Diwali: A celebration to mark the Hindu New Year

Traditionally, 'Diwali' was called 'Deepavali', the former name emerged only to simplify pronouciation under the British rule (1757 - 1947).

Many of the residents began celebrating Diwali long before today, by putting up fairy lights and flowers around the outside of their homes and setting off fireworks.

Homes are also decorating with rangolis (coloured  powder patterns) which are normally reserved for Holi.

 

Diwali marks the beginning of the Hindu New Year according to the Lunar Calendar. ‘Deepavali’ translates literally to mean 'Row of Lights' (from Sanskrit: dipa = lamp / awali = row, line). It celebrates the victory of goodness over evil and light over darkness and knowledge over ignorance, although the actual legends that go with the festival are different in different parts of India.

In northern India, Diwali celebrates Rama's return from fourteen years of exile to Ayodhya after the defeat of Ravana and his subsequent coronation as king. In Gujarat (where my grandparents grew up), the festival honours Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. In Nepal, Diwali commemorates the victory of Lord Krishna over the demon king Narakaasura. In Bengal, it is associated with the goddess Kali.

Needed: An independent body to oversee the actions of the Indian police.

In a democratic society, the police are not only accountable to Parliament, the judiciary and the executive, but, are now more commonly accountable to an independent body, which, has been exclusively set up to deal with complaints by members of the public against the police.

Such bodies exist in the United States, England & Wales, New Zealand, Australia and much of Europe. However, what is interesting to note is that there are scores of countries within the Commonwealth which have no such body or procedure to deal with police complaints in place including India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Cyprus.

Whenever the police have been accountable only to themselves in the past, it has only ever ended in miscarriages of justice. From fabrication and suppression of evidence in the Birmingham Six case to coerced confessions in the Guildford Four case, an increasing amount of the public lost faith in the police. It is no different in India, people complain every single day about the conduct of police, yet the few individuals that manage to take their complaint to court are simply told the officer in question will be suspended. This officer will then be back on duty within a matter of weeks and then permitted to further terrorise the community he is supposed to protect and serve.

The need for an independent body dealing with complaints against the police has constantly been at the back of my mind since I began interning at HRLN. There have been numerous reports of indiscriminate police brutality, corruption and prejudice against Dalits and other minority communities. However, the lack of accountability of the police means no one escapes their appalling behaviour.

In October, one of our lawyers, Advocate Shreeji Bhavsar was assaulted by a high-ranking police officer, Sub-Inspector O. P. Yadav within a cell in Sarita Vihar Police Station. Bhavsar was assaulted as he and five other colleagues attempted to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for suspected illegal demolitions and evictions of the Dalit community living in Ali Gaon village. Sub-Inspector Yadav refused to register the FIR against the DDA citing an artificial rule which was that police stations no longer register FIRs on Sundays in India.

Bhavsar introduced himself as a lawyer and informed Yadav, he knew no such rule existed. As a result of his persistence, Bhavsar was then beaten with a metal baton until his colleagues helped him escape. As a result of this attack the human rights lawyer suffered a fractured thumb and severe bruising.

Bhavsar was harassed and intimidated by plain clothed officers a little after he was assaulted up until the time his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) case came before Delhi High Court on the 19^th October 2011. He was harassed as he had secretly activated the voice recording function on his phone as he entered the police station, and the officers wanted the recording deleted. By this time, Bhavsar had already made copies and uploaded the copy to youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv6p2SNQGWc).

A division bench consisting of acting Chief Justice A K Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw asked the police to register an FIR for the alleged beating of Advocate Shreeji Bhavsar by Sub-Inspector O. P. Yadav of Sarita Vihar police station. The bench also ordered the Crime Branch to investigate the allegations made and asked for the investigation to be supervised by an officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner. Appearing on behalf of the police, Advocate Pawan Sharma told the bench that Sub-Inspector Yadav had been suspended after Bhavsar lodged a complaint accusing him of assault.

Had there been an independent police complaints body, similar to England’s Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) operating in India, the Justice’s at Delhi High Court would not have had to order an investigation into Sub-Inspector O. P. Yadav’s conduct, by the same force that will whole-heartedly accept him back when he returns to duty following his suspension. The ‘code of silence’ between police officers is well-documented through various research studies conducted over a number years, with the reasons for remaining silent ranging from fear of being fired to the lack of protection offered to whistleblowers.

It is for these reasons that India must introduce an independent body to investigate swiftly and fairly the conduct of the police as a matter of urgency. Only then will the behaviour of the police improve and they will actually begin to fulfil their duty to protect the public as they come under greater scrutiny and transparency than ever before.

The bench fixed the next hearing to take place on the 2^nd November 2011. Only time will tell if the investigation they ordered was successful in discovering the truth.

My first fact-finding mission: Ravidas Camp slum, Akshardham

On the 25th September 2011, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a 2-day notice to the 300 jhuggie owners (occupants of the individual slum homes) informing them that they intended to demolish what had been their homes for the past 20-25 years, to make way for a drainage nala.

 The DDA began demolishing an adjacent Gurdwara, but stopped when a complaint to the police was made. Following this complaint, HRLN were made aware of the imminent threat of demolition and became involved. The jhuggie owners are entitled under Indian case law to be re-housed if they can demonstrate they have lived in one specific jhuggie prior to 1990. There is an alternative system that provides varying degrees of assistance depending on the date of the documentation the resident provides.

The DDA have a reputation for failing to carry out any of the appropriate surveys which are required to facilitate the process of re-housing jhuggie owners and their families. Amiy (a trainee lawyer at HRLN) and I embarked on our first fact-finding mission on Saturday 1^st October at 7am. We spoke to the leader of the Ravidas Camp who showed us around the parts of the slum that had already been demolished and explained the red arrows dotted around the slum were  made by employees of the DDA marking their demolition lines.

Amiy and I collected documentation from every jhuggie owner who had any form of ID linking their arrival in the slum to their jhuggie number (house number). The most common types of ID they had were BPL cards, Ration cards VP Singh cards and Voter ID cards. I also collected information from each jhuggie owner relating to the number of occupants in each jhuggie, the year they moved to the Ravidas Camp slum, the number of children under 10 in their jhuggie and any other relevant special circumstances such as a pregnant occupant in their jhuggie, a family member who is suffering from mental health issues or any occupants who are terminally ill.

There was a slight delay whilst the adults from each jhuggie went to the high street to get their documents photocopied. I took this opportunity to speak to the children living in the slum. They were a  playful bunch of children and they found my broken Hindi hilarious. 

Armed with the information we had collected from the occupants of Ravidas Camp, HRLN successfully obtained a stay on the demolition until the process of relocating the jhuggie owners had been satisfactorily completed. The judge ordered the DDA to provide a plan for how they would go about completing a survey and what sort of rehabilitation they thought the residents were eligible for. The Judge made an offhand comment to the effect of "you can't come along and demolish these jhuggies and then do a survey afterwards to determine if they are eligible for rehabilitation 4 years later - these things have to happen together”. This comment is a positive step forward in the struggle between the DDA and jhuggie owners across Delhi, as they not only have the right to be relocated but now have the support of Delhi High Court who are finally recognising and implementing their rights.