Did Fatehgarh Sahib SAD candidate –Darbara Singh Guru play any role in the 1986 Nakodar firing in which 4 Sikh youth were killed? Did Jalandhar SAD candidate -Charanjit Singh Atwal, as speaker, table the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission Report on the Nakodar killings and sacrilege without An Action Taken Report, in 2001, under pressure of the Badals?  Is the Badal Dal not guilty of suppressing the report and complicity in shielding the accused by placing them in high offices? Read WSN Big Story based on analysis of Justice Gurnam Singh Report and responses of Badal Dal leadership in recent times, which we have been meticulously tracking.

Thirty-three years ago, 4 Sikh youth protesters -Ravinder Singh Littran, Baldhir Singh Ramgarh, Jhilman Singh Gorsian and Harminder Singh Chaluper were indiscriminately fired upon and killed in Nakodar on 4 February 1986, after the incident of sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib in Gurdwara Guru Arjan Sahib Mohalla Guru Nanak Pura. Bowing to public pressure, the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission was formed, which submitted its report, indicting the police for unnecessary firing and the administration for being lackadaisical and inactivity.

People’s memory is generally believed to be short. In the 1986 Nakodar police firing case which left four Sikh youth dead, this is being proved wrong. People’s memory is as fresh as yesterday, whereas Akali leaders suffer from amnesia.

A thorough reading of the Justice Gurnam Singh Report, submitted to the Punjab government on 31 October 1986, leads WSN to conclude that Dabara Singh Guru is culpable of conspiracy to the extrajudicial killing of four Sikh youth by acts of omission and commission in February 1986.

The manner in which the Justice Gurnam Singh Report into the killing of the four Sikh youth was handled by Charanjit Singh Atwal, as the speaker of the Punjab Assembly shows us that the Speaker and his office were in league with the Badal Dal in suppressing the document and it was surreptitiously tabled on 5 March 2001 without discussion and debate. Atwal too is a conspirator to the suppression of justice to that extent.

Parkash Singh Badal was Chief Minister of the state from 1997 to 2002 and then from 2007 to 2017? Were 15 years in power not sufficient to taken action on the basis of the findings of the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission report?

The Badal Dal leadership –Parkash Singh Badal and Sukhbir Singh Badal have to explain to the people of Punjab as to why no action has been taken all these decades? Surjit Singh Barnala led the Akali government from 1985 to 1987. Parkash Singh Badal was Chief Minister of the state from 1997 to 2002 and then from 2007 to 2017? Were 15 years in power not sufficient to taken action on the basis of the findings of the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission report?

Even before his candidature for the Fatehgarh Sahib Parliamentary constituency was announced, Darbara Singh Guru -former bureaucrat and confidante of the Badals –having been the Principal Secretary of Parkash Singh Badal from 2007 to November 2011, categorically stated that he was not present in Nakodar when the police firing occurred.

When Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal announced his candidature at Khanna, while addressing the media, a frustrated Darbara Singh Guru skipped questions on the Nakodar firing incident. When journalists persisted, he said, “I did not play any role in the firing. Read the Gurnam Singh report.” Since then, he has been repeating the same line.

The other candidate who shows signs of frustration is the otherwise cool and calm former speaker of the Punjab Assembly Charanjit Singh Atwal, now the official candidate from the Jalandhar constituency. His first reaction, while talking to the media on 27 March was, “It is an old incident. I do not remember it.” Subsequently on 8 April he said, “No report can be tabled on the house, without an action taken report.” Now on 16 April he was saying, “My job was only to table the report, which I did. I know nothing about what action the government had taken or not taken.”

PTC spreads FAKE NEWS – You are using a plain Police Lie to deny killing of 4 Sikh youths. Can you tell us for what Justice Gurnam Singh Commission was formed? Report of which is already in the public domain and have been published by news papers.
1/2 pic.twitter.com/AQNokjYbb7

— ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️Saka Nakodar:4Feb86 ਸਾਕਾ ਨਕੋਦਰ:੪ਫ਼ਰਵਰੀ੮੬ (@sakanakodar) April 15, 2019

Before it was the turn of the Party president Sukhbir Singh Badal to smilingly skip the question on Nakodar firing, PTC ran fake news on April 13 on the basis of an old RTI reply sent by then DSP Nakodar Mukesh Kumar on 17 January 2018, repeating ad nauseam, “No incident of firing took place in February 1986 in Nakodar. Nobody was killed at all.” Basic norms of journalism were not followed. No research was done whatsoever. It was a classic fake news about which no complaint has been lodged so far with the Election Commission of India, even though the matter is subjudice as the case will come up for preliminary third hearing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 8 May 2019, as the Court seeks Part II of the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission Report.

World Sikh News presents facts and seeks answers to the many questions we pose. Our ‘medicine’ of questions should relieve the amnesia of the Badal Dal leadership.

The President of the Shiromani Akali Dal Sukhbir Singh Badal, when confronted by the media on the subject, politely declined, “I know nothing about this case, hence I cannot comment.”

World Sikh News presents facts and seeks answers to the many questions we pose. Our ‘medicine’ of questions should relieve the amnesia of the Badal Dal leadership.

Darbara Singh Guru has to account for the following questions:

Did your administration not cremate all the four bodies on one funeral pyre on 5 February 1986 morning without allowing the families of four young men killed to have a last look before cremation? Were you present in the Nakodar police station when these orders were given? Whom were you trying to protect?

1. You were the additional deputy commissioner but on 2 February 1986 onwards, were you not officiating as the district magistrate cum deputy commissioner of Jalandhar? Were you not posted to monitor the developments in Nakodar subsequent to the burning of 5 Sarups of Guru Granth Sahib in Guru Arjan Sahib Gurdwara on 2 February 1986 by miscreant elements.
2. As the officiating district magistrate, did you not sign the curfew orders in Nakodar on 3 February 1986?
3. Even though there was tension in the town due to the setting on fire of 5 Sarups of Guru Granth Sahib, you did not order the arrest or even preventive detention of the alleged culprits named by the Sikh Sangat and the Sikh leaders? Was there any reason for not doing so?
4. As there was tension in the Nakodar town, what were your compulsions about allowing miscreants and anti-social elements to take out a march on 3 February, even when Section 144 had already been promulgated in the town?
5. On 4 February 1986, did you or any of your subordinates verbally ask the protestors to change the route of the protest march, with the express malafide intention of framing a confrontation between the Sikh protesters and the fanatics who were opposing the Sikhs?
6. Did you not order the local hospital authorities to conduct post mortem on the bodies of the deceased in the middle of the intervening night on 4-5 February 1986? Does this post-mortem order not have your signatures in your capacity as acting deputy commissioner?
7. Did your administration not cremate all the four bodies on one funeral pyre on 5 February 1986 morning without allowing the families of four young men killed to have a last look before cremation? Were you present in the Nakodar police station when these orders were given? Whom were you trying to protect?
8. As per post-mortem reports, only 2 victims were identified. Baldev Singh, the father of the third victim Ravinder Singh Littran, who managed to reach on foot, identified his son on the morning of 5 February and claimed his body for cremation. Why was the body not handed over to his father?
9. The identity of the body that was cremated as of the fourth victim is still a mystery. There is a no record in the cremation grounds for a period of 1-15 February 1986 regarding the cremations that took place during the period? As district magistrate what effort did you make to find the identity of 4th unidentified victim? Why are there no entries in the register of the cremation grounds of the said period, when this is required by law? Who instructed the cremation authorities not to write anything in the register? Assuming there were no other deaths in this period, except the four Sikh youth killed by the police, why are their names also not mentioned?
10. In an interview you have claimed that the then SP (Operations) Ashwini Kumar Sharma of CRPF told the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission that though the DC was less than a kilometre away, he did not make any efforts to seek permission to fire. Was this a set up? If not, then what departmental action was taken against the SP (Operations)? What did you do the following day? Did you send an internal secret report to the Chief Secretary of the state as to what your subordinates did and that action should be taken against them?
11. Justice Gurnam Singh Panel report states that the administration –you and your subordinates, made no effort to stop the Sikh Sangat assembly at Sherpur bridge on the outskirts of Nakodar City, the said assembly was never declared unlawful, no efforts were made to disperse the assembled Sangat and the SP (Operation) claimed he regularly gave the information to ADC and SSP about the assembly and speeches being made but no instructions were issued to him. Why did your administration not act?
12. Justice Gurnam Singh Panel report, like the Justice Ranjit Singh Commission Report and the Justice Zora Singh Commission reports into the sacrilege incidents in Kotkapura, Baragari and other places categorically states that “if the administration has acted in a timely manner it was possible to find the culprits of desecration of SGGS, the police firing could have been avoided.” Specifically, the Justice Gurnam Singh Report says, “Cases regarding all four incidents, i.e., the burning of the holy ‘Birs’ in the Gurdwara, the taking out of procession by the activists of the AISSF and the damage done by the member of the procession, the procession taken out by the Shiv Sena people and damage done by them and that of firing at Sherpur bridge, were registered , but in no case any responsible police officer started investigation. If investigation would have been started properly in first three cases and people involved were rounded up, the situation may have been controlled especially when Section 144. Cr. P.C. was already imposed and later curfew was imposed.”  Do you read this as a clean chit to you and the police?
13. You have been repeating again and again to the media that they should read the Justice Gurnam Singh Report. Please go through this paragraph of the report, which nails all the lies of the then police and the administration:

