in the firing. In the morning, the Army announced from the public address system of the gurdwara that Mohan Singh should surrender. When Mohan Singh’s wife opened the door, She barely escaped a volley of bullets. Mohan Singh and his son came out with their hands raised. The Army men tortured and killed Mohan Singh’s son in front of him. Later they killed Mohan Singh as well After this, all the male members of the village were asked to assemble in the school compound. All the houses were searched, and people allege that valuables were stolen. Even later, the Army continued to threaten the daughter-in-law of the sarpanch that she should not repeat the story.
Jalandhar district.
Here many cases were reported of the Army interfering in the duties of civil administration, or siding with one group in the village against another, or even intervening in disputes between husband and wife. The Army tortured many innocents, and even took bribes. At places they even looted many valuables. For example : (1) At Karnana village, a retired subedar Mohan Singh and his sons had an old feud with Gurucharan Das Dhir, an advocate. Mohan Singh’s nephew was posted at the Army unit posted at Nawanshehar. On the night of June 26 Mohan Singh’s sons and nephew made a racket near Dhir’s house. Dhir and his companions caught them and handed them over to the police. The Army unit at Nawanshehar was infuriated. 20 soldiers proceeded to Karnana, insulted the officer in charge of the police station, and upon reaching the village, beat every passer-by without provocation. In the mohalla where Dhir stayed,’ they tortured many, including women. Curfew was then imposed on the village and people were not allowed to go into the fields. (2) The charges on which people are arrested and tortured are absuredly petty. In Malhri village, the Army on June 24, 1984, recovered some weapons hidden by a Nihang in a tubewell. They then arrested Mohan Singh, father of a wanted youth Lehmber Singh. Mohan Singh was tortured in the bazaar of nearby Nakodar town. When the son surrendered, Mohan Singh was not let off. Lehmber Singh was also tortured, and made to keep his eyes open in the face of a powerful lamp. His eyes were damaged. He was formally arrested for keeping two live cartridges. The house of Sardar Karnail Singh was also raided, and he was tortured in public. He was charged with possessing S live cartridges. There are many similar instances. (3) Police raided Chak Kalan village on June 25, 1984, to arrest a young man, Balgar Singh. His brother Hagni Singh was there with another person, distilling illicit liquor. When he saw the Army, he ran away. The Army fired from behind; he was killed on the spot.
Ferozepur district
Two versions of the incident: The Police version Sarbjit Singh, son of Shingara Singh, of village Bhikhewind, Amritsar district, was arrested under sections I24-A and 123-A. On September 15, he escaped from a police van when he, along with 20 other detenues was being brought to the Central Jail, Bhatinda. He was recaptured. On September 22, he was arrested again near Fazilka. When the police were taking him to the interrogation center at Ferozepur, he tried to escape and was killed in an encounter there. The real story: On May 23, 1984, the police arrested one Sukhdarshan Singh, son of Sundar Singh of Muktsar. He was detained under section I24-A and 123-A under the name of Sarbjit Singh, son of Shingara Singh. After 2-3 months police got worried: they had arrested the wrong person. They decided to do away with Sukhdarshan so that their mistake may not be disclosed. When Sukhdarshan was being taken to the Central Jail, Bhatinda, a constable encouraged him to escape, which he did. Sukhdarshan reached the house of a relative in Rajasthan. The police began to harass brothers of Sukhdarshan one brother was let off in order to trace him. When they were bringing Sukhdarshan to the police, they were arrested at the Abohar bus stand. Sukhdarshan was produced on September 22 at the Special Divisional Magistrate, at Fazilka. He told the SDM that the police had been trying to kill him for the past two days and begged that he not be returned to custody. However, the SDM accepted the police request. That night he was killed by the police. The newspapers carried the report that he was killed as he tried to run away. At the time of his death, he was handcuffed. Patiala district the incident of the beating of the students of Punjabi University, Patiala, and an incident of arrest of teachers of Punjabi University, are described elsewhere in this report. Elsewhere, Army repression on the Bharatiya Kisan Union, and on teachers, employees, and students unions, has also been described. There are many instances too of Army harassment on various other pretexts. For example: Dr. Walia, who lives in Patiala, was coming on a scooter one ,day from Sangrur. The scooter got damaged badly in an accident with an Army motorcycle. The Army men began shouting at Walia. An Army truck stopped there. Walia was put in the truck, and was beaten. Only after being interrogated at the local Army headquarters was he let off. Later, the Army men came to his house, and demanded a written statement that he would not report the incident to the police, or have himself medically examined Walia refused. The Army men left, threatening him.
