Upholding Custody, P&H HC Says Teenage Daughter ‘Needs Mother To Share Issues Comfortably’

While noting that the father is usually considered the natural guardian of a minor child, the order says courts have a duty to exercise judicial discretion to ensure the child’s welfare.

New Delhi: The Punjab and Haryana high court, upholding a family court order granting custody of a minor girl to her mother, observed that there are many things that a daughter can’t discuss with her father and “as such mother is the best person to take care of her daughter at growing age”.

According to LiveLaw, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Verma and Justice Augustine George Masih opined that during her teen years, a daughter looks to her mother to share and discuss certain issues comfortably.

The high court was dealing with the appeal of the father of a 13-year-old girl, who had challenged the judgment passed by the Gurugram family court allowing his wife to take custody of their progeny.

The family court order was passed in April 2018, after the wife had left her husband and registered an FIR against him and his family. In her petition, the mother had submitted that the father was not taking care of the minor girl and her “schooling and career” would be unsafe.

The father, a practicing lawyer, submitted in the HC that the father is the “natural guardian” of a child and that he has every right to claim the custody of his daughter. The father contended that there would “irreparable damage” to the welfare of the girl if she is allowed to remain with her mother.

The mother’s counsel argued, according to LiveLaw, that for the welfare of the minor daughter, she should remain in her custody. The mother is a well-educated lady and is capable of providing quality education to her daughter and providing a better and safe home to her daughter, which is in her interest and welfare.

‘Judicial discretion’

The court noted that it is not disputed that the father of the minor girl is the natural guardian, though the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother.

The father has the right of custody unless the court comes to the conclusion that he is “unfit” and it is not suitable for the welfare of the minor to allow the father to exercise his right, the court said.

However, the high court said that in each case, the court has to “see primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the question of his or her custody”.

“It is here that a heavy duty is cast on the Court to exercise its judicial discretion judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and circumstances,” the court added.

From the depositions made by father before the trial court, the high court said it is evident that he is “very reticent and reclusive type of person who has secluded himself from the social circle and friends”.

“He did not find anything wrong in not allowing the child to any birthday party or for interacting with friends and relatives and neighbours. The child did not even interact with the grand-parents living on the ground floor of the same building. Meaning thereby that when the appellant is out for work, the child is supposed to be all alone on the first floor,” the court observed.

The court added that the mother’s role in the development of a child’s personality can never be doubted and that she shapes a child’s world “from the cradle by rocking, nurturing and instructing her child”.

It added:

“Apart from that, mother is a priceless gift, a real treasure and an earnest heartfelt power for a child, especially for a growing girl of the age of 13 years which is her crucial phase of life being the major shift in thinking biologically which may help her to understand more effectively with the help of her mother and at this crucial teen age, her custody with the mother is necessary for her growth… There would be so many things which a daughter could not discuss with her father and as such mother shall be the best person to take care of her daughter at this growing age.”

It concluded by saying that the all-round welfare and development of the daughter lies with her mother and did not find any “illegality, impropriety, perversity, and irrationality” in the judgment of the family court.

However, though the did not make an appeal for visitation rights to meet his daughter, the court allowed him to visit her daughter twice a month, “preferably on 2nd and 4th Saturday(s) at the place and time mutually agreed between the parties”.

“[K]eeping in view the fact that a child needs the love and affection of both the father and the mother and anticipating optimistically that the girl child may serve as a bridge to fill the gap between the parents and the father-appellant also being the natural guardian of the girl child, the appellant-father is given visitation rights for meeting his daughter,” the court said.

Weeks After Unnao, Body of Minor Dalit Girl Found in Aligarh Field

Police said prima facie it appeared that she was strangled.

New Delhi: The body of a 16-year-old Dalit girl was found in a field in the Akrabad area in Aligarh,with police saying that prima facie, it appears that she was strangled.

The incident comes just weeks after the bodies of three minor Dalit girls were found in a field in Unnao district of the state.

According to PTI, the 16-year-old girl had gone to the fields on Sunday afternoon to collect fodder for cattle but did not return. Later, her body was found in a field when her family members started searching for her, they said

Police said prima facie it appeared that she was strangled.

“The victim had gone out to get grass for fodder. The family and villagers began looking for her when she didn’t return home even after a few hours. Later they found her body in a field,” Muniraj G., the Aligarh senior superintendent of police, told NDTV.

As the news of he death spread, irate villagers pelted stones at a police party which was trying to take the body for post-mortem, they said. An inspector was injured in the attack, police added.

SSP Muniraj revealed that late on Sunday, senior police officials rushed to the spot and pacified the villagers, who then handed over the body to policemen.

He said allegations that the victim was sexually assaulted are being probed. “Everything will be clear when the post-mortem report is received,” the SP told news agency PTI.

In the Unnao case, three minor Dalit girls were found in a field. They too had gone to collect fodder, but were allegedly poisoned by a man whose advances one of the girls had rejected. While the two younger girls died, the third survived. Two persons, including a minor, have been arrested in that case.

UNSC Watch: COVID-19 Resolution Finds Record Sponsors, Council Loses its ‘Guernica’

The UN Security Council adopted two more resolutions – sanctions on Yemen and resolution reauthorising deployment of the African Union Mission in Somalia.

New Delhi: It was a busy week at the United Nations Security Council last week, with the passage of three resolutions, including one with a historic number of co-sponsors that called for a pause to armed conflict worldwide to allow equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.

The UK ended their last week as council president in February with the adoption of Resolution 2565 that called on “all parties to armed conflicts engage immediately in a durable, extensive, and sustained humanitarian pause to facilitate the equitable, safe and unhindered delivery and distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations in areas of armed conflict”.

The resolution was also significant as it was approved as a ‘presidential text’, which is the term given to a resolution that has been co-sponsored by all 15 members of the council. The last resolution to be adopted as a presidential text was in August 2020 – when it called for increasing deployment of women in peacekeeping operations. In the previous five years, only eight resolutions have been adopted as presidential texts.

According to SC procedure, which has been documenting security council’s working methods, resolution 2565 also marked another historical record. It garnered the second-highest number of 112 co-sponsors in UNSC’s history.

The highest number of co-sponsors for an SC resolution related to another viral outbreak, seven years ago. In September 2014, the council adopted resolution 2177 with 134 co-sponsors that called on member states to respond to the Ebola outbreak urgently and refrain from isolating the affected countries.

