[sacw] French open judicial probe in Indian maid's mutilation

Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:25:29 +0200

<fontfamily><param>Times</param>FYI

Harsh Kapoor

__________________________

#1. French open judicial probe in Indian maid's mutilation

<paraindent><param>right,left</param> PARIS, Sept 20 (AFP) - The
Paris prosecutor's office Monday ordered a judicial inquiry in the case
of a young sexually mutilated Indian housemaid who claims she was
treated as a "slave" by an Indian diplomat, a judicial source said.

Police will investigate who was responsible for "acts of violence"
committed against the young maid, the source said.

The decision to open a judicial inquiry follows a medical probe
conducted over the last few day to determine the nature and timing of
wounds to her genitals. 

_______________________________

</paraindent></fontfamily>#2.

<fontfamily><param>Times</param>http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/19990920/iex20027.html

Indian Express

Monday, September 20, 1999

National honour, private lives

by Pamela Philipose 

Every once in a while, a public event or situation arises which
conspires to hold a mirror up to who we are, as a class, as a society,
as a nation.

The curious case of Lalita Oraon, an Indian domestic worker who fled
from the home and employment of an Indian diplomat stationed in Paris
earlier this month, is one such moment. Apart from Oraon's account of
mistreatment at the hands of her employers, her ulcerated body -- much
to the amazement of a well-known local doctor who had examined her --
bore evidence of sexual mutilation.

The responses of the Indian embassy in Paris told its own story. The
Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in Delhi, which should have risen
above the controversy and exercised a moral influence on its
representatives in Paris, displayed only an anxiety to diffuse the
situation as quickly as possible before it affected the country's ties
with France. Indeed, when it came to protecting the honour of a fellow
officer, our diplomatic community demonstrated an uncanny ability to
hangtogether. It lost no time in hauling the creaky machinery of
``national honour'' on to the centrestage. It is not just an
individual's honour, it is India's image that is at stake, was the
warcry. One Indian diplomat even snarled that if the French authorities
acted difficult and insisted that the diplomat be sent back home, then
someone of equivalent rank from their side should have to be declared
persona non grata.

The very first reaction of the Indian embassy, when the unsavoury
details of Oraon's life and injuries surfaced in the French press last
week, was to refuse to even admit the possibility that something is
wrong. The allegations were ``false and strongly denied'', it stated,
and that was that. There was also a dark accusation in that observation
it made that the ``injuries Ms Oraon has suffered in the custody of
French authorities are a matter of concern'' -- the implication being
that she was alright until she fell into the hands of the French.

It further alleged that the entire episode wasbased on the false
propaganda of non-governmental organisations like the Committee against
Modern Day Slavery, which was handling the case. An official press
release, dated September 14, is an amazing exercise in hypocrisy: ``The
Embassy requests the French media to cease its campaign of defamation
against the diplomat from this Embassy based on mendacious statements
by individuals and organisations who are themselves responsible for Ms
Oraon's actual plight''.

There may be justification for fuming against the French media's
attempts to damn a man before he is proved guilty. But the fact of the
matter is that the Indian embassy and the MEA seem to have damned
Lalita Oraon even before inquiring into the veracity of her complaints.
She may be just a domestic worker but she is nevertheless an Indian
citizen and the embassy is duty bound to look after her interests as it
is of any other Indian who had happened to get into trouble abroad. If
she had been, for argument's sake, employed by a French family,
wouldthe embassy not have pulled all stops to champion her cause?

But because one of their own kind was involved, this principle was
conveniently brushed aside. So anxious were they to protect their lad,
so angry were they at the French police for refusing to allow them
access to Oraon in ``clear violation of all diplomatic norms'', they
didn't spare a thought for the girl herself and the great tragedy that
had befallen her. Despite not having spoken with her, they let it be
publicly known that she had fabricated the whole sordid story in order
to stay back in France when she heard that she was to be sent back to
India. They also let it be known that she did not do her job as a
nursemaid to the diplomat's children properly.

There is a certain mindset at work here, a mindset that has victimised
women time and again. It presumes that ``people like us do not do such
things''. Indeed, it is an attitude that recalls that famous
observation of a lower court in Rajasthan which had acquitted Bhanwari
Devi's rapistsin the early 1990s all because the honourable judge was
confident that ``upper caste men don't rape lower-caste women''.

There is, besides this, the despicable attitude to domestic workers
that the more privileged among us often have. The French may be
shocked, but we do not find anything very objectionable about a
17-year-old being forced to work in someone's home from six in the
morning to midnight, seven days a week, month after month. We would
expect her to sleep on a carpet, eat leftovers, submit to being locked
up when master and family go out and put up with the occasional slap on
the face. This is the reality in so many homes on the subcontinent, so
what's the big deal anyway? In fact, we would expect a ``servant'' to
be grateful for the chance we gave her to visit a foreign country and
earn a handsome income of 50 dollars a month, since she would anyway
only have been scratching the earth for a living back home.

There is a clash of civilisational norms here. It is not that the
French are morallysuperior beings, it is just that we, as a nation,
have not sufficiently imbibed the values embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to which this country, as our diplomats in
Paris should know, is a signatory.

The preamble of this declaration recognises the ``inherent dignity''
and the ``equal and inalienable rights'' of all members of the human
family. Article 4 declares that ``no one shall be held in slavery and
servitude'', Article 5 says that ``no one shall be subjected to torture
or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' and Article
7 states that ``all are equal before the law and are entitled without
any discrimination to equal protection of the law''.

These are values enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as
well, which clearly recognises the right to personal liberty and that
includes, within its ambit, the right to live with dignity.

On Friday the MEA claimed that Lalita Oraon's employer had been
exonerated. It was another desperate attempt to put the lid firmly on a
tragic incident that revealed, in a microcosm, all the hypocrisies,
prejudices and inequalities of Indian society at large.

________________________

#3.

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/19990921/ige21068.html

Indian Express

Tuesday, September 21, 1999

Lalita case -- France begins judicial probe

by Anjali Mody 

LONDON, SEPT 20: Signalling the seriousness with which it is dealing
with the matter, the French Government Prosecutor has begun a judicial
investigation into the case of Lalita Oraon, the 17-year-old housemaid
of an Indian diplomat in Paris. Lalita, who ran away from her employers
Amrit and Asha Lugon, was found to have received severe injuries to her
genitals.

The French investigation is intended to uncover who committed the act
of `voluntary violence with a knife' which caused the injuries to
Lalita. The investigation is ordered against an unnamed `X', as is
customary in France. This leaves the possibility of investigating the
involvement of more than one person in the crime.

Lalita has told an anti-slavery organisation, Comite Contre L'esclavage
Modern (CCEM), through interpreters, that the injuries were the work of
Lugon and a doctor friend of his. She told them that she had been
drugged and pointing to her sex said that they had cut her so she could
not get pregnant.

The Prosecutor's office,announcing the judicial investigation, said
that Lalita's injuries were clear-cut and compatible with the use of a
knife. The injuries could not have been self-inflicted. It said that
the injuries were recent but that it was difficult to establish an
exact date.

The Prosecutor has nominated an ad hoc administrator for Lalita.
Lalita's age has been put at 17 by French doctors who examined her on
September 6, as opposed to 19 as stated on her official passport.

As a minor, she is currently the ward of the special Judge for
Children. Lalita is in a Paris hospital being treated for major
injuries to her back and feet, which she received when she jumped off a
six-metre wall at St Joseph of Cluny Convent.

The Government of India, in its effort to win the public relations
battle in the case has been creative with the facts. Earlier this week,
it claimed that a medical report from the French authorities has
``absolved'' it of all responsibility for Lalita's condition. This,
however, was not the case.

In averbal communication, a French official told an Indian Embassy
official that Lalita had been examined by three doctors, there was no
mention of a gynaecologist.

Indian authorities went so far as to suggest that the injuries that
Lalita suffered were the responsibility of the French authorities.

</fontfamily>#3. 