Amnesty International has called on the Indian government to clarify reports of seven disappearances that took place during 1987 and 1988. Eye-witnesses claimed that they saw three of the ‘disappeared’ while in Punjab police custody. Although some police investigations were conducted, there has been no independent investigation of these ‘disappearances’
The following is the third part of the Amnesty report.
Other members of the Youth Centre, arrested at the end of September 1988, also claim that they were interrogated about Veeramani. On 26 September the Viveknagar police from Bangalore and the Tamil Nadu police reportedly arrested 5 members and sympathizers of the Youth Centre; Sampath, 28 years old, Nangovan, 25 years old, Ammani Ammal, 55 years old, and her daughter Dharani, 26 years old and her son, Babul, 19 years old. (According to one report, Veeramani had visited Mrs. Ammal’s house to teach her son, Babul). They were taken away in a Tamil Nadu police van, No. TAA 281 5 from Mrs. Ammal’s house in Vannarpet, Bangalore. They were reportedly ‘released five days later, on 29 September, shortly after a habeas corpus petition had been filed in the Karnataka High Court. They claim that they had been arrested without warrant and that they had been taken to Madurai for investigation about their alleged relations with Veeramani.
Venkatesh, the secretary of the Bangaldore district unit of the Youth center, saying he witnessed the abduction claims that, after he brought a habeas corpus petition on Veeramani’s behalf, police threatened him on 5 September 1988, to make him withdraw the petition and discourage him from appearing in court as a witness.
Amnesty International also received the statement of a man who claims that he saw Mr. Veeramani while held in the Thakllakulam police station, Madurai. (X), whose name is withheld for fear of repercussions, is a student who says that he was arrested in late August 1988 by two men in plain clothes and taken to the Thallakulam police station, Madurai, where he was held during the first week of September 1988. He claims that he was beaten during interrogation in the police cell and that he heard the cries from a neighboring cell where another man was held and apparently beaten. He says that he saw that man and recognized him as Mr. Veeramani, and also heard him being addressed by that name. One of Veeramani’s legs was apparently bandaged because of a gunshot injury (X) was later released but says that he was threatened with being killed if he disclosed that he saw Veeramani in custody.
Veeramani was finally brought before a magistrate on 6 November 1988, more than two months after his arrest. The police filed a case against him on the basis of a complaint made by two villagers from Karupaiyurani near Madurai in Tamil Nadu stating that they had overpowered S. Veeramani on 5 November 1988 when they were having an argument at a tea stall owned by a certain Narayanan and had taken a gun from him with which he had threatened them. The gun had allegedly been handed over to the police at the time the complaint was made. When Veeramani was brought before the Madurai High Court on 9 November 1988, he was remanded into custody until 23 November. He was finally released on bail on 1 December 1988.
In an interview with the Illustrated Weekly of India, 8 January 1989, S. Veeramani gives the following account of his arrest and unacknowledged detention: “On August 25, Venkatesh an associate of mine, and I parted company in front of the Bypanahalli police station to walk down to our respective bus stands. Suddenly four or five persons pounced on me. I did not know what was happening. Then one of them pulled out a revolver and shot me in the thigh at close range. There must have been a silencer fitted for it did not make a loud noise. Later, I found out that the man who shot me was (name withheld) the deputy superintendent of Madurai, who shot me thrice, and then his lieutenant, (name withheld) shot me once.
After I had been shot, one of them wondered what to do in case I died. Sivanandi said that should not be allowed to happen. I was dumped on the floor of the car and sol could not see where we were going. But from the time it took to reach the place and the direction in which we went, I presume that they took me to the Chimmaya Mission Hospital in Indira Nagar, Bangalore.
I was then taken to the Commercial Street police station. There I was beaten up not only by the police but also by two Sri Lankans Ajanth and Printo who were forced to do so. I was then taken in the car again to the police officers mess near the hockey ground. There an officer of the Karnataka police joined those, shouting, “take him away from Karnatka fast. We don’t want him to die in our hands.” Again I was put on the floor of the car and driven non-stop to Sale manes the interrogation started.
