Roop Kanwar murder appeal; women comment

[Sekhar Ramakrishnan]

[from the Hindu. sekhar]

Rajasthan appeals against Sati case verdict

JAIPUR, Nov. 8. The Rajasthan Government has gone in appeal to the High
Court against the verdict of the Additional Sessions Court at Neem Ka
Thana in Sikar district in the infamous Deorala Roop Kanwar Sati case. The
Additional Advocate-General of Rajasthan, Mr. A. K. Bhandari, filed the
petition on behalf of the State Government today in the Rajasthan High
Court at the end of a nearly monthlong countrywide agitation by various
women's groups protesting against the verdict of the Neem Ka Thana Court
judge, Mr. O. P. Gupta on October 11.

The acquittal of all the 32 accused in the case _ in which a Rajput widow,
Roop Kanwar, was allegedly burnt to death along with the body of her
husband, Maal Singh on September 4, 1987 at Deorala in Sikar district _
was mostly based on the argument that ``there were not enough evidence and
eye witness accounts to prove the charges''.

Out of the 38 arrested in the case soon after the incident, 32 were
chargesheeted while three others, including Pushpendra Singh, the then
minor brother-in-law of the late Roop Kanwar, who allegedly lit the pyre,
are still being tried in the juvenile courts. Three others are absconding.
Except for one, all the 31 in the case were charged under Sections, 147,
302/149, 120 B and 201. One person, Dr. Magan Singh, brother of Mr. Sumer
Singh, father-in-law of Roop Kanwar, was charged for forgery of documents
in the Ajit Garh government hospital.

The appeal has been filed on the plea that the lower court did not
consider the statements of witnesses who had turned hostile. The Supreme
Court in its rulings in the past has held that the account of the hostile
witnesses also could be considered for deciding the merits of any case.
The appeal also challenges the observation that there had been no
eyewitness account on the burning of Roop Kanwar on the funeral pyre of
her deceased husband. There were enough circumstantial evidence to prove
that ``force'' was used to make Roop Kanwar to sit on the funeral pyre of
her husband, it says.

The petition has made the observation that the judgment by the Additional
Sessions Court did not thrash out the testimonies stated in the court or
as given by witnesses in the Section 164 statements. The judgment had
stated that none of the eyewitnesses proved the story of the prosecution _
they either disowned it or were not eyewitnesses. They did not see
directly Roop Kanwar either on the pyre or of being burnt alive on it and
as such their evidence does not validitate any significant aspects of the
charges of murder or criminal conspiracy or of hiding facts.

The conclusions of the judgment were reached on the basis of the following
four questions: Did Pushpendra Singh murder Roop Kanwar by lighting the
funeral pyre?: Did the rest of the accused constitute themselves in a
group with the intention of murdering Roop Kanwar and indulge in criminal
conspiracy?

The appeal states that the sessions judge completely disregarded the
aspects of circumstantial evidence. For instance, the parents of Roop
Kanwar were not informed about the death of Maal Singh. They heard about
it and the burning of Roop Kanwar only through the newspaper. Again it is
normal practice in north India for women not to accompany funeral
procession to the funeral grounds. Roop Kanwar and other women of the
family could not have gone to the cremation place without the consent of
the family members and the village elders. Roop Kanwar also went dressed
as a bride and this would have been possible if only the family members had
decked her up in the bridal finery including jewellery and mehendi, the
petition states.

The fact remains that the family members of Maal Singh did not inform the
police about the chances of sati taking place. If they wanted to prevent
it they could have at least attempted to stop her, it has been stated.

The verdict of the Neem Ka Thana Court went against the prosecution mostly
because of the three eyewitnesses _ Babu Lal, the pundit who carried out
the last rites of Maal Singh and Roop Kanwar, Bodu Khati, who supplied the
wood and Bansi Nai, the village barber.

However as for Babu Lal pundit, who is presently teaching in a Deorala
School, in the corss examination he had stated, `I was leading the funeral
procession of Maal Singh, which had about sixty to sixtyfive persons. I
saw Roop Kanwar when we were going through the market, she had done
`shringar'. People in the funeral procession were continuously chanting
`Sati Mata Roop Kanwar Ki Jai'. I also saw Roop Kanwar in the `shamshan'.
Sumer Singh and Manger Singh were standing next to Roop Kanwar.'

Various women's organisations, including the National Commission for Women
and the Mahila Atyachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, which are spearheading the
agitation against the verdict, have been demanding a designated court to
try the appeal in the case. They have also asked for a trial on a day to
day basis and a verdict in three months time.

Justice Delayed and Denied

Date: 10-11-1996 :: Pg: 29 :: Col: a

By Suchitra Behal

The recent acquittal of the accused in the Deorala sati case by a trial
court only indicates a lack of will by the authorities to put down such
barbaric customs. What is distressing, however, it is the apparent
legitimacy being given to the act in the garb of tradition and culture.
SUCHITRA BEHAL underscores the need to empower men and women against the
revival of such practices.

