Kathua trial

Deepika Singh Rajawat: Kathua Family ‘Innocent, But Being Misguided’

Eleven months after she filed a writ petition in favour of the Kathua rape-victim’s family, the father had her removed from the case citing her lack of investment in it. In an exclusive interview with The Wire, the lawyer argues her side.

Deepika Singh Rajawat came under the harsh national spotlight after the rape and murder in the village of Kathua of an eight-year old from a nomadic herder community. Rajawat offered legal support to the victim’s family, going up against two state ministers who defended the rape-accused.

Almost a year later, on November 16, the victim’s father filed an application in court divesting Rajawat of her power of attorney, citing her consistent absence from court hearings and accusing her of only taking up the case for garnering publicity.

Rajawat, a38-year-old Kashmiri Pandit from Jammu, is an advocate at the Jammu and Kashmir high court. She is chairperson of Voice for Rights, an NGO for human rights and also works for Child Rights and You (CRY).

In an exclusive interview with The Wire, Rajawat answers some pressing questions.

Also read: For Kathua Victim’s Family, Social Boycott Is Worse Than Legal Neglect

The family has accused you of neglecting the case, of not appearing at hearings, and has filed an application removing you as their lawyer. What do you have to say about that?

State criminal cases are taken up by State counsels – the appointed public prosecutors – which is the provision of the CRPC. I am a private counsel. I took the matter to the high court when we filed a writ petition for monitoring the case. Then I took them up to the Supreme court because that was also in my capacity. Any private lawyer can appear in the high court and Supreme Court given the client’s permission. In this case also, the same has happened.

The trial in Pathankot is conducted by the appointed prosecutors—one is Mr Chopra, the other is Mr Basra – and I have been in contact with them. I talked to them yesterday itself.

Have you been in touch with the family regarding the proceedings of the case?

The family are Bakkarwals [a nomadic community]. They keep moving from one place to the other. When the case ended up in the Supreme court in June, and the trial started in [the same period], summer had already started and they had migrated from here to Ladakh, in the mountains.

It wasn’t possible to be in touch with them. Everyone needs to understand that. I was in touch with lawyers and others to stay updated about the case.

The public prosecutors are taking care of the case, and a private counsel like myself is not required. When they needed me at a crucial stage, I was with them. At that time, no one was supporting them – they had no lawyer and perhaps no means to appoint a lawyer.

If you feel that your role as a lawyer had ended, why didn’t you withdraw from the case?

There was no requirement to withdraw. They appointed me for the high court [hearings] and I was there. They appointed me for the Supreme Court, I was there. For the sessions court, three Public Prosecutors are there. There is no requirement of beating drums about withdrawing or being together. Everyone knew that I was with them.

Then why do you think they have filed an application for removing you as their lawyer?

See, that would be getting into a blame game. They are innocent people. Maybe they have been misguided. Otherwise, in legal practice, filing such application is not the norm. I do think something fishy is going on. But if my clients want that I should not continue with them, it is their sweet will.

Who do you think the family is being misguided by?

Maybe there are few people, but I don’t want to get into that controversy or blame game. I have been raised with high professional ethics.

It could be another lawyer?

Perhaps. Those who wish to gain [from] it now.

You could still have gone to some of the hearings just to ensure that the case wasn’t weakening.

I have cited three reasons for not travelling back and forth – I am a woman, I am a mother, and I have cases here in Jammu. These are valid reasons. But the most important reason is that it wasn’t needed for me to be present there. The public prosecutors are doing their job well.

It’s a pro bono case and you say you haven’t taken any payment. Is that true?

The case in the first place was entirely pro bono. I have not taken a single penny from them.

When the allegations were raised about me exploiting the family for money, I went to the IGP Jammu and asked them to initiate a probe. Unfortunately, the IGP never initiated one, and even misplaced my application and then told me to file a fresh application.

Questions are being raised about you travelling across India and even internationally. It is being alleged that you have used the crowdsourced money which was for the victim’s family. Is there any truth to this?