Sivanandi then asked me if I knew one Karunakaran. I said no. To which he remarked that Karunakaran was well known to people sympathetic to the cause of the Sri Lankan Tamils and that I ought to have known him. I repeated that I did not know the person.
That was the end. They started kicking me, slapping me, beating me with lathis, Sivanandi and the posse of policemen with him.
The next day the same routine continued. It was on that day, from the conversation between the policemen and their line of questioning that I realized that they suspected me of involvement in the Madurai bank robbery about which I knew nothing except what had come out in the papers.
On August 28, they decided to take me away from Salem. I was again dumped in the car and blindfolded. That was the last time I saw the light of the day till November 6 when I was produced before the magistrate. Day and night I was kept tightly blindfolded. From their conversion I learnt that they were taking me to Madurai. In Madurai the line of questioning changed. While in
Bangalore they were asking me about Sri Lankan contacts, in Salem they had linked me to the Madurai bank robbery. But in Madurai they started asking me what contacts I had with Naxzalites.
One day, sometime in the first week of September, they shifted me to a new place, the upstairs of a house. The torture routine continued. It was just unbearable.
While they were torturing me they said: “Do you know why one bullet alone was not removed from your leg? On August 24 the day before we took you in, there was an attempted bus hijacking in Kareemnagar in Andhra Pradesh in which there was police firing. We will make out a case that you were involved in that incident and that you had sustained the bullet injuries at that time.” It was on September 28 that I was removed from the building in which I was set and taken elsewhere.
The torture stopped about 20 days before I was produced before a magistrate. They started giving me a bath and washing my wounds. They used to wonder how long it would take for many of the scars to disappear. After producing me before the magistrate I was admitted to the government hospital and operated upon for removal of the bullet that was still lodged in my left side. The wounds are all healed now. But I still limp badly when walking. And I still have aches and pains all over.
I have nothing to say about the case made out against me. It is obviously a false case, considering that at the time when the incident was said to have taken place, I was very much in the custody of the Madurai police as I had been for over 70 days earlier.
In mid-1988 the Delhi police apparently also asked for an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation. To Amnesty International’s knowledge, no such investigation has so far been held. On 31 August 1988, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr. P. Chidamba_ I am, was questioned in parliament about the “disappearance” of the four men. He replied that: “According to the inquiry report, the allegations, leveled against the Delhi police officers could not substantiated. Hence no action against them has been initiated.” In the absence of a Supreme Court ruling about the four “disappearance” cases, there has been no effective independent inquiry into the allegations that the four men were abducted by the New Delhi police who, it is widely believed, killed them in custody, but who continue to deny that this has happened.
There is strong evidence to ripe that Puran Singh, Shyam Singh, Veer Singh and Tilak Ram have been killed, either by shooting or following torture while in : police custody and that staff of the South Delhi police’ have tried to cover up the murder of the four men.~ Villagers believe they have been killed in custody. According to one newspaper report quoting “unim peachable sources,” Puran Singh died under torture while held in the Lajpat Nagar office of the Special Staff in New Delhi, having been hung by his hands, handcuffed behind his back with a chain from the ceiling. The other three were allegedly killed subsequently to prevent evidence of his death in police custody emerging. Amnesty International has received allegations that the bodies of Puran Singh and Shyam Singh also allegedly tortured were thrown in the Hindon River to the east of New Delhi. We describe below how the “disappearances” occurred and how the government reacted to reports that the four men “disappeared.”
Punjab: the “disappearances” of Balwinder Singh, Manjit Singh and Jatinder Pal Singh
Disappearances have also been reported from Punjab. Most cases have been hard to verify, particularly since access by independent outside observers to the state has been severely restricted. General restrictions on visits by foreigners to the state were lifted in March 1989, but Amnesty International continued to be denied access to Punjab. In many cases available details about: cases reported are not sufficient to include them in this paper. The three cases from Punjab described below have been included because they were well-documented, sometimes by eye-witnesses.