As one activist put it: ``First it takes them ten years-ten years to build
up evidence and sift through it and then they have exonerated the main
accused, helping once more such people to believe that you can commit a
murder and get away with it.''

Women's groups, which have been in the forefront of the movement against
the barbaric practice of sati are fuming. To most the judgement has come
as a shock and has set the gears backwards. ``Of course we will appeal,
there is no doubt about that but this verdict is greatly disappointing,''
said Vimla Farooqui, of National Federation of Indian Women. According to
her, ``So many people were standing about and not one of them came
forward. The judiciary in Rajasthan is also very anti-women, very
reactionary in this respect, so in a way this judgment is not very
surprising. I remember we met the minister after Roop Kanwar's immolation
and he said yes, it is a very bad thing, but you see, we worship sati in
our own houses...''

To recap, Roop Kanwar became a `sati' when her husband, Mal Singh,
expired. According to investigations by various independent organisations,
Kanwar was forced to take the extreme step, which was orchestrated by the
villagers and her in-laws. This happened on September 4, 1987, and since
then people go to Deorala to witness the place where the ``miracle of
sati'' took place.

At that time, horrified by the incident the national and international
media descended on Deorala which various activists also camping there
demanding justice. The government quickly enacted the Commission of Sati
(Prevention) Act, 1987 to pacify inflamed sentiments. While the Act
penalises the glorification of sati, it treats the event itself as a
suicide thus putting the onus or responsibility on the woman who commits
it, negating the role of those who exhort her to such a step. Following
this on September 21, 1988, the Supreme Court in a response to petitions by
six women's organisations stayed recitals from the ``Bhagvad Gita'' to
commemorate the first death anniversary of Roop Kanwar Kumar at Deorala.

Despite all this, thousands participated in the Gita path, leaving many to
conclude that there was definitely a nexus between the local
administration, the police and the people. According to Kumkum Sangari,
currently a fellow at Teen Murti, who with her colleagues has been
investigating widow immolations since 1981, there is definitely a
``nexus'' between the police and the adminitration. Sangari says: ``The
case was made weak deliberately and one of the witnesses who had turned
hostile was a police officer. The recent verdict is obviously awful....
and one feels that the whole case was tried in a callous manner. If you're
not looking for murder and assuming it is a case of suicide, then you're
not really looking for that kind of evidence.''

Sangari who has been in the region over the past fifteen years and has
written extensively on this subject points out that ``it is amazing how in
each case of sati, the father-in-law is either missing for those crucial
hours, or that he is ill or out of town. There is a distinct pro-sati lobby
in that area and they are very aggressive and very belligerent and the
whole thing functions at the level of groups being formed to defend a
crime.''

She is also of the view that the Act on sati itself is very controversial
and feels that many of them have reservations on its efficacy. In any
case, she says, the Act was not used to try the Roop Kanwar case because
it could not be used in retrospect. Sangari holds not just people but the
police and the judiciary responsible. ``I feel that if they were to do
their work properly then a law is of use. I mean, they can subvert any
evidence that they want. The law is necessary and it serves a purpose. It
has a short term value in punishing the guilty and acting in the long term
as a deterrent. But this has not happened in the sati cases.

According to Sangari and her colleagues, there were over 40 cases of
immolation in that area and not ``a single one that we researched shows
that the victim was willing to take such a step; it is a public event with
the stage being set by others and the whole thing is so moved that she
cannot escape even if she wants to. It is like a subtle coercion so that it
looks like as if the woman is doing it of her own volition. Sati cannot be
done without local collaboration. I mean, someone has to build the pyre
and someone has to light it.''

Sangari's viewpoint is echoed by one of the articles in a book entitled,
``Sati'' edited by Mulk Raj Anand. Various writers have talked about the
issue and there are reproductions of newspaper stories on the Roop kanwar
and other cases. According to one of them, when they went to Deorala, it
seemed that there was a ``conspiracy'' to present just one view. Someone
attached themselves to these journalists and made sure that they spoke
with ``xy or z'' and nobody else.

That there is already a move to appeal is clear with the Rajasthan
government itself taking the first step. But women's groups now feel that
something more has to be done. ``We will appeal,'' says Sangari, ``but why
is this only a woman's issue?''

These sentiments are voiced by Vimla Farooqui too. ``Is it only a woman's
issue?'' asks she. ``After all we have had a tough time building support
for a rally we had in Jaipur. It was only the progressive minded trade
unions that came forward but where is the commitment of the people. I feel
that the only way is to build public opinion. People themselves have to
move. Laws can work only if people are aware. Once there is public
awareness, then even the judgments will be different. Yes, I know, it is
an age when everyone is talking about judicial activism, but I feel that
they are not always very right on women's issues. I have yet to see a good
judgment pertaining to a women's issue. It is a failure of our media, our
political system. After all, women are not vote banks, so the politicans
do not care much. Sati might be banned on paper but that is all. Every year
people go and worship these places, there are structures being built for
veneration. Whatever we may say we remain a barbarian society. People feel
no pain, no remorse. I am sorry to say that we may advance but as a society
we are still very very backward and men and women must fight this
together.''

