New Delhi, May 18th, 2010

One may say, what is there in a name, but imagine the ignominy of the people living in a village of Rajasthan in Hingota Panchayat, District Dausa, who have been fighting pillar to post for over two decades to restore the respectability to the name of their village, originally known as 'Kuwan Ka Vas', but changed to 'Chamaron Ka Vas' in 1987 in land records by a Lekhpal of the area allegedly due to ill will. The village is inhabited by Berwa community.

The then District Collector, Dausa in 2002 did forward their application to the State Government recommending a new name 'Govindpura' for the village, but nothing happened on the ground. In 2006, they took up the matter again with the then District Collector, Dausa, but were not responded well by the officer concerned.

Following this, one Khem Chand and other residents of the concerned village approached the National Human Rights Commission with a complaint, and requested for its intervention in the matter. The Commission on 28thSeptember, 2006 issued a notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan calling for report within eight weeks.

It took almost two years to the Government of Rajasthan to respond to the notice through its Deputy Secretary on 8th August, 2008 saying that no misbehaviour was found to have been committed by the Collector. It said that the state government agreed to change the name of village from 'Chamaron Ka Vas' to 'Kushalpura' with the consent of all the villagers.

The Commission sent a copy of the report to the complainants for their comments. When no comments were submitted, the Commission on the 17th December, 2008 ordered the closure of the case.

Thereafter, another complaint was received in the Commission from Khem Chand in the same year stating that nothing could materialize as the state government was informed by the Union Home Ministry that the name 'Kushalpura' was not acceptable to the Ministry of Railways as there was already a transit railway station 'Kushalpura Halt' which may create confusion. The Union Home Ministry, on the input of the Ministry of Railways, asked state government to suggest another name.

The Commission again took up the matter with the state government, and it was informed on the 9th September, 2009 that a list of alternate names was forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for approval.

Having received no response from the Union Home Ministry and District Collector, Dausa, even after a lapse of five months, the Commission asked the Secretary (Home) and the District Collector, Dausa to submit the status of the case.

The District Magistrate, Dausa said that he had written to the state government of Rajasthan for changing the name, but no information was received.

The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India informed on the 10th March, 2010 that the proposal of change in the name of the village 'Chamaron Ka Vas' to 'Kuwan Ka Vas' is under examination with the Ministry in consultation with other Ministries and Departments. As and when the/views of all concerned are received a final decision shall be taken on the proposal and conveyed to the State Government of Rajasthan.

The Commission in its proceedings on the 5th May, 2010 observed that it "is distressed to note that in a democratic country like India, whose Constitution clearly prohibits any discrimination on the basis of castes, religion, languages etc, the name of the village 'Chamaron Ka Vas' is not only derogatory but, perhaps, also constitutes criminal offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Here is the case which is in direct conflict with the Constitutional mandate.

It is highly frustrating that a matter which was represented against in the year 2006 has dragged on, on account of the bureaucratic rigmarole. If enough sensitivity had been displayed, the name of the village could have been changed much earlier and the feelings of a particular community could have been assuaged.

It will be appropriate to ask Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to get the matter expedited and the decision of the Ministry be communicated to the Commission as early as possible."

The Commission gave six weeks time for the response in the matter.

*****