The UK had submitted the draft resolution on vaccination ceasefire on February 18.

The Wire has learnt that India had initiated the inclusion in the resolution for language appreciating countries that have donated vaccines.

As the world’s largest manufacturing capacity of vaccines, India has been actively sending vaccines to countries as part of a diplomatic drive. According to the latest government figures, India has supplied 361,94,000 doses worldwide, out of which around 19% was delivered on a grant basis.

There had also been an attempt by the European Union (EU) countries to refer to regulatory requirements by vaccines. However, there was a strong pushback from developing countries, and it was not part of the final resolution, diplomatic sources said.

Additionally, the Security Council report revealed that Russia had successfully added a phrase from an earlier resolution that would refer to UN secretary-general’s appeal last year to waive sanctions that could undermine countries’ capacity to respond to the pandemic.

Also read: UNSC Watch: As Vaccine Inequality Worsens, UK Calls for ‘Vaccination Ceasefire’

Is pre-emptive anti-terror cross-border attack legal under UN charter?

Besides resolution 2565, the Security Council adopted two more resolutions – sanctions on Yemen and resolution reauthorising deployment of the African Union Mission in Somalia.

Outside the formal proceedings, UNSC member Mexico organised an ‘Arria formula’ meeting to discuss the legal scope of Article 51 of the UN charter on February 24.

Article 51 states:

“Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

The concept note by Mexico about the discussions stated that it was to analyse the “interpretation that has been given to this provision of the Charter against non-state actors, in particular in the context of counter-terrorism, and regarding the precedents that the aforementioned actions could set for other cases in the future”.

Opening the meeting, Mexico rejected the cross-border use of force against non-state actors on grounds that the host state is unable to control them.

With the event taking place in the week marking the second anniversary of India’s airstrikes inside Pakistan, India, not surprisingly, asserted that there was a legal basis for applying the self-defence point in Article 51 against non-state actors.

India’s deputy permanent representative, K. Nagaraj, stated that the “source of the attack, whether a state or a non-state actor, is irrelevant to the existence of the right of self-defence”.

Nagaraj listed three criteria that allowed a state to make a cross-border strike inside another country to target a ‘non-state actor’.

“Non-state actors such as terrorist groups often attack states from remote locations within other host states, using the sovereignty of that host state as a smokescreen. In this regard, a growing number of states believe that the use of force in self-defence against a non-state actor operating in the territory of another host state can be undertaken if:

      1. The non-state actor has repeatedly undertaken armed attacks against the state.
      2. The host state is unwilling to address the threat posed by the non-state actor.
      3. The host state is actively supporting and sponsoring the attack by the non-state actor.”

India also claimed that Security Council resolutions 1368 and 1373 have “formally endorsed the view that self-defence is available to avert terrorist attacks such as in the case of the 9/11 attacks”.

Nagaraj concluded that pre-emptive actions taken to “fight the menace of terrorism” were consistent with Article 2(4) of the UN charter as “such actions are not of reprisal, since their prime motive is for protecting the affected states’ national integrity and sovereignty”.

In its presentation, Pakistan apparently argued for the right to self-defence against a state allegedly sponsoring terror attacks, versus a state that is only acting as a territorial host. Pakistan has recently been claiming that India is supporting terror attacks from Afghanistan, which both countries have vehemently denied.

Sri Lanka’s permanent representative, Mohan Peiris, expressed concern about the increasing invocation of Article 51 to justify unilateral cross-border attacks against non-state actors. “These exceptional cases should not be considered as the new norm or evidence of state practice,” he said.

Also read: Myanmar: India ‘Balancing Factor’ Between West, China in Talks Over UNSC Press Statement

The Art on War

Before entering the chamber of Security Council, a visitor had to walk past a 25-foot long tapestry showing Pablo Picasso’s searing anti-war painting, Guernica. But, no more. The wall is now starkly empty.

It had been hanging in the corridor since 1985 when it was loaned by Nelson Rockefeller, former US vice-president. His son wanted it back, and the UN returned it in early February.

“I feel a little sad and sense of loss, looking at the empty wall. It was not only a moving reminder of the horrors of war, but because of where it stood, it was also witness to so much history that unfolded outside of the Security Council since 1985,” UN spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric told reporters on February 27.

Picasso painted the iconic painting in 1937 to depict the bombing by Germany during the Spanish civil war. The original painting remains in Museo Reina Sofía in Madrid. The position of the tapestry of Guernica was highly symbolic as the Security Council is the only body in the United Nations that deals with threats to international peace and security.

Three replicas of the original Picasso painting were made in tapestry – the first of which was commissioned by Rockefeller in 1955 and made in France under Picasso’s supervision. The other two replicas are in Musée Unterlinden in France and Japan’s Museum of Modern Art.

A view of the tapestry based on Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica”, which is on display outside the Security Council chamber at UN Headquarters, February 14, 2005. Photo: Flickr/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres told CBS News that he was dismayed that the tapestry was no longer in the UN. “It’s horrible, horrible that it is gone,” he said.

The empty wall will eventually showcase another gift – a reminder that the United Nations building has been furnished with donations of artworks from member states and individuals.

Also read: UNSC Watch: In New York, India’s Balancing Act Between West and Russia Over Belarus

As Loraine Sievers, a former head of the UNSC secretariat, wrote in a recent paper, donating gifts to the United Nations by member states was always a political message. She listed four goals for states to make gifts – “1) to add to their stature at the UN; 2) to have on display visible representation of their national culture; 3) to symbolise their investment in the organisation’s mission and 4) to contribute to enhancing the aesthetics of the UN premises”.

India’s artistic gift to the UN building is an 11th-century sculpture of the Sun God, Surya. It was handed over in 1982 and is displayed on the second floor of the UN’s conference building.

This week at the UN

The United States will take over as the president of the Security Council for March. After being confirmed by the US senate, the US’s permanent representative, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, presented her credentials to Guterres last Thursday.

The full calendar of events for March will be clear once the provision programme of work is adopted on Monday.

Towards the end of the week, Indian envoy T.S. Tirumurti will be chairing the Council’s Libya Sanctions Committee to discuss the report of the panel of experts. This report is then expected to be made public. It is highly anticipated, as the report apparently documents the involvement of Blackwater founder Erik Prince in violations of an arms embargo.