In the book ``Sati'', Romila Thapar has in her paper on `Perspective in
History' discussed the origins of this practice. This is what she says:
``What is of significance today is not just the incidence of widows
becoming satis but the attempt to justify a custom at a particular
historical juncture, a justification which involves more than merely a
custom for it symbolises an attitude towards women as well as a view of
what is regarded as tradition. It is defended as being a recognised symbol
of Hindu values especially those concerning the idealised relationship
between husband and wife, the assumption being that it was required in
theory of all Hindu women.''

The arguments for and against sati have been going on for years now. In
fact there are divergent views expressed on the fact whether sati has a
legitimised face as per the Hindu scriptures. Its origins are not quite
clear but what is known is the fact that the vedas do not support the
custom. Also this became largely prevalent in a group form, `jauhar', for
the so called high caste women and was later adopted individually.

The British had in their own way been working towards ending this practice
and, according to them, it died out. What is particularly distressing is
its apparent resurgence today in this time and era with legitimacy being
given to it in the garb of tradition and culture. Women who have been
campaigning for their rights over the past many years are dismayed at this
sudden resurgence and are equally foxed over its acceptance by both other
women and men.

Women's organisations today feel a certain helplessness over such a
situation. According to Urvashi Butalia of ``Kali for Women'', women's
groups are feeling disheartened. After all it is not just a woman's
problem. ``Just by the mere fact that being women, we are the only ones to
oppose it we cannot dismiss the collective responsibility. I think we all
participate in our own oppression whether it is due to some external
pressure from family, husband or society we are all equally responsible.''

Butalia feels the Roop Kanwar judgment is both ``ridiculous and
dreadful.'' ``It's very disappointing and after ten long years one is
going back a long way. It is a very dangerous thing because it gives
people the leeway to force their `culture'. Anything can be excused in the
name of culture. Though in a way, in these days of flux there is naturally
an identity threat, so such moves are not really surprising they are just
more exacerbated.''

She agrees that all laws have a lot of loopholes to them,'' even the most
progressive ones will have''. Judicial activism exists only in a few cases
only as far as the Supreme Court. ``I don't see any activism as far as
women are concerned.''

In fact according to a newspaper report in late September of 1987, Roop
Kanwar was burnt alive and far from being voluntary, she was forced into
it. She tried to hide herself in one of the barns when she heard of the
preparations for sati, but was forcibly dragged and pushed onto the pyre.
This was one of the important findings of a fact finding team of the women
and Media Cell of the Bombay Union of Journalists that visited the site of
the tragedy. According to this report the most disturbing trend was the
revival of this practice, the coercion involved and the fact that this
seemed to have been a lucrative deal with over Rs. 50 lakhs having been
collected as construction for a temple in the satis name.

Equally, horrifying is the religious and social sanction being given to
this plus the convenience of the law and order machinery. According to
Kumkum Sangari, in almost each of the cases they had reviewed, it was
found that the pyre almost always was lit by a minor and not the woman
herself, thus making prosecution of the minor difficult. They also found
that each villager was a silent spectator to such events and never said
who or what.

While the law must take its own course and women's groups will
nevertheless go into appeal over the verdict, it is already being viewed
as a victory of those upholding the `Hindu tradition'. Kapila Hingorani,
an eminent lawyer who was closely involved in the Deorala incident's
aftermath, said that she had not read the judgment. She felt that evidence
might not have ``been rightly placed before the court and after all, the
judge had to go by the evidence placed before him. ``She also said that
women's organisations must ask to be party to the appeal failing which,
they should ask for intervention while the media must play its own part.''

She is of the view that if the law as it stands, were to be implemented in
the right spirit, then it is adequate. Hingorani feels that judicial
activism is the need of the hour provided it is within the confines of the
constitution. And while the Supreme Court was taking the lead, the High
Court should be more `PIL oriented' (Public Interest Litigation). She
firmly believes that intervention is most important to get a fair verdict
in the Roop Kanwar case.

And yet there are others like Sushila Kaushik, an academic, who feels that
the case ``should be reviewed but without pressure being put in any way
that might upset the applecart for the cause itself.'' There is definitely
a plan to appeal to higher level. We have to hope for the best. We can
lobby but that is it. Basically I think what is needed is popular
education. One cannot keep asking for legislation all the time. One has to
empower women and men. I'm sure things are changing. I don't think the are
stagnant, there is a lot of rethinking though there are some groups here
and there that have certain other value systems, but on the whole things
are better.'' Not everybody however shares her optimism, specially women
who have been in the forefront of this battle. That the heinous practice
of `sati', is being sought to be revived is itself enough to send a shiver
down the spine of any self-respecting individual. There are bound to be
appeals and counter appeals, marches and talks and discourses but finally
the answer lies in education of the masses, and empowerment of people.