Sub-Inspector Hoshiar Singh
ਸਬ-ਇੰਸਪੈਕਟਰ ਹੁਸ਼ਿਆਰ ਸਿੰਘ
Delhi Police Sub-Inspector posted at Gurdwara Rakab Ganj on 1 November 1984. A witness said he instigated the mob; the Nanavati Commission found a clear case of dereliction of duty.
Hoshiar Singh was a Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police in charge of the North Avenue police post in November 1984. With five other policemen, joined by 12 Home Guards from 1 p.m., he was posted at Gurdwara Rakab Ganj, beside Parliament, from 7 a.m. on 1 November 1984, the day a mob besieged the shrine and two Sikhs were burnt alive there. He told the Nanavati Commission that he controlled the situation; the commission found otherwise.
What the witnesses said: Mukhtiar Singh, who lived in a staff quarter of the gurdwara, told the commission that a mob attacked the gurdwara from about 11 a.m., that the police present took no action, and that later Sub-Inspector Hoshiar Singh instigated the mob to enter the gurdwara and handed his service revolver to a man in it, who fired shots towards the gurdwara (p. 21). In the evening, he said, Hoshiar Singh took him and six or seven others to the North Avenue post and held them overnight and the next day. Ajit Singh, who also lived in the complex, substantially supported his account (p. 21).
What he said: Hoshiar Singh told the commission that crowds returning from Teen Murti House had gathered near the gurdwara because there was a bus stand nearby, that sewadars with open kirpans and bhallas had angered them, that he and other officers went inside at about 9 a.m. and advised those inside to stay put, and that he fired three rounds in the air. He denied giving his revolver to anyone; he said someone in the mob had snatched the revolver of the MP Satpal Singh, which was later recovered (p. 143).
What the commission found: The commission called his reply “not only vague but evasive also”, noting that a huge crowd stayed near the gurdwara from about 11.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., that the gurdwara was damaged, and that no one from the mob was apprehended by him or his team (pp. 143 to 144). The Nanavati Commission called it “a clear case of dereliction of duty” by him and the policemen posted there and recommended that the Government take action against them (p. 144). The report records the allegation about the revolver and his denial; its finding is of dereliction of duty. The Government's Action Taken Report, tabled in August 2005, said that he and two constables had retired, he on 31 January 1998, and that there were legal difficulties in starting departmental proceedings (Outlook, 9 August 2005).
What he is remembered for: as the officer in charge of the police at Gurdwara Rakab Ganj on the day of the siege, whom one witness accused of helping the mob and whom the commission found to have failed in his duty.
Back to ThreadsSee its threads
Sources
- Report of the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry, Volume I, pp. 20-21, 139, 143-144, Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry, 2005 (copy on the Delhi High Court site). delhihighcourt.nic.in
- The alleged ATR (Action Taken Report on the Nanavati Commission), 9 August 2005, Outlook. outlookindia.com