'I have CDs to prove I was not present at riot site'

COMING CLEAN: Jagdish Tytler (C) reacts to the statements made by a 1984 anti-Sikh riot witness.

        

Other stories in the section:

BJP demands trust vote, asks Manmohan to prove majority

BJP President Rajnath Singh called the Left-UPA alliance as unnatural.

• TN women cops use third degree to solve wedding woes

Featured Blog

Sagarika Ghose

Red Letter Day

Featured Slideshows

Related Headlines

powered by

• BJP demands trust vote, asks Manmohan to prove majority
• TN women cops use third degree to solve wedding woes

Keywords: special investigation, 1984 anti-sikh riots

New Delhi: Minutes after CNN-IBN telecast the statements of Surinder Singh, a Sikh priest who claims to have witnessed Congress leader Jagdish Tytler inciting a mob during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Tytler rubbished the statements.

In an exclusive chat with CNN-IBN Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep Sardesai, Tytler said he had proof to negate Surinder Singh’s statements.

Tytler claimed he was in possession of Doordarshan CDs that reportedly showed him near Indira Gandhi’s dead body through the hours riots took place.

On a CNN-IBN special show conducted by Suhasini Haidar, Tytler also faced questions from H S Phoolka, the counsel for the '84 riot victims. The Congress leader said the timing of the appearance of the two witnesses reeks of a conspiracy against him.

Rajdeep Sardesai: You saw the statement Surinder Singh made on camera. I repeat what he said, “Tytler was instigating the mob saying ‘Don’t leave them, they have killed our mother.’ What’s your response?

Jagdish Tytler: He has also given an affidavit in Nanavati Commission saying he saw me at 9 o clock in morning. If you see the records when the session court trial took place, everybody said everything went wrong till 2 pm at that place.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Are you saying that what Surinder Singh has told us on camera is a lie? That he is changing his mind and that there’s no question of you being there at the time uttering those words?

Jagdish Tytler: I just want to say that I have never been to that place and I have got the seven CDs of Doordarshan where I am with Indira Gandhi’s body from 7 am to 3 pm. Everyone saw me.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Surinder Singh submitted his first eyewitness testimony before Nanavati Commission on January 12, 2002. At the end when commission finished it’s hearing, it said there was credible evidence against Jagdish Tytler that needed to be investigated. So obviously Surinder Singh was being taken seriously. You are saying he is a liar?

Jagdish Tytler: I am not saying that. I am saying I have a proof that I was not there. I can give you the films just now. They are official DD films.

Rajdeep Sardesai: You claim you were there with Indira Gandhi’s body?

Jagdish Tytler: I don’t claim. I was there from 7 am.

Rajdeep Sardesai: But the bottomline is why should Surinder Singh say something like this?

Jagdish Tytler: After 21 years, this fellow comes and says all this. I don’t understand this. There’s someone behind this.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Who is behind it? Are you saying there are rivals within your party doing this? Are you saying these witnesses are only surfacing after you were given a clean chit by CBI last week?

Jagdish Tytler: I only want to know why this man did not go the sessions court trial in 1994. He did not go to any commission, he did not got to CBI when he was questioned.

Rajdeep Sardesai: He says he was frightened.

Jagdish Tytler: Frightened of whom?

Rajdeep Sardesai: Frightened of threats and pressures he was under. He says his life was under threat and he did not get the backing of the Delhi Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. Therefore he turned a hostile witness.

Jagdish Tytler: It’s all nonsense. He’s talking rubbish. Can he name one or more Sikhs from the Gurudwara who can corroborate his statements? There must be other people too.

Rajdeep Sardesai: So you are saying that the granthi, who is on a hidden camera, is not speaking the truth. At no stage did you make that statement.

Jagdish Tytler: I was not there.

Rajdeep Sardesai: And despite that the Nanavati Commission said there was credible evidence? So you say the Commission is also lying?

Jagdish Tytler: Nanavati Commission only commented on his statement.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Surinder Singh says he turned hostile due to pressures. He claims he was abducted thrice, that police was hand-in-glove with powerful people.

Jagdish Tytler: I have a tape that shows I am not there. So the whole thing becomes a lie.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Why did you not submit the tape to CBI?

Jagdish Tytler: I did submit to CBI and the man himself has gone and said he did not see me. He got papers in his hand, legally.

Rajdeep Sardesai: So are you saying there was no question of pressure or threats?

Jagdish Tytler: The question does not arise. Inquiry must be done and I think there’s a conspiracy. After 21 years the man comes and makes a statement like, ‘Doosri sarkar aayegi main fir badal jaaoonga (I will change again when Government changes)’ What kind of a witness is he?

Phoolka reacted to Tytler’s claims. “He was given dates to testify but he did not produce the tapes. Had he produced the tapes in front of Nanavati Commission, it would have considered it. If he is right, that would have been the end of it. He chose not to produce it.”

Tytler responded by saying the clippings were part of a Doordarshan show recorded in 1984 and that he couldn’t have produced it immediately.

Phoolka, however, maintained Tytler could have asked the court to summon DD on the tapes. “But Mr Tytler did not do this. I think there is something wrong there,” he said.

Rajdeep Sardesai: But why did Surinder Singh change his statement in affidavit, denying he had seen Tytler. Now he has come on CNN-IBN making these dramatic statements. How do you explain the changing testimony of a key witness?