Based on the 20th January ‘hearing’ (see the previous update), an ‘Order Sheet’ dated 28th January has been issued by the Estate Officer (EO) to each of the dhobis who had appeared for the hearing. The order was hand delivered by a contingent of around 7-8 security personnel and a similar number of Institute officials and the entire proceeding was video recorded.

The Order concludes that “the opposite party (that is dhobis) did not comply to the notice and not vacated” the said premises, and so a ‘Speaking Order’ has been reserved in this case. Though there are minor variations in the Order given to the different dhobis, in substance it is the same. What is striking about the Order is that the claims it makes are directly contradicted by what occurred at the ‘hearing’ on January 20th. Here is our analysis of the Order which highlights these contradictions (one of them can in original be accessed here as a sample):

1.     The Order claims that at the hearing, “the Estate Officer directed the opposite party to submit the facts regarding store occupancy along with documentary evidence.” However, at the hearing, they refused to accept the carefully prepared letter of response (along with documentary evidence) that the dhobis insisted be accepted, and instead, were told it was not required. They were not even given adequate time to state their case, contrary to what is claimed in the order that they were heard in ‘detail’. Instead, in those 3-4 minutes interaction with each of them, they were mostly asked irrelevant questions about their family members and what they owned (TV, fridge, etc.).

2.     The Order then claims that “the opposite party did not produce any document in support of occupancy” of the said premises. This is directly contradicted by the extensive documentary evidence that the dhobis attempted to present to the authorities. These included their allotment letters for residences, stores as well as haudas - washing tanks (few of them in their own names and in some cases in the names of a deceased parent/ grandparent), electricity bills and rentals, hall and Institute work passes and even Aadhar cards with dhobighat as their address. It is to be noted that in some cases, the Institute authorities actually even made copies of some of the documents.

3.     After the 20th January hearing dhobis speed-posted their written depositions to the EO with all the supporting documents. Having received these documents now in spite of rejecting them during the hearing, the Institute has been forced to recognise that some of them have allotment letters in their own names who presented themselves for the hearing. But such documents have been dismissed in these Orders as “the veracity of these documents cannot be ascertained due to not being in the original form.” But the document produced by the dhobis was a copy of the original issued by the Estate Office with exact letter number and date, and so they should have the original in their records to check for veracity.

4.     The Order once again harps back on the first notice issued on November 27, 2024 that the stores/ accommodations are unsafe. Please note that the Institute has yet to release any public report about which buildings in the campus are an earthquake hazard, what the likelihood of such an eventuality is and why only these structures have been singled out to be razed to the ground.

5.     Furthermore, the 3rd January notice for this hearing said that their accommodation as well as their ‘commercial activity’ (dhobi work) is illegal. However, in this Order issued subsequent to the hearing there is no talk of work and workplace of hauda-pata, the facility to dry clothes, etc. It is to be noted that the dhobis have repeatedly said that they are willing to vacate the current dhobighat if they are provided alternate facilities to manually wash, dry, and store the clothes of the thousands that they serve in the campus.

The authorities have been inventing fiction in the name of dhobis and the status of dhobighat all along these two months, but now they have put these falsities in the mouths of the dhobis too. In light of these blatant discrepancies between the claims in the Order and what transpired at the hearing, what ‘justice’ can be expected from the ‘Speaking Order’ that this Order promises? The Institute authorities seems to have made up their minds to evict the dhobis without any appropriate alternate facility to carry on their livelihood. All the processes that they are now undertaking are farcical given the foregone conclusion. It reminds us of the justice meted out by the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: Sentence first - verdict afterward.

We appeal to all of the concerned community to seek facts from the authorities. The Institute needs to put their side in public domain, as the dhobis have been doing all along, before any precipitative action against the dhobis.

__________

PS.: Note that we have based our analysis on the English version. Dhobis were given the Hindi version too which has serious problems of translation and at places means exactly the opposite to the English version! Please also note that English is very far from accessible to the dhobis. And yet, the Order clearly states that “In case of any discrepancy, English version will prevail.”