Tuesday, February 8, 2011

A state of intimidation: Sexual abuse and arrest of Godhra Muslim women - By Rehan Ansari & Afroz Alam Sahil for TwoCircles.net

http://twocircles.net/2011feb08/state_intimidation_sexual_abuse_and_arrest_godhra_muslim_women.html?nocache=1#comment-199162

A state of intimidation: Sexual abuse and arrest of Godhra Muslim women

Submitted by admin4 on 8 February 2011 - 12:06pm
TCN investigates the case and digs out the unpublished inquiry report of National Commission for Women,

By Rehan Ansari & Afroz Alam Sahil for TwoCircles.net,

A simple arrest goes wrong, horribly wrong but incidents that follow are not less than a heinous crime. In December of 2009, Gujarat Police went to Geni Plot area of Godhra to arrest one Rafiq Husain alias Haji for alleged cow slaughter complaints against him. Police encountered resistance from Husain’s family and friends and he managed to give them a slip. Same night, a large battalion of police force came back to the area, forced their ways into many homes and sexually abused and assaulted many women.

On a complaint by Teesta Setalvad, Secretary of Citizen for Justice and Peace, a delegation of National Commission for Women (NCW) visited the area on a fact-finding mission. The NCW report released after an RTI application filed by noted RTI-activist Afroz Alam Sahil, documented findings, recommendations of the three-member NCW inquiry committee and also include submissions made to them by different parties including various NGOs. The Report which is being made public for the first time by TwoCircles.net makes for a difficult reading and shows the conditions that Muslims in Gujarat are living in and also difficulties that even a statutory government body like NCW faces in working in this state.

Case

Rafiq Husain alias Haji has a number of complaints registered against him for stealing and killing cows. On December 19th, 2009 a group of policemen went to arrest him. They were able to catch him but his family and friends resisted and in that confusion Haji was able to escape. Later that night, a battalion of police force again descended in the Geni Plot area of Godhra. This time they arrested 31 people including eight women.

NCW Report

NCW noted that the Godhra Police allegedly forced themselves into the houses in around 1.30 in the night, abused and misbehaved with a woman observing iddat (religiously mandated seclusion), a mother with a new-born was badly beaten while she was holding her baby. The policemen indulged in crass acts like taking off their pants and displaying their genitals to the women.

Slideshow:


NCW further observed, “The Senior Inspector Mr. A.V. Parmar, constables, Prabhatsingh and Suresh from Godhra had led the “criminal group” of Policemen.”

NCW is extremely critical of Police Sub Inspector, Parmar and the constables and said, “They crossed all the limits of indecency, when their gruesome acts included grabbing and applying brutal pressure on the breasts, buttocks and other private parts of the women victims, while verbally and physically assaulting them.” It further observed that on resisting the women were brutally beaten by lathis and kicked dangerously on the stomach and other body parts.

The commission also noted in its report that even after 14 days, marks of clots and of having sustained injuries were there all over the victims’ body. It reported, “The Children and young adults who had been eye witnesses of such violence are in a state of shock. The trauma has been so great, that family members of most of the victims still find it laborious task to even fall asleep at night.”

Magisterial Inquiry

The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Godhra court ordered an inquiry on December 28th, 2009 to look into the allegations by some Muslim women that they were physically and sexually assaulted by policemen while in custody.

The police allegedly showed the arrest only at around 5.30 p.m. on December 20th although the women were in detention from the wee hours of the morning around 3.00 a.m. However when the women were finally produced before the magistrate, who happens to be a woman, she listened to the victims, examined their injuries and ordered the police to take them right away to the civil hospital.

Even this, the police delayed and also forced the medical staff to get the medical examination done in their presence and by male staff.

A state of intimidation

Set up in 1992, National Commission for Women (NCW) is a statutory body to protect and promote the interests of women. The three-member NCW inquiry committee was repeatedly told by a group of people not to listen to the affected Muslim women. In its report the NCW noted that a particular group of around 60 people acted in an excessively aggressive manner.” They refused to move out of the corridors of Circuit house, where the NCW members were hearing all parties. The report noted that “even the Police force didn’t ask them to move away.”