All across my twitter wall, I am being called names. They call me a fraud and raise accusations. I will clarify this once and for all, that I went to Geneva and Vancouver. In Vancouver, the Sikh community conducted a mela and I was honoured by Trinjan, an NGO there. That trip was funded by the NGO. The other trip, to Geneva, was again funded by an NGO and I attended a session at the UN headquarters. Other things, like when I am called to Kerala or Delhi for events and workshops, are all funded by the organisers.

Attorney Deepika Singh Rajawat. Vredit: Pallavi Sareen

The family has said that their account, holding the money from the crowdfunding campaign, has been frozen. What do you know about it?

That is completely false. Their accounts have not been frozen. I confirmed with the bank when the story ran on national media, because I wished to check on the welfare of the family. Eighteen lakhs have been put in their account, and everyone knows that.

If you think the account is frozen, talk to the bank manager. What is the need to go to the National Human Rights Commission?

One thing I wish to say again is that these are innocent people. They are being misguided by others who wish to keep this case in the limelight.

The Kathua case remains at the centre of national attention. Firstly, with Talib Hussain, the activist associated with the case, being accused of rape – and now this. Have you had any conversations with Talib?

When Talib was accused by his sister-in-law of raping her, we tried to guide him. I went to Samba where he was put behind bars and where the FIR was registered. I was with him because he needed legal support and so we extended legal support. But the JNU MeToo matter came up when a student activist accused him of rape. So, I was with the victim. I am always with the victim.

Apart from that, there have been no conversations. He has his political aspirations. He was busy with his campaigns before he was arrested.

Also read: Ground Reality: Inside Rasana, the Village That Witnessed the Kathua Horror

You have mentioned that you constant get rape and death threats. Can you identify the people making it and take action against them?

Someone tweeted today that you are “Kothewali”. That is so bad. Is wanting to help someone so wrong? If activists are maligned and discouraged this much, who would have the guts to stand for someone?

You asked if I can identify them: I can identify so many. I have even filed applications. Once a lawyer’s husband told me on Facebook that I am a blackmailer. I filed an application against him with the S.P. Operations in Gandhi Nagar. Ask him if any action has been taken against the man.

We remain so busy with work. At the time I did decide to file defamation cases, but I have never wanted to get personally involved.

Pallavi Sareen is a freelance journalist working in Jammu & Kashmir who writes for Kashmir Times and Kashmir Life.

For Kathua Victim’s Family, Social Boycott Is Worse Than Legal Neglect

After firing their lawyer, Deepika Singh Rajawat, on November 14, the family says the greater burden is being ostracised by the villagers.

Jammu: Ten months after his eight-year-old daughter was raped and murdered in Rasana village of Kathua, Mohammed Yousuf receives nothing but anger.

The family, which is camping at an isolated spot near Cheechi Mata temple in Samba, says the village has made a decision to ostracise them – neither letting them graze cattle on village pastures nor buy milk and other products.

Meanwhile, they have been denied access to funds raised in their support by Jammu and Kashmir Bank, and they feel abandoned by those who stood by them when a political and communal tug-of-war began over their daughter’s murder this past April.

On November 14, they asked the Pathankot court to remove their advocate, Deepika Singh Rajawat, from the case. Rajawat has not been in contact with the family, they told The Wire. She also appeared for only two hearings of the case.

“We do not where she is now,” said Yousuf. “She is our lawyer but she has neither been talking to us nor to the other people connected with the case.”

Deepika Singh Rajawat, lawyer of Kathua rape case victim, talks to media after filling a petition in the Supreme Court in New Delhi, India, April 16, 2018. Credit: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

Deepika Singh Rajawat. Credit: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

He has more pressing troubles, however. “My problem is not what Deepika is doing, but that the villagers in Rasana have made up their mind not to allow our cattle to graze their pasture,” he said. “They will give to the Hindu shepherds only and not us. This is more dangerous than killing us in a riot.”

They stay away from the village out of fear of being attached by resentful villagers. “A number of Bakarwal families have settled down in majority-Muslim areas instead of coming back to their homes, which are in Hindu-dominated areas. They are fearful,” he said.

