Revati Laul speaks on being assaulted by 2002 riots convict and how the incident won’t deter her

On January 21, 2016, former NDTV and Tehelka journalist Revati Laul was allegedly assaulted by Suresh Chhara, a rape convict in the 2002 Gujarat riots. Laul is currently writing a book on the perpetrators of the riots in Gujarat in 2002. We reached out to Laul to know what happened and she told us that while researching for her book, she had come to build a close rapport with Chhara’s wife. According to her, Chhara had come out on parole and allegedly raped his wife in July 2015. With nobody else to go to, Chhara’s wife approached Laul for help. After helping the woman obtain a legal separation from Chhara, Laul turned into the target of his rage.

Laul has been in touch with the family for the whole of last year. The first time she came face to face with Chhara was in November, 2015, when she was helping his wife obtain a separation from him. Since then, Laul had visited his house several times, in his absence, to talk to his wife and son. She wanted to see the man through their eyes.

So what really happened on the day of the assault?

Laul told us that on Wednesday afternoon, she received a call from Chhara’s wife saying that he had received parole and that he had returned home. Laul immediately set off for Chhara’s house to try and interview him. Around 7 pm, she reached the slum where he lived. She was greeted by the son and informed that his father was in the bathroom. Chhara then walked out dressed in a lungi. Laul told us that when she walked in, he took off his lungi and exposed his underwear. A little embarrassed, Laul excused herself and went to the courtyard so that he could get dressed. “Chhara stepped out, ordered a cold drink and we started speaking,” she says. “About five minutes later, Chhara demanded to know what his wife had told me. When I began answering, he went ballistic and suddenly lunged at my face. Then he picked me up by the hair, threw me against the wall and started hitting me. I began screaming for help. Upon hearing the commotion, all the neighbours came out to see what was going on,” she recalls. Laul says the neighbours were hostile towards her, but Chhara’s son tried his utmost to help her. Having escaped the convict’s clutches, Laul dashed across the road. Chhara’s fifteen year old son tried to calm her down and asked her to return to the compound, but she wasn’t taking any chances with her life at stake. She tried to take an auto, but all the drivers refused, while, earlier, she had no problems hailing autos from that location. Finally, she got into an auto and as it was leaving, one of the neighbours tried to enter the auto with her. Beating him away, Laul directed the driver to take her to a police station, where she registered a complaint against Chhara.

What is truly frightening is that a man who was convicted for rape is allowed to roam free. Revati Laul exasperatedly asks this question of the court. “I want to know if the system of parole is arbitrarily applied based on who has power or control in a particular area. I don’t know why he was granted parole this time. The sensible reason is that it’s because his daughter has gone missing. However, his daughter went missing a month and a half ago so there’s no reason for him to get parole precisely at this time. And given the fact that the last time he was given parole, he raped his wife, what is the court doing to ensure he doesn’t go after people and take out his anger against those he feels deserves it?” she asks.

Chhara has been rearrested. Laul has been in Gujarat for a year. She says her book will be an exploration of mob violence and that she plans to write in Truman Capote style. In the past year, she has spoken to at least 15 people convicted in different cases related to the 2002 riots, but has never experienced such behaviour from any of them. In the past, she found herself in the midst of violent mobs, but none of them had directed their anger at her.

When asked if the assault would deter her from writing her book, Laul answers with an emphatic “no”. This story is yet another instance of the dangers that journalists are exposed to, in the course of the job.