Balwinder Singh, a taxi-driver from Bhadedi village, Sector 41, Chandigarh was detained on 17 January 1988 at around 10 am, reportedly by plainclothes men traveling in two white cars without number plates. The arrest took place at the taxi stand near Hotel Aroma Sector 22, ~Chandigarh where Balwinder Singh, was: working. A formal complaint was made to the police station at Sector 34, Chandigarh, in the morning of 18 January 1988 and inquiries were made at the police stations in Sector 11, 26 and 39. One week later on 27 January 1988, Inspector Surjit Singh Grewal of Patiala police station reportedly told-relatives that Balwinder Singh was in his custody and was being interrogated. Relatives say that the inspector promised to bring Balwinder Singh before a magistrate’ within a couple of days. However, this did not happen, despite continuous appeals to police officials in Patiala.
A fellow-detainee, who was s released from Mayi Ki Sarai interrogation center, Patiala in mid-February 1988 informed the relatives that he had seen Balwinder Singh in detention at the interrogation center. He also alleged that Balwinder Singh had been subjected to torture.
Further attempts to establish Balwinder Singh’s whereabouts and to have him produced before a magistrate remained unsuccessful. In early April 1988, his relatives, together with members of the village council, appealed to the then Director General of Police, Punjab. He referred them to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Patiala however, upon inquiry with the SSP, the latter demed that Balwinder Singh was in the custody of the Patiala police. More than one year after his arrest, Balwinder Singh’s where about still remain unknown.
Manjit Singh, a 22 year old car mechanic from Phase 3, Mohali, Ropar district, and Jatinder Pal Singh, an unemployed electrician from Phase 5, Mohali, were arrested around:7 am on 16 January 1988 from Manjit Singh’s house by about twelve men in plain clothes who were traveling in cars without number plates. They reportedly refused to identify themselves or produce, arrest warrants. Several eye-witnesses saw how both men were lifted into the cars with their hands tied behind their backs by their turbans.
In the evening of 16 January 1988 relatives of both met Visited the Mohali police station and made inquiries. They spoke to Inspector Jagjit Singh, who reportedly denied any knowledge of the arrests and also refused to register a complaint. The same evening around 7 pm appeals were sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mohali.
Three other villagers of Mohali were arrested by plainclothes men the next day, 17 January 1988. The relatives of one of them were told that the arrested man would be released if his brother would surrender himself to the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) Patiala police. When the relatives of Manjit Singh and Jatinder Pal Singh heard about this, they made inquiries with the CIA, Patiala. They said they met Inspector Surjit Singh Grewal, who gave them assurances that the two men would be brought before a magistrate within two days. However, this did not happen. But the relatives continued to visit the police station and appealed to the Prime Minister, the governor of Punjab and the Director General of the Prime Minister’s office (ref no 176307 dated 18 February 1988 informing them that the case had been forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab “for appropriate action”, The Governor of Punjab informed the relatives that the complaint was being investigated by the Inspector General of Police.
Two detainees whose names are known to Amnesty International who were released from Mayi Ki Sarai interrogation center at the end of January 1988 say that they saw Manjit Singh and Jatinder Pal Singh in bad physical condition. They claim both men were severely tortured at Mayi Ki Sarai.
Relatives met the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, who promised to look into the matter and advised them to meet the then Director General of Police, J.F Ribeiro. However, the Director General of Police refused to meet them: His assistant, Mr. Kapil, advised the relatives to contact Umrao Singh Kang, Superintendent of Police in the Intelligence Department. The Superintendent Intelligence told relatives on 25 April 1988 that Manjit Singh and Jatinder Pal Singh were not in custody of the Patiala police. All further attempts to establish their whereabouts have failed.
Tamil Nadu/Karanataka: S. Veeramani: “disappearance” resolved
Mr. S. Veeramani, also known as Kumar son of the late Chinnapillai, is the 35 year old secretary of the Karnataka unit of the Progressive Youth Centre and a former teacher at the Jogupalya and Austin town corporation school in Bangalore, Karnataka. He “disappeared” for 74 days last year. He was seen in public on the evening of 25 August 1988 at the Srinivasapura bus stop in Bangalore, opposite of the Byapanahalli police station Old Madras Road, by the secretary of the Bangalore district unit of ‘the Progressive Youth Centre, R. Venkatesh. Venkatesh claims that he saw-how Veeramani was taken away by police constables and plainclothes policemen belonging, apparently to the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu police at 7:30 pm and that he was immediately pushed into a black Ambassador car with registration number 6313. When he questioned the police officers involved having witnessed the arrest from across the road, he was not told why Veeramani was being arrested nor was he shown a warrant for his arrest. When friends and relatives made inquiries with the police, the police repeatedly denied that they arrested Veeramani and claimed that they did not know where he was.
When they heard reports of his arrest, Veeramani’s colleagues immediately made inquiries at the Byapanahalli police station and approached the Magistrate’s court the following day (the law requires Mr. Veeramani should in accordance with the law have been brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.) But they failed to get any information about his whereabouts. They also brought a habeas corpus petition (No 112/1988) in the Karnataka High Court on 27 August 1988. The Court was told on 1 September by State Counsel that the Commissioner of police had said that “no person by the name of Veeramani has been detained in any police station in Bangalore City.” The commissioner did not deny that Veeramani could be held by police elsewhere, but K. Laksmaiah, Assistant Commissioner of police (crime), later specifically denied in a statement to the court that Veeramani had been taken away by police constables and men in plain clothes or that he was wanted by the police.
On 22 September the Karnataka High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition on the grounds that the petition failed to name the police officers involved in the alleged abduction and that the petition did not address the Tamil Nadu police who press reports suggested, could be involved in the alleged abduction: The‘ press also reported that the police suspected that several radical youth groups, Tamils from Sri Lanka among them were involved in a bank robbery which took place on 6 August in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. The police apparently suspected the Progressive Youth Centre, which campaigned in Karnataka against what it saw as inequalities in the education system, corruption in government hospitals and against the establishment of nuclear power projects in the state. The center also campaigned for basic amenities for slum dwellers and urged the withdrawal of the Indian Peace Keeping Force from Sri Lanka. Police also reportedly suspected it of connections with “Naxalite” organizations in Andhra Pradesh. .
Despite official denials, there are indications that the police were specifically looking for Mr. Veeramani in the days before his reported abduction. Three members of the Youth Centre have claimed that they were arrested a few days before Veeramani’s “disappearance” and those they were beaten by the Tamil Nadu police to force them to disclose his whereabouts.
“Manjit Singh, a 22 year old car mechanic from Phase 3, Mohali, Ropar district, and Jatinder Pal Singh, an unemployed electrician from Phase 5, Mohali, were arrested around 7 am on 16 January 1988 from Manjit Singh’s house by about twelve men in plain clothes who were traveling in cars without number plates. They reportedly refused to identify themselves or produce arrest warrants. Several eye-witnesses saw how both men were lifted into the cars with their hands tied behind their backs by their turbans.’’
“Veeramani was finally brought before a magistrate on 6 November 1988, more than two months after his arrest. The police filed a case against him on the basis of a complaint made by two villagers from Karupaiy- urani near Madurai in Tamil Nadu stating that they had overpowered S. Veeramani on 5 November 1988 when they were having an argument at a tea stall owned by a certain Narayanan and had taken a gun from him with which he had threatened them. The gun had allegedly been handed over to the police at the time the complaint was made. When Veeramani was brought before the Madurai High Court on 9 November 1988, he was remanded into custody until 23 November. He was finally released on bail on 1 December 1988.”
Article extracted from this publication >> September 8, 1989