Villagers deny the ‘propaganda’

Under a fig-tree near Kootah Morh in Rasana, a group of people arrive every day for one reason – to demand a CBI probe into the case, a cause in which they see the Bakarwals as opponents.

Locals gathered there dismissed the claims of social boycott, and said the decision not to let the nomadic community graze was purely by individual choice.

“They are land grabbers. Why should we give land to them for grazing?” said Janak Raj Sharma. “No one is stopping them from grazing their cattle on lands owned by them. But we have decided not to let them grab our lands and destroy our property.”

“This is mere propaganda that we are not letting them return to their village. They can come and stay where their homes are. They are part of our culture,” said Santosh Devi, another activist. Calling the Rasana rape and murder a plot to divide the people of Jammu, she said: “The plot was hatched to force Hindus to flee Rasana village.”

Also read: Inside Rasana, the Village That Witnessed the Kathua Horror

Santosh Devi denies that the Hindus of Rasana have barred the nomadic Muslim communities – Gujjars and Bakkarwals – from returning to their traditional pastures. But the demand for a CBI investigation, which grew into a heated nationwide debate, has driven a wedge between the communities on the ground.

A candlelight procession to protest the rape and murder of an eight-year-old in Kathua. Credit: Reuters

“It is a lie that is being spread to defame us that we are not allowing Gujjars and Bakarwals to return,” she told The Wire. “We sit here every day and we just want a fair enquiry. How can they say they are afraid of us? We are the ones who are scared because of the things they have been saying.”

“No one is stopping the [victim’s] family from coming back,” added Geeta Devi. “We have just said that we will not give them our land to graze on this time. If they want justice for the girl, they should be here with us – instead of going against us.”

Also read: Chargesheet in Rape and Murder of Minor in Kathua Details Plot With Communal Aim

Mohammed Yousuf says he is powerless in the political storm over his daughter’s murder.

“The case is going on in court. What can be done about it? I just want to request the government to shift us to some place where I can graze my cattle,” he said. “For 40 years we have had no issues, but now I cannot go back to the village even if I want to.”

“They say I should not fear them and they also want justice for my daughter. But I am a tribal, this is my livelihood. If they do not give me grazing land, how will I survive? How is this helping my family?”

Pallavi Sareen is a freelance journalist working in Jammu & Kashmir who writes for Kashmir Times and Kashmir Life.

The Supreme Court Robbed J&K of the Chance to Prove its Secularism

In transferring the Kathua trial out of Jammu and Kashmir, the apex court has conceded that communal polarisation has advanced so far in the state that a fair trial is no longer possible there.

If the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions requesting an independent investigation into Judge Loya’s death was a mistake, its decision to move the trial of the eight persons accused of raping and murdering an eight-year-old in Kathua out of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot – although well-intentioned – is also a mistake.

The move is well-intentioned, for its goal is to ensure a fair trial. Both, the victim’s father and the relatives of the accused, had asked for the trial venue to be shifted out of the state. But the fact that they had done so for diametrically opposed reasons should have made the apex court dig in its heels and insist that the state’s judiciary be first given the opportunity to rise above these contending pressures and give a fair and impartial judgement.

There were several things the judges could have done to ensure a fair trial. They could have given all the directives that they gave to the district court in Pathankot – that the trial should be held in camera; that it should be fast-tracked to avoid delays in adjudication; that a special public prosecutor should be appointed to conduct the trial and that full security should be provided to the families, witnesses and lawyers involved – to the trial court in Jammu and Kashmir. They could have gone a step further and asked the J&K high court to take up the case directly and thus minimise the possibility of quirky verdicts and subsequent appeals that will delay the final sentencing till it loses its moral force.

They could also have insisted that the bench include high court judges from both the Jammu and Kashmir divisions of the high court. And they could have monitored the trial on a day-to-day basis to ensure its fairness. But they took the easier route of shifting the case out of Jammu and Kashmir altogether. In doing so, they implicitly conceded that communal polarisation has advanced so far in Jammu and Kashmir, that a fair trial is no longer possible within the state.

