Skip to content

Rejoinder to story on Soni Sori in Indian Express: International Alliance for Defence of Human Rights in India

August 8, 2012

The  International Alliance for Defence of Human Rights in India (IADHRI) is based in the US and has participated in the campaigns for the release of Dr. Binayak Sen, Kopa Kunjam and now more recently Soni Sori and Lingaram Kodopi.

On August 5th, The Indian Express published a disturbing, supposedly investigative story on Soni Sori, implying both that she was guilty of the charge of being a Maoist as well as casting doubt on the activists in India and outside who support her, and who are mainly responsible for bringing into the open the fact that she was and continues to be tortured in prison.

The IADHRI has written this response to the story, rebutting it point by point.

That the media often compromises its integrity for corporate interests and the political elite is not news any more. The recent Sunday Express report titled ‘Soni’s Story’ is symptomatic of a belief that if a lie is repeated often, it becomes the accepted truth.  The report talks of Soni Sori, the Adivasi school teacher from Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, who has been arrested and accused of being a Maoist conduit. With a clever sprinkling of truth, a report can seem unbiased- the reporter appears to be the warrior fighting to find facts and settling for nothing less. It is, however, imperative that fallacies be broken down, and the casual picking and choosing of facts be exposed for what it is. Let us use the same structure that the story uses.
  1. Sori, the police and the Maoists
    1. The report paints a picture of Soni Sori, a vocal, educated school teacher with an influential family. It mentions that “Villagers in Palnar say Sori was not a Maoist, but like most people in these parts, she had links with the rebels.”
    2. However, in the quest for truth, the reporter does not remain satisfied, and to substantiate charges of Sori’s Maoist links refers to the incident where Maoists shoot her father in the leg but spare her as a subtle insinuation that there is something wrong brewing underneath. How exactly one’s father being shot is a sign of camaraderie we will never know, but the Sunday Express seems to have some ideas.
    3. The report does not stop at this, but cites an unnamed Palnar-based journalist and family-friend who says that “Madam was a bridge between Maoists and the local company contractors. She helped them levy taxes and was also close to the police,” which of course is sufficient evidence to incriminate Sori as a Maoist.
    4. The report exonerates Sori of the attack on Avdesh Gautam’s house, stating that “Evidence suggests both Sori and Futane were not involved in the attack. But curiously, while Futane was arrested and continues to be in jail, Sori remained free. She was slapped with several offences in a series of cases from July to September 2010—all false, say her lawyer and even the police.” Curiously, this does not prevent the reporter from quoting the same Gautam saying that “She was playing to both sides. She could not have managed it for long.” This begs the question: how does one take Gautam’s words to be credible when it was his FIR that led to charges being slapped against Sori for the first time in 2010?
    5. The report does reinforce the claim made by activists that Lingaram Kodopi (Sori’s nephew – a co-accused in the Gautam case and also arrested for being a Maoist conduit) was not arrested at Palnar market when handing over 15 lakhs to BK Lala, an Essar contractor, as suggested by the police. Relatives have confirmed that Kodopi was arrested from Sori’s father’s house, and Sori fled. What the report fails to inform readers is that after fleeing to Delhi, Sori sought out the office of Tehelka magazine and helped conduct a sting operation- the recorded conversation clearly suggests that she was framed through the conspiracy of SP Ankit Garg and a constable by the name of Mankar. It was also here that Sori spoke of repeated harassment by the Chhattisgarh police and their attempts to coax her to implicate her nephew Kodopi as being a Maoist.
  2. Sori and the activists
    1. This is perhaps the most intriguing part of the Sunday Express report. The journalist seeks to discredit activists for bringing attention to Soni Sori’s medical report, furnished by the NRS Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata. Sori was examined there between October 26th and 28th and it was through this report that Sori’s torture became evident after stones were recovered from her private parts. The medical report, contrary to what is mentioned in the report, was never “leaked”. The report was only made available after being produced before the Supreme Court. (It is also worth noting here that after the medical report was dispatched by speed post, it took a good two weeks for it to reach the Supreme Court.) One does not know what to make of the story’s suggestion that there was a “selective leak” of the medical report. What parts of the report that were of relevance were omitted by the various petitions? The report goes on to say, “While the four-page confidential report, submitted to the SC, a copy of which is with The Sunday Express, recorded in detail her medical condition and did not confirm the torture charges, only a sentence about the “foreign bodies” was leaked.” Is the Sunday Express trying to suggest that Sori inserted these foreign bodies into her body herself? If one were to also carefully read the four page medical report, it can be seen that the only sentence the Sunday Express chooses to mention is in the summary of the report. The foreign bodies are mentioned along with other details, throughout the rest of the report. The recovered stones themselves were also submitted to the Supreme Court by the  hospital.
    2. The other means of discrediting the NRS medical report is to cite the medical report from hospitals in Dantewada and Raipur, where no foreign object was discovered. It is also worthwhile to note that the scans from Raipur have not been made available to Sori’s lawyers despite repeated appeals for the same. ***
      To ward off the charges made by activists that these reports were “doctored” (no pun intended), the Sunday Express interviewed a private practitioner Dr. Rakesh Gupta who finds the NRS medical report to be contradictory. One is of course supposed to ignore the fact that Dr. Gupta has not examined Sori himself. But to lend credibility to his claims, the report cites that Dr. Gupta is the “state president of the Naagrik Sangharsh Samiti who supports “social and economic causes of Maoists”. We are now being coaxed to believe an alleged Maoist sympathizer! Ironic one would say, but irony is only every bright morning that Soni Sori spends in darkness behind bars in prison.
  3. The case of the letters
    1. The Sunday Express seems more interested in learning how the letters came from prison and were released through Himanshu Kumar rather than the contents of the letters themselves. It leaves no stone unturned in attempting to discredit these letters. At first the report attacks the handwriting, citing Himanshu Kumar as not recognizing the handwriting. Himanshu Kumar, in a response to this piece, has categorically stated that he recognizes the handwriting as that of Sori’s. It is not surprising that no one would confess to being a courier for Soni’s letter, considering that Dr. Binayak Sen spent two years in jail on similar allegations.
    2. While questioning Sori’s letters, the report had no problem in quoting a purported letter from Sori’s husband, who is currently in jail,  without explaining how they got hold of it.  Curiously, no one other than the Sunday Express seems to have seen this letter.
  1. The waiting family
    1. The journalist somehow manages to summon all his compassion for this last section to sign off on a sympathetic note. To show the readers that it really is the all-powerful “jholawalas” that are playing Sori. To do this again, the uncredible Avdesh Gautam is quoted as “feeling sorry for her”. Mr. Gautam could perhaps be more concrete in his sympathy if he drops Sori’s name from the FIR he filed. But perhaps that is wishful thinking.
At the end the story, one if left wondering what primary purpose such a report serves. Whether or not Sori is innocent (and indeed, the report itself questions some of the charges against her), why not question the administration and the judiciary that places thousands of Adivasis in the conflict zones behind bars, prolonging their detention and often refusing them any trial at all? It has been almost a year since Soni Sori was arrested. Months have passed since the Supreme Court expressed its anguish over the NRS Medical Report. No investigation has been initiated against those accused of this custodial torture, no response has been forthcoming from the government of Chhattisgarh. If the purpose is only to malign individuals who raise their voices against these injustices, the Sunday Express  has served the purpose very well.
————————————————————————————————-
*** Himanshu Kumar, in his response linked to at 3 (i) above, says about these X Rays:
There are some facts that the story has got completely wrong. Such as that there were X-ray scans of Soni conducted in Chhattisgarh which did not show the stones in her body.  While the truth is that the X-ray images taken in Chhattisgarh were taken of her back (at a higher level). The stones were lodged in the rectum and the vagina which are at a lower level.  No X-ray images were taken of these portions.  The Supreme Court has been informed of these X-ray reports.
The hospital in Kolkata is also a government hospital. The only difference is that the Chhattisgarh government does not have any influence over that hospital.
7 Comments leave one →
  1. Mukul Dube permalink
    August 8, 2012 10:34 AM

    When the State is involved in a cover-up, even the idea of evidence loses meaning. Evidence is what the State does not hide, what the State concocts.

  2. Inasu/poet-writer/Paris permalink
    August 8, 2012 12:45 PM

    Evidently, the press or for that matter the entire maainstream media is in collusion with the
    state machinery, both at Centre and in the states. But what is the most disgusting is the
    fact that her womanhood has been vandalized with beastly abandon. I wish all women/girls in India condemn this atrocity against them, notwithstanding her alleged involvement in the
    Maoist action groups. This kind of treatment was meted out to girls supposed to be Naxalites in Calcutta jails during the infamous emergency under Indira Gandhi. Fortunately,
    we are not in a similar situation Nivedita, thanks for unmasking the Express jounalist.

    .

  3. August 10, 2012 7:54 PM

    So much for ‘fearless’, ‘objective’ reporting in the Indian Express…read it on a desert island?!

    • August 11, 2012 4:43 PM

      I get the feeling that anyone not completely toeing the line or responding to the news item in a manner not expected, is regarded as either a fool or a motivated person or an enemy. After taking this for granted, responses seem to be drafted. This is counter-productive as even those neutral are put off from reading Kafila’s elaborately argued pieces. I sincerely hope that my feeling is wrong.

      • Mukul Dube permalink
        August 11, 2012 7:58 PM

        Desai Sahab, have you ever been “regarded [here] as either a fool or a motivated person or an enemy”? How, in the absence of a clear statement, do you tell how someone is _regarded_ ? How should I regard you for the absurd contention that people are put off from _reading_ pieces by the fear of how they will be regarded for their _responses_ ? Are you saying perhaps that all who read also respond?

        • August 12, 2012 4:18 PM

          Radicals usually respond thus to people who disagree with them. The paradox is that those fighting for freedom are unable to allow freedom to others.e.g. today’s news item says that a farmer in Midnapur was arrestedor asking inconvenient questions to Mamta Bannerjee. I’ve had one or two experiences myself. Even so, I’ve asked a question and in the end I said that I hope i’m wrong.

Trackbacks

  1. Soni Sori and Gautam Navlakha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh W.P. (CRL.) 206/2011 « kracktivist

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56,618 other followers

%d bloggers like this: