© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Just a few metres from the Godhra railway station, where a fire in coach S6 of Sabarmati Express in 2002 had led to widespread communal violence across Gujarat, stands Patel ni chali (Patels’ dwelling). A dilapidated entryway leads to a cluster of two-storey homes with jalousie windows, households without boundaries and gleeful children running amok, some on their bicycles, others chasing them.
Yet, those three years framed Patel’s identity, raising questions about his nationality. He claimed he was an Indian citizen under Article 5 of the Constitution and took the battle all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1964, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court determined that he could indeed live in Patel ni chali. Today, it is occupied by his descendants — his four sons, four daughters and their families.
His case, Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel vs State Of Gujarat, called for a fair evaluation of factors in determining one’s citizenship status in a new nation that was still coming to terms with Partition. The ruling may not be a landmark ruling that carried political stakes, but it exemplified how ordinary men like Patel put their extraordinary faith in the Constitution.
Godhra-based advocate Yusuf Charkha says, “This was a landmark case, in the sense that it laid out that the Central government has to first determine citizenship of a person and establish that they have lost Indian nationality before the person can be treated as a foreigner and face actions accordingly, including deportation or criminal offence.”
Godhra, no stranger to communal riots, had seen “very serious” riots in 1948, following Partition, according to the Justice Nanavati-Mehta Commission of Inquiry report on the 2002 riots. “Initially, the Muslims burnt 869 houses of Hindus. Thereafter, the Hindus burnt 3,071 houses of Muslims. About 11,000 Ghanchi Muslims left Godhra. Some of them migrated to Pakistan,” the report stated.
Among those who migrated in 1948, was Patel’s father-in-law, Yusuf Haji Ismail, who left along with his daughter, Patel’s wife.
Karachi in Pakistan has a Godhra Colony too, with many of its residents having migrated from India over the years. Even today, families in Gujarat’s Godhra have close ties, with many of their family members residing in the neighbouring country. From Gujarat’s Godhra, Karachi’s Godhra is about as far as Delhi is.
Six years later, Patel applied for a passport and went to Karachi for the first time to bring his wife back, court records state. He wanted to return with his wife to India, but he told the Court that his “passport was deliberately taken away or destroyed by his father-in-law with a view to compel him to stay at Karachi”.
Advised “that unless he obtained a Pakistani passport, he would not be able to return to India,” Patel applied for a Pakistani passport and returned to India on October 13, 1957. It is not clear if Patel returned with his wife, but he decided to stay put in Godhra, where his parents and siblings resided.
However, his return prompted a six-year legal battle since Patel was on a “residential permit” that expired in 1958. He was charged under Section 14 of the Foreigners’ Act for overstaying his residential permit. Patel argued that “he was never not an Indian” and that he had not set foot in Pakistan before August 1954. He told the court that his parents were born in Godhra and that his family, including his brothers, had all lived in the same town all their lives. He also provided evidence of his life in Godhra till 1945, including school records.
While he was acquitted by the trial court, the Gujarat High Court sentenced him to a year’s rigorous imprisonment. Patel appealed against the verdict, and the top court not only overturned the High Court judgment, but also remanded his case back to the magistrate for reconsideration.
The SC noted that Patel had “explained his conduct in obtaining a Pakistani passport on the ground that circumstanced as he was in Karachi, he was helpless and he adopted a course which appeared to him to be the only course available for coming back to India”.
But Patel’s descendants say they know little about the case. One relative says about Patel that he was “bahut garam dimaag wale” (a hothead) but never shared his personal struggles with others.
In the close-knit Ghanchi Muslim community in town, Patel is better known as Dhuma Haji Kaka. Jabir Rashidbhai, 40, a local resident and an AIMIM member, says, “Dhuma Haji Kaka and his brother (Chashma Haji) owned a plywood business. While Dhuma Haji Kaka offered his services for the ghusl ritual (washing of the body before the burial), his brother provided wood for coffins free of charge.”
Advocate Charkha says, “Once the matter was remanded to the magistrate court, I believe it was never taken up or decided on subsequently. Patel continued to reside here, as did his wife. His wife had passed away a few years before he did.”
“I too have my family in Godhra colony, my Phuphi, Khala, Chachu are all there… The strain with our neighbours is political, but how do we sever familial ties?…If a relative of mine in Pakistan wants to visit me here, they’ll require an Indian citizen’s sponsorship. This, in turn, requires signatures as a way of attestation from government authorities – SHO, tehsildar, etc. But the process remains bureaucratic, no one wants to sign it. We cannot compel them. And without the sponsorship, the visa will not be given,” he added.
There are a few other remnants of Patel’s life in Godhra. His old school, which helped him prove his domicile, is now a mosque, where men flock to offer Jumma (Friday) prayers on a sunny afternoon. Opposite the mosque is a new school building, inaugurated in 2013.
Patel’s case was cited as a precedent in several cases on citizenship. In 2013, the Delhi High Court too relied on the Patel judgment in connection with the 2013 Mumtaz Parveen vs State case.
In eerily similar circumstances, Parveen, an Indian citizen, was married to a Pakistani national, who took away her Indian passport. To make her way back home, Parveen travelled to India on a Pakistani passport with a visa.
After she was convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners’ Act, the Delhi High Court intervened in her favour. Besides keeping in abeyance the sentence of one month’s imprisonment, the Delhi High Court also stayed her deportation order. Besides this, the court also directed the Centre to adjudicate whether she would be deemed to have lost her Indian citizenship or not.
