Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information concerning the kidnap and trafficking of the then 16-year-old Sajida Khatun (name changed to protect identity) on 25 March 2011 and the refusal of personnel at Haroa Police Station to render assistance for her recovery. Efforts by Sajida’s father to register a case with the police have been frustrated by the appalling apathy of police officers and the authorities to the plight of Sajida and her family, as well as by the criminal perversion of evidence by the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station.
We urge you to write in to appeal to the relevant authorities to take actions against the men responsible for these crimes. By so doing you express solidarity not only with a minor taken from her family but with all individuals, families and communities who are victims of institutional failings in important branches of government. In petitioning the Indian authorities, we express a hope that, despite the threatening fault lines along the face of India’s law enforcement agencies, India may yet undertake serious social and institutional reforms that will remove the vestiges of lawlessness in the land and bring her people a lasting peace.
CASE NARRATIVE:
An investigation by Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM) has uncovered the following facts.
Sajida Khatun was only 16 years old when she was lured away by Ms Hafi Khatun, Ms Chakia Bibi and Mr Raju Molla, residents of Atghora Village under the jurisdiction of Haroa Police Station, with promises of a job. Sajida’s father went to Haroa Police Station to lodge a report, but instead of registering a First Information Report (FIR), the police simply issued a General Diary Entry (GDE) and did not take further action to recover the victim or to arrest the perpetrators. Sajida’s father went before the police at Haroa Police Station several times to request for an FIR to be made out against those he suspected had taken his daughter but was refused. The Officer-in-Charge, Mr Sumit Mondal, refused to accept a written complaint and proof of the victim’s age.
On 10 December 2011, Sajida’s father submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police for North 24 Parganas detailing the frustration of his endeavours thus far to recover his daughter due to the inaction and general disinterest of the police at Haroa Police Station. No action was taken consequent to this complaint.
On 13 December, the victim’s father went once again to Haroa Police Station with a written complaint and a request for an FIR to be written against the suspects. Not only was the police officer on-duty unwilling to accept the complaint, but that police officer verbally abused Sajida’s father. The Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station simply stated the an FIR could not be made out on the basis of that written complaint, and requested for Sajida’s father to bring a fresh copy. When Sajida’s father communicated his illiteracy, the Officer-in-Charge suggested that he pay for the services of Mr Doud Ali Molla, who would write the report on his behalf. Mr Doud Ali Molla, who was in the premises of the police station, wrote a report as Sajida’s father recounted the incident and the document was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station. Sajida’s father noticed discrepancies in the new complaint but was no confident in his ability to read what had been written, and so said nothing. The new complaint was then accepted and an FIR issued (vide Haroa Police Station Case No 29/2012 dated 13 February 2012 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code). Sajida’s father later took a copy of the new complaint to others who could read it and discovered that his daughter’s age had been revised upward to 20 years instead of 16 – he realised that the Officer-in-Charge had instructed Mr Doud Ali Molla to change certain details in the account. Sajida’s father then submitted a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Basarat, North 24 Parganas narrating the entire incident, the criminal negligence and inaction by the police as well as the deliberate corruption of his report by the Officer-in-Charge at Haroa Police Station.
To this day, Sajida has not been recovered and the persons responsible for her disappearance have not been apprehended. Sajida’s father was threatened by the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station with no further action in the matter of his missing daughter should he dare to complain against the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station; such a breach of professionalism and law in the formulation and presentation of that threat cannot be condoned by local and central authorities. Considering the lack of police action thus far to recover Sajida, and blatant attempts by the police to block or distort information supplied by Sajida’s father, this threat has become quite redundant.