The intimidation was so severe that NCW committee members feared that in such hostile circumstances, there was a possibility that the affected women might have been intimidated or attacked by this group and therefore NCW asked the Collector and the SP to get the crowd dispersed not only from circuit house but from the adjoining area and requested the women victims for their support and patience, in waiting for this mob to disperse and then only come to Circuit house to make their representation.

The representation of these NGOs also tried to influence the NCW and was malicious and defaming against Muslim Community specially Ganchi Muslims.

Siddhi Joshi of Shri Siddhi Sarvajanik Trust which has its registered office in Panchmahal district, Shahera alleged that “Why the NCW is not taking steps to prevent atrocities on majority of women.”

NCW further reported their statements as “The area in which the alleged incident took place is a dangerous area. People support criminals there and it is very difficult for police to enter this area. Muslims are committing various crimes against women. They have abducted 3 women and converted them. They are married but have abducted 18 years old girl to marry her.”

About Ganchi Muslims they said, “Muslims from Godhra are decent but only Ganchi community who live in that area are criminals.”

Representations of Secular and other NGOs

NCW have also reported the representation of other secular NGOs. Prof. J.S. Bandukwala, President Gujarat PUCL had demanded strong action against P.I. Parmar and other accused named by women and was extremely critical of the inaction of SP and Collector.

PUCL and 105 people Human Rights and women’s organizations from Gujarat and more than 150 local residents of Godhra signed and submitted the memorandum which states, “We are not supporting any criminal. We believe that there should not be cow slaughter if it is hurting the feelings of our Hindu brothers. But in the name of combing operation the inhuman atrocities and sexual abuse on Muslim women by Police cannot be tolerated. Prof. Bandukwala himself has visited the area and women cannot describe their plight in words. The Police have not spared even a 15-day infant or a 60 year old widow who was in her iddat and the girl who was getting married that day.”

ANNADI, Aman Samuday and other NGOs also presented the case before NCW and was extremely critical of police atrocities specially P.I. Parmar and his colleagues. NCW has reported their statement as, “they were disturbed by the attitude and action/inaction of the entire state machinery and asked a direct question to the Collector and SP that: Is a Muslim life so cheap or being a Muslim is a crime in Gujarat? According to them the only relief in this entire episode was the inquiry ordered by the judicial magistrate against police under 202 of CrPC.”

Women were sexually assaulted and booked by the Godhra police

The police booked complaints against Salma (19), Naseembanu (22), Haksabibi (27), Fareeda (28), Ruksanabibi (30), Saraben (35), Rahimabibi (39), and Saberabibi (40) under sections 224, 225, 332, 333, 353, 506(2), 186, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC and Bombay Police Act for rioting, illegal assembly, causing hurt to public servant, resisting arrest and obstructing the arrest of another person. The women were released on bail on December 21.

NCW Recommendations

Three-member team of National Commission for Women consisted of Wasnuk Syiem, member of NCW, who led the team of Advocate Priya Hingorani and Professor Tripti Shah of MS University, Baroda.

The Commission submitted its report on April 26th, 2010, with 7 recommendations, including actions against the concerned police officers, compensation, counseling and security to the victims who have been traumatized by the inhuman act of the police personals, government lawyers for the case pending before the high court along with an apology by the state government.

“The Gujarat Government has to come out with a statement accepting responsibility for this serious atrocity and human rights violation, apologize to the women victims and circulate clear written instructions and warning to the police across the state so that similar atrocities do not happen in the future.” National commission for women recommended.

No Information available about the NCW Report and action on it

Teesta Setalwad, the complainant to the NCW told TwoCircles.net that the case is still pending in the High Court and despite repeated attempts they could not get the copy of the of report of National Commission for Women. She said, “We tried many times to get the report but failed due to which the case could not move forward in the high court.”

Alfazal Education & Charitable Trust of Godhra tried to get the report of NCW but in vain. Mohammed Yusuf of the trust said, "We have been trying to know about the commission report, even filed the RTI but could not get the report since last one year."

It is puzzling why the premier women body didn’t release this report and follow-through with the Gujarat government regarding action taken.

Pages from the NCW report:










The Maulana's Challenge - By Seema Chishti - The Indian Express


Tuesday, February 08, 2011

RE : The Maulana’s challenge

Seema Mustafa has written a very comprehensive study of issues surrounding Maulana Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi's entry into a debate that is continuing for last 150 years within Indian Muslim community (IE, 8/2/11). However, she has been using tools of analysis mostly used by progressives who have an inbuilt blind spot for anything religious. (Note her use of small m for Maulana). Her mention of Ashraaf, the status of community as a monolith as decried by the Left, the different levels of social consciousness that separates different regions; their Muslim traditions and traits, are subjects that are routine and inadequate to go to the heart of the issues. She has failed to pick up the historical perspective that has dominated the 'moments' in history that she correctly highlighted; though without elaborating that those moments were occasioned for reasons of faith, security and identity.

Be that Sir Syed, or Deoband or now Vastanvi, all three had made a breakthrough to bring Muslim community to keep pace with the times. Vastanvi inadvertently had made the same mistake that Sir Syed had made, when Sir Syed directly challenged the Ulama's turf and tried to administer a shock to the community, so that they can better grasp his message of cooperation with the new British colonial rulers. British rulers too, not unlike Modi, had inflicted genocidal massacre of Muslims in the aftermath of Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. Compare this, with the shocking message of Maulana Vastanvi, albeit on mischievous prodding and front-paging by Time of India. Maulana had not grasped the depth of feeling of wider Muslim and secular reaction to Gujarat riots and enunciated his otherwise pioneering mission while assuming the office of the head of Deoband seminary on a very wrong foot! If he had properly understood his position and his mission's wider implications, he would have been able to embark on leading Indian Muslims as the second coming of Sir Syed, without any challenges from the Ulama.

While Sir Syed started from scratch and fought his religious battle side by side his message of a new beginning for Indian Muslims, Vastanvi had the enviable position to have gained his career's best achievements long before he had to take over Deoband. He had so much working for him. Unlike Sir Syed, he was not preaching modernizing in religious space, but was able to chalk out a parallel path to align the community with the times and give Muslim Madarsa education a multifaceted direction. His unfortunate aside over a political matter, added a further dimension to his mission that the people were not prepared for and that was entirely unproductive and unwarranted.

An additional boost to Vastanvi’s mission of educating the Muslim masses was the gradual decline the political power in India in comparison to the rising corporate power in line with the economic progress. India is at the threshold of a peaceful revolution that will change its oligarchic political structure without any violence. As it is, Muslims have failed to make a mark in political field in last 63 years. With the arrival of private enterprise, including foreign investments with legal compulsion to follow universal norms over equal opportunity and against discrimination, the future is brighter than ever for Indian Muslims to make a mark in meritorious competition.

All this is not lost with the announcement of Maulana to submit his resignation to the Shoora on February 23rd. There is every reason to believe that the shoora will rise above petty internal dissensions, grasp the wider implication of a Vastanvi as Mohtamim of Deoband and reject his resignation.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

-----------

Tue, 8 Feb 2011



The maulana’s challenge

Seema Chishti
Tags : seemachishti, columns

Posted: Tue Feb 08 2011, 03:49 hrs


Debate around Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi, the Surat-born maulana who was elected last month to head the Darul Uloom at Deoband, provides a great moment to look at various aspects of being Muslim in India.


There have been several such moments over the past century, many of them seminal, as they have shed light on hidden truths, unpeeled stereotypes and challenged the claims of those who hope to either understand Muslim dynamics in India or play the dynamics. Sir Syed’s decision to start his Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College (later the Aligarh Muslim University) was one such. The rise of Jinnah, who challenged Indian Muslims to choose between a syncretic environment and a
“separate” one, was another. More recently, there was the Sachar Committee report. Some Muslims sneered at it: “We knew we were at the bottom of the pile.” But as it zeroed in and provided numbers and statistics on the backwardness of Indian Muslims, it shifted the debate even within the community to issues like drinking water, drainage and drop-out rates, away from daadhi-topi issues, peripheral identity questions isolated from their engagement and requirements as citizens. 

Conversely, for those who thrive on portraying Muslims as the “other”, the myth of appeasement was blown apart. Findings such as the fact that just 4 per cent of Muslims were madrasa-educated were like sunlight on the cobwebbed corners of a room full of prejudices.

Vastanvi has stirred up debate on a whole range of issues. What did he mean by the Gujarat statement, should Muslims accede to Modi in Gujarat, even vote for him? Is he right in talking pharmacology when he is expected to think of deeniyat (or theology) and not duniyadari in his new role? Is Vastanvi a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the Qasimi way of doing things (Qasimi referring to those schooled at the Deobandi madrasa)? Is the fuss only because he is a backward, a non-Ashraf, a Gujarati? Is there an old UP-led order he is challenging?


The biggest realisation for those of us who subscribe to the “Muslim monolith” argument is how rich, complex and colourful the variations within the community are. As a Gujarati, Vastanvi’s orientation, his approach to business, his purpose in the world, are strikingly different. The fact that he runs engineering colleges and pharma courses has become as much as a bane for him with the purists as it is an advantage with the rest of the world. His critics went blue in the face, saying it was like offering to open a polytechnic in the Vatican.

That he is, strictly speaking, not an Ashraf is brushed aside as a non-issue by several respectable clerics who have never wanted to accept that caste divisions are prevalent amongst their community. But go down the list of the OBCs in B.P. Mandal’s report — Noniya, Dhuniya, Bhishti or Nat — and then examine where and how, far from city centres, they stay in small-town India, and you will see that caste is always a question, irrespective of where you go to pray.

Rapidly altering levels of aspiration over the past two decades have impacted the minorities as much as anyone else. Old inhibitory factors have been blown away by new pulls: opportunity, hopes for a better life for younger people, the unspoken comfort provided by a fairly long spell of governance without needing to debate or fortify themselves from destructive elements on the right. There have been pushes too: for example, the collapse of traditional crafts (which Muslims have depended upon in clusters) has forced people out of old networks. Government largesse has been more innovative; scholarships, bicycles, housing loans, education opportunities and a promise of more, even in BJP-ruled states, have expanded the space for the Indian Muslim. The virtual collapse of Pakistan as an ideal Islamic state (with Shia-Sunni conflicts and Hanafi-Wahhabi strife tearing the country apart, making even offering prayers in mosques a risky proposition) has also sobered down those who may have secretly yearned for the comfort of being “there”.

Of course, to many of those watching the Vastanvi debate from outside, it is a story of a modern game-changer being done in. But it is much more than that. Of course, the battles, debates and squabbles in the Urdu press, in English, on TV and in drawing rooms have helped the debate pan across these many faultlines. What Vastanvi’s comment on Gujarat did was to again bring to the fore the reaction of a very small minority (7 per cent in Gujarat) telling an incredulous and large minority (18.5 per cent in UP) that they have got to “adjust”, “accept” and get on with it. In states like UP, Bihar, Bengal and Assam, minorities have been able to push their interests into the political mainstream by virtue of their numbers, and they were horrified at the suggestion of a supposed direct victim being so off-key.

Navigating for the Muslim between the Hindu and the Muslim right (and others in the political spectrum happy to keep Muslims slotted) has been tight. The Modi chapter that Vastanvi opened, therefore, should be dealt with and understood.

In Gujarat, elections did not provide for any resolution. The BJP adamantly never reached out, or even did what the Congress tried after the anti-Sikh pogrom, symbolically and politically. So the oversimplified and incorrect “development versus justice” choice squeezes Muslims into a binary trap. Is saying that good roads in Gujarat help us, too, akin to saying that Modi’s politics is acceptable, or that the economic environment there is not discriminatory? Is it okay to wave away the “justice” issue as boring and ideological if a Muslim wants access to better prospects? Most importantly, is it now to be expected of all “modern” Muslims (of the “moving-on” school) to, like the British Tebbit test of nationality, say they are alright with Modi?

Most of these questions will not be answered in one go. The Supreme Court is, of course, hearing several cases on the Gujarat riots. But on the 23rd of this month, some will be addressed by the 17 clerics in the Majlis-e-Shoora in Deoband. They are expected to say what they propose to do with Maulana Vastanvi.
Irrespective of what they choose to do, one good thing that Darul Uloom has done is what it is supposed to be doing — educate us. To educate us about several dimensions of what it means to be a Muslim in India in 2011. And beyond.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com