Friday 14 October 2011

Vachathi verdict: censure of Jayalalitha regime


The excruciating wait for justice for nearly two decades long for the people of Vachathi, a tribal hamlet in Pappireddipatti taluk in Dharmapuri district, at last saw the light of the day on September 29, 2011 with Dharmapuri district and sessions court convicting all the 215 surviving persons involved in the blood-curdling Vachathi mass rape and savage attack case in 1992 during the regime of Jayalalitha. Jurists, advocates and rights activists have given their opinions on criminal justice system. All newspapers and satellite television channels in the state and country had given wide coverage to the judgement, the atrocities committed by 269 personnel of uniformed services (forest department and police) and cruelties inflicted on Tribal men and women.
In its editorial on October 1, ‘The Hindu’ under the headline ‘Justice at last’ said:
“In many ways, Vachathi was a test case: not so much for the judiciary as for India's social conscience. In June 1992, this tribal hamlet in northern Tamil Nadu was witness to what brutal law enforcers and callous government officials could do to the poor and the powerless. Women were raped, men were assaulted, houses were looted and destroyed, and cattle were killed, all in the name of upholding law, of preventing the illegal felling and smuggling of sandalwood. The planned, systematic attack on Vachathi was carried out quite brazenly. The 269 persons arraigned as accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation must have thought that they could get away with crimes against the hapless villagers, who were offenders in the eyes of the law. Nothing else can explain the seeming impunity with which they went about the assault on the village. While men in the lower ranks indulged in violence, senior officers watched from a distance. The subsequent attempts at denial and cover-up were indicative of sanction for the attack from elements at the higher levels of the government. That the tribals of Vachathi slowly found their voice in the face of such repression, and fought for justice in the courts during these 19 years with support from social and political organisations and human rights activists, is reflective of the strengths of a democratic society, notwithstanding its obvious inequities and deficits. The wait for justice might have been long and tiresome, but was finally rewarding. That people's struggles can have a decisive impact on the course of justice was clearly demonstrated in the Vachathi case.
But what is worrying is that such attacks can happen in the first place. Those given charge of enforcing the law often see themselves as above the law. Uniformed forces, especially, think nothing of trampling on the rights of ordinary citizens. Misuse of power and abuse of authority are seen as perks of office. Security personnel and government officials are themselves steeped in social prejudices, and tend to show little respect for the rights of those lower down in the societal hierarchy. The correct lessons must be learnt from Vachathi. The verdict of the district and sessions court, holding all the 215 surviving accused in the case guilty of various atrocities, should serve as a reminder that the rule of law will have to be upheld everywhere, including in the remotest of villages. Atrocities and violations of rights anywhere shall not go unnoticed, and there can be no refuge for the law-breakers, especially for those from among the law enforcers. Civilised India cannot afford a repeat of Vachathi.”
‘The New Indian Express’ on the same day in an editorial under the caption ‘Triumph of Justice for Vachathi victims’ said:
“The conviction of 215 officials of the police, forest and revenue departments in a criminal case is unprecedented. But then what Vachathi in Tamil Nadu’s Dharmapuri district witnessed on June 20, 1992, was also unprecedented. On the suspicion that the villagers, mostly belonging to Scheduled Tribes, were protecting notorious sandalwood smuggler and dacoit Veerappan, the officials entered the village, assaulted the villagers, raped 18 women and girls and looted and destroyed the village. It was a case of not only misusing their power but also taking the law into their own hands. In the case of at least 54 accused persons, justice could not be done as they died during the hearing of the case.