Justice delayed is justice denied. Sajida has now been missing for over a year. Inaction condones and, in such cases, has the same criminal consequence as complicity, particularly where law enforcement agencies and provincial authorities have a moral and legal responsibility, as well as the power and resource, to timely help. The district and state authorities have not done enough to bring justice to the victim and her family. Instead, they have been slow to publicly express their condemnation of human trafficking, to thoroughly investigate the matter, to punish those responsible and to render practical assistance to Sajida and her family. Without urgent intervention from the local and central authorities, it is probable that Sajida will be exposed to further exploitation. Despite the atrocious delay, Sajida is still a minor (according to Indian law) and therefore susceptible to being enticed, mislead and forced into certain forms of work. If the problem is not acknowledged by the authorities, it is also likely yet more children will fall victim to trafficking syndicates.
It is the most vulnerable segments of society – women, children, the elderly, the illiterate, members of minority groups – that desperately need the government’s protection and assistance. Without state intervention, these particularly defenceless groups face, for the foreseeable future, continued abuses of their freedoms and physical persons and no likelihood for justice to be served to those acting with complete impunity.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The lack of empathy with Sajida’s anxious father and the exploitation of his illiteracy to falsify information by the Officer-in-Charge at Haroa Police Station disclose a systemic abuse of authority and disregard for basic protocol and laws established in key documents such as the 1950 Indian Constitution, the 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Officer-in-Charge did not see the incredible irony and ludicrous logic, not to mention illegality, of threatening to not discharge his duty (to not search for Sajida) if Sajida’s father did not permit him to not discharge his duties properly (blatant falsification of his daughter’s age). It is cruel and criminal for the police to force a troubled father to choose between a chance to recover his daughter and becoming complicit in a crime which necessarily injured investigative processes. Sajida’s father had no motive to falsify information concerning his daughter’s age. The Officer-in-Charge, on the other hand, was clearly trying to avoid the bother of properly investigating the case. If Sajida’s declared age suggests she is no longer a minor, investigating her disappearance would not be a priority, and the police would be absolved of their legal obligations toward the victim and her family.
The submission of false information could also be used against Sajida’s father at a later stage, and he could be charged under Section 191 of the IPC for knowingly supplying false information to the police. As things stand, the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station is guilty and can be charged under Sections 192, 196, 200 and 503 of the IPC for fabricating false evidence, corruptly using or attempting to use as true or genuine evidence known to be false, using as true a declaration known to be false and criminally intimidating Sajida’s father with further injury to his daughter should he undertake to expose the nefarious methods employed by the police at Haroa Police Station. The false rendering of a statement is also a contravention of Section 161(3) of the CrPC. Are the people of India to rejoice in the knowledge that justice in India is so vicariously serviced by the whim of police in the place of duty and legal, if not moral, obligation?
The brazenness with which Mr Doud Ali Molla, so conveniently stationed within the police premises to offer paid transcription services for those who cannot read or write, colludes with the police to distort, omit and add information submitted in statements, is alarming. Such “service” render the accuracy and credibility of all statements submitted at that particular police station, at best, questionable. The implications of such oppressive and manipulative practices for the numerous complainants and victims in that area are great. Such mockery of due process might even be laughable, if the consequences for all involved were not quite so severe. The paid nature of Mr Doud Ali Molla’s work is also unlawful – if transcription services are necessary to the making of a statement or report, it is important that the person is officially appointed and receives no remuneration for his work except that which his salary from the authorities affords. It is likely that the gains made from this “service” is shared between Doud and the Officer-in-Charge, who finds him illiterate clients to “help”. This is a cognisable crime under Section 161 of the IPC, which defines the offence as a “public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act”.
Sajida’s kidnapping from lawful guardianship through enticement was a straightforward enough crime for the police to investigate and pursue under Section 361 and 363 of the IPC. Sajida’s rights in Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Indian Constitution guaranteed her rights to equal protection by law, regardless of her religious or other affiliations, protection of life and liberty and against being trafficked. The police, however, and the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station in particular, have conscientiously avoided taking up the case; a proliferation of other chargeable offences subsequently sprung from their pains. It is impossible to not wonder the reason the police have gone to such remarkable lengths to prevent the registering of an FIR or to falsify an illiterate and grieving father’s statement. These actions go far beyond apathy, laziness and the neglect of one’s professional duties; they are active and deliberate transgressions of local and international laws. Might the police at Haroa Police Station be somehow involved in the smuggling of children, that they would willingly commit petty crime to cover up larger infractions of the law?
Although Sajida’s father has done his best to expose the malpractices of this Officer-in-Charge before his superiors, no inquiry has been undertaken into the illegal activities at Haroa Police Station. In the meanwhile, the search for Sajida has been side-lined. These observations speak of the relative inertia, apathy and corruption of India’s law enforcement, a clumsy bureaucracy that has long since lost sight of its calling to serve the people and to uphold justice. The Indian state openly proclaims itself a Republic and boasts a government founded on the incontrovertible legitimacy popular support confers. When the Indian authorities stop respecting the sovereignty of and neglect their obligations toward the Indian people, that endorsement will be withdrawn. Permitting crime to flourish and go unpunished is hence detrimental to the survival of political regimes.
The trafficking of Sajida is a beastly crime in and of itself. Yet the inability and unwillingness of Indian officials to deliver justice and restore Sajida to her father firmly locates India’s executive and judiciary in the category of a “still developing” world. India’s accession to the United Nations and to various international treaties such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) demonstrates its commitment to live up to the universal norms and values reflected in those legal documents – ideals such as peace, justice, rule of law and democratic government. Sajida’s experience has not been one testifying to the propagation, internalisation and fulfilment of these ideals.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, first promulgated in 1948, explicitly state every individual’s rights to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3), to freedom from slavery and servitude (Article 4), to equal protection of the law without discrimination (Article 7) and to effective remedy when their rights have been violated (Article 8). These are rights Sajida possesses, rights that the Indian state is charged to protect as duty-bearer and as the defender and guardian of its people and Constitution. The ICCPR, to which the Indian state become a party in 1979, reiterates the individual’s rights to life, liberty and security (Article 8), to freedom from slavery/servitude (Article 9), to equal protection of the law (Article 26) and to effective remedy for any violations of those rights (Article 2(3)). It further states in Articles 23(1) and 24 of the ICCPR that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” and that “every child shall have, without any discrimination…measure of protection as are required by his status as a minor”. State parties also declared in Article 10(3) of the ICESCR that children and young persons should be protected by economic and social exploitation. It is therefore embarrassing that, in India, criminals who can so easily take advantage of a child’s limited knowledge and experience of the world to proposition and abduct her can just as easily escape the much atrophied arm of the law.
Children, particularly females, are prone to socioeconomic, sexual and other forms of exploitation. The 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which India ratified in 1992, quite emphatically asserted in Articles 2 and 3(1) the obligation states bear toward the “best interests of the child” in all matters. Article 9(1) declares that “a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will. State parties to the CRC “shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad” and “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measure to protect the child from all forms of…exploitation…as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment…and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement” (Articles 11(1) and 19). It is the state that recognises in theory the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous to or interfere with the child’s education or harm the child’s physical, mental, moral, spiritual or social health and development (Article 32(1)). Most pertinent to Sajida’s case, Article 20(2) of the CRC demands that “a child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the state”. It is therefore the solo responsibility of the state to restore Sajida to her family without any further delays, and to plug the institutional leaks in law enforcement that have permitted her extended disappearance/absence from her family. It is also the duty of the state to arrest, detain, investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes against Sajida and her family. Following Sajida’s return, Article 39 of the CRC must also “take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of the child victim…in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child”.
The abuse Sajida’s father has had to undergo at the hands of callous and apathetic police must not be tolerated by the authorities. The employ of such individuals in law enforcement threaten the effectiveness, morale and popular legitimacy of the police force and, by association, state and central authorities. It is preposterous to entertain the notion that justice can still be achieved when crime and corruption is rampant, and where there is great insensitivity amongst law enforcement to the suffering of the masses. If even ordinary crime such as kidnapping cannot be taken seriously, the people’s trust in their government will be withdrawn. If everyday crime and the incompetence, corruption and tyranny of fundamental organs of administration are tolerated or condoned by the only bodies able to rein in such moral dissipation, it will not be long before the nation is engulfed in chaos and lawlessness.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities mentioned below demanding an investigation into this case. The disappearance and trafficking of Sajida Khatun is a matter of grave concern, and reveals even more insidious institutional failings that the state must immediately seek to address. The safe recovery of Sajida must be prioritised by the relevant authorities in order for local police to be spurred into action. The Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station, and Mr Doud Ali Molla, who has been illegally offering paid transcription services at Haroa Police Station, must also be punished for his intentional corruption of evidence, protocol and proper police procedure. If best practice precedents are not quickly set, the authorities risk the challenge of having to rein in even more deeply entrenched lawlessness amongst its law enforcement institutions in the future. The community must be assured that these crimes will not so easily occur again in the future, or, if they do, that they will be capably met by proper checks and balances within the justice system.
The Asian Human Rights Commission is also writing separate letters to the Chairperson of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Chairperson of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women calling for further intervention in this case.
To support this appeal, please click here:
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear __________,
INDIA: Please investigate the kidnap of a 16-year-old in Pilkhana Village under the jurisdiction of Haroa Police Station, police inaction despite repeated attempts by the victim's father to register a First Information Report (FIR) and the criminal falsification of information by the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station
Name of victim: Ms Sajida Khatun (name changed), 16 years old, Muslim and resident of Pilkhana Village under the jurisdiction of Haroa Police Station, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal
Names of alleged perpetrators:
1. Ms Hafi Khatun
2. Ms Chakia Bibi
3. Mr Raju Molla
4. Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station
5. Investigating officer of case no. 29/2012 (under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code) dated 13 February 2012, Haroa Police Station
Date of incident: 25 March 2011
Place of incident: Pilkhana Village under the jurisdiction of Haroa Police Station, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal
I am writing to express concern regarding a case of child trafficking and inaction on the part of police at Haroa Police Station, who have refused to act on multiple reports by Sajida Khatun's father either due to complicity with the traffickers or to apathy toward the suffering of the child and her family. The details of the case are as follows:
Sajida Khatun was only 16 years old when she was lured away by Ms Hafi Khatun, Ms Chakia Bibi and Mr Raju Molla, residents of Atghora Village under the jurisdiction of Haroa Police Station, with promises of a job. Sajida's father went to Haroa Police Station to lodge a report, but instead of registering a First Information Report (FIR), the police simply issued a General Diary Entry (GDE) and did not take further action to recover the victim or to arrest the perpetrators. Sajida's father went before the police at Haroa Police Station several times to request for an FIR to be made out against those he suspected had taken his daughter but was refused. The Officer-in-Charge, Mr Sumit Mondal, refused to accept a written complaint and proof of the victim's age.
On 10 December 2011, Sajida's father submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police for North 24 Parganas detailing the frustration of his endeavours thus far to recover his daughter due to the inaction and general disinterest of the police at Haroa Police Station. No action was taken consequent to this complaint.
On 13 December 2011, the victim's father went once again to Haroa Police Station with a written complaint and a request for an FIR to be written against the suspects. Not only was the police officer on-duty unwilling to accept the complaint, but that police officer verbally abused Sajida's father. The Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station simply stated the an FIR could not be made out on the basis of that written complaint, and requested for Sajida's father to bring a fresh copy. When Sajida's father communicated his illiteracy, the Officer-in-Charge suggested that he pay for the services of Mr Doud Ali Molla, who would write the report on his behalf. Mr Doud Ali Molla, who was in the premises of the police station, wrote a report as Sajida's father recounted the incident and the document was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station. Sajida's father noticed discrepancies in the new complaint but was no confident in his ability to read what had been written, and so said nothing. The new complaint was then accepted and an FIR issued (vide Haroa Police Station Case No 29/2012 dated 13 February 2012 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code). Sajida's father later took a copy of the new complaint to others who could read it and discovered that his daughter's age had been revised upward to 20 years instead of 16 – he realised that the Officer-in-Charge had instructed Mr Doud Ali Molla to change certain details in the account. Sajida's father then submitted a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Basarat, North 24 Parganas narrating the entire incident, the criminal negligence and inaction by the police as well as the deliberate corruption of his report by the Officer-in-Charge at Haroa Police Station.