This is a weekly column that tracks the UNSC during India’s current term as a non-permanent member. Previous columns can be found here.

At Least 18 Die in Myanmar on Bloodiest Day of Anti-Coup Protests

The crackdown would appear to indicate determination by the military to impose its authority in the face of defiance, not just on the streets but more broadly in society.

Myanmar police fired on protesters around the country on Sunday in the bloodiest day of weeks of demonstrations against a military coup and at least 18 people were killed, the UN human rights office said.

Police were out in force early and opened fire in different parts of the biggest city of Yangon after stun grenades, tear gas and shots in the air failed to break up crowds. Soldiers also reinforced police.

Several wounded people were hauled away by fellow protesters, leaving bloody smears on pavements, media images showed. One man died after being brought to a hospital with a bullet in the chest, said a doctor who asked not to be identified.

“Police and military forces have confronted peaceful demonstrations, using lethal force and less-than-lethal force that – according to credible information received by the UN Human Rights Office – has left at least 18 people dead and over 30 wounded,” the UN human rights office said.

Myanmar has been in chaos since the army seized power and detained elected government leader Aung San Suu Kyi and much of her party leadership on February 1, 2021, alleging fraud in a November election her party won in a landslide.

Also read: Myanmar Envoy Appeals to UN to End Coup, Police Intensifies Crackdown on Protesters

The coup, which brought a halt to tentative steps towards democracy after nearly 50 years of military rule, has drawn hundreds of thousands onto the streets and the condemnation of Western countries.

Among at least five killed in Yangon was internet network engineer Nyi Nyi Aung Htet Naing, who a day earlier had posted on Facebook about his concern at the growing crackdown, medics said. Teacher Tin New Yee died after police swooped to disperse a teachers’ protest with stun grenades, sending the crowd fleeing, her daughter and a fellow teacher said.

Police also hurled stun grenades outside a Yangon medical school, sending doctors and students in white lab coats scattering. A group called the Whitecoat Alliance of medics said more than 50 medical staff had been arrested.

Three people were killed at Dawei in the south, politician Kyaw Min Htike told Reuters from the town. Two died in the second city of Mandalay, Myanmar Now media and a resident said. Resident Sai Tun told Reuters one woman was shot in the head.

Police and the spokesman for the ruling military council did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.

Police broke up protests in other towns, including Lashio in the northeast, Myeik in the deep south and Hpa-An in the east, residents and media said.

Also read: Facebook, Instagram Ban Myanmar Military With Immediate Effect

‘Outrageous’ 

Junta leader General Min Aung Hlaing said last week authorities were using minimal force to deal with the protests. Nevertheless, at least 21 protesters have now died in the turmoil. The army said a policeman had been killed.

The crackdown would appear to indicate determination by the military to impose its authority in the face of defiance, not just on the streets but more broadly in the civil service, municipal administration, the judiciary, the education and health sectors and the media.

“We are heartbroken to see the loss of so many lives in Myanmar. People should not face violence for expressing dissent against the military coup. Targeting of civilians is abhorrent,” the US embassy said. The Canadian Embassy said it was appalled. Indonesia, which has taken a diplomatic lead within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on the crisis, expressed deep concern.

Activists across Asia held rallies to support Myanmar’s protesters in Myanmar with the rallying cry “Milk Tea Alliance”, which first united pro-democracy activists in Thailand and Hong Kong.

State-run MRTV television said more than 470 people had been arrested on Saturday. It was not clear how many were detained on Sunday.

Also read: Myanmar: Minister Travels to Thailand for Talks, Anti-Coup Protests Maintain Momentum

Youth activist Esther Ze Naw said people were battling the fear they had lived with under military rule. “It’s obvious they’re trying to instil fear in us by making us run and hide,” she said. “We can’t accept that.”

A day after the junta announced that Myanmar’s UN envoy had been fired for opposing its rule by calling for action from the United Nations, the foreign ministry announced that diplomats at several other embassies were being recalled. It gave no reason, but some diplomats have been among civil servants to join a Civil Disobedience Movement that has paralysed a swathe of official business.

While Western countries have condemned the coup and some have imposed limited sanctions, the generals have traditionally shrugged off diplomatic pressure. They have promised to hold a new election but not set a date. Suu Kyi’s party and supporters said the result of the November vote must be respected.

Suu Kyi, 75, who spent nearly 15 years under house arrest, faces charges of illegally importing six walkie-talkie radios and of violating a natural disaster law by breaching coronavirus protocols. The next hearing in her case is on Monday.

PIL in High Court Against Uttarakhand Govt’s Decision to Post IPS Officers in Prisons

The petitioner has said the move infringes upon both the legal and fundamental rights of those incarcerated.

Mumbai: In an unusual move, the Uttarakhand home secretary issued a government order on February 12 posting five Indian Police Service (IPS) officers as superintendents of central, district and sub jails. Before this notification, to ensure that prisoners do not have to deal with the police while in judicial custody, Uttarakhand, like most other states, would draw its prison officials from a separate state cadre. But the recent order has blurred that line, and many human rights defenders claim that such a move will only increase violative control over prisoners.

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed against the government’s decision before the Uttarakhand high court. Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar, a practicing lawyer and rights activist based in Udham Singh Nagar district, has moved the court after five IPS officers were given additional charge of the prisons as senior superintendent at Sittarganj, Haldwani, Haridwar, Dehradun and Roorkee jails. The officials sent on special deputation to the prisons include Ramchandra Rajguru, Prahlad Narayan Meena, Navneet Singh, Shweta Chaubey and Pradeep Kumar Rai.

This decision, contradicting provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Jail (Group A and B) Service Rules, 1982, would give police officials direct access to prisoners beyond police custody. So far, barring the Inspector General-level officials, other prison officials were drawn from the separate state services. The IG prisons are usually IPS officials, but the common argument is that senior officials seldom come in direct contact with prisoners and would not be able to wield pressure.

Kumar says this infringes upon both the legal and fundamental rights of those incarcerated. His petition raises a serious concern of growing violative action against those arrested. “It is widely known that in police custody, violative tactics are used to extract information from the arrested persons. Imagine now if the police officials end up being placed in prisons. This move will prove disastrous,” Kumar says.

Also read: Awaiting Trial for Six years, UAPA Prisoner Dies While in Custody

The operations and deputations of both police and the prison department are kept separate on purpose. In jails, the prisoner is under judicial or a magistrate’s custody, and is ought to be kept away from police interference. If the police’s primary objective is to ensure law and order in the region, the prison officials are responsible for the rights, reformation and rehabilitation of those incarcerated. “Thus, the very object of appointment of both the officers, their duties and responsibilities and their training travelled into different concept of jurisprudence (sic),” Kumar points out in his petition.

Torture and human rights violations, both in police and jail custody, is rampant. The reasons for these violative tactics, however, differ. In police custody, “extraction” of confession is one of the common reasons; in jail, the power dynamics change and prisoners are ill-treated mostly because of space and resource paucity. If the police official’s role spills over in jail, Kumar says, the outcome would be deadly. “How does the state plan to ensure that no prisoner is controlled or ill  treated while in jail custody?” he asks. He further adds that the prisoners will continue to remain under the threat and mental agony of being in police custody, even while in jail custody.

A report by the National Campaign Against Torture – a platform for NGOs working on torture in India – states that every day, an average of five persons die in custody in the country. In 2019, 117 people died in police custody while 1,606 deaths were recorded in judicial custody. There has been no conviction so far, even when over 500 deaths between 2005 and 2019 have been due to torture in police custody.

Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an arrested person can be placed in the police custody for a maximum period of 15 days and thereafter she must be placed in the judicial custody. Placing the police in prisons will only extend the person’s police custody, even in jail, Kumar feels.

The petition states: “A judicial discretion has been conferred upon the magistrate to grant police custody or to refuse the police custody and to send a person into judicial custody. However, the aforesaid judicial discretion will remain ornamental as after the aforesaid additional charge being given to the police officer, under any circumstance either sent to policy custody or judicial custody the person will ultimately be forwarded to custody of police.”

Uttarakhand has a total of 11 prisons, with a capacity for 3,540 prisoners. However, as per the National Crime Records Bureau data of 2019, around 5,629 prisoners were lodged across different prisons in the state, taking the occupancy rate to 159% – the third highest after Delhi (174.9%) and Uttar Pradesh (167.9%). Uttarakhand has also reported the highest female occupancy rate (170.1%), followed by Chhattisgarh (136.1%) and Uttar Pradesh (127.3%).

Also read: The Wire Impact: After 70 Years, Rajasthan Amends Prison Manual That Sanctioned Caste-Based Labour

The Uttarakhand state government’s decision poses several grave challenges, the petition claims. Following Kumar’s PIL, the high court has issued notice to the state home and prison department and directed them to file their responses.

The issue has also received attention from the opposition and is expected to be raised in the state assembly session that starts on March 1. Leader of opposition and senior Congress leader Indira Hridayesh has called the BJP-led Uttarakhand government’s decision both unconstitutional and illegal. “There was no need to bring in such unfounded decision and pitch IPS officials against jail officials. The home department’s decision is both unconstitutional and illegal,” Hridayesh says. She further adds that once the state prisons officials reach a certain seniority, they should be promoted to the posts of superintendent. Hridayesh has announced that she will raise the issue on the floor of the assembly.

Modi Only World Leader to Use COVID Vaccination Certificate to Push Cult of Personality

India’s vaccination certificates are in stark contrast to the certificates or cards that the US, Israel and some other countries have issued to those who have received their jabs.

New Delhi: As governments democratic and authoritarian begin the process of vaccinating citizens against COVID-19, India has emerged as perhaps the first – and so far, only – country in the world whose leader is using vaccination certificates to promote his own politics and cult of personality.

Provisional certificates issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, through its COVID Vaccine Intelligence Network (Co-WIN) platform, to all those vaccinated carry a prominent strip at the bottom with the photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi along with exhortations in English (“Together We Will Defeat Covid-19”) and Hindi (“davai bhi aur kadai bhi“, “medicines as well as rigour”).

Each certificate also includes the beneficiary’s basic details, the name of the vaccine candidate administered (Covishield or Covaxin), the location of the dose and the batch number and due date for the second dose. Below the Modi banner, Co-WIN lists a helpline number in English and Hindi.

One resident of Puducherry posted his certificate on Twitter along with words of praise for Modi: “Sir Modi jee knows what to do, when to do, how to do”.

Photo: Twitter

The Wire has been able to confirm with others who have received vaccinations that Modi’s photograph and message is affixed to all their certificates.

Image: Co-WIN

India’s vaccination certificates are in stark contrast to the certificates or cards that the US, Israel and some other countries have issued to those who have received their prophylactic jabs.

For example, a syndicated photograph of speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s certificate only shows a logo of the US Centres for Disease Control, plus information about the vaccine dosage, schedule and logistics. Another issued by Israeli authorities in December 2020 is similarly bare. The UK’s National Health Service vaccination card is even smaller, about the size of a business card, and whose only image is of a crown.

In India, the attempt to use COVID-19 vaccinations for political gain first became evident during the Bihar assembly elections last year, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said it would vaccinate everyone in the state free of cost if it won the election. Experts at the time had questioned the propriety of offering vaccines at no cost only in exchange for votes. The promise was especially controversial because vaccination policy in a pandemic has to be nationally determined and not driven by local or political considerations.

The use of Modi’s photograph on the vaccination certificate is also being seen by the opposition Congress as an attempt to influence voters. In fact, before the civic body polls rolled around in Gujarat, the Vadodara Congress chief had written to state election officers last month alleging the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) violated the Model Code by displaying Modi’s pictures on the Co-WIN app and on the provisional certificates. Indian Express quoted additional district collector D.R. Patel as acknowledging the complaint “had substance and will apply to the entire state” and that his office would write to “district and civic body health departments, notifying that they can’t use the current form of the certificate and the application.”

The Election Commission is likely to be petitioned again as it has scheduled state elections in the key states of West Bengal and Assam from March 27, and in Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Kerala from April 6. The Model Code of Conduct enters into force the day after the commission announces the election dates – which it did on February 27.

One of the code’s stipulations is that “the party in power, whether at the Centre or in the State or States concerned, shall ensure that no cause is given for any complaint that it has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign”.

Of the five states in question, Kerala has been reporting a substantial fraction of new COVID-19 cases that – at the national level – seem to threaten what had until January 2021 seemed like a faltering epidemic. West Bengal used to be a problem state last year, when its case load rose quickly even as its testing rates dropped. Tamil Nadu recently announced that it would extend its lockdown until March 31.

