According to official reports issued by the Inspector General of Police shortly after the fighting in the Golden Temple in June 1984, 20 persons, had surrendered to the army in the Golden Temple in response to an appeal, but others had opened intensive fire with automatic weapons, antitank weapons and firearms, they raised antinational slogans. The army returned the fire and a large number of persons died and the remaining were arrested and rounded up. He also reportedly stated: “a case had been registered against the All India Sikh Students Federation, the outlawed Dal Khalsa and freedom fighters led by Sant Jar nail Singh Bhindranwale for sedition, collecting arms and waging war against the government” (Times of India, 14 June 1984),

Over 1500 persons were later officially announced to have been arrested at the time of the army action in the Golden Temple. According to reports in the international press of late June, 1984, some officials acknowledged that among those arrested were pilgrims who happened to be present at the time as well as Temple employees and that there was a need to screen those arrested in order (0 release innocent people among them. A total of 4,000 people were reportedly arrested throughout June, 1984, during and afire the military operation and many were released in the following months (including in September, women detainees as well as children, released after a ‘Supreme Court Order). However, others remained detained on political grounds: in July official sources were quoted as saying that “nearly 400 freedom fighters who had surrendered during action in the Golden Temple Complex have been detained in the wake of ‘Operation Blue Star to be charged with “waging war” have reportedly taken the stand that they are ‘only pilgrims who were caught in the cross fire between the army and the freedom fighters. There is also speculation that the two dozen women who have been detained may be innocent.”

REPORTS OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Since September 1984, there have been various reports that persons described as “extremists”, arrested from the Golden Temple ‘would be brought to trial. According to official reports in the Indian press of 22 September, 1984, all the 1500 persons arrested in the

Golden Temple had been released, apart from 431 persons who, it was reported, would be charged with “waging war” against the government under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code. This charge, on conviction, may carry the death penalty; the minimum sentence is life imprisonment, The main persons accused in the case ‘were announced to be Harminder Singh Sandhu, the General Secretary of the All India Sikh Students Federation, who, according to an army spokesman, had surrendered before the fighting in the Golden Temple had started; and Virsa Singh, a man described to have ‘been close to Sant Jar nail Singh Bhindranwale. On 17 December, 1984, Jaswant Singh and six others arrested from the Golden Temple challenged

Their detention by bringing seven habeas corpus petitions (their outcome is not known), all were reported to have stated that they belonged to the AISSF (then still banned because the government accused it of having indulged in illegal activities).

On 16 January 1985, it was announced that a Special Court had been established in Rajasthan to “try the 379 Sikh suspects: in camera. (Section 4 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act permits the state to request the Central government to establish Special Courts to try alleged offenders in another state. Such a request was apparently made under the previous administration in the Punjab in respect of the Sikh detainees to be charged with “waging war”). All detainees were being transferred to Jodhpur Jail to await the trial and on January 20, the Indian press reported their trial would start inside Jodhpur Central Jail before a Special Court headed by Justice K. Sharma. In a statement of 23 January, 1985, the Akali Dal Party (then in opposition) condemned the proposed “hasty trials” and said that the provisions of the Special Courts Act (under which they ‘would be tried) contravened some fundamental rights provisions in the Constitution.

‘According to reports of February, 1985, 300 of those arrested at the Golden Temple had been given a charge sheet (Times of India, 8 February 1985). However, on 14 March 1985 according to the same paper, the trial was said to have “been kept in abeyance, presumably to see the Akali Dal response to the gestures made by the government;” since the ‘Akali Dal party had reportedly demanded the release of those facing trial and the abolition of the Special Courts,

According to a May, 1985, report by the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), a civil liberties group based in New Delhi, charge sheets had been submitted to the detainees in Jodhpur Jail who had been held under the NSA. Apparently, all were given identical charges made under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (waging war or attempting to wage war) read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, As described above (Part 11), persons can still be tried for such offences under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, and will be presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence, According to the PUDR report, all detainees in Jodhpur Jail had been given the same grounds for detention under the NSA and cyclostyled statements of “confessions” allegedly made by them in which the detainees were alleged to have confessed to be members of the AISSF or the Dal Khalsa (both organization stated to have acted according to the orders of the late Sant Jar nail Singh Bhindranwale), to have collected arms and ammunition from foreign countries for the establishment of Khalistan and to have actively participated in the fighting. According to these cyclostyled ‘confessions’, they had stated that, even if released, they would again collect arms and fight for the establishment of a separate Khalistan state.

The new Punjab Chief Minister, Surjit Singh Barnala, who assumed office in September, 1985, has given varying statements about the detainees held in Jodhpur. During the 1985 election campaign the ‘Akali Dal had appealed for the release of all persons detained during the Akali agitation against which there were no serious charges or insufficient evidence of involvement in criminal activities. On 27 October 1985, the Chief Minister stated that his government had urged the central government in New Delhi to release the “innocent persons arrested on charges of waging war”. He stated that “a majority of the 369 persons arrested on this charge (of waging war) were members of Akali Jathas (participants in demonstrations of the Akali party), of grant his (readers of the Sikh scriptures). Mast of these persons was unarmed when arrested”. (Indian Express, 28 October 1985). According to a Reuters report of 29 October, 1985, the new Chief Minister had given firm orders to release 309 persons who had been arrested at the time of the Golden Temple military action, although he stated at the same time that his government would not withdraw cases against Sikhs held on charges of waging war against the state, (The latter position was publicly urged by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and other Central government officials in New Delhi, who had strongly opposed “indiscriminate releases” of “extremist” detainees in the Punjab),

In October, 1985, the Punjab Government established a four member committee headed by retired High Court Judge Ajit Singh Bains to review the cases of political detainees who were facing prosecution or who had been convicted in criminal cases registered after August 1, 1984, and which had arisen out of or in relation to the political agitation in the Punjab. As of March 4, 1986, the Bains Committee had reportedly recommended that cases against 2162 people should be withdrawn these apparently also included a number of those held on charges of waging war. The Punjab government, according to the same report, had apparently expressed its) concern to the union government about the delay in the release of persons arrested from the Golden ‘Temple Complex and involved in ceases of “waging war” who were now detained State government was reported as having said 4 review of the cases had taken place but no steps were being taken for their release, Since, then, the Punjab Chief Minister has been reported repeatedly to have raised the release of the detainees held in Jodhpur Jaill with the Prime Minister.

CONCLUSION

Amnesty International believes there is a possibility that there may be prisoners of conscience among those now held without trial for well over two years, apparently under the National Security Act, There may be men and women among them who did not use or advocate violence and who were arrested simply as a result of having been present in the Golden Temple for religious or peaceful political purposes, Moreover, Amnesty Interactional is concerned that, if tried under the Terrorist ‘Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, these detainees may not have a fair trial in accordance with internationally accepted human « rights standards. Amnesty International believes they should now either be released or, if tried, be ‘brought to justice under ordinary procedures of criminal law with customary safeguards, They should not be deprived of the minimum legal safeguards for fair trial laid down in international human rights standards to which India is a party.

 

 

 

 

Article extracted from this publication >>  September 25, 1987