Victims of Hashimpura get another chance…
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]D[/dropcap]elhi High Court’s Thursday order of granting BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s application for collection of additional evidence is a decisive step in bringing justice in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre of killing of 42 Muslim young men by Uttar Pradesh Police. Swamy has been tirelessly fighting for the bringing the culprits to book in the Independent India’s biggest atrocity by the state in shooting the young men point-blank by the Congress rule in Centre and UP.
Swamy argued that the then Minister of State Internal Security (MoS) P Chidambaram was present in the district at the time of the incident…
The Delhi High Court on January 12 said it will start hearing in March arguments by Subramanian Swamy, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the family members of victims and survivors of the 1987 Hashimpura massacre on the need for additional evidence. A Bench of justices Gita Mittal and Anu Malhotra decided to take up the applications for additional evidence after the lawyers for the accused in the case opposed the plea.
During the hearing, Swamy said he wanted to examine the then District Magistrate (DM), who is now Chief Election Commissioner (S N A Zaidi), and also the then Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of the district who has since retired.
Swamy argued that the then Minister of State Internal Security (MoS) P Chidambaram was present in the district at the time of the incident, which could be confirmed by examining the then District Magistrate Zaidi. That time both Centre and State was ruled by Congress and as MoS Internal Security Chidambaram was controlling the entire operations in the area, as the district was witnessing communal riots in the wake of Ayodhya conflict.
Hashimpura – Was the destruction of records deliberate?
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]T[/dropcap]he Bench said it was extremely “painful” to note the absence of many crucial records by state administration. The lawyer for one of the survivors said he wanted to re-summon some witnesses including family members of victims and the driver of the truck used in the incident, to ascertain identity of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel who had committed the massacre in which 42 people were killed.
Meanwhile, surprisingly Vrinda Grover was seen objecting Subramanian Swamy’s arguments, while claiming her stand for human rights. Was she trying to steal the thunder?
Meanwhile, the NHRC, which has intervened in the matter to seek further probe into the incident, said the Uttar Pradesh government in its affidavit of January 4 has not said on whose direction the “weeding out” or “destruction” of documents, like duty and attendance registers and log books of that day, had taken place.
NHRC counsel Vrinda Grover said the affidavit also does not identify the personnel of the PAC platoon which was on duty at the Hashimpura locality of district Meerut, and instead a list of the entire PAC battalion which was on duty on that date was provided. Meanwhile, surprisingly Vrinda Grover was seen objecting Subramanian Swamy’s arguments, while claiming her stand for human rights. Was she trying to steal the thunder?
However, advocates Zafaryab Jilani and Ramkishor Singh Yadav, who appeared for the State government, said the list contained the names of the platoon personnel also.
The Bench, thereafter, said the list was not clear and asked the UP government lawyers to file a typed copy of the list before the next date of hearing on March.