Dear friends,
Thank you all for the support, phone calls and emails to the officials. It
has definitely had some impact. Here’s an update on the situation right now.
Status of the police complaint filed by the People
Apparently, Walajabad Police has registered a FIR
yesterday under Crime No. 360/2012 under Section 147, 148, 447, 427, 323, 506
Part I of IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and
Loss) Act 1992 (called as PPDL Act in short).
But we are yet to get to get a copy of the FIR, so details like names of
accused, how many persons are charged, charges made out in FIR, etc are not
known. Also, some of the sections seem to be too frivolous (details of the
provisions of these sections are given at the end of this mail). We will
probably have a clearer picture by evening today once we get a copy of the FIR.
However, the pertinent issue is that accused persons have
not been arrested so far. They are still freely roaming about Thenneri village,
which in itself is an intimidating factor for the Irula people.
Meeting with the District Collector and Revenue District
Officer
The victims of Thenneri, along with their relatives and supporters decided
to meet the District Collector today and represent their grievance. More than
100 people had gathered in the Kancheepuram Collectorate office from 9.00 AM
onwards. As it was a grievance day, the people thought that the Collector would
reach the grievance cell by 10 a.m. But to their disappointment he arrived at
the Cell around 12 O'clock after holding a discussion in the main block. Since
hundreds of people had gathered at the entrance, the Collector had to stand and
attend to their grievance. He promised to look into the matter and assured that
he would provide protection for them as well as arrange for title deeds.
While the people were waiting for the Collector, several media people
interviewed them.
After meeting the Collector, the people met the R.D.O. (the guy who had
earlier given an assurance to give them title deeds within a week). In the
first round of talks, he said that he would provide them house sites along with
title deeds in a different location in the same village. The people asked
why he hesitated to give them titles to same site where they had lived for years;
he said it would create unnecessary community clashes. When the people
refused to accept the offer saying that it would be against their self respect
and dignity to move to a different place after having undergone so much of
abuse at the hands of the Mudaliar, he replied that he needed time to make a
study of the land and see whether he could provide title deeds. He also
promised that he would make arrangements for their safety. The people
were not satisfied with his answers and asked why he had earlier assured them
of providing title deeds in the place where they lived. He had no answer to
their question and just remained silent.
As people were not satisfied with his vague and uncommitted reply, they
went to meet him again to ask whether they could put up huts in the same place
where they had already lived. This time he had a good excuse to deny their
demand. He said that Thenneri is a notified monumental site and the recent
amendments of the ASI Act 2007, does not allow any development around 100
metres of the site and as the site the people demand comes within the
restricted limit, there is no chance of providing title deeds. “In that case
all the other encroachments, particularly those of Ekambaram Mudaliar have to
be removed; then we would agree to your stand”, said the people. He nodded that
he would evict the encroachments. However, he did not seem to be confident of
himself and say it in so many words.
Later when the people returned to their village in the evening, the revenue
officials have shown them a site that is quite remote and are trying to force
them to accept it. When the people refused to accept the offer, the officials
have asked them to give their refusal in writing.
Now the two families, whose houses were pulled off by the Mudaliar, are
staying in their relatives’ houses. The ones who were admitted in the Hospital
are still under medical care.
Follow up Action
We are trying to get this claim of the RDO (that the disputed porombokku
land falls within the restricted limit of 100 metres of a notified monument)
verified independently. This is news to us. How come he forgot to mention it
till now and assured the people that they would be given title deeds to the
land on which they had lived?
It would help if friends and supporters can call up the RDO and enquire as
to what is going on? Why did he go back on his words? The lives and livelihoods
of these people would be very adversely affected if they had to more to some
other area. The new area is very remote and they would still be isolated and without
protection. Apart from that it is a question of justice, self respect and
dignity for these people. Please do call him and request him now to cow down to
pressure from dominant caste rich persons, but to stand by these marginalized people.
Please call the SP / DSP to put pressure on them to arrest the accused persons
immediately. Their roaming scot free in Thenneri is bound to keep the Irula
people in a state of terror. They fear for their lives, mobility and freedom.
****
Sections which
have been invoked in the FIR
146. Rioting
506. Punishment for criminal
intimidation
Part
(1)
- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both; (Punishment—Imprisonment for 2 years,
or fine, or both—Non-cognizable - Bailable - Triable by any
Magistrate—Compoundable by the person intimidated.)
Part (2) - If threat be to cause
death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause
an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute,
unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with
both. (Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or
both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first
class—Non-compoundable.)
In this case only 506 part (1) has been invoked.
Regards
Makkal Mandram 