Kanaklata: The Martyr Extraordinary

Dr. BK Gohain

PART-I

How do you characterize a village girl of mere 18 years of age who voluntarily signed the oath ‘To do or die’ (Karenge ya Morenge) for attaining freedom for her country? Whom do you give credit for teaching her to vow to fight for the country? We are talking of an outstanding girl — Kanaklata Barua of a very backward village of that time namely Barangabari then under Gohpur Police Station of the present day Sonitpur district. She had lost her mother at an early age; but found the motherly compassion and tutelage in her stepmother, who chose to become the wife of her father Krisnakanta Barua to bring her up.

Kanaklata grew up in the atmosphere of a joint family and learnt to share her things including food along with other things with her younger brothers, sisters and cousins and other members of the family. Kanaklata's mother Karneswari and her mahideo (stepmother) taught her to be self reliant; and her mahideo imparted her training to do her own works like cooking food, spinning cotton, weaving clothes etc., so that she could become a complete woman.

One day, her grandfather told her about their lineage. They belonged to the illustrious family of Dolakasoria Barua (the Commander-in-Chief of the guards protecting the Royal sedan — dola) of the Ahom monarchs, who trace their descent to the Lord Indra – the monarch of heaven. He also related to her and other children how Lachit, although not related, was also the Dolakasoria Barua of Ahom monarch Chakradhwaj Singha who chose him (Lachit) to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Army and how he defeated the Mughals in the naval war of Saraighat. He also told them how Jaymati Kunwari made the ultimate sacrifice at the hands of the royal henchmen in order to protect her husband Gadapani Konwar and her country which was at the state of grave anarchy setting the stage for the onslaught of the Mughals who were already handed over the strategic city of Guwahati for a handful of gold by a covetous minister. They were also told how Gadapani, after becoming the king of our country wrested away the entire Assam up to the Kortuwa River and sealed the fate of the Mughals in respect of our country Assam. Thus the spirit of Independence was infused and inculcated in her by her grandfather and the sense of family responsibility was imbedded in her.

No wonder then that this tall, dark and charming girl of a very tender age signed on her declaration of ‘Karenge ya morenge’ and became a member of the ‘Death Squad’ and got her indoctrination and training to fight for the Independence of her country. The Quit India movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in August 1942, was given a lyrical and musical agenda in Assam by the born romantic rebel leader Rupkonwar Jyotiprasad Agarwalla who composed the martial songs that were sung during the drills carried out for physical fitness of the freedom fighters. Besides the ‘Mritu Bahini’; there was the ‘Shanti Bahini’ with members — ranging from 18 years of age to 50 — who used to organize the people for launching the peaceful movement as advised by Jyotiprasad. Kanaklata — the ‘Joan of Arc’ of Assam who made the supreme sacrifice for holding high the flag of the country — has been described by Jyotiprasad in his poem — ‘Kanaklata’.

In order to give an idea of how romantic the rebellious soul of our own Rupkonwar was, we mention here his brief. While the rest of the present Sonitpur was to fly our flag atop the police stations of British India, the girl volunteers in Tezpur were advised to defy the armed police by garlanding their rifles which might be aimed at them.

Kanaklata and Mukunda Kakati of the Chaiduar area of Sonitpur were killed by the armed police in Gohpur Police Station premises. I quote the summary of the judgment given by the Special Magistrate in the case of police firing at Gohpur which Judge SK Das declared as not totally justified.

“The case for the prosecution is as follows: There is a Police Station (PS) at Gohpur at a distance of more than 60 miles from the headquarter station of Tezpur in the district of Darrang and is connected with it by a motorable road. After the arrest of Mahatma Gandhi and other Congress leaders by the government in August, 1942; certain sections of the public here as elsewhere in India began to foment unrest with a view to interfere with the administration of Law and Justice and maintenance of public order and peace. In pursuance perhaps to that object of some such organizations, about 5,000 persons composed of men and women, boys and girls, old and young came to Gohpur. Some from the Borongabari side on the west and others from the Kollongpur (Hawhajan) side on the east of Gohpur on 20.9.42 tried to enter the Thana compound over the approach paths on either side of the tank in front of the Police Station. On the eastern side there was a wooden gate near the southern side of the approach path of the Police Station. The ASI and the constables on duty there closed the wooden gate towards the Hawahajan side of the PS and prevented the crowd from entering the said approach path from the eastern side. But on the western approach path, there being no gate for such obstruction the crowd gathered from the western side. They began to push back the complainant and the two unarmed constables with him, Ram Topeswar Ojha and Sahabuddin Ahmed, and ultimately the police officer and the constables fell on the ground and were trampled down by the crowd. The two armed constables who were behind the complainant and the unarmed constables were then attacked by the section of the mob who tried to snatch away the rifle in the hand of armed constable Bogaram Kachari; and in course of the struggle, a shot accidentally went off. Thereafter the said Bogaram Kachari fired another shot to frighten the mob. As a result of the firing, a girl aged about 16 years and a young man aged about 35 years died and a boy Rama Kanta Barua got injured. The mob on the western approach path however dispersed thereafter. They also carried away the two dead bodies and the injured body. The crowd in front of the eastern approach path loitered there for some time and some amongst the crowd that had entered the western approach path also lingered on the trunk road for some time and about two hours after the incident all of them dispersed. Complainant alleges that some of the people in the crowd were armed with bamboo lathis and after the dispersal of the mob he seized the same. After the second shot was fired, some men were seen coming from the paddy field behind the thana compound and they were seen making preparation to set fire to the Inspecting Officer’s cook shed. Constable Nobin Deka then on sentry duty and another sick constable ran towards the place and the miscreants ran away leaving certain Kerosene-soaked rags and a Jakhla (Single-pole ladder) behind. These were subsequently seized by the police. Of the two dead bodies, the one of the young man was recovered and sent to Sadar for postmortem examination. The dead body of the girl could not be recovered by the police and it was cremated by her relations. Altogether 21 persons including the present eight accused were sent up by the police on a charge of rioting and assault on public servant; four of them were discharged for want of evidence and nine others were either discharged or acquitted U/s 494 Cr.P.C. on withdrawal of the case against them by the prosecution. The remaining eight accused stand charged — five of them U/s 147 IPC and three of them U/s 143 IPC as above. The 8 accused are Giridhar Barua, Hema Kanta Barua, Dutiram Hazarika, Jonaram Bhuiyan and Maghiram Bora, accused U/s 147 IPC along with Sundar Chandra Bora, Golok Chandra Pujari and Khargeswar Gogoi, Accused U/s 143 IPC.