To this day, Sajida has not been recovered and the persons responsible for her disappearance have not been apprehended. Sajida's father was threatened by the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station with no further action in the matter of his missing daughter should he dare to complain against the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station; such a breach of professionalism and law in the formulation and presentation of that threat cannot be condoned by local and central authorities. Considering the lack of police action thus far to recover Sajida, and blatant attempts by the police to block or distort information supplied by Sajida's father, this threat has become quite redundant.
The lack of empathy with Sajida's anxious father and the exploitation of his illiteracy to falsify information by the Officer-in-Charge at Haroa Police Station disclose a systemic abuse of authority and disregard for basic protocol and laws established in key documents such as the 1950 Indian Constitution, the 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Officer-in-Charge did not see the incredible irony and ludicrous logic, not to mention illegality, of threatening to not discharge his duty (to not search for Sajida) if Sajida's father did not permit him to not discharge his duties properly (blatant falsification of his daughter's age). It is cruel and criminal for the police to force a troubled father to choose between a chance to recover his daughter and becoming complicit in a crime which necessarily injured investigative processes. Sajida's father had no motive to falsify information concerning his daughter's age. The Officer-in-Charge, on the other hand, was clearly trying to avoid the bother of properly investigating the case. If Sajida's declared age suggests she is no longer a minor, investigating her disappearance would not be a priority, and the police would be absolved of their legal obligations toward the victim and her family.
The submission of false information could also be used against Sajida's father at a later stage, and he could be charged under Section 191 of the IPC for knowingly supplying false information to the police. As things stand, the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station is guilty and can be charged under Sections 192, 196, 200 and 503 of the IPC for fabricating false evidence, corruptly using or attempting to use as true or genuine evidence known to be false, using as true a declaration known to be false and criminally intimidating Sajida's father with further injury to his daughter should he undertake to expose the nefarious methods employed by the police at Haroa Police Station. The false rendering of a statement is also a contravention of Section 161(3) of the CrPC. Are the people of India to rejoice in the knowledge that justice in India is so vicariously serviced by the whim of police in the place of duty and legal, if not moral, obligation?
The brazenness with which Mr Doud Ali Molla, so conveniently stationed within the police premises to offer paid transcription services for those who cannot read or write, colludes with the police to distort, omit and add information submitted in statements, is alarming. Such "service" render the accuracy and credibility of all statements submitted at that particular police station, at best, questionable. The implications of such oppressive and manipulative practices for the numerous complainants and victims in that area are great. Such mockery of due process might even be laughable, if the consequences for all involved were not quite so severe. The paid nature of Mr Doud Ali Molla's work is also unlawful – if transcription services are necessary to the making of a statement or report, it is important that the person is officially appointed and receives no remuneration for his work except that which his salary from the authorities affords. It is likely that the gains made from this "service" is shared between Doud and the Officer-in-Charge, who finds him illiterate clients to "help". This is a cognisable crime under Section 161 of the IPC, which defines the offence as a "public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act".
Sajida's kidnapping from lawful guardianship through enticement was a straightforward enough crime for the police to investigate and pursue under Section 361 and 363 of the IPC. Sajida's rights in Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Indian Constitution guaranteed her rights to equal protection by law, regardless of her religious or other affiliations, protection of life and liberty and against being trafficked. The police, however, and the Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station in particular, have conscientiously avoided taking up the case; a proliferation of other chargeable offences subsequently sprung from their pains. It is impossible to not wonder the reason the police have gone to such remarkable lengths to prevent the registering of an FIR or to falsify an illiterate and grieving father's statement. These actions go far beyond apathy, laziness and the neglect of one's professional duties; they are active and deliberate transgressions of local and international laws. Might the police at Haroa Police Station be somehow involved in the smuggling of children, that they would willingly commit petty crime to cover up larger infractions of the law?
Although Sajida's father has done his best to expose the malpractices of this Officer-in-Charge before his superiors, no inquiry has been undertaken into the illegal activities at Haroa Police Station. In the meanwhile, the search for Sajida has been side-lined. These observations speak of the relative inertia, apathy and corruption of India's law enforcement, a clumsy bureaucracy that has long since lost sight of its calling to serve the people and to uphold justice. The Indian state openly proclaims itself a Republic and boasts a government founded on the incontrovertible legitimacy popular support confers. When the Indian authorities stop respecting the sovereignty of and neglect their obligations toward the Indian people, that endorsement will be withdrawn. Permitting crime to flourish and go unpunished is hence detrimental to the survival of political regimes.
The trafficking of Sajida is a beastly crime in and of itself. Yet the inability and unwillingness of Indian officials to deliver justice and restore Sajida to her father firmly locates India's executive and judiciary in the category of a "still developing" world. India's accession to the United Nations and to various international treaties such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) demonstrates its commitment to live up to the universal norms and values reflected in those legal documents – ideals such as peace, justice, rule of law and democratic government. Sajida's experience has not been one testifying to the propagation, internalisation and fulfilment of these ideals.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, first promulgated in 1948, explicitly state every individual's rights to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3), to freedom from slavery and servitude (Article 4), to equal protection of the law without discrimination (Article 7) and to effective remedy when their rights have been violated (Article 8). These are rights Sajida possesses, rights that the Indian state is charged to protect as duty-bearer and as the defender and guardian of its people and Constitution. The ICCPR, to which the Indian state become a party in 1979, reiterates the individual's rights to life, liberty and security (Article 8), to freedom from slavery/servitude (Article 9), to equal protection of the law (Article 26) and to effective remedy for any violations of those rights (Article 2(3)). It further states in Articles 23(1) and 24 of the ICCPR that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" and that "every child shall have, without any discrimination…measure of protection as are required by his status as a minor". State parties also declared in Article 10(3) of the ICESCR that children and young persons should be protected by economic and social exploitation. It is therefore embarrassing that, in India, criminals who can so easily take advantage of a child's limited knowledge and experience of the world to proposition and abduct her can just as easily escape the much atrophied arm of the law.
Children, particularly females, are prone to socioeconomic, sexual and other forms of exploitation. The 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which India ratified in 1992, quite emphatically asserted in Articles 2 and 3(1) the obligation states bear toward the "best interests of the child" in all matters. Article 9(1) declares that "a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will. State parties to the CRC "shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad" and "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measure to protect the child from all forms of…exploitation…as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment…and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement" (Articles 11(1) and 19). It is the state that recognises in theory the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous to or interfere with the child's education or harm the child's physical, mental, moral, spiritual or social health and development (Article 32(1)). Most pertinent to Sajida's case, Article 20(2) of the CRC demands that "a child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the state". It is therefore the solo responsibility of the state to restore Sajida to her family without any further delays, and to plug the institutional leaks in law enforcement that have permitted her extended disappearance/absence from her family. It is also the duty of the state to arrest, detain, investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes against Sajida and her family. Following Sajida's return, Article 39 of the CRC must also "take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of the child victim…in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child".
The abuse Sajida's father has had to undergo at the hands of callous and apathetic police must not be tolerated by the authorities. The employ of such individuals in law enforcement threaten the effectiveness, morale and popular legitimacy of the police force and, by association, state and central authorities. It is preposterous to entertain the notion that justice can still be achieved when crime and corruption is rampant, and where there is great insensitivity amongst law enforcement to the suffering of the masses. If even ordinary crime such as kidnapping cannot be taken seriously, the people's trust in their government will be withdrawn. If everyday crime and the incompetence, corruption and tyranny of fundamental organs of administration are tolerated or condoned by the only bodies able to rein in such moral dissipation, it will not be long before the nation is engulfed in chaos and lawlessness.
Justice delayed is justice denied. Sajida has now been missing for over a year. Inaction condones and, in such cases, has the same criminal consequence as complicity, particularly where law enforcement agencies and provincial authorities have a moral and legal responsibility, as well as the power and resource, to timely help. The district and state authorities have not done enough to bring justice to the victim and her family. Instead, they have been slow to publicly express their condemnation of human trafficking, to thoroughly investigate the matter, to punish those responsible and to render practical assistance to Sajida and her family. Without urgent intervention from the local and central authorities, it is probable that Sajida will be exposed to further exploitation. Despite the atrocious delay, Sajida is still a minor (according to Indian law) and therefore susceptible to being enticed, mislead and forced into certain forms of work. If the problem is not acknowledged by the authorities, it is also likely yet more children will fall victim to trafficking syndicates.
I therefore demand that:
1. The Central Government and the National Human Rights Commission jointly establish an independent Commission to investigate this case of abduction, as well as the corrupt practices of Haroa Police Station;
2. The central and state authorities act decisively so that
a. Sajida Khatun is quickly recovered and returned to her family;
b. Her abductors are charged and prosecuted under the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act
3. The police personnel at Haroa Police Station are prosecuted for their direct and indirect role in the extended detention/disappearance of Sajida;
a. The investigating officer of Haroa Police Station Case No 29/2012 (dated 13 February 2012) is investigated for negligence and inaction despite having the powers to act upon information supplied by Sajida's father;
b. The Officer-in-Charge of Haroa Police Station and Mr Doud Ali Molla are investigated and charged separately for the falsification of information provided by Sajida's father on 13 December 2011, when Sajida's father had insisted on the issuance of a First Information Report (FIR) concerning his daughter's disappearance;
c. The officer who had verbally abused Sajida's father is booked for misconduct in the discharge of official duty (poor treatment of Sajida's father and unprofessionalism);
d. The government conduct additional reviews and reforms necessary to rehabilitate ineffectual institutions of law enforcement and pledge to bring punitive action against officers anywhere along the organisational hierarchy for failing to properly and honourably discharge their duty;
4. Sajida's father is publicly apologised to by the relevant police superiors and compensated for the indignities endured while appealing to the police at Haroa Police Station for help;
5. Sajida and her family are adequately compensated by the government for physical and psychological hurt resulting from her extended detention and to fund her reintegration into school;
6. Adequate and pre-emptive protection is provided for Sajida and her father, as they may be subject to retaliatory attacks by police;
7. The central government place an emphasis on the legal, constitutional and human rights of individuals when training and briefing police officers, members of the judiciary and the paramilitary forces' personnel and undertake to directly protect these rights from the centre if provincial authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.
It is the most vulnerable segments of society – women, children, the elderly, the illiterate, members of minority groups – that desperately need the government's protection and assistance. Without state intervention, these particularly defenceless groups face, for the foreseeable future, continued abuses of their freedoms and physical persons and no likelihood for justice to be served to those acting with complete impunity. Please act today to restore Sajida to her father, and to fight immoral trafficking in children in India.
Yours sincerely,
-----------------------------------------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Director General & Inspector General of Police
Government of West Bengal
Writers Buildings, Kolkata-1
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 2214 4498 / 2214 5486
Email: dgp_westbengal@gmail.com
2. Chief Secretary
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: + 91 33 2214 4328
Email: chiefsec@wb.gov.in
3. Additional Chief Secretary (Home)
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Email: sechome@wb.gov.in
4. Ms. Mamata Banerjee
Chief Minister
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: + 91 33 22144328
Email: cm_wb@nic.in
5. Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi 110001
INDIA
Fax: + 91 11 2338 4863
E-mail: chairnhrc@nic.in
6. Superintendent of Police
North 24 Parganas
Noapara, Moyna, Barasat
700 125, West Bengal
INDIA
Thank you
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
