Timeline:
8 PM, December 29, 2016 - Nandhini, a 17 year old Dalit girl, went missing in Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu. Her mother Rajkilli, began a search for her.
8:30 PM, December 29, 2016 - Nandhini’s family received a call from Manikandan pretending to be Thamilasaran, who said that Nandhini was in his custody. The family went to the Irumbulikurichi police station to file a complaint. They were asked to come back the next day.
December 30, 2016 - Nandhini’s family returned to the police station to file a kidnapping complaint. The police filed a missing persons complaint.
January 2, 2017 - Nandhini’s friend Devi told the family about her relationship with Manikandan.
January 3, 2017 - Nandhini’s family went to the police station to give them the information about Manikandan and Nandhini’s relationship. The police said they are going to a temple festival for security duty and asked the family not to come back to the station for the next 3 days.
January 5, 2017 - Police file an FIR. Manikandan is called for an enquiry but is allowed to go after he denies complicity and two members of his village sign as witnesses on his behalf. He was asked to appear the next day but went absconding.
January 6, 2017 - Police record the statement of Nandhini’s friend Devi who knew about Manikandan and her relationship.
January 8, 2017 - Nandhini’s family lodged another complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police to secure Nandhini from the illegal custody of Manikandan.
January 9, 2017 - Police begin investigating Manikandan’s friends after one of his friends Arun reportedly consumed poison after an altercation with his parents.
January 12, 2017 - Manikandan attempts suicide by consuming poison. The hospital where he is admitted reports the attempted suicide to the Kuvagam police station, which is a few kilometres away from Nandhini’s village. He says in his statement that he attempted suicide because he was being traced in relation to Nandhini’s murder. The Irumbulikurichi police does not take over the case.
January 14, 2017 - Manikandan makes a confession at the Village Administrative Officer’s office. He states that he raped and murdered Nandhini after she became pregnant as he did not want to marry her due to her caste. Manikandan is arrested, and Nandhini’s body is found in a well in a decomposed state and is taken for post-mortem.
January 15, 2017 - Manikandan’s accomplices, three of his cousins, Thirumurugan, Mannivanan and Vetriselvan are arrested.
January 16, 2017 - Deputy Superintendent of Police comes to Nandhini’s house to insult her mother and reveal the pregnancy to her.
Date not reported - The post-mortem report confirmed rape and murder but placed her time of death to be two weeks before the body was discovered, i.e., 29th December, thus implying that she was not in illegal custody. Lawyers representing Nandhini’s family and her family members said that this was an attempt to cover up the police’s inaction. They allege that Nandhini was seen by various villagers on the 30th of December, 2016 as well as the 3rd of January, 2017.
April 10, 2017 - Madras High Court directed CB-CID probe into the case.
April 1, 2019 - Madras High Court declined to transfer the case to the CB-CID, saying that on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the police, the police had committed no wrongs in the investigation. The HC ordered the lower court in Ariyalur to conclude the inquiry within 6 months. No updates were reported on this case since then.
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 falsely identified himself as someone called Thamilasaran and said that Nandhini was in his custody. Later, Manikandan, the man who finally confessed to abducting, raping, and murdering her, admitted that he had actually made this call in order to mislead the family.
While the family did not know that it was Manikandan, they 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 went against the wishes of the family and also 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 and her motherhood 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?”. The police implied that Nandhini was of loose morals and had left home herself, rather than being kidnapped, and questioned Rajkilli’s motherhood due to not controlling her daughter.
On the night of January 2, Nandhini’s friend and neighbour Devi told the family about Nandhini’s relationship with Manikandan. From this information, Rajkilli gathered that Nandhini had been abducted by Manikandan. The family went to the police station again with this information, and Rajkilli wrote in her complaint that she had got to know from Devi that Manikandan had abducted her daughter. The police did not record this crucial information. Instead, 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, 2017. The police called Manikandan for an enquiry on January 5 and he was allowed to go after a few hours without arrest when he denied any complicity in the case and two members of his village signed as witnesses on his behalf. The family accused the District Organiser of the Hindu Munnani of using his political power to influence the police and ensure that Manikandan was allowed to go. Manikandan was asked to appear again the next day, but he absconded after this incident.
In a counter-affidavit filed in response to Nandhini’s family’s complaint about the police’s inaction, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Ariyalur District said that an inquiry was done by the Inspector. He claimed that through their inquiry the police 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 8, Nandhini’s family lodged another complaint with the police to secure Nandhini from the illegal custody of Manikandan, but to no avail. On January 9, the police began to investigate Manikandan’s friends. Reportedly, one of Manikandan’s friends, Arun, had consumed poison, and the investigation was directed towards him. However, it was found that he had consumed poison after having an altercation with his parents.
On January 12, Manikandan attempted suicide by consuming poison and was admitted to a private hospital. The hospital informed the Koovagam police. The Kuvagam police station was in close geographical distance to Nandhini and Manikandan’s village. The Kuvagam police station registered a case for the attempted suicide as it was under their custody, and got a statement from Manikandan. In this statement, Manikandan said that he had attempted suicide as he was being traced in relation to Nandhini’s murder. Still, the Irumulikurichi police, who was investigating Nandhini’s case, did not act. 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; a confession made but not made in the presence of judicial authorities, i.e a police officer.
Manikandan stated in his confession that Nandhini had told him she was pregnant. He was unwilling to marry her since she was a Parayar and so he decided to “use” and murder her. The objectifying language of “using” here refers to engaging in sexual relations without committing to marriage, and the use of this language shows Manikandan’s attitude towards Nandhini. According to his statement, 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 transporting 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 not married. 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 informed Nandhini’s family of this an hour and a half after the confession was given. The family rushed to find Nandhini’s body in the well. Her body was in a decomposed state.. Nandhini’s body was taken away by the police for the post-mortem immediately, without the consent of her family.
The post-mortem confirmed that she was gang 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.
Advocate Karal Marx who is representing the family, Advocate Sasikumar, an activist who was part of a fact-finding team in the case, as well as Rajkilli, believe that the date and time of death is being manipulated by the police in order to hide their inaction. Activists also bring attention to the fact that the police failed to take action when Nandhini was missing and in Manikandan’s custody for around 5-6 days before she was murdered. Devi’s statement, as a crucial witness in the case, was only recorded on January 6 and two other accused in the case were not interrogated. Reportedly, all four accused were initially arrested under the Goonda Act. Later, the charges against them were wrongly scripted. Manikandan and his cousin were booked under Section 5(a)(i) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which pertains to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a police officer in a police station. The correct charge should have been under Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act, which refers to gang rape. The other two accomplices were booked only for disposing of the body.
The various discrepancies and delays made by the police in filing of FIRs, taking witness statements, interrogating all the accused, and recording evidence are meant to enable the accused rapist and murderer, Manikandan, when the case goes to trial.
Nandhini and Manikandan’s relationship, as well as Nandhini’s feelings towards Manikandan have been a prominent theme in media reports. Nandhini was just 17 years old at the time, Dalit, and a construction labourer, when her 26 year old employer, Vanniyar and construction site supervisor, engaged in a ‘relationship’ with her.
Nandhini was not just legally below the age at which she could give informed consent, but the 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.
Therefore, keeping all of the above factors in mind, even with her consent, Nandhini was vulnerable to 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. 17 year old Nandhini is blamed for consenting, by creating a narrative that she actively participated or had complete agency in the making of this tragedy; that violence committed on her was her fault. . Rather, we question the abuse of power through his caste, occupation and age by the murderer, Manikandan. 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. The narrative of ‘elopement’ , as that which ‘bad girls’ do dominates media reports signalling and implying victim blame. The police too question and blame Nandhini’s mother for Nandhini’s pregnacy and murder.
The police had refused to file a kidnapping complaint in the early stages of the case, even though they were legally required to because Nandhini was a minor.
The police went against Nandhini’s family’s wishes and filed a missing persons complaint instead. While kidnapping implies the lack of agency on the part of a minor who has been abducted, a missing persons complaint implies the possibility of consent and the agency of the person whose whereabouts are unknown.
Instead of cooperating with Nandhini’sparents and conducting the investigation with the urgency it required, the police blamed Nandhini’s abduction on her mother, shaming her by saying that she 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, Dravida Kazhagam (DK) attempted to paint it as a communal crime, blaming the extremism of the Hindu group. However, the extremism or religious motivations of the group is irrelevant as both the victim and perpetrator were Hindus, and the crime was enabled by the caste power of Manikandan.. The dominance of the Vanniyar caste exists across party lines. Hence this shifting of accountability invisibilising caste dynamics and absolves the perpetrator of the blame of committing casteist sexual 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.
References:
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/060217/was-ariyalur-girl-gang-raped-killed.html
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/nandini-rape-and-murder-complicated-caste-religion-politics-plays-out-in-tamil-nadu/story-gcF019Ezsa2HHUGQseXIxK.html
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/anatomy-forgotten-rape-year-nandhini-was-killed-justice-remains-elusive-80552
https://cpiml.net/liberation/2013/07/patriarchal-and-anti-dalit-offensive-tamil-nadu
https://www.newsclick.in/20-dalit-homes-allegedly-attacked-pmk-workers-ariyalur
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/apr/02/wont-transfer-ariyalur-rape--murder-case-madras-hc-1959015.html
https://www.dtnext.in/News/TamilNadu/2017/02/04001844/1026689/Goondas-Act-slapped-on-Hindu-Munnani-man-held-for-.vpf
https://www.huffpost.com/archive/in/entry/hathras-family-hathras-rape-case-hathras-case_in_5f7954f5c5b64cf6a2516026
