No.13November-December, 1982

THIS is the story of Paramjit Kaur, aliasDarshana, who died of burns in house No.2685, Bhatinda, the residence of herhusband Avtar Singh. When we readabout the case, we constituted an enquirycommission to investigate it. Thecommission consisted of Balwant Singh,president of Punjab human rightscommittee, Ved Parkash Gupta of the PUCL,Gurjant Singh, an advocate, Hukam ChandSharma and Jagrup Singh, both municipalcommissioners.

On the basis of extensive enquiries, thecommission collected the following facts.Paramjit was married to Avtar Singh onSeptember 30, 1976. Two months after themarriage, her in-laws started demandingmore dowry. She managed to satisfy thefirst demand for Rs 3,000 but was unableto meet the next demand for Rs 15,000, soshe was ill treated and turned out of thehouse in September 1978.

Paramjit went to her parents at Mansaand there filed a suit claiming maintenance.Her husband filed a petition for restitutionof conjugal rights but this suit wasdismissed with costs. About sevenmonths ago, Paramjit’s father-in-law PritamSingh went to her parents’ house andbrought her back with him, giving anassurance that she would be treated well.However, her in-laws once more maltreatedher and forced her to go back to herparents. A week before her death, herfather-in-law had once again brought herback, giving another assurance of goodtreatment.

On September 27, 1982, at about 7 p.m.,Paramjit was beaten up by her husbandand her in-laws. She tried to run out of thehouse but the gate was blocked by hersister-in-law, who dragged her back intothe house with her brother-in-law’s help.The neighbours’ children who werewatching television in the house of PritamSingh, were witnesses to this scene. Someof them told their parents, who thereafterkept a close watch on the house.

Paramjit’s cries of “Bachao, bachao...”were heard at about 9 p.m. Some of thosewho heard her cries tried to find out whatwas going on, but the door was not openedto them. Some others thought it was partof the routine maltreatment of Paramjit andso ignored it. The evidence available

showed that Paramjit had received burninjuries before 10 p.m. that day. When shewas admitted into the emergency ward, thedoctors noted in their report that her bodyand clothes were smelling of kerosene.Thehospital authorities informed the police butno case was registered and noinvestigation undertaken by the police. Inher dying declaration recorded by ajudicial magistrate, Paramjit allegedlystated that she had caught fire accidentally.Paramjit’s in-laws reportedly went aroundthe locality, threatening the residents andwarning them not to speak to anyoneabout the burning incident. Her in-laws

the preliminary stage, ignoring all the otherevidence available. The commission alsoconcluded that the burning of ParamjitKaur was a clear case of murder. Thecommission sent a copy of its report tothe prime minister, who, on November 7,ordered the ministry of home affairs to takeappropriate action.

— Ved Parkash GuptaNeighbours To The RescueI am an old Manushi reader and have

always received great inspiration and learnta lot from the journal. Recently, I came toknow of a bride burning case in Amritsar. Iwent to the colony and talked to fivefamilies, including the immediateneighbours of the accused. All of themasserted that Veena alias Sunita had beenkilled by her in-laws.

On September 5, Veena had returnedto her in-laws’ house, 187 Shastri Nagar,having spent four days attending awedding at her parents’ house inJullundur. A few hours later she was dead.Veena was married five years ago toRajkumar Mehta, eldest of six sons of aleading cloth merchant of Amritsar. Eversince she got married, she was beingharassed by her in-laws to get more thingsfrom her parents. Her life became moremiserable when she gave birth to adaughter, a year ago. She was taunted withhaving brought a “burden” into the family,beaten and made to work like a housemaidin the joint family. She was seldom allowedto visit her parents.

On September 5, at 9 p.m., theneighbours saw fire in the kitchen and ranout to help them, but found the main doorlocked. Veena’s father-in-law came out andsaid that she had committed suicide byburning herself. The neighbourssuspected foul play and rang up the

Mobilizing Against DowryMurders

Paramjit’s burnt bodyalso tried to prevent the post mortem

being done, but this attempt was foiled bythe intervention of some citizens.

The commission has concluded thatthis case should have been immediatelyregistered and investigated by the police.Paramjit’s dying declaration may beproduced by the defence as evidence incourt, but in itself it was not groundenough for the police to close the case at

42 MANUSHI

police. A case was registered and Veena’shusband and mother-in-law were arrested.The neighbours played a crucial role inbringing the culprits to book. Sunita’s in-laws were trying to hurriedly get her bodycremated, but the neighbours physicallyprevented them, and kept vigil round thehouse until the police came. Theneighbours also formed an actioncommittee, raised funds and engaged alawyer to fight the case. It is alleged thatthe in-laws have heavily bribed the police.A retired brigadier, Mohinder Singh, alsoa resident of the colony, was one of thosewho took the initiative in fighting the case,

and he is the president of the actioncommittee.

The next day, when the news reachedthe university campus, we decided to holda protest demonstration outside the Mehtahouse. The demonstration was attendedby 16 boys and seven girls. En route, wemet a group of sportswomen whospontaneously joined us. When wereached there, the neighbours werewaiting for us.Within minutes, the wholeneighbourhood was out on the street, andwe were 200 ! With 50 male residents, webroke into the Mehta house, pastedposters on the doors and walls, and raised

slogans. We painted the whole house blackwith slogans. After about one and a halfhours, the police arrived and threatenedto conduct a lathi charge if we refused toleave the house. We then went to thedistrict commissioner and presented amemorandum demanding punishment forthe policemen guilty of trying to hush upthe case.

The active and united effort by thecolony residents and our demonstrationseem to have had some effect on the courthearing, as the accused were refused bail.

—Navsharan Kaur

Status Of MuslimWomen In North IndiaBy Shibani RoyB.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, 1979. Pp. 241 Price:Rs 100

This is a painstaking and systematic study of Muslim womenin 300 randomly selected families — 150 in the walled city area ofDelhi and 150 in the chowk area of Lucknow. The age range is 18to 50 years, and the family income range Rs 400 to 1,000. Thequestions asked cover education, employment, marriage, divorce,religion, women’s place.in family economy and their control overincome. While answers are carefully tabulated, the emphasis ison interviews recorded verbatim rather than on the questionnaireas a method of collecting information, with the result that one ispresented not just with statistics but with the women’sperceptions, both individual and collective.

Shibani Roy’s sensitivity to women’s predicament enablesher to take note of certain forms of resistance and connivanceamong women in the family, as well as to locate certain significantways in which supposed protection of women’s rights isundermined within the family. For instance, she discovered that30.24 per cent of married women gave up their right to mehar inearly married life. Of these women 50 per cent had been trickedinto giving up this right: “The very first night or within a week of

marriage, the husbands pledge their sincerity and integrity, sayingthat they will make them happy so the women shouldwholeheartedly rely on them and should waive their claim ofmehar. The newly wedded brides, ready to please their husbands,at once agree to it, saying that they free their husbands of themehar money, quite unaware that their loving husbands hadplanted two witnesses to overhear their conversation. Later inlife, these women have to put up with various forms ofmaltreatment from their husbands, because the women know thatafter divorce they will not be given any mehar money, and therewill be nobody to support their children.” (pp 83-84) The rest ofthe women had given up the right to mehar when their husbandswere seriously ill or dying, that is, at the point when the right wasabout to materialize.

We need many more sympathetic and informative studies tohelp bridge the gap between women of different communities.However, this possible function of the book is somewhat marredby the author’s lack of understanding of how the Muslims cameto be a “backward community”, and of their present predicamentas a minority community. Instead of acknowledging thedestructive role played by the British rulers in dividing Hindusand Muslims, she tends to believe that the reforming influence ofthe British has made non-Muslim women “equal to men.”Following from this is her implicit assumption that Muslim womenare “backward” but if their status were equal to that of non-Muslim women, all would be well.

Inspite of these assumptions, however, the facts she presentsare likely to be of special value to the non-Muslim reader, preciselybecause they reveal how similar are many of the restrictions andways of life imposed on both Muslim and non-Muslim women.For example, most of us tend to see only the difference in lifestyleimplied by the wearing of the burqa, but Roy’s detailedpresentation of such less visible but crippling restrictions asnazar ka purdah (boys and girls avoiding looking at each other)and awaz ka purdah (girls speaking and laughing in habituallylow tones) helps make us aware of significant similarities.

—Ruth Vanita