The above excerpts give a glimpse of Army and police repression during the period of Operation Woodrose. It was indiscriminately brutal; it was irrelevant for checking the communal, terrorists; indeed neither Army nor police displayed the courage needed to hunt for available terrorists; instead, it made common people the targets; it disrupted the daily lives of common peop1.3; it forced many innocent youth to abscond, whereupon they joined the list of those “wanted?”; and it paid scant attention to legal formalities in finishing off these “wanted” youths.
Appendix III: Black acts brought about on the excuse of Punjab
(1) National Security Act (2nd Amendment); This preventive detention act was the descendant of the infamous MISA under which thousands were held during the Emergency. The NSA was passed in December 1980 because of what the Government called “the prevailing situation of the communal disharmony, social tensions, extremist activities, industrial unrest and increased tendency on the part of various parties to engineer agitation on various issues”, In other words, it explicitly – provided for the suppression of people’s movement. In fact, it west consistently used in order to crush workers’ movement. The first person detained under NSA was an AITUC unionist. The detention under NSA of the Chattisgarh mines union leader Niyogi or of Bomby textile union leader Datta Samant during strikes are other examples. In August 1984 the Government, on the excuse of the Punjab situation, passed a second amendment to the Act.. Under the present form of the Act, S A detention order made under NSA will not be deemed invalid merely because one or some of the grounds of detention are false. 2 The period of detention is extended to one year anywhere in the country and up to two years in Punjab. 2 The number of days one can be held without being produced before a judge is increased from 15 to 30 days. In other words, the Government can legally mete out sentences of up to a year without trial. They can throw a man in jail for a month without even informing a judge. (2) Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act. 1984 (Ordinance issued July 14, 1984, Act passed August 16, 1984.) The Government can declare any area of India (except Jammu and Kashmir) “terrorist-affected”. It will then set up special trial of “terrorist” acts. The declaration remains valid for six months. It also has six months retrospective effect. The special court can “take such measures as it deems fit for keeping the identity and address of the witnesses secret”. This means that not only are the proceedings in camera ie, concealed from the public, they are concealed even from the accused. “Terrorist acts” include—putting the public or any section of the public in fear; coercing or overawing the Government established by law; endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India. Section 20 of the Terrorist Affected Areas Act also adds a new section after section (iii) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—a person in a notified area accused of having committed an offence under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code shall be presumed to be guilty until he is proved innocent. The offences referred to are 121, 121A, 122, and 123 of I.P.C. The Schedule to the ordinance provides that in case a specific offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly it shall be deemed to have been committed by every other member of the unlawful assembly.
The power to declare an assembly unlawful lies with the police officers and the executive magistrate.
(3) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985
“Disruptive activity” is defined here as any activity which (whether by speech, pamphlet or any other media, according to the Government, disrupts or is intended to disrupt, directly or indirectly, the integrity and sovereignty of India, and which is intended to bring about or supeorts any claim for the cession or secession of India–including mere possession of any such pamphlet, are even the attendance of a meeting at which a “disruptive” song is sung, makes one liable to punishment. The authorities are given, in the name of controlling terrorist activities, powers to enter any place whatsoever, to search, to arrest without warrant, and to disposess or destroy buildings or any other property. The authorities also have the power to intercept, refuse and delay mail, as also telephone conversations. They can refuse publication of reports deemed ‘harmful’ under the Act.
Trials under the act will be held in special courts with hand-picked judges. They will be summary and will be kept secret from the public (ie, in camera). One stage of appeal (to the High Court) has been denied. The Government can transfer the case from a court in one area to a court in another during the proceedings itself. Witnesses against the accused may be kept totally secret, so the defence lawyer has no opportunity to cross-examine them. Even death sentences may be doled out in this fashion. Finally, whatever actions the authorities take under ibis Act cannot be redressed in a court of law. it is worth remembering that this Act was brought about in the aftermath of the “transistor bomb” episode in Delhi. Yet nothing in the Act suggests that it will be of use in controlling such secret cons-piracies: rather, it is aimed directly at open mass activity. The brunt of the Act will be felt by democratic organisations. For instance in Andhra Pradesh, the Government arrested K. Balagopal, an academic who heads the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee, as a terrorist.