This assumption is based solely on an unfounded surmise. One glance at the eight-year-old’s face is sufficient to convince any normal viewer that this was an unspeakable and depraved crime, born of sadism and perverted passion, rationalised as a blow struck for Hinduism against Islam only when the police moved with unexpected speed to identify and arrest the suspected culprits.

Sanji Ram – the custodian of the temple where the minor girl had been held, drugged and raped, who is alleged to be the mastermind of the crime – trotted out this cowardly justification because he was confident that it would bring the cohorts of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its shadowy offshoots storming out to defend the bastions of Hinduism and paralyse the law and order machinery of the state, while Mr Modi and Amit Shah made tut-tutting noises and looked the other way.

And just look how close Sanji Ram came to success. Two policemen allegedly conspired actively in their attempt to cover up the crime; two BJP ministers addressed crowds demanding the release of Ram and the other accused and a gang of local lawyers stormed the courthouse in an attempt to block their arraignment, just as their peers had stormed the Patiala House court in Delhi three years ago, to beat up Kanhaiya Kumar and the Jawaharlal Nehru University professors who had come to the court to give him moral support.

Ram failed because the crime had not been committed in Unnao or Una or Bishara or Jaipur, or any other state which is inflicted with a BJP government. It was committed in Jammu and Kashmir, which is a Muslim-majority state with a Muslim-majority party in power, a Muslim chief minister and a Muslim majority in the police.

New Delhi: People display placards as they take part in ‘Not In My Name’ protest against the recent incidents of rapes, at Parliament Street in New Delhi. Credit: PTI Photo by Ravi Choudhary

“Oh, but isn’t that exactly why the lawyers of the accused asked for the trial to be shifted out of the state?” Yes, that was their ploy, and it succeeded because none of the learned judges had any first-hand experience of the unique, syncretic, religious tradition of Kashmir Valley that has survived three decades of unrelenting, despotic, military rule, the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s and the rise of militant Islam among the youth in recent years in the Valley.

This tradition, which is hard-wired into the genes of the Kashmiri Muslims, asserted itself when militants of the Lashkar-e-Taiba shot dead Lieutenant Umer Fayaz in cold blood in Shopian last year. The killing was not only condemned by the Kashmiris, but the local people even helped the army to identify the killers.

It surfaced once again a few days ago in the unanimous condemnation of the killing by stone pelters of a tourist from Chennai. It has surfaced a third time in the demand for a ceasefire during Ramzan and the Amarnath yatra.

What is far more telling is the absence of attacks on yatra pilgrims, despite five to six lakhs of them flooding the Valley every year. Sceptics may say that this is only because the pilgrims bring money to Kashmir, but the way in which Kashmiris have gone out of their way, year after year, to help pilgrims in trouble – whether as a result of a freak storm in the mountains, a bus falling into a ravine, or a sudden lockdown of the Valley such as the one that followed the death of Burhan Wani – belies this cosy dismissal. In fact, the sanctity of the Amarnath yatra empahasises the umbilical connection that Kashmir has with the rest of India.

At Kathua, the suspected culprits were caught so swiftly not because the key members of the government and the police were Muslim, but because they were Kashmiris. The Gujjar-Bakarwals are mostly Sunnis, but not of the Sufi-Hanafi-Reshi variants found in the Valley. They do not even speak Kashmiri. So to claim that the People’s Democratic Party and the Kashmir police acted swiftly only because they were ‘Muslims’ is from the reality.

By the same token, it would be a grotesque caricature of the truth to believe that all the Hindus in Jammu have been communalised by the incessant propaganda of the RSS. One has only to experience the stiff opposition to any suggestion that Jammu and Kashmir should be separated, to grasp that an overwhelming majority of Jammu prefers to remain a part of J&K state.

The unassailable truth is that Jammu and Kashmir is probably the only truly pluralist state in the country where the administration has not been poisoned by the hate-filled propaganda of the RSS. It should, therefore, have been given the chance to prove the secular credentials through the fairness of its judicial process. The Supreme Court did not really have the right to deny that opportunity to the state.

Prem Shankar Jha is a journalist who lives and works in Delhi.