[Reader-list] Re: Protests and Acquittals in Sati glorification

[Rakesh]

Analysis



Sati glorification: Crime, society and the wheels of injustice

By Rakesh Shukla





Despite protests both within Rajasthan and across the country, no appeal has
been filed against the recent acquittal of those accused of glorifying sati,
following the death of Roop Kanwar on her husband’s funeral pyre back in
1987





On March 3, 2004, women's groups including the Rajasthan University Women's
Association, Sathin Karmachari Sangh and the National Federation of Indian
Women, under the banner of Mahila Atyachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, staged a
march in Jaipur protesting the acquittal, on January 31, of all the accused
in four criminal cases of glorification of sati, which was abolished in 1829
by Lord Bentinck. The accused include, among others, a former minister, a
former IAS officer, an advocate and the president of the Rajput Maha Sabha.

The cases go back to Deorala 1987, and have a chequered career. The
Rajasthan High Court quashed the chargesheets in December 1987 itself! The
Supreme Court finally reversed the high court judgement and sent the cases
back for trial in January 2003.

On September 4, 1987 in Deorala, a nondescript village in Rajasthan,
18-year-old Roop Kanwar burned to death on the pyre of her husband Maal
Singh. Dressed in bridal finery, Roop Kanwar walked at the head of the
funeral procession to the centre of the village and ascended the pyre. The
family lit the pyre fully aware that she was sitting on it, alive, with
hundreds of onlookers watching the proceedings. In fact, relatives even fed
a thousand people in honour of ‘Sati Mata'.

Based on a petition by women activists the Rajasthan High Court, on
September 14, 1987, ordered the state government to prevent a function
glorifying sati from taking place on the 13th day of Roop Kanwar's death.
The ceremony was nevertheless held with much fanfare. A festive ‘chunari',
taken round in procession, draped over a trishul to resemble the form of a
woman, was set ablaze in the presence of VIPs, politicians, legislators and
thousands of people. Cries of “ Sati Mata ki jai ,” “ Jab tak suraj-chand
rahega, Roop Kanwar tera naam rahega ” (“As long as the sun and the moon
exist, Roop Kanwar will be remembered”) rent the air.

Pressure from women's groups led to the promulgation of the Rajasthan Sati
(Prevention) Ordinance, 1987, on October 1, 1987, prohibiting the
glorification of sati. The Sati Dharma Suraksha Samiti dropped ‘Sati' from
its name and organised a massive rally, mid-October, in Jaipur. People
carried naked swords and shouted slogans in favour of sati and Roop Kanwar.
Similar rallies were organised in the districts of Alwar and Sikar. Under
the ordinance, 22 criminal cases pertaining to these rallies were filed for
‘glorification of sati'.

On October 11, 1996, the additional district and sessions judge at
Neem-ka-Thana in Rajasthan pronounced all 32 accused, including Roop
Kanwar's father-in-law, ‘not guilty' with regard to the immolation. They
were acquitted.

The main reason for their acquittal was stated to be the absence of
eyewitnesses to the immolation, which took place in the presence of hundreds
of onlookers. In fact, the court declared that the prosecution had not been
able to prove that Roop Kanwar was alive when she sat on the pyre and was
burnt to death!

The court's finding brings us to the acquittal, on January 31, 2004, of all
the accused including former minister and vice-president of the state's BJP
Rajendra Singh Rathore, former Bharatiya Yuva Morcha president and nephew of
vice-president Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, Pratap Singh Khachariawas, president
of the Rajput Maha Sabha, Narendra Singh Rajawat, former IAS officer Onkar
Singh and advocate Ram Singh Manohar in four of the criminal cases under the
1987 ordinance.

Under the ordinance, ‘sati' constitutes the burning or burying alive of any
widow along with the body of her deceased husband or with any article,
object or thing associated with the husband, irrespective of whether such
burning or burying is voluntary on the part of the widow or otherwise.

Glorification has been defined under section 2(b) of the ordinance. The
first limb of the provision defines ‘glorification' as including the
observance of any ceremony or the taking out of a procession in connection
with sati. Interposing ‘or', the second limb declares the creation of a
trust, collection of funds, construction of a temple or the performance of
any ceremony thereat with a view to perpetuating the honour of, or to
preserve the memory of a widow committing sati as glorification.

The court, duty-bound to apply the definition of sati as laid down in the
law, instead declares that ‘sati' means a “woman being virtuous, having
strong character, completely devoted towards her husband and having a
relationship with only one man during her whole life”. Applying this
subjective meaning, betraying a patriarchal mindset, the judgement refers to
Sita and Anusuya as ‘satis' and observes that the invocation of their name
would obviously not make a person guilty of sati glorification.

The provision is then interpreted to mean that the observance of any
ceremony or the taking out of a procession must also be in relation to a
particular incident for the act to be punishable. Carrying this twisted
logic further, the court rules that as the Roop Kanwar incident has itself
not been proved to be one of ‘sati', ‘sati glorification' is not established
by the taking out of processions.

The other striking feature of the case is the turning hostile of senior
government officials including police officers. In what is probably
unprecedented, ADM Nar Hari Sharma, SDM Gyan Prakash Shukla, SHO Bhilwara
Satish Kumar, SHO Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Chagan Lal, amongst other ASIs and
constables, all changed their testimonies in court and refused to support
the prosecution launched and conducted by their own administration. Lapses
on the part of the prosecution, such as a delay in filing an FIR (First
Information Report), failure to prove the photographs, speeches recorded and
news items through the examination of photographers, technicians and the
journalists concerned, the absence of test identification all contributed to
the acquittal.

As time for an appeal with the high court runs out, continuing protests
within the state and across the country have failed to persuade the state
government, headed by Vasundhara Raje, to file an appeal against the
acquittal and take steps to conduct, with due care and diligence, the
prosecution of 18 cases of ‘sati glorification' still pending trial.

(Rakesh Shukla is an advocate with the Supreme Court)

InfoChange News & Features, March 2004