From: dawar@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Justice Bains - Release of Third Open Letter
Summary: A third open letter from Hardial Bains, excerpts
Keywords: Justice Bains, Human Rights, Punjab
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:03:23 GMT

BULLETIN			 Number 24, July 15, 1992.
Committee for the Release of Justice Ajit Singh Bains.

Issued by Dr. Jeffrey Goodman - Canadian Coordinator
	  76 Rusholme Rd., Toronto, Ontario M6J 3H5
	  Tele/Fax Number: (416) 537-8142

"IT IS A MATTER OF JUSTICE"
ANNOUNCING THE RELEASE OF THIRD OPEN LETTER BY HARDIAL BAINS

On July 12, 1992 the Association of Indian Progressive Study Groups released
the Third Open Letter to all women and men of conscience written by Hardial
Bains, the younger brother of Justice Ajit Singh Bains.  Titled "It is a
Matter of Justice" the letter is a powerful argument against the accusation
made by the Punjab police that Justice Bains is a "secessionist."

The letter begins with the statement of Sanjeev Gupta, Senior Superintendent
of Police in Ropar which contains the charges against Justice Bains.
According to him the "accused Ajit Singh Bains on 18-3-92 at Anandpur Sahib
on the occasion of Holla Mohalla made a speech which was secessionist in its
content and intent.  The speech constitutes a disruptive activity within the
meaning of Section 4 of TADA (Prevention) Act, 1987 and directly compromised
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India."  Mr. Gupta has
submitted a "translated version" of Justice Bains' speech, delivered in
Punjabi, as Annexure 'A' "for ready perusal of this Hon'ble court" and his
accompanying affidavit states: "The said speech besides being an offence
under the TADA act of 1987 is also an offence under various other laws."

Based on this statement made by Mr. Gupta, the letter proceeds to examine
the case of the Punjab police.  Are the allegations made by them justified?
"If the case against Justice Bains hinges on Mr. Gupta's allegation that his
speech was 'secessionist in its content and intent...and directly
compromised the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India,' it is a
clear admission by the police that Justice Bains is being persecuted for his
views.  The police further acknowledge that TADA is in contempt of the right
to conscience because Justice Bains' incarceration was carried out under
this law.  Furthermore, the bias of the Punjab Police against Justice Bains
is revealed by the failure to even take into account the central theme of
the speech.  The word 'secessionist' is mentioned in the 'translated version
of the speech' with an intent quite opposite to that alleged by Mr. Gupta.
Justice Bains refers to it when he emphatically asserts: 'We are not
extremists, nor secessionists and nor are we communal.'  In addition, Mr.
Gupta could not have possibly arrived at his conclusion if he had fully
investigated what it means to be a secessionist and to compromise the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.  In his speech, Justice
Bains raises entirely different questions, those of justice and of ending
the enslavement and oppression of the people of Punjab.  Mr. Gupta makes no
reference whatsoever to these main themes of the speech.  Furthermore, while
Justice Bains speaks of a remedy to the oppression and enslavement, this is
also lost on Mr. Gupta, who makes no reference to it."

What are these views attributed to Justice Bains?
The letter quotes extensively from the translated version of the speech
submitted by Mr. Gupta as evidence in the Court.  According to the author,
the "evidence" certainly does not justify the charge of "secession."
Moreover, the translation itself is highly incompetent and "shoddy" as the
author puts it.  But even this "shoddy translation" gives an entirely
different picture than the conclusions being drawn by the Punjab police.  In
the speech, "Justice Bains declares that '...then the slogan was Britishers
quit India and today we should give the slogan that rulers of India,
tyrants, killers quit our Punjab...these tyrants have not given justice in
the last forty five years.'  He concludes his speech by referring to the
United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 'It is written in the
declaration of the Human Rights act that those nations who want independence
they can get independence when they do not get justice.  With these words I
beg forgiveness from you.'  The linkage of justice with independence is
unmistakable throughout his speech."  The author continues to argue and
point out that the overwhelming thrust of Justice Bains' speech is that
"justice is not being served for the people" and that "even in the speech
submitted by Mr. Gupta, not a single word about the separation of Punjab
appears.  It could not appear because, for a state to separate, it must
first be independent.  Then it will be in a position to decide whether or
not it will enter into an equal union with any other state.  From what
Justice Bains states, the only warranted conclusion is: If the present
Indian Union is to continue, all violations of human rights must be ended
forthwith and justice must be done to all.  In the absence of this, the only
solution can be a democratic renewal with the restoration of the rights of
each nation and tribal people within which they can exercise their
prerogative to decide whether or not they wish to enter into a voluntary
union with others.  These being the options, leaving aside the fact that he
has the right to say whatever he wishes, how can the police accuse Justice
Bains of being a secessionist and compromising the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of India?

Not only is the accusation of secession baseless, if we go by the police's
own evidence of the speech, but it is not even legally sound in an objective
sense.  The letter succinctly argues that it is not for secession but for
justice and a cessation of oppression that Justice Bains is fighting.  Going
by the dictionary definition of the word secession and the historical
development of India, the author proves that this accusation cannot be
brought to bear.  "One of the meanings of the English word secession needs
closer scrutiny: 'To withdraw formally from an alliance, an association, a
federal union.'  This meaning includes the presupposition that the members
of 'an alliance', 'an association' or a 'federal union' voluntarily entered
it in the first place.  Both as a point of constitutional law and as a
matter of historical fact, neither Punjab nor any of the other nations or
tribes of India ever voluntarily enlisted into the currently existing union.
[...Since] secession pertains to ending a relationship into which one has
independently and voluntarily entered, therefore, Justice Bains is not
raising his voice as a secessionist but as one of the oppressed seeking
justice."