It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. But then allowance has to be made for the fact that there were a large number of accused persons and witnesses in this case. In the dispensation of justice, it is better to be late than never. The verdict is as forthright as the case was presented by the prosecution. Among the convicted, 17 have also been found guilty of rape and given seven additional years of rigorous imprisonment. For the people of Vachathi getting justice appeared to be an uphill task as the accused were all powerful men, including four Indian Forest Service officials. But their perseverance and unity stood them in good stead.
The verdict should serve as a warning to all those who exercise power in the country that under no circumstances can they take the law into their hands. They should at all times remember that nobody is above the law. It would be a misnomer to see the judgment as merely a victory of the victims of Vachathi. The verdict marks the triumph of justice which, as the belief goes, is blind. It also denotes that if institutions that uphold and protect civil liberties are alert, transgressions of the kind Vachathi experienced can be dealt with surely and firmly.”
There were no editorials, which speak for the views of dailies, in other English and Tamil dailies.
While ‘The Hindu’ editorial says “The subsequent attempts at denial and cover-up were indicative of sanction for the attack from elements at the higher levels of the government,” it failed or consciously avoided identifying the ‘element at the highest level’ of the government then. So also the editorial of ‘The New Indian Express’. While all the newspapers and TV channels, in English and Tamil gave wide coverage to the news, none of them even remotely suggested who was at the helm of the regime when this barbaric incident took place.
In one of his famous judgements in a case against persons in uniforms, Justice Markandey Katju, who retired as Supreme Court judge last week, had wondered as to who would keep guard against the guards.
Undoubtedly in a democratic set-up, it is the elected government and its Head.
It was the ADMK regime led by Jayalalitha that was in power in Tamil Nadu in 1992. Inasmuch as, she claims line by line that it is ‘my government’ and ‘I’…, Jayalalitha government denied the charges. The then Forest Minister and now Agriculture Minister, K.A.Sengottaiyan, with the permission and blessing of their ‘Amma’, (that is how ADMK ministers speak always) had accused the entire village of being involved in sandalwood smuggling, and when a team of officials went there for investigation, the villagers had attacked them. In the same way the Assembly also was told. The ADMK regime placed a lot of hurdles for the victims in seeking justice. The incident occurred on June 20, 1992. On June 22, when tribal people complained to Harur police of gang rape, damage to houses and property by members of the team, police refused to entertain the complaint. Only after three months on Sep.22, following court directions, Harur police registered a case. As there was no progress in the name-sake investigation a petition was filed before Madras High Court by late A.Nallasivan seeking transfer of the case to CBI for investigation. When a single judge A.Hadi ordered for CBI investigation Jaya regime went on appeal against it to a Bench.
The ADMK government through its Advocate General opposed the plea for transfer to CBI for investigation and said,
“There is a special department known as "CB-CID" of the State, specialised in investigation, and at the same time it is an independent and impartial agency and its integrity and honesty has never been doubted, therefore instead of directing the CBI the CB-CID of the State may be directed to investigate. Normally it is the State Police which is directed to investigate and submit a report and in the instant case, there is no such special circumstance which can persuade the court to depart from the normal rule of directing the State Police to investigate.
“It is false to state that terror was let loose on 20-6-1992 and the villagers were attacked by the Forest and Police personnel. It is also denied that a villager by name Perumal was attacked by the Forest personnel. The government also deny the allegation made by the petitioner in para 9 of the affidavit that the houses were ransacked and women were sexually assaulted.”
“It is further denied with regard to allegation made by the petitioner in para 10 of the affidavit that all the women were illegally detained in the forest office, and some of them were stripped molested and raped. These allegations are imaginary, false and baseless and are made to get publicity by a groups of political persons to confuse the people. The allegations in paras 11 and 12 of the affidavit are also false and made without any substance.
The High Court Bench of Justices D.Raju and K.Swami in May 1995 ordered:
“In the light of such a stand taken by the State Government, it becomes very difficult even for the CB-CID to independently investigate the matter, therefore, we are of the view that the stand taken by the learned single Judge that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigation should be entrusted to CBI is well founded and is also supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in R. S. Sodhi v. State of U.P.”
Reacting to the judgement in Vachathi case, State President of the TN Hill Tribals Association P.Shanmugam, who spearheaded that struggle for justice, has said in this case the verdict made up for the long and agonizing wait. The delay was primarily due to the lack of cooperation and dilatory tactics adopted by those who held high offices in government. Though Rs.1.25 crore had been disbursed as compensation in two phases, it was disappointing.”
A revisit into the case diary will show under whose regime ‘the lack of cooperation and dilatory tactics’ were adopted and under whose rule the compensation was paid.
Uniformed service personnel – police and forest guards going berserk in the name of enforcing law during Jayalalitha regimes were not limited with and confined to Vachathi. In fact it is only the tip of the iceberg. Under the guise of nabbing forest brigand Veerappan, the atrocities committed by the police, forest guards and STF on innocent and hapless tribals living in hills whenever Jayalalitha was at the helm(p) will run into volumes. There were reports of ‘torture chambers’ run by the police where all sorts of internationally notorious methods of tortures in ‘investigation’ were tested and adopted. While there are sections of the media, politicians and even educated people singing glory for Jayalalitha for shooting down Veerappan during her regime, there are hardly any investigation into the ‘cost’, the cruelties inflicted on innocent hill tribals etc., by the media or civil rights activists. Putting the blame on Veerappan, several politicians, bureaucrats, police officials and even judicial officers minted money in the smuggling of sandalwood and ivory. In a video recording by a Tamil magazine in 1996, Veerappan mentioned the names of such people. If all the felling and smuggling of sandalwood and killings of tuskers for ivory were done only by Veerappan all those years, where did those thousands of crores of rupees go after his killing? Jayalalitha should be probed!
Police atrocities during her regimes were not confined to hills but also in plains all-over the state. From the cold blooded murder of Venkatesa Pannaiyar inside his room in one of the many encounters after using him for ADMK’s victory in Sathankulam by-elections to Paramakudi police firing recently killing seven persons, the police is given a free hand to enforce law as they want. Jayalalitha’s speech in the Assembly while replying to the debate on grants for Police department in the last budget session provides licence for Police Raj. In a massive public meeting in North Chennai on Aug.25, DMK President Kalaignar and other speakers condemned Jayalalitha’s speech in the Assembly. She stated that even the CM should not interfere in the works of police. But this was only for public consumption. If she was true to the declaration, why should she play balls with police officials and personnel – there were countless transfers and retransfers since she took over office. The message to them is that they have licence only to go to any extent on her adversaries and rivals to please her and getting rewarded.
Only now CPM State Secretary Com. G.Ramakrishnan has said that “State-sponsored violence is let loose on TN. Instead of reforming the police, Jayalalitha staged in the Assembly itself the work of sharpening the horns of the (police) bull to run amok. As a following result, police department has begun prancing like horses without bridles. Within five months of ADMK assuming of power, there were eight lock-up killings. There are widespread complaints that the police had been resorting to excesses continuously. The media are publishing exaggerated reports that crimes are less only when ADMK is in power. But that is contrary to truth.”
Hats off Com. G.R.!  But unfortunately it is a belated realization not befitting a communist leader. It was in that budget session when Jayalalitha made that objectionable statement that CPM Assembly group leader Com. A.Soundararajan asked the government, thinking that he was cracking a joke, “When will those who grabbed land in the name of mother-in-law sent to mother-in-law’s house (prison)?” Conceding to his request former Minister Dr. K.Ponmudi was arrested and lodged in prison on that specific false charge.
Uniformed service personnel generally have the psyche that they are unquestionable by any and when there is a person at the helm of government with the same psyche, they feel free. From Vachathi to Paramakudi, this is the phenomenon. Hence the Vachathi verdict is definitely a severe denunciation of the Jayalalitha regime and its Police Raj policy. True, it was the CPM which fought for justice to the tribals of Vachathi. So also, CPM leadership owes explanation to the people of Vachathi for supporting and bringing back the same regime not just once but twice, in 2001 and 2011.

No comments:

Post a Comment