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

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 case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER