With reference to Vaiju Naravane’s reports “Now, travel travails for Bhattacharya toddlers” and “Efforts under way to end travel ordeal of Bhattacharya toddlers” (August 12, 2012) and Ananya Dutta’s “Families of the Bhattacharya children caught in bitter row” (May 25, 2012), we are writing to express our objection to your false and biased reporting in the case of Abhigyan and Aishwarya Bhattacharya.
Your reports take for granted the case alleged by the Norwegian authorities against Sagarika Chakraborty, the children’s mother. It is unfortunate that no attempt was made to ascertain whether there was any information available to controvert the allegations of the Norwegian authorities about the mother and her children. Moreover, your reports contain allegations based solely on statements of third parties who are in a conflict of interest with Ms Chakraborty without giving her the opportunity to present her side of the story.
Ms Chakraborty has submitted to the appropriate authorities, video and documentary evidence that demonstrate her mutually loving relations with both her children; her fitness as a mother; and the normal development of both children month on month from infancy to within days of their being confiscated by the authorities in Norway. Her evidence contravenes, point for point, each of the allegations in your report about Abhigyan fearing and rejecting his mother and having some serious disorder before being taken away by the Norwegian authorities.
Your reports are also factually incorrect. There is no finding in the Norwegian orders that the mother “regularly threatened to abandon [Abhigyan]” as claimed in your report. It is also one-sided to charge the mother with trying to forcibly remove the children from their uncle without asking for her comment.
Your reports contain the defamatory charge that the mother has psychological problems even though the record of the Norwegian care proceedings contains no finding of psychological disorder against her.
We are also concerned that in reporting on an issue that concerns the welfare of two small children, reliance has been placed only on one side of the story and that no reference has been made to reports that the children have not been taken to visit their designated child psychologist even once since they were taken to Kulti by their paternal uncle; and that the elder boy, who is nearly four years old, has not been admitted to any school and is reported not to have any language skills. There is deep concern that the place where the children are currently situated may not have appropriate paediatric, schooling and medical facilities that Abhigyan might require. Surely you would agree that the children deserve a fair chance of being given a better alternative, if such can be found, than the current arrangement of growing up without either parent and without being able to even meet their parents.
All these issues have been raised before the appropriate authorities. The matter is currently under independent and expert scrutiny and is being evaluated by duly qualified persons, including mental health professionals, child care experts and legal experts. It is vital, both for the sake of the children, and in the interests of justice, that this scrutiny is not derailed by one-sided, ill-informed and shrill reporting.
Given the grave concerns about bias, administrative overreach and denial of procedural and substantive justice in the care proceedings in Norway, we are at a loss to understand as to why your reports have taken such a determined and negative view of a woman who is using legal means to gain access to her children. We are deeply pained at the spectacle of a well-respected publication such as The Hindu bringing its might to bear down on an ordinary individual in the way that has been done in these reports. We urge you to let the mother’s claims be evaluated by the appropriate authorities in an atmosphere of calm and respect for all parties concerned. We therefore request you to publish this letter in full with the same prominence as the reports published about the Bhattacharya toddlers. We also request you to refrain from publishing one-sided reports in the case.
Signatories: Girija Vyas (former Chairperson, National Commission for Women), Mohini Giri (former Chairperson, National Commission for Women), Brinda Karat (former MP), Sudha Sundaraman (AIDWA), Annie Raja (NFIW), Jyotsana Chatterjee (Joint Women’s Programme), Sehba Farooqui (JMS), Suranya Aiyar, Shalini Grover (Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi)
Vaiju Naravane, Senior Europe Correspondent, The Hindu responds
As a Norwegian who has followed this case, I am outraged at the preposterous,
false and insulting statements about Norway and its institutions that these
eminent signatories make. I take strong exception to the assertion “...Given the grave concerns about bias, administrative overreach and denial of procedural and substantive justice … in Norway...” I am sure that these worthies have spent time in Norway studying its institutions & even speak Norwegian so as to be able to make these tall claims. But please allow me, a simple native of Norway to humbly differ and point out my somewhat different observations.
Norway is certainly no perfect country. But nonetheless, last time I checked,
- Norwegian courts did not have a bias favoring upper caste, well connected Bengali mothers or for that matter presumably low caste Norwegians like yours truly;
- administrative overreach in the form of institutions of the state such as the
police, politicians or the bureaucracy slapping charges - often fabricated - on
individuals does not happen. We have a sense of humour too - cartoonists are
never arrested, neither do Maoistic/Taoistic peasants who have the temerity
question politicians !
- substantive justice in Norway does not take the shape of thugs turning up at
your door to enforce their version of the law. The signatories of this posting seem to have assumed that systems of law & governance that they perhaps are more familiar with extend to other parts of the world. Fortunately for us Norwegians, the state and its institutions are things we trust and good governance is the norm, rather than an exception.
Please refrain from extrapolating from your world to ours.
The authors of this article are bereft of common sense. At least there is a system in Norway which made an honest attempt to deal with domestic issues and the interests of children. On the other hand, the convoluted and legalistic arguments advanced in this article suggests that the authors are only interested in politicking. One shudders that they should represent the interests of women in a official capacity.
Your journalist's report yesterday to say the least was biased. It
was aimed at criticizing a judicial / quasi judicial order because it
gave the biological mother visitation! Obviously not finding anything
substantive to criticize an order which allows the mother to meet her
own children who are living not with the father but with an uncle,
your reporter had to say that the kids will have to travel 500 blah
blah. Is it wrong to travel to meet your mother? Your journalist
relied on the norwegians to counter that. I am glad you have for once
published a critique of civil society against your biased reporting
which I have not seen in the last 6 years or so. Kudos to you for
small mercies. OF course your touchy journalist could not handle it.
Dear Editor, Indeed its saddening to see The Hindu capitulating to
divisive forces in the country and put out biased reports. I am happy to
Note that at last NCW had the courage to point out biases. This is one
of many recent instances where the Hindu has been found wanting and very
much biased reports seem to have found the front pages.
As a reader I see that the NCW is really worried about the rights of the unfortunate children and the rights of their mother.But they must consider why such unfortunate incidents happen after all? I have once complained about the abuse of women's rights and respectibility by interested women in government establishments to the website of NCW. While it remained for some time in the site,but it was erased without even a cursory reply!
It shows the real concern of our NCW to society.
Perhaps the grand dames of justice can find real issues (for instance, the plight of Vrindavan widows)to focus their energies on rather than meddling in someone else's private matters.
Please Email the Editor