“The circumstances show that the mob had not become violent. The object of the people comprising the mob was to go to the Gurdwara as they considered the burning of the holy ‘Birs’ as an act of sacrilege. It is not proved beyond doubt that the members of the mob were armed with fire arms or deadly weapons. Even if some people in the mob carried lathis and kirpans, they could not be of any danger to the security forces who were fully equipped with the fire arms and other weapons and were at a considerable distance. When the mob was adamant to proceed further in the Nakodar town for going to the Gurdwara, Mr. Sharma should have called the S.S.P. and the D.M. at the spot and some negotiations should have been taken with the mob. If the situation could be rightly handled, there would have been no necessity of resorting to firing. Mr. A. K. Sharma, S.P. (Operations) says that he had ordered firing by plastic bullets, but the doctors who examined injured persons from the public, have not stated that any one of them had plastic bullet injuries. If the people in the mob had been told that the firing would be resorted, possibly the mob might have dispersed. The firing in the air could have also served the purpose. All these circumstances show that the situation was not properly handled by Mr. A. K. Sharma and he even did not get the help of the S.S.P. and the D.M. who were available. All the four dead persons were shot at their vital parts of the body two of the injured persons also had fire arm injuries on the upper portion of their bodies which shows that the firing was not done according to the Police Rules. The mob was not armed with such weapons with which they could cause any danger to the security forces. They were still at a distance of 16 to 20 yards from the security forces and there was no danger to the lives of the security men, nor to any public man.  It has come in the evidence produced by the Gurdwara Managing Committee that about 300 shots were fired. The order that effective firing should be on the lower part of the body was totally ignored and it appears that the four persons who died were aimed at the vital parts of their bodies so as to kill them.”

14.  The report of the Punjab Human Rights Organisation -‘A Mischief at Nakodar’ , quotes media reports and eye witnesses to state that one of the victims Harminder Singh Chaluper ran for safety, but was chased by the police, detained and shot in police custody at point blank range with his service revolver by SHO Jaskirat Chahal and then SP(D) Swaran Singh ‘Ghotna’.  His post mortem report also indicates the same. Can you throw some light on this?  What action did the police higher ups and the administration take against SHO Chahal or SP(D) Swaran Singh ‘Ghotna’?

15. You as the officiating Deputy Commissioner and Izhar Alam as SSP Jalandhar were examined by the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission as prosecution witnesses. How can you forget anything relating to the Nakodar police firing?

The electorate of Fatehgarh Sahib and Jalandhar and the justice seeking people of Punjab must ask these questions over and over again. These questions are a tell-tale story of acts of omission and commission –Don’t do what you are supposed to do and do what you are not supposed to do.

Charanjit Singh Atwal, though not directly involved in the Nakodar police firing, has to clarify his role as the speaker when the Justice Gurnam Singh Report was tabled in the Punjab Assembly on 5 March 2001.

1. Can you come clean and confirm that the Justice Gurnam Singh Report was tabled in the Punjab Assembly when you were the speaker on 5 March 2001 or was it quietly entered into the records?
2. Before placing it or quietly entering in the records, did the Speaker’s office obtain any explanation whatsoever as to why a 1986 report was now being tabled in 2001?
3. Assuming that it was tabled, why was there no discussion on the report by any member on that day or on the following days?
4. In the interest of justice, can you please tell the victim families as to where is Part II of the Justice Gurnam Singh Report?
5. Can you please inform the people of Punjab, as to how often do reports of Commissions get tabled in Assemblies without Action Taken Reports? Can you recall any such report?

Lies, subterfuge and amnesia has put the Badal Dal in the dock. Notwithstanding their bravado, Parkash Singh Badal and Sukhbir Singh Badal have a lot of explanation to do.

The electorate of Fatehgarh Sahib and Jalandhar and the justice seeking people of Punjab must ask these questions over and over again. These questions are a tell-tale story of acts of omission and commission –Don’t do what you are supposed to do and do what you are not supposed to do.

Will the electorate of Fatehgarh Sahib and Jalandhar rise to the occasion? Will the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission Report into the Nakodar killing become an albatross across the neck of Darbara Singh Guru, Charanjit Singh Atwal and the Badal Dal leadership?