Prime Minister Modi flagged off the government’s vaccination drive on January 16 using funds from the opaque PM CARES fund, and on the back of controversial approvals from the national drug regulator. The first phase was earmarked for vaccinating 300 million frontline and healthcare workers through a nationwide vaccination apparatus set up by the government.

The drive enters a crucial new phase today, with implications for the state elections as well: the health ministry has announced that Co-WIN will be open for registration from 9 am for anyone aged over 60 years or those over 45 years with comorbidities relevant to COVID-19 at a location of their choosing. Vaccine recipients will also have the option to opt out if they are assigned a vaccine they are not comfortable receiving.

According to NDTV, the government has designated over 10,000 private hospitals enrolled with the PMJAY (Ayushman Bharat) scheme, those associated with state-level schemes plus 600 Central Government Health Scheme hospitals to administer vaccines. Vaccines received through government facilities will be free and those being availed through private hospitals will entail a fee, which the Government of India has capped at Rs 250.

In this phase, another 100 million to 270 million people are expected to be vaccinated, according to two estimates, and Co-WIN will continue to be the coordinating tool. It’s not yet clear how the logistics of this phase will affect those of its predecessor, which had already shown signs of missing its July 2021 target.

Modi Gets First Dose of COVAXIN, Encourages Others to Get Vaccinated

Prime Minister Narendra Modi received his first dose of Bharat Biotech’s COVAXIN at AIIMS.

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday took his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine at AIIMS here and appealed to all those who are eligible to get inoculated.

Sister P. Niveda, from Puducherry, administered Bharat Biotech’s COVAXIN to the prime minister, sources said.

“Took my first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine at AIIMS. Remarkable how our doctors and scientists have worked in quick time to strengthen the global fight against COVID-19,” Modi tweeted after taking the vaccine shot. “I appeal to all those who are eligible to take the vaccine. Together, let us make India COVID-19 free!” he said.

Also read: India Records Biggest Single-Day Jump in COVID-19 Cases in a Month

The prime minister also posted a picture of himself taking the first dose of the vaccine in which he is seen sporting an Assamese gamocha and getting inoculated with a smile on his face. Sister Niveda and a second nurse from Kerala can be seen in the picture posted by Modi.

The prime minister went to AIIMS without any arrangement of “route” on the roads, thus choosing early morning to ensure no inconvenience to people, the sources said.

The government had announced on Wednesday that everyone above 60 years of age and those over 45 years with comorbidities will be able to get COVID-19 vaccine from March 1, 2021 for free at government facilities and for a charge at many private hospitals. Citizens will be able to register and book an appointment for vaccination, anytime and anywhere, using the Co-WIN 2.0 portal or through other IT applications such as Aarogya Setu.

West Bengal: In Left-Congress Brigade Ground Rally, ISF Emerged as the Biggest Mobiliser

Animosity between leaders of the ISF and Congress was clearly visible at the rally.

Kolkata: The Brigade Parade Ground in Kolkata has been witness to numerous historic rallies. On Sunday, a new chapter unfolded – the Left Front and the Indian National Congress held their first-ever joint public meeting here before the West Bengal assembly elections starting March 27. While the two parties have contested together before, they have not held rallies together.

However, the third party in the alliance – the Indian Secular Front (ISF), a party floated by an influential cleric of the prominent religious shrine Furfura Sharif, Abbas Siddiqui – emerged as a big mobiliser. The ISF is just 38 days old.

Most of Siddiqui’s supporters are young, in the age group of 18-27. And ISF supporters were the liveliest in the crowd.

Political meetings at Brigade Parade Grounds are always about a show of strength. This time, the alliance’s meeting had a thinner crowd compared to the Left Front’s 2019 rally during the Lok Sabha elections.

Speaking to a policeman on duty at the rally, The Wire learnt that the estimated crowd was somewhere between two lakh and 2.5 lakh people.

However, Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Sitaram Yechury claimed more than 10 lakh people assembled at the Brigade ground on Sunday afternoon.

What the leaders said

Yechury attacked the ruling governments at both the state and the Centre, saying, “Humongous amount of money is being amassed by the BJP through electoral bonds. This is leading to sudabazi (business) in politics. Here in Bengal, the TMC [Trinamool Congress] has indulged in financial scams like Narada, Sarada. Both these evil forces will have to be defeated.” He further said, “Na loot-paat, na jaat-paat. Bengal ki maang, janhit ki sarkar (No need of government which loot, No need of government which divides on caste lines. Bengal wants a pro-people government).”

Bengal CPI(M) secretary Biman Bose said, “Today’s meeting is historic as Congress, ISF and other Left parties are here with us. Brigade Parade Ground has never seen such a rally. In this election, the BJP and Trinamool is one side, we all together are on the other.”

Also read: Bengal: Can the Furfura Sharif Cleric’s New Party Erode TMC’s Support Base?

Leader of the Congress in the Lok Sabha and state president Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury launched a scathing attack against the TMC and BJP: “It is difficult to differentiate between Modi and Mamata. Both are stifling democracy. While Modi says Congress Mukt Bharat, Didi here says opposition less Bengal! Didi and Modi have the same political DNA.”

“Even though both Modi and Mamata have come to power by democratic means, both are now out to destroy democracy and establish an autocratic state. We shall restore democracy on coming to power. Today’s meeting has proven that evil powers like TMC and BJP will be defeated in the coming election,” he further said.

Chowdhury shared greetings with Congress and Left leaders present on the stage but ignored ISF dignitaries. Three and a half minutes into Chowdhury’s speech, Siddiqui walked onto the stage and the crowd erupt in cheering. The five-time congress MP from Baharampur had to stop his speech for a good few minutes as Siddiqui waved to the crowd and shook hands with leaders on stage.

Chowdhury then refused to speak and turned his back. Bose and veteran CPI(M) leader Mohammed Salim tried to quell Chowdhury’s anger. Later, the Congress leader spoke for another four minutes.

The alliance rally at Brigade Ground in Kolkata. Photo: Himadri Ghosh

The next speaker was Siddiqui himself, popularly known as Bhaijan. Siddiqui greeted Salim Bose and the Left leadership but left out the Congress dignitaries present at the event.

