INDIA: Another Dalit murdered by the dominant caste members over the land dispute in Gujarat

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from Navsarjan, a human rights organisation working on Dalit rights in Gujarat about the forced displacement of a Dalit (formerly known as ‘untouchable’) community as a result of the murder of a Dalit by upper caste persons. In August 2007, nine Rajputs (upper caste) in Bukna village, Banaskantha district murdered a Dalit over a land dispute. The victim’s family and his community members fled their village in fear of the same fate, and have been camped in make-shift tents in front of the District Collector’s office since then. Despite the passage of eight months since the incident, the relevant authorities have failed to resettle the community or at the very least to provide them with temporary shelter and basic sanitation facilities. Their situation is particular urgent now that the monsoon season is fast approaching.

CASE DETAILS:

On 29 August 2007, nine members of Rajput (upper caste) community murdered Mr. Kohya Uka Manwar (age 40) who belonged to a Dalit (Scheduled Caste; SC) community; Bukna village, Vav Block, Banaskantha district, Gujarat.

On their way to work in the early morning, Kohya Uka and his brother Vashram Uka, were attacked by nine waiting Rajputs who used wooden sticks and a sharp steel rod to kill Kohya Uka.

After much resistance, the Vav police station registered a First Information Report (FIR) on the day of the murder, number I 51/2007 against the nine Rajputs. The crime was registered in the FIR under the Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 323 (voluntarily causing injury), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous injury), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapons), 149 (offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object), and 302 (murder); The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 Section 3 (2) (v) (commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine) and The Bombay Police Act 1951, Section 135 (contravention of an order).

Two days later, on 31 August 2007, the police arrested only three of the nine accused. The victim’s family thereafter wrote an appeal to the Collector (District Magistrate; DM in Gujarat), Superintendent of Police (SP), Police Inspector (PI), and Social Welfare Officer calling for the arrest of the remaining six accused. However, none of them took any action to have the accused arrested or provide protection for the victim’s family

On 13 September 2007, 19 families of the victim’s Dalit community, including the victim’s family, were forced to leave their village for fear that the Rajput community would attack them as well. Not knowing where else to go, the families migrated to the District Collector’s office in Palanpur, Banaskantha district. Since then, they have been camped in front of the Collector’s office calling on the Collector and other government officials to ensure their safety and the arrest of the accused. (photo 1: 19 families camping in front of the Collector’s office)

The Collector would not meet the families camped in front of his office until 20 September 2007; Navsarjan pressured the Collector to meet with them. Two days after this meeting, the remaining six accused were arrested. However, the investigation, which according to The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must be conducted within 30 days of the registration of the FIR, was delayed.

In response to the government’s inaction, on 17 October 2007, Navsarjan submitted a complaint (No. 409/6/4/07-08/UC) to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India. In its complaint, Navsarjan called for an investigation of the case, prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators, and protection, compensation and rehabilitation for the victim’ family and the displaced community. On 30 October 2007, the NHRC of India issued a notice to the Chief Secretary of Gujarat calling for a report to be submitted within four weeks on the incident with a response by the relevant State officials. However, approximately 5 months after the initial deadline of their submission, the State government has failed to submit any response despite repeated reminders by the NHRC and Navsarjan.

The only relief the state government provided these victims has been 15 Indian rupees (USD 0.3) each day for each individual for six months, as provided by a state policy developed in response to Rule 14 of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. However, this amount was settled by the state in 1995 and has not been increased to account for inflation.

The nineteen families camped in front of the District Collector’s office suffer from a deficiency of fundamental facilities. Their shelter is comprised of tents made up of scrap materials; hardly strong enough to withstand the quickly approaching monsoon season. They lack access to proper sanitation, and thus, they are forced to shower and go to the bathroom in the open, near a main road.  While this is degrading for the entire community, the women, who comprise 52 percent of the community, are particularly harmed by these conditions.

Due to their living conditions, the health of the displaced Dalit community is of great concern, particularly regarding maternal health. Two women have already given birth in this camp, and three women are currently pregnant and expecting to give birth in June and July 2008. The community, as a whole, is prone to contracting malaria; many members of the community have suffered from malaria since living in the camp. Four to five of the community members have been admitted to the hospital for serious medical conditions since living there. (photo 2)

On 21 April 2008, several human rights defenders from Navsarjan visited the Collector’s office of Banaskantha district. Through this meeting, Navsarjan discovered that even though the Collector submitted a proposal in December 2007 for a particular piece of land to be used for the resettlement of the Dalit community, the Collector has yet to receive a response from the responsible higher authorities in the Gujarat Government, including the Revenue and Social Welfare Departments and the Chief Minister. (photo 3: victim’s daughter and family’s camp)

The local authorities failed to protect the victim from caste-base murder. The Collector, Social Welfare Officer, Police Inspector and the Superintendent of Police had been informed of the threat and harassment of the victim and his family over the land, allowing them to prepare for the possibility of caste-based violence in the village. Even after the murder, the local authorities failed to promptly investigate the crime, risking weakening of the prosecution’s case and undermining the rule of law and right to life in India. 

BACKGROUND OF THE INCIDENT:

In the remote village of Bukna, located in one of the northern-most regions of Gujarat, the Rajput community (an upper caste) is the dominant caste and in possession of most of the land in the village. The Dalit community (Scheduled Caste; SC, in legal parlance) owns little land for agriculture. As a result, most of the Dalits in Bukna, as elsewhere in Gujarat, are economically dependent on the Rajput community, working as agricultural labourers on the Rajputs’ land.

Since 2006, Mr. Piraj Rasangji Rajput (age 70) of Bukna village pressured the victim to relinquish a piece of land his family legally owns. Piraj Rasangji’s Rajput community wanted the victim’s land to build a road for the Rajputs to use.  When the victim’s family refused to give up their land, Piraj Rasangji’s son, Ramji Pira Rajput, along with other Rajputs, began harassing and threatening the victim and his family. Their land dispute went to the Session Court.

On 20 April 2007, the Session Court gave a judgment in favor of the victim, and Piraj Pasangji’s appeal to the higher court was dismissed. Despite this, Ramji Pira and other Rajputs continued harassing the victim and his family. In fear of being killed, the victim and his family lodged a complaint with the Vav police on 23 May 2007. The Vav police registered a FIR (number I 18/2007), however the police did not take any further action against the accused.

The neglect of the police authority made the victims, his family and other Dalits feel their personal security was threatened, and therefore, had to leave their village. They camped in front of the District Collector’s office calling on the Collector, Social Welfare Officer, Police Inspector and the Superintendent of Police to provide them with protection. The Police then sent them back to the village promising to protect them.

Only two police officers patrolled the victim’s house for two weeks. Immediately after the police withdrew their protection, nine Rajputs murdered Kohya Uka. The brief and negligent protection provided by the police allowed this murder to occur. This is not the first time the AHRC has received such a report; please refer to previous Urgent Appeal, AHRC-UAC-077-2008.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:

As this case illustrates, in caste-based atrocities, the results extend beyond the initial incident.  Often, the security of the victim’s entire Dalit community is threatened.

Even though the Collector of Banaskantha district and Superintendent of Police received numerous complaints from the victim, his family and community, they failed to take appropriate action to prevent the atrocity. The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 17 (Preventive action to be taken by the law and order machinery) and The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 Section 3 (Precautionary and preventive measures) both emphasize the importance of police action to prevent caste-based atrocities. Relevant to this case, the Act also provides for the punishment of public servants who neglect their duties under the Act (Section 4).

Moreover, after the atrocity occurred, the police continued to neglect their duties under the Act.  In the FIR, the police failed to mention the Section 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x), and 3(1)(xv) of the Act, minimizing the accused’s criminal liability and thus, their future sentencing. Section 8 of the Act also allows the police to presume that the offense was committed in furtherance of the common intention or in prosecution of the common object, if it is proved that the offense committed by a group of persons was a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, as precisely was the case here.

In the international arena, caste-based discrimination and similar forms of social hierarchy were legally recognized in the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)’s General Recommendation XXIX in 2002. It explains that discrimination based on “descent” (Article 1 of the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination) includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste, and analogous systems of inherited status, which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights. The CERD also recommends the government takes steps to identify areas prone to descent-based violence in order to prevent the recurrence of such violence,

Caste-based atrocities seriously affect the routine security of the entire Dalit community to which the victim belongs, infringing on the right to life as enshrined in the Indian Constitution (article 21) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (article 6). In cases of caste-based atrocities the government is obligated to protect the entire community suffering further from the atrocity by providing fundamental facilities including land, housing, water, sanitation facilities, electricity supply, and a means of livelihood.

The United Nations defines Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) as persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence. In India, the issue of communities forcibly displaced by caste-based atrocities is not recognized or reported. In many cases of atrocities, once one member of a Dalit community becomes the victim of a caste-based atrocity, his or her entire community lives in fear of further atrocities, they are often forced to flee the village to escape a similar fate. In both cases, the entire community’s security and fundamental facilities for life are not assured by the government.

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement says, “National authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons within their jurisdiction (principle 3).” Also Principle 15 provides that internally displaced persons have (a) the right to seek safety in another part of the country, and (d) the right to be protected against forcible return to or resettlement in any place where their life safety, liberty and/or health would be at risk. Most significant for this case, Principle 18 states that at the minimum, regardless of the circumstances, and without discrimination, competent authorities shall provide internally displaced persons with and ensure safe access to: essential food and potable water, basic shelter and housing, appropriate clothing, essential medical services and sanitation.

Section 17 and 4 of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are below;

(Section 17)
a District Magistrate (the Collector in this case) or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate or any police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police may, on receiving information and after such inquiry as he may thinks necessary, has reason to believe that a person or a group of persons not belonging to the SC or the ST,–likely to commit an offence or has threatened to commit any offence under this Act and– take necessary action for keeping the peace and good behaviour and maintenance of public order and tranquility and may take preventive action.

(Section 4) on punishment for neglect of duties, that whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities named below expressing your concern in this murder case. The facts of the case have to be thoroughly investigated and the alleged murderers should be punished without any delay. Please make a note that police authority and law enforcement agency failed to protect the victim. Most of all, please urge the relevant authorities to ensure that the victim’s family receives appropriate compensation and community members’ rights are protected.

The AHRC has also written separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced person calling for an intervention in this case.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER