#ReportingToRemember Ariyalur police

Nandhini was found dead at this site. Image Source: Priyanka Thirumurthy for The News Minute

“ Manikandan, a Vanniyar youth, allegedly pursued a relationship with Nandhini, a 17 year old labourer at a construction site he was supervising. He pressured her to get an abortion since he wouldn’t marry a Dalit, & when she refused, he allegedly raped & murdered her in Tamil Nadu in 2017 along with three other Vanniyar youths. The police didn’t file an FIR when she went missing, claiming that she had eloped even though she was minor.

Instead, the Ariyalur police shamed Nandhini’s family and humiliated her mother, framing rape as a ‘love affair’. They allegedly said,
”You do not know how to raise a girl.”
”What kind of a mother are you that didn’t know your daughter was pregnant?”

Rajashekhar, a leader of the Hindu Munnani party to which Manikandan belonged, also victim blamed her on record, saying,
”We hear that the girl had aborted many children before and had relationships with many men” ”

On December 29, 2016, Nandhini, a 17 year old Dalit girl, went missing in Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu at about 8 pm in the evening. Nandhini belonged to the Paraiyar caste, a Scheduled caste in Tamil Nadu.

As soon as she went missing, her mother, Rajkilli, started searching for her in the village and enquired with her friend Devi, but could not find her. At around 8:30 pm, one of Nandhini’s relatives received a call from someone who identified himself as Thamilasaran and said that Nandhini was in his custody. Later, Manikandan, the man who confessed to abducting, raping, and murdering her, admitted that this call was actually from him.

The family went to the Irumbulikurichi police station immediately, with the phone number. The family was asked to write down the complaint but the police refused to file it, saying they would file it the next day. “Do you have no other job? Why are you coming so late?”, the police rebuked the family.

Nandhini had left school after class 8 in order to support her family, which included her mother, elder brother, and elder sister. She became a daily wage labourer and did any odd jobs that came along her way. A local contractor had employed her as a labourer to build a road, right in front of their residence.

It was here that Nandhini met Manikandan Ramasamy, a 26 year old man who was supervising the construction, and who belonged to the dominant Vanniyar caste. Manikandan was also the taluk secretary of the Hindu fringe group known as the Hindu Munnani, and was reportedly very close to the district secretary Rajashekhar. Manikandan and Nandhini began a relationship, in spite of Rajkilli, Nandhini’s mother, repeatedly warning Manikandan that they will face problems since they are from different castes. Manikandan told her they were just friends.

The Vanniyars are a caste historically associated with agricultural labour and classified by the government as a backward class. However, Vanniyars have increasing influence in Tamil Nadu due to their ownership of land and political power. Vanniyar political organizations such as the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), reported to have a strong base amongst the Vanniyars of Nandhini’s village as well, has been known for anti-Dalit mobilisation and violence. In Nandhini’s village, strongly segregated by caste, there were 3000 Vanniyar families, and only 300 Dalit families.

After being rebuked and told to leave on December 29, the night that Nandhini first went missing, Nandhini’s family returned to the police station to file a complaint on December 30.

They insisted that their daughter was kidnapped, but the police filed a missing persons complaint. Nandhini was a minor, and according to the law, her being taken away without the legal consent of her guardians amounts to kidnapping. The police thus not only went against the wishes of the family but violated the law in filing a missing persons complaint.

According to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences or POCSO Act of 2012, the police should have made immediate arrangements for the care and protection of the child within 24 hours, and the police was duty-bound to inform the parents of the status of the investigation. Instead, the police took no action, and treated the family with disdain. As reported by the News Minute, the police said to Rajkilli, "We'll find her but when a saree falls on thorns it has to be removed slowly”, implying that they would not take any swift action. They further insulted her saying, “Look at how you have brought her up. Child has gone rogue and you are sitting at home, you are coming here. Are you a woman?”

On January 2, Nandhini’s friend and neighbour Devi told the family that she had been abducted by Manikandan, and the family went to the police station again with this information. This time, the police told Rajkilli that they were going for security duty to a temple festival and asked her to return after three days. The FIR was only filed on January 5. They called Manikandan for an enquiry on January 5 but he was let off after two villagers signed as witnesses on his behalf. After this, Manikandan went absconding.

Meanwhile, the police filed a counter-affidavit and said that through their inquiry they had found that Manikandan and Nandhini were having a ‘love affair’ and she had ‘eloped’ with him. This was in spite of the fact that Nandhini was a minor taken away from her family without their consent and a love affair would be inconsequential as she was below the legal age of consent.

On January 12, Manikandan attempted suicide by consuming poison and was admitted to a private hospital which informed the Kuvagam police, which is a few kilometres away from Nandhini and Manikandan’s village. The Kuvagam police station registered this case as it was under their custody, and Manikandan gave a statement saying he had attempted suicide as he was being traced in relation to Nandhini’s case. Still, the Irumulikurichi police did not take over. It was only on January 14 that Manikandan himself went and confessed to his crimes at the Village Administrative Officer’s office. This was however, an extra-judicial confession.

Manikandan stated in his confession that Nandhini had told him she was pregnant. He was unwilling to marry her since she was a Dalit and so he decided to use and murder her. He tried to push her to get an abortion, and abducted her when she refused. He was seen by witnesses as late as January 3 ferrying Nandhini around on his bike, apparently trying to find a doctor to conduct the abortion. He reportedly could not find a doctor who was willing to take the risk, as she was a minor and unmarried. Manikandan confessed to abducting Nandhini with three accomplices, also from the Vanniyar caste. They gangraped her, murdered her, and then disposed of her in a well.

The police only informed Nandhini’s family of this an hour and a half after the confession was given. The family rushed to find the body in the well, which was in a decomposed state. The body was taken away by the police for the post-mortem immediately, without the consent of the family.

The post-mortem confirmed that she was raped and murdered, and the men allegedly also inflicted violence on the foetus. When the pregnancy was discovered, the police berated and humiliated Nandhini’s mother, saying “What kind of mother are you? How could you not know that your daughter was pregnant?” However, the post-mortem did not record details of the pregnancy, and neither was a DNA test conducted. While the police claimed that the foetus was too young for the DNA test, Rajkilli estimated based on the fact that Nandhini had not had her period for three months, that the foetus was much older than the police were attempting to portray it as.

Activists have pointed out that the date and time of death is being manipulated by the police in order to hide their inaction and the fact that they failed to take action while she was in illegal custody for nearly a week. The various discrepancies and faults made by the police in filing of FIRs, taking witness statements, interrogating all the accused, recording evidence related to the pregnancy, and so on, are bound to favour the accused when the case goes to trial.

Nandhini and Manikandan’s relationship, as well as Nandhini’s feelings towards Manikandan have been a prominent theme throughout media reports. Nandhini was just 17 years old at the time, when her 26 year old employer engaged in a relationship with her. She was not just legally below the age at which she could give informed consent, but their relationship was also marked by the major power differences between her and Manikandan. Besides the age gap, Manikandan also belonged to the dominant Vanniyar caste, and hence held power over her family and community, which was further strengthened by the clout he held in local politics. Manikandan was also Nandhini’s supervisor at a job that was essential for her family’s economic well-being.

Even with her consent, Nandhini was vulnerable to manipulation and abuse in this relationship. When a kidnapping born out of this is termed as ‘elopement’ or a ‘love affair’ by the police, it is not only in violation of the law, as pointed out by Priyanka Thirumurthy of the NewsMinute, but it also invisibilises caste, and blames a 17 year old girl for giving consent. Rather the blame of manipulation and abuse of power should be on Manikandan. This victim blame ignores the fact that this relationship would have legally qualified as statutory rape.

One of the crucial facts that perhaps led to her death was the fact the police refused to file a kidnapping complaint even though they were legally required to do so irrespective of whether or not she eloped, since she was a minor. They went against the family’s wishes and filed a missing persons complaint instead. Instead of cooperating with the parents and conducting the investigation with the urgency it required, they blamed Nandhini’s abduction on her mother, shaming her saying that they did not know how to raise a child. The police especially humiliated her when Nandhini’s pregnancy was revealed, blaming the violence on both of their characters- Nandhini for having had sexual relations, and her mother, for not controlling her and knowing about her pregnancy.

The involvement of the Hindu Munnani led to further victim blame which served local politics. Although apparently in conflict, both Hindu and secular groups were dominated by the Vanniyar caste, to which the perpetrator belonged. The secular group attempted to paint it as a communal crime, hence invisibilising caste dynamics and absolving the perpetrator of the blame of committing casteist violence.

Hindu Munnani leaders also invisibilised caste dynamics of the crime, and the District Secretary Rajashekhar went on record to blame the victim, saying “We hear that the girl had aborted many children (sic) before and had relationships with many men.”

In April, 2019, the Madras High Court directed the lower court in Ariyalur to conclude the trial within six months. However, no verdict has been reported yet.