“I asked all my supporters to vote for Left candidates and ensure their victory. Together, we will uproot the BJP government and their team member Mamata Banerjee from Bengal. Mamata snatched Bengal’s independence. She snatched women’s security in Bengal. We will give her a proper reply. Bengal always showed the power of resistance, we will break the black hands of BJP.”

He even attacked the Congress from the stage where Chowdhury along with many senior leaders – such as Chattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel and former Union minister, now in-charge of Bengal, Jitin Prasada were present. “We came here as partners, not to oil anyone.We have waited for long, won’t wait any longer. If anyone thinks friends should join hands, I promise I will fight for them. We are not here as beggars,” said the cleric.

A huge number of ISF supporters left the ground soon after Siddiqui finished his speech.


Speaking at the rally, Congress leader and Chattisgarh chief minister Baghel attacked the BJP and said, “Bengal is the land of Renaissance. This land has given birth to countless heroes who took part in the freedom struggle. BJP can never represent this glorious heritage of Bengal. Want to tell Modi ji, go read some history book. When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was building INA to fight the British, Savarkar and Syama Prasad Mookerjee were finding inductees for the British army.”

The alliance rally at Brigade Ground in Kolkata. Photo: Himadri Ghosh

In his speech, CPI(M) leader Mohammed Salim lashed out against both Mamata Banerjee and Modi. “In the last 10 years, 250 of our comrades have been martyred. We shall avenge the sacrifice of all our martyrs. While our struggle is for industrialisation, the BJP is selling all the PSUs. The people of Bengal have stopped believing in the false promises of Mamata Banerjee. We are fighting for our rights. Alms thrown at us will not satisfy us,” Salim said.

What the common people said

Sixty-five-year-old Mohitosh Sen, travelling from Dum Dum, said, “All my life I voted for the CPI(M). This time too, I will vote for them. I hope there is a hung assembly so that the Left-Congress plays the role of kingmaker. Also I hope, this time, the Left vote doesn’t shift to the BJP.”

Also read: What TMC’s Heckling of a Muslim Cleric Tells Us About Bengal Politics and ‘Minority Appeasement’

Siddharth Basu, 41, came to attend the rally from Durgapur and said, “In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, our votes definitely went to the BJP. This time we will get those votes back as corrupt TMC leaders joined BJP, so they are looking for an alternative. So people feel better giving a vote to the Left alliance.”

Forging an alliance with Siddiqui’s ISF has created mixed reactions among people. Lower rank CPI(M) leaders are toeing the party line – that it will strengthen the alliance in the state. CPI(M) grassroots workers, though, are not happy and opined that the party shouldn’t have given Siddiqui space.

The alliance rally at Brigade Ground in Kolkata. Photo: Himadri Ghosh

Uttam Chatterjee, 54, questioned CPI(M)’s stance and said, “How can religious leaders be secular? The CPI(M) joining hands with Abbas is certainly negative for us, it would have been better if his wasn’t part of the alliance.”

Thirty-seven-year-old JamalUddin Mondal reached Brigade ground on Saturday night. He, along with 20 odd others, came from Lalgola in Murshidabad. Mondal said, “People are angry at the TMC. The Left-Congress vote that went to the BJP in the Lok Sabha is coming back to our fold. The Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha (state assembly) are not the same. This time those votes will come to our alliance.”

Bani Israil, 32, a practicing advocate in the Murshidabad district court said “People on the ground are furious with the price hike of petroleum products, this will have the maximum impact in this election. People now understand the BJP is fooling them. This election, the BJP will come in the third position. If the BJP can win 18 Lok Sabha seats going up from just two, our alliance can win 150 seats from 70 last time.”

Shahjahan Sarkar, from Mirzapur South Dinajpur, said “The alliance’s acceptability has still not reached the desired level. But we are trying our best. People are tired of the TMC and BJP, they are looking for an alternative. If the election is held properly we (the alliance) have a good chance to play the role of kingmaker.”

ISF supporter S.K. Jamal from Basirhat said, “We will vote for Bhaijan (Siddiqui) this time. Last time we voted for TMC.” When asked why he was voting for Bhaijan, Jamal said, “Because Bhaijan asked us to.”


CPI(M) party member Nakul Dev Das, 58, came from Chanditala in Hooghly, “This time the wind of change is blowing. If Mr Salim contests from our place, he will definitely win. Media is just focusing on BJP and TMC. Mark my words, the BJP will come last. People are little apprehensive as the Left joined hands with Abbas Siddiqui. We should have avoided it. But leadership has decided, so we will have to abide by it.”

The ISF and Left Front finalised their seat-sharing deal, with the Left giving away 30 seats to the ISF. Congress-ISF talks are still on, as there are some differences over a few seats in Malda and Murshidabad, which are historically Congress strongholds. But after Sunday’s fiasco between Siddiqui and Choudhury, it remains to be seen if the settlement happens at all.

Living with the Mob: In Shiv Vihar, Were Local Rioters Paid to Target Muslims?

Outsiders or neighbours, sponsored or spontaneous, one year after the communal violence in North-East Delhi, Hindus and Muslims have starkly differing views of who the perpetrators were and who the victims.

New Delhi: “Pradeep and I were like brothers,” Sameer said. “We used to go out and eat together and he used to eat from my plate.

When Pradeep owed Sameer Rs 5,000, it didn’t bother Sameer. The money was in the family, as it were. They would square it eventually.

But on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, Sameer, hiding from a mob, watched his friend set houses on fire.

That morning, as Sameer had returned from Seemapuri to Shiv Vihar in his auto, a group of about 30 men started chasing him near the samshan ghat (crematorium) at Gokulpuri nala (canal). Panicked, he looked for a hiding place, but when no road seemed safe, he finally abandoned the auto and ran inside a building where he knew a fellow Muslim lived, three doors down from his own house. He huddled on a small balcony on the third floor and peered through a railing as a mob rampaged through the streets below.

An auto driver, Sameer also worked as a painter and plasterer and Pradeep, who lived nearby, was a colleague. They spent a lot of time together, Sameer said. If one of them got a job, he called the other. They had been working together for nearly three years.

Sameer, Shiv Vihar.

“He used to drink and smoke in his uncle’s house,” Sameer said. “He had been part of so much gundagardi (hooliganism) even before the riots that his father made him live in a separate house and couldn’t get him married even though he is over 30 years old.”

Sameer sounded bitter as he described his former friend, though none of this had bothered him before.

That afternoon as he sat in someone else’s house, watching the mob run through the streets, he instantly recognised Pradeep among the rioters. “He was breaking up bricks and giving them to other people to throw and throwing them himself. I thought, okay, everyone is doing some patharbazi (stone throwing) and he is caught up in that, so what,” Sameer recalled.

But as twilight began to creep in, he said, he saw a white Gypsy jeep pull up to the top of the road. In the thin light, as the mob walked towards the vehicle, Sameer saw 20-odd gas cylinders in the bed of the jeep, along with crates filled with bottles and canisters of petrol. Then, he said, he saw the mob breaking down the doors of houses on the street, running inside to drag out anything of value, then tossing lighted bottles of petrol into the houses and watching the fires burn.

Pradeep was one of the arsonists. “I know he did it because I went and talked to him about it later,” said Sameer.

‘The Muslims had a plan’

Gali #12 in Shiv Vihar ends at Madeena Masjid and starts a few minutes away from the main Karawal Nagar road, near the Hanuman Mandir Marg bridge. Most of the Hindus in this lane live near the temple. Most of the Muslims live near the mosque. The whole street takes ten minutes to traverse at most, with gates at intersections.

“The Muslims knew what was going to happen before it happened. They had a plan,” alleged Kanta Goswami, speaking of February 24, 2020, though she was not entirely certain of the date.

“Our men had gone to work, we were at home, nobody was here. Then we were told that there was a lot of fighting near the schools, near DRP school,” she said.

There are two schools in the area – the DRP Secondary School and the Rajdhani school. The first is a convent school run by a Hindu, Pankaj Sharma. The second is run by a Muslim, Faisal Farooque.

“In the morning, Muslim parents went to the school and demanded to take their children back with them. Though the teachers asked why, they (the Muslim parents) started to pull their children out of their classes, saying, ‘Give us our children, give us our children,’” Kanta said.

Also read: Delhi 2020, the Real Conspiracy: What the Police Chose Not to See

Kanta’s granddaughter, seven-year-old Jagriti Goswami, said: “Some of my Muslim school friends told us, today our parents will come to take us home early.”

“They knew it before,” said Ritu, Kanta’s daughter-in-law.

“Rajdhani school is right next to our school. When we saw the news, they told us there were catapults and bombs there. The Mohommedans had taken them there,” said Jagriti. One large-sized iron catapult was found to have been installed on the terrace of the Rajdhani school, according to the prosecution in the case against the school’s owner.

A mob followed shortly after.

“I won’t lie, nothing happened to my house,” Kanta said. “In this lane the houses were not touched, we all stood on the roofs.”

The property damage in the area began with two parking garages being set on fire. Members of both faiths had used the service and both sustained commensurate damage.

“The Hindus came out to protect their houses. If they had not done that, even these houses would not have been safe,” said Kanta. “The police were there in large numbers. There were army forces also. But they [the mob] had so many people throwing stones at the police, they could not do anything.”

Divya, Kanta’s other daughter-in-law, added: “The military (sic) was also stationed here later. The day Trump [the then US president, Donald Trump] was there [February 24], there was no military. But the next day they came. That night we didn’t sleep. If they hadn’t come who knows what they [the mob] would have done.”

‘I recognised some people’

Very little was left of Shiv Vihar’s Madeena Masjid after the mob had its way with it.

Mainuddin, a caretaker, was inside the masjid when the mob arrived. They broke down the door, he remembered. There was a grill inside the mosque, which they broke, after which they threw burning plastic into the rooms. He said they used welding tools to tear down the gates.

He was on the roof of the masjid when he felt the walls shake with a blast. The mob had exploded at least two gas cylinders on the ground floor.

These were cylinders that had been brought into the area. “It was all planned,” the masjid’s imam, Haji Hashim Ali, said. “These were people from Shiv Vihar, not outsiders. The ones I did not recognise might have been from outside, but I recognised some and they live here.”

‘No slogans were raised’

Sudha had a shop right next to the masjid, where she sold samosas and chai. Her family owned an autorickshaw which was lost in the fire.

“I can’t say who was throwing bricks. They had helmets on, so I could not say who they were,” she said about the day the riots began.

One of the few Hindus in this area to have personally suffered property damage, Sudha said the mob broke some things and looted others.

She claimed that there were absolutely no slogans being raised at that time – which is curious, given that the destruction of her shop happened at the same time and the same place as the destruction of the Madeena Masjid.

Waqil, Shiv VIhar.

Meanwhile, Waqil, who lived on the other side of the mosque, was hiding in his home while the mob was outside. When he looked out of his second-floor window to see if it was safe to leave, a glass bottle hit him in the face, blinding him with acid. He heard chants of ‘Jai Shri Ram’.

Also read: A Year After the Delhi Violence, a Letter to Our Friends in Jail

“The police gave us a lot of protection,” Sudha said. “The police gave us so much protection that for a few months afterwards, we lived on their strength. Nobody else had come, out of fear, but a few of us remained. They reassured us, told us, don’t go anywhere, stay here.”

Now, said Sudha, she feels as though the Muslims in the area laugh at her. But she cannot articulate why.

‘They’ll kill him if he names who killed his brother’

Nizamuddin had been at a wedding in Uttar Pradesh on February 25, 2020, but when he heard that their house was at risk of being looted, he had hurried back with his brother Jamaluddin, picking up a lock along the way to protect their house.

Minutes before they could reach their house, a mob stopped them. By the time the mob was done with them, Jamaluddin was dead, one of 40 Muslims who perished in the violence.

Nazish, Jamaluddin’s widow, said Nizamuddin knows who killed his brother. “But he won’t tell me, he won’t tell any of us, because he says they’ll kill him if he does,” she said.

‘The mob hit both Hindus and Muslims’

On the day of the riots, Ram Ratan, who lives near Gali #14, had been out on the streets, looking for his daughter who had gone missing. “Woh lapete marte rahe, chahe Hindu ho ya Musalman (They were hitting people regardless of whether they were Hindu or Muslim),” he said of the mob.

He added: “There were mostly Muslims on the streets.”

As he spoke about February 25, 2020, he got heated. “There were no slogans,” he said. “There were bodies dragged out of the nalas here, from cars. There were both Hindus and Muslims, but mostly Hindus.” A total of 12 Hindus were killed in the violence. In addition, a Hindu police officer died of injuries while battling a mob.

Ehsaan, Shiv Vihar.

From Ratan’s perspective, the violence was started by outsiders and when they left, the locals, ‘being prey to a false impression’ – galat fehmi ke shikaar – fought each other.

Ratan, however, says he was not involved in any fights and did not sustain any injuries. He was just searching for his daughter.

“The police did as much as they could,” he said. “They stopped the fighting, put out fires, helped all the poor, those who had lost their homes, asked other people to help if they could not.”

‘Not a single policeman came for hours’

Behind the masjid, as a young woman dutifully listed the items in her house that had been looted, a wedding baraat (procession) passed by, with a groom decked out in garlands of currency notes.

Watching the procession, Ehsaan said, “The Muslims in this neighbourhood lost everything.”

Ehsaan has lived here for 25 years, working with the mosque. “The Hindus here live freely; they have no fear or terror. There are people who come in the night, drunk, stand behind the mosque and shout ‘Jai Shri Ram’. They insult us and leave,” he said. “[In the riots,] the outsiders may have been 10, 20, 50 people, but the majority of them were from here. And the people who do this kind of thing now are also from here.”

Ehsaan says that since they filed a complaint at the police station about the drunken taunts, it has not happened again.

Jamil, Shiv Vihar.

Only a week earlier, said Jamil Ahmed, a former tailor, he had been walking down the street in the evening when he overtook a Hindu man. As he walked ahead, the man called him back. “Do you know who I am?” he said. Jamil said no, realising the man was inebriated. “You don’t know me,” the man said. “I will cut you up and throw you in the nala.”

Also read: Delhi Riots: In Maujpur, Compensation Paid To Shopkeepers Is Only Fraction of Their Claims

Jamil said the man lives perhaps three or four lanes ahead of him.

Many Muslim members of the community say that it seems the Hindus of the neighbourhood believe they can taunt Muslims with impunity. “Whatever comes to their minds, they say,” Ehsaan said. “We have to take it. We do not say anything, we just bear it. Because see, the police here, the law, it’s not with us. Which is why we have to stay silent. If this law was with us, even we could lift our heads and speak. It’s why we have to be silent. If the law was with us, why would there be riots here? After everything that happened here, not a single policeman came for hours.”

‘Hindus loot, but Muslims kill,’ says local BJP leader

Dekho, Hindu ke mohalle mein reh rahe hai Mohmeddan (See, the Muslims are living in the Hindus’ area),” said Anil Pandiya, a real estate broker and BJP adhyaksh (community leader) in Shiv Vihar.

Hinduon mein kya rehta hai, Hinduon mein ek cheez rehti hai, ya mat maro kisi ko. Loot lo bas. Maron mat, loot lo. Hinduon ka woh rehti, Musalman rehti toh maar doh aur loot bhi lo (One thing which is important to Hindus is that you don’t kill anyone. Just loot them. Don’t kill them, loot them. Hindus believe that, but Muslims believe that you kill and loot as well),” he explained.

In Pandiya’s worldview, Hindus and Muslims should live together peacefully. But he has a condition attached – it can only be done if they live together ‘nicely’. “Imagine – if a Hindu was living in a Muslims’ area and if they picked up your children and threw them [in a nala]. Like Ankit Sharma. Tahir Hussain was with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Why did he [Tahir] kill him [Ankit]?”

Ankit Sharma was an Intelligence Bureau officer whose corpse had been found in a nala during the Delhi riots. Tahir Hussain, an erstwhile AAP councillor, is the main accused in the case.

Sharma’s brother gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal where he said that the rioters outside his house had been chantingJai Shri Ram’ – a quote he later retracted after furious campaigning against the report by the Hindutva brigade. The newspaper, however, still stands by the report.

Pandiya continued: “I have no animosity against Muslims, of course. We all have the same gods and we’ve given them different names. We should all live together in peace.”

In the riots that took place last February, Pandiya said, Hindus were far more badly hit than Muslims in Shiv Vihar.

The riots certainly did affect Hindu property, but reports have conclusively stated that the bulk of the material impact – potentially more than 80% – was borne by Muslims.

When pressed for more detail, he said that an ironsmith who lived by the bridge had had his hut burnt down. “A Hindu wouldn’t do this, no?” Anil Pandiya. “I just want a Mohammedan also to not do this. To live in peace.”

‘You can’t do anything’

After the riots, Sameer met his friend Pradeep again and asked: “Why were you part of that? Why were you burning down those houses?”

Pradeep had seemed contrite, Sameer recalled. Pradeep said he hadn’t realised Sameer’s house had been nearby; that he’d been paid to do it, so he had done it. It was a mistake.

“Pradeep told me that they were giving money to the boys and saying you have to kill and beat Muslims, so he also went there,” said Sameer.

Riot victims have alleged in their complaints that one of the patrons of the rioters was Jagdish Pradhan, the BJP MLA from Mustafabad who, just before the riots, had lost the election to the AAP’s Haji Yunus. At least three complaints filed with the Delhi police during the riots said that the rioters attacking Muslims had been chanting ‘Jagdish Pradhan Zindabad’ and at least one of the rioters had been heard saying that ‘Jagdish Pradhan’s orders were to get rid of Muslims’.

Also read: Delhi Riots One Year On: As Ashok Nagar Mosque Went Up in Flames, So Did Bonds Between Neighbours

When Sameer filed an FIR about the events of the day in which he named Pradeep among other people he had known in the mob, the police refused to accept it, he says. Instead, they made him file a report with generic details on the violence which was added to other complaints and processed in bulk.

Sameer said he then spoke to a journalist who helped him file the FIR again, complete with the names of the people he had seen participating in the violence. Finally, Pradeep was picked up and taken to the police station.

A few days later, when Pradeep returned, he confronted Sameer. According to Sameer, after threatening him, Pradeep told him that the money that he had borrowed from Sameer – some Rs 5,000 – would be returned to Sameer with love, if he kept Pradeep’s name out of the investigation. But if Sameer continued to name Pradeep as one of the people involved in the mob, he wouldn’t get his money back because Sameer was the reason Pradeep had had to shell out money at the police station.

“But it was my money,” Sameer said.

“What are you going to do about it?” Pradeep said to Sameer. “You can’t do anything.”