They were sent up by the police on a charge of rioting and assault on public servant; four of them were discharged for want of evidence and nine others were either discharged or acquitted U/s 494 Cr.P.C. on withdrawal of the case against them by the prosecution.

It has not been denied by the defense that a large number of people assembled in front of the thana on 20-09-42 to make a demonstration but it has been urged by the defense that the prosecution story is exaggerated, that the processionists were unarmed and peaceful; that there was no justification for the firing; that the story of an attempt to set fire to the cook shed is false and that except accused Jonaram Bhuiyan and Hema Kanta Barua none of the other six accused was present at the time of the occurrence; and as such they were not members of any unlawful assembly.

Before proceeding to discuss the evidence, it is necessary that I should give a brief description of the place of occurrence. The North Trunk Road runs east to west at the place. On the North of the trunk road there is a fairly big tank 475 in length (east to west) and 280 in breath (north to south). On the north bank of the tank are the police station, constables’ barrack, inspecting officers’ cook shed, residential quarters of ASI and O/C PS: at the northeast corner of the tank is the post office and post master’s quarter. On the east bank of the tank is an approach path. On the west bank of the tank also there is a similar approach path. On the side of the eastern approach path is the charitable dispensary and also residential quarters of the medical officer and of the compounder. On the side of the western approach path are the Forest Guard’s shed, Forest Deputy Ranger’s office and residential quarters and the residential quarter of the PWD overseer. On the south of the trunk road is the PWD Inspection Bunglow almost due south of the police station. The approach path on either side is about 10 to 12 cubits in width on either side. There is fencing around the tank and a wooden gate at the southern end of the eastern approach path. There is low-lying paddy field on the back of the police station and residential quarters of the police officers and the post office (to the north).

The prosecution evidence has been discrepant in several details. I consider it unnecessary to discuss every one of those discrepancies in this judgment. The broad fact remains that a large number of people consisting of men and women, boys and girls, came to Gohpur in two separate batches, one from the east and the other from the west and halted in front of the eastern and western approach path respectively and that the crowd at both and wanted to go over the approach paths and enter the thana compound. Some of the police officers say that the crowd expressed the desire to occupy the thana and some of them say that they wanted to hoist certain flag in the thana compound. Probably it was the latter objective and through it, the symbolical attainment of the other objective that was the desideratum of the leaders of the crowd. Whatever that may be, it is apparent from the evidence on record that the object of both the groups of crowd was to trespass into thana compound to hoist flag there to the annoyance of the Officer-in- Charge of the thana building and compound. The people in both the groups assembled with that object. The defense has not contested this point seriously. Both the group of the crowd, being composed of under them five persons would be designated unlawful assemblies in view of the definition of an unlawful assembly as given in section 141 IPC third clause. The assembly at the eastern gate does not appear to have used any force in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly. But the assembly at the western approach path used some force, however mild it may have been, in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly in pushing P.W. 1,3 & 4 (police officer and constables) towards the north; as such members of the said assembly committed the offence of rioting technically. This conclusion also the defense does not appear to have seriously contested.

Before coming to discuss the evidence against each accused I should like to discuss briefly on the general aspect of the procession case. I would first take up the question of prosecution story about the incident in general. The first thing that would strike one a perusal of the ejahar (ex. 1) and of the evidence of the police officers on record is that the prosecution appeared to have been on their defense from the start and were always anxious to show up the gravity of the situation and thereby put forward a justification of the firing resorted to by constable Bogaram resulting in the death of two persons and in perhaps grievous injury to a boy. But they have wholly failed in their object in this matter. In the ejahar, it is stated that the first shot went off accidentally and that the second shot was fired to frighten the mob. Constable Bogaram says that the second does not justify this contention. P.W.4 (ASI) admits that in the front were certain girls and some of the accused and other were behind the girls and that he (and also constables P.W. 1&5) fell down when pushed back by the girls. (To be concluded)

Also Read: Is there at all a need for ‘Brahmaputra Pushkaram’?