Since the charge of secessionism is clearly baseless then why has Justice
Bains been arrested?  The question becomes particularly significant in the
face of the "brazen lies and diversions by the police" and the remarks of
the Chief Minister of Punjab.  The letter outlines the clear instances of
this:

"Even in terms of the views of Justice Bains, there is a blatant attempt by
the police to coverup and create diversion.  In the testimony of one Chain
Singh, ASI, Police Station, Anandpur Sahib, given under oath and submitted
as Annexure 'C', he deliberately confounds the views of Justice Bains with
those of others, real or imaginary. [...] Many of the remarks referred to in
this sworn statement are not from Justice Bains' speech, submitted in
English translation by Mr.  Gupta as Annexure 'A'.  It must be kept in mind
that Mr. Chain Singh's affidavit is for the benefit of the Supreme Court
which will be hearing the case of mala fide on July 15, 1992, as filed by
Mrs. Rashpal Kaur Bains against Beant Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab.
Chain Singh's mish-mash of statements by Justice Bains and those of others
can only be designed to create a false impression about Justice Bains and
prejudice the judgement.  In his sworn statement, Mr. Gupta declares that
the 'accused was arrested on 4-4-92 at Anandpur Sahib and thereafter he has
been taken in custody vide appropriate judicial orders in consonance with
the law.'  This submission was made on June 14, 1992 but the Sessions Judge,
Ropar, signed a 'report dated 22-5-92... in pursuance of the orders dated
8-4-92 passed in aforesaid Criminal Writ Petition' in which he concludes:
'Thus, in the face of this all, the version put forth by the police that
Justice Bains was arrested on 4-4-92 not on 3-4-92 and that he was not
handcuffed has to be thrown away overboard.  It is explicit that he has been
arrested at Chandigarh and not at Anandpur Sahib."  Why does Mr. Gupta
insist on claiming that Justice Bains was arrested on April 4 in Anandpur
when he was arrested in Chandigarh on April 3? [...] Why would a person
responsible for the maintenance of law and order be so prejudicial towards
the accused as has been manifested by the Punjab Police towards Justice Ajit
Singh Bains and many others?  Such questions have to be raised in the face
of an extremely shoddy translation from Punjabi to English and Chain Singh's
affidavit which combines the statements of a number of individuals and makes
it impossible to discern between Justice Bains' views and those of others.
It is even impossible to establish whether anyone uttered all or some or
none of the views whatsoever.  Justice Bains certainly did not speak in the
spirit attributed to him by Chain Singh.  Is it possible that the Punjab
Police or the Government of Punjab or whosoever is responsible for the
preparation of evidence could not find an apt translator?  Is it possible
that no one in the Punjab Police had demanded from ASI Chain Singh that he
should present precise views as given by each speaker and the sequence in
which they spoke?  Why was only the shoddy translation of Justice Bains'
speech presented and accepted as evidence and not verified against the
original Punjabi text?  Justice Bains has been accused of the crime of
'secession,' a very serious charge in the eyes of the Indian government.  At
the very least, his detractors could have done justice to his views by
providing an impeccable translation, given that he could be imprisoned for a
long time!  Some may argue that the denial of the police that Justice Bains
was arrested on April 3, 1992 may be accounted for by a possible conspiracy
against his life on that day.  Is it true?  The Indian and Punjab
governments will have to answer such questions.  But the shoddy translation,
the statement of ASI Chain Singh, the dispute about the date, time and
location of the arrest, the handcuffing incident, and the failure of the
police to go into the depth of what was said, all point to a serious charge
of misconduct and criminal behaviour on the part of the authorities.  How
can such a thing happen unless the motive is purely to humiliate and punish
Justice Bains for his views?  Two lawyers, Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal and Mr. G.S.
Dhillon of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, have filed affidavits with the
Supreme Court of India asserting that they met the Chief Minister of Punjab
Mr. Beant Singh regarding the arrest of Mr. Bains on May 15 and Mr. Beant
Singh not only abused Justice Bains but also told the deputation that they
could not interfere and demand his release as he has 'personal scores' to
settle with him."

Having laid out all the arguments, the letter concludes "that Justice Bains
is being persecuted for his opinions.  The Indian and Punjab governments are
hell-bent on pressing their case on the spurious claim that the speech
delivered by Justice Bains on March 18 was a 'disruptive activity' within
the framework of TADA, which has been universally condemned.  They are
abusing the police, forcing it to act as an instrument in their own interest
against the people who raise their voices against them.  Any further
evidence presented by the police on July 15 will not be just a police act
but a political act justifying the actions of the rulers of India against a
fighter for human rights, Justice Bains."

The author ends with a call to "all women and men of conscience to carefully
examine this case and defend Justice Bains in his battle against injustice.
The central issue is the right to conscience. It is only in defending this
right that the people can force the rulers of India to end all the
conditions of enslavement and oppression [...]  The times are crying out for
a just solution to these problems and for the defence of the right to
conscience.  The demand that Justice Bains be released at once is a step in
this direction.  Besides being a matter of conscience and of principle, this
is also a matter of justice."

The release of this Open Letter comes on the eve of the trial of Justice
Bains.  On July 16, 1992 the Supreme Court of India will be examining the
charge of secession made by the Punjab Police, when it hears the case of
mala fide brought by Mrs. Rashpal Kaur Bains against Beant Singh, Chief
Minister of Punjab.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian