Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDIA: Dalit female village head unable to conduct her public obligations due to manipulative caste discrimination
 

INDIA: Dalit female village head unable to conduct her public obligations due to manipulative caste discrimination

December 14, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

14 December 2006
-------------------------------------
UA-400-2006: INDIA: Dalit female village head unable to conduct her public obligations due to manipulative caste discrimination
      
INDIA: Discrimination based on caste; administrative failure; lack of the rule of law.
-------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from its partners The Peoples' vigilance committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) and Benaras Mahila Mazdoor Sangatahn in Uttar Pradesh state that a dalit female villager head in Varanasi district, Uttar Pradesh state has been unable to conduct her official duties due to caste based discrimination from the upper caste Hindus in the village since September 2005. It is also alleged that she was assaulted and intimidated when she officially voiced her opposition to the villages' corrupt Public Distribution System (PDS) shop which is managed by an upper caste.

CASE DETAILS:

Mrs. Munia Devi is a resident of Koirajpur village under Harhuan Block in Varanasi district, Uttar Pradesh State, India. She belongs to the Chamar community who are untouchables in cast-ridden Hindu society of India. She was elected as the village head in September 2005. 

Soon after her election, Munia began to experience bitter opposition and discrimination from upper caste Hindus when she tried to exercise her rights and discharge her duties as the village head. The village PDS (Public Distribution System, is a system which food grains are distributed to the poor at a subsidized rate) shop was under the control of Ms. Sushma Singh, wife of Mr. Ravindra Singh who is a resident of the Koirajpur village and who belongs to an upper caste Hindu family. Whenever Munia raises her voice against the corrupt PDS shop she has allegedly come under fierce intimidation, has been assaulted and threatened to keep quiet.

On 18 March 2006, Munia filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Badagaon Police Station against Ravindra after she alleged that he attacked her on March 11. Regrettably, no action was taken by the police against the alleged perpetrator. Then on June 21, Munia was allegedly once again assaulted by Ravindra at which point she filed a complaint with the local Judicial Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code of India.

Despite the alleged assaults, Munia remained committed to stamping out corruption in the PDS shop. On 9 April 2006, Munia called the meeting of the Village Panchayat Committee to deal with the issue. On a proposal put forth by Mr. Rajesh who is a member of the Committee, resolutions were passed in respect to the corruption that has occurred at the PDS shop citing the following reasons: the PDS shopkeeper had not been distributing food grains and kerosene oil to the poor of the village for the past 3 months; the PDS shopkeeper had taken ration cards from many villagers and made false entries in the log books; the PDS shopkeeper with the help of the Village Panchayat Officer (Secretary) of the village has distributed Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration cards to family and friends rather than those who rightfully fall under the category for BPL.     

On the basis of the resolution passed by Village Panchayat Committee dated 9 April 2006 and on the recommendation of the village head to dismiss the license of the PDS shopkeeper, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Pindra launched an investigation. The investigation was led by a Supply Inspector from Harhuan who agreed with the original recommendations.  As a result, the shop had its license suspended on 22 June 2006. 

On August 16, Village Head Munia wrote to the District Magistrate [DM] of Varanasi regarding the issue of 238 ration cards (BPL cards and Antyodaya cards) in pursuance of the proposal of the Village Panchayat Committee passed on 22 May 2006. In her letter Munia informed the DM about the corruption in the issuing of new ration cards. She informed him that in the last year there were 917 cards but in the current year it has been reduced to 783. She also informed to DM that 238 BPL cards had not yet been issued. She told the DM that the person responsible is Mr. Lalchand who is the Village panchayat Officer (Secretary) of Koirajpur village. She described how he was charging money for each ration cards against the demands put forth by the Village Committee. In the same letter, Munia demanded that the DM impose sanctions on another PDS shop in the village on the basis that as stipulated by the Uttar Pradesh Government order, the license of a PDS shop should be issued in favour of a person from the Dalit community.  However, this has not been the case. 

Meanwhile on 8 September 2006, the Sub Divisional Magistrate [SDM] of Pindra gave order to reinstate the suspended PDS shop.  On 15 September 2006, Munia Devi complained to the SDM against the decision of reinstatement. In her complaint, Munia Devi had illustrated almost two dozen complaints which were then submitted before different authorities urging them to take action against the corrupt PDS shopkeeper. Munia Devi has alleged that Food Inspector Satendra Rai neither enquired into the matter nor did he do anything to ensure that food grains are being distributed amongst the poor. Munia has also complained that 134 BPL card holders, who have not received food grains for the months of April, May and June, were not included in the original government investigation.  Although after earlier enquiries of Supply Inspector Badagaon and Tahasildar it had been found that food grains were distributed to Above Poverty Line (APL) card holders.   

In the same letter Munia Devi alleged that corruption had caused some villagers to not receive any food grains for past 5 years. Munia also demanded to distribute food grains according to new ration cards. 

Munia Devi has also alleged that case enquiry officers Mr. Nilesh Uppal (Supply Inspector Pindra), Mr. Rameshwar Singh (Supply Inspector, Badagaon) and Mr. Sanjay Singh (Nayab Tahasildar Athgaonva) have all submitted false reports that resulted in the reinstatement of the PDS shop’s license. The enquiry officers have willfully violated Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by neglecting their duties to perform.  

On 26 October 2006, Munia once again complained to SDM of Pindra that the Village Development Officer Mr. Gulab Singh, who is of the same caste of the PDS shopkeeper is distributing food grains amongst caste Hindus while chasing away the dalits.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

This case is not an isolated incident that is obstructing the dalit’s community to exercise their right to participate in public affairs. We have recently issued a similar case that took place in same Varanasi district, Uttar Pradesh state, India (refer to: UA-377-2006). 

Panchayathi Raj (governance through panchayats - for local self governance) is a concept that has been implemented in India since April 1993. This was after the 73rd amendment of the Indian Constitution which incorporated provisions for a 3-tier system of Panchayati Raj for all states having populations over two million, to hold Panchayat elections regularly every five years, to provide reservations of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women.  It is also meant to appoint State Finance Commissions to make recommendations as regards the financial powers of the Panchayats and to constitute District Planning Committee to prepare draft development plan for the district as a whole.

The change also provided the Panchayats with the authority to function as institutions of self-government. To facilitate this certain powers and responsibilities are delegated to Panchayats to prepare a plan for economic development and social justice, and to implement schemes for economic development and social justice. The Panchayats are also given authority to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees. In effect the process was aimed to decentralise governance and also at the same time to promote, through a positive reservation, the empowerment of backward communities, women and the members of the scheduled castes and tribes in India.

With the intention of mainstreaming the lower caste, the Election Commission of India will declare which seats are to be reserved to be contested from members of the lower caste. Munia had contested such a seat in her village and won the election.

However, this change literally tried to upset the discriminatory and inhuman caste hierarchy in rural villages and Munia's case is an example of how the upper caste retaliates in such a situation. What Munia faces in Koirajpur village is a crime under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to Section 3 (x) of the Act, a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe if intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years with a fine. Physical assault is also a crime under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This case is also an example of how development activities fail to percolate into the rural villages in India. Munia being the village head and also a representative of her community is not consulted of anything in the daily functioning of the village. This also implies that in the absence of Munia’s signature and authorization no development activities should be implemented in the village until her term is over in 2010. The upper caste community, being already privileged of all the amenities for their life, will not be affected by this stalling of the development programme. However, the lower caste community will not at all benefit during this period, which is an indirect way of keeping the members of this community in the village under the control of the upper caste.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the authorities listed below expressing concern over this case. We urge you to request that the authorities take immediate action against the alleged perpetrators who instead of helping Munia are in fact insulting and discriminating her due to caste prejudice. The AHRC is also writing a separate letter to Mr. Doudou Diene of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination to express concern about this case and calling for an intervention

To support this appeal, please click:

Sample letter:

Dear __________,

INDIA: Dalit female village head unable to conduct her public obligations due to manipulative caste discrimination

Name of victim: Mrs. Munia devi
Address of victim: Koirajpur village under Harhua Block, Varanasi district, Uttar Pradesh state, India
Alleged perpetrators:
1. Mr. Ravindra singh, the resident of village Koirajpur, Varanasi district, Uttar Pradesh, India
2. Mrs Sushma singh wife of Mr. Ravindra singh, the resident of Koirajpur village, Varanasi district, Uttar Pradesh, India
3. Mr.Lalchand, the secretary of the Koirajpur village
4. Satendra rai, Food Inspector
5. Nilesh Uppal, Supply Inspector Pindra
6. Rameshwar singh, Supply Inspector, Badagaon
7. Sanjay singh, Nayab Tahasildar Athgaonva
Duration of the incident: From September 2005 to date

I am writing to you to inquire into the situation of Mrs. Munia devi, the current village head of Koirajpur village, under Harhua Block in Varanasi district of Uttar Pradesh, India.

I have been informed that Munia is from the Chamar community belonging to the Scheduled Caste in India. I understand that Munia was elected as the village head in September 2005, but is still denied to the rights to discharge her duties and has being denied control over the management of the village by the upper caste persons named above. I am surprised to know that the village secretary who was appointed by the government to help the village head in manage affairs has joined hands with the upper caste people and is not aiding Munia in any way.  

I have also learned that Munia was physically assaulted by Mr. Ravindra singh for voicing her opposition to the corruption within PDS (Public Distribution System) shop. I know that Munia was allegedly verbally abused and intimidated by Mr. Ravindra Singh, the husband of PDS shop keeper.

I am aware that the election of Munia as the village head of Koirajpur village was because the constituency was reserved for a member from the Scheduled Caste or Tribe during the 2005 elections. However, I understand that even though Munia was elected she is not able to discharge her duties as the village head thus far due to the threats and intimidation of the upper caste members named above and also due to the non-cooperation of the village secretary Mr. Lalchand.

I am also aware that the 73rd amendment of the Indian Constitution was to percolate local administration to village level and also to facilitate empowerment of the marginalized communities in India especially the members of the lower caste and those from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and the women. However, from the facts made available to me regarding Munia's case suggest to me that such an attempt is yet to take real shape owing to various tactics played by the upper caste Hindus in rural villages in India. I am aware that while on the one hand this case could be considered as yet another example of caste based discrimination in India, I also see this case as a glaring example of the administrative failure in several parts of India, particularly in rural villages.

It is clear that the acts meted out against Munia are a crime under Section 3(x) and section 4 of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, I am surprised to know why no action has been taken against the perpetrators in this case. I therefore urge you to immediately institute an impartial inquiry into this case and see to it that the complaints of Munia are addressed and also necessary action is taken under the provisions of the above law against the alleged perpetrators. I am also informed that the Asian Human Rights Commission is writing a separate letter to Mr. Doudou Diene the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination to express concern about this case and calling for an intervention.

I look forward to your urgent intervention in this case.

Sincerely yours,


----------------------------


PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER TO:

1. Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar
Minister of Panchayathi Raj
Sastri Bhawan
New Delhi
INDIA
Fax: + 91 11 23386118
Email: manishankar@sansad.nic.in / aiyar@satyam.net.in 

2. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav
Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
Chief Minister's Secretariat
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
INDIA
Fax: + 91 52 2223 0002 / 2223 9234

3. Chairperson
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Government of India
5th Floor, Loknayak Bhawan
Khan Market
New Delhi 110003
INDIA
Fax: + 91 11 2462 5378
Email: chairman-ncsc@nic.in

4. Mr. N. Gopalaswami
Chief Election Commissioner
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi
INDIA
Fax: + 91 11 23711023
Email: gopalaswamin@eci.gov.in 

5. Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Navin Bhavan, Sachiwalaya
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
INDIA
Tel: + 91 522 2238129
E-Mail: slattarpradesh@eci.gov.in / rss1954@yahoo.com

6. Senior Superintendent of Police
S.S.P Varanasi
Uttar Pradesh
INDIA
Tel: + 91 542 2500441/ + 91 542 2501450

7. Mr. Doudou DIÈNE
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10,
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 41 22 917 93 88
Fax: + 41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE)

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-400-2006
Countries :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.