Thakur Ranjit Singh
Auckland, April 26, 2020
It has now emerged from information of the adopted mother of the slain Hitesh Navin Lal that he emerged from a dysfunctional family in Fiji, and was given refuge in New Zealand with them initially.
On the night of killing, he was a very agitated, distressed and disturbed man. He appeared to be a man on a death wish, not wanting to live because of betrayal by his family in Fiji.
Aruna Prasad, wife of Author and former Ba Town Clerk Rajendra Prasad, is the paternal aunt of Hitesh. In Fiji Hindi, we call her Fua, father’s sister.
Troubled relations
Hitesh tragically lost his mother at age 4 and was an abandoned child after his father remarried. Seeing his plight when the Prasad family visited Fiji in 1980s, they decided to adopt and give him love, care and a good future in New Zealand.
Hitesh, according to family and friends, was kind and very hard-working person. He got married and divorced, and later migrated to Australia, worked in mines, saved some money and invested with his family in Ba.
Aruna tells his tragic story
“He was hardworking, kind, compassionate and fearless to a fault. People knew about his trusting nature and the goodness of his heart, which eventually cost his life. Hitesh sincerely wanted to assist his stepmother and two-step brothers in Ba to help them rise out of grinding poverty. He forgave the family …. Felt he had an obligation to help ‘his’ family.
“It appears Hitesh’s compassionate nature was cause of his ruin and death. According to his adopted mother, he decided to invest over $200,000 to buy a 100-acre farm in Ba, planted sandalwood trees and established goat farming business. He also helped the family in establishing kava and liquor business. As things began to show promise, those he trusted turned against him.
“The farm lease was not in his name but in the name of his stepbrother (name withheld). It appears despite all his show of goodwill, his family in Ba turned nasty and asserted ownership of the land and denied any financial assistance that Hitesh and his partner had given them.”
Deceit and torment
Aruna Prasad tells a harrowing story of deceit, mock and torment from those who Hitesh has trusted and regarded as his own, on the night of his death. That night, on Sunday, April 19, 2020, Hitesh’s step-brother, with his friends, called him at 11 pm knowing well about Hitesh’s habit of drinking and when he is most vulnerable, especially knowing also that he has an explosive anger.
He was mocked, tormented and they spoke for about an hour. Hitesh was laughed at for his stupidity and was reminded by the beneficiary of his generosity that he was now a beggar and Hitesh could do nothing to him. His friends also mocked and laughed at him.
This incident mentally ripped and tore Hitesh and he snapped. Soon afterwards, he told his partner that he did not want to live, as everyone he helped betrayed him. In a fit of fury, he left home with a machete, which ended in an encounter with the Police, leading to him being shot and killed. Note that he never hurt any humans, just damaged property. It appeared he left home with the intention of not coming in alive, like somebody with a death wish.
Unanswered Questions
And it appears, with many unanswered questions, the way Police handled this matter, they made it easier for Hitesh to be granted his death wish. It appears, well-trained officers did not respond early, despite being in heart of Manukau and so many calls going to the police. Some have raised the issue whether the dog handler, with a gun is most qualified to handle such a situation.
My Facebook posting have many pros and cons issues.
While the family has absolved the Police from any wrong-doing, they do not entirely remain blameless. We do not question the right of the Police to shoot a person in such a situation.
However there remains many unanswered questions.
As the story above reveals, he was a mentally-disturbed man with a machete and appeared to have a wish to die. And the police appear to have made it so easier for that wish to come true. Here are some unanswered questions: (1) Under the principle of reasonable force, were police reasonable with the force used? (2) Were they consistent and proportionate? (3) The first respondent was a dog-handler. Was he adequately trained to apprehend an assailant alone in such a situation? (4) Or should the dog handler have maintained safe distance till trained units arrived? (5) Why wasn’t a Taser gun used or other methods to disable and/or disarm the offender? (6) Does threatening the New Zealand Police with a machete carry a higher risk of being shot by the Police than when threatened by a gun? (7) Was not shooting to death of Hitesh an overkill? (excuse the pun) and (8) Finally, in situations like this, are Police trained to shoot to kill?
Future improvements
Hope this note of concerns on behalf of our community and the family will make New Zealand Police improve their response in future cases.
And may it also give greater motivation to mainstream and side stream media to be more probing, investigative and act as a guardian of the community.
They need to listen to all sides of the story, without treating the police version as the cardinal truth. Police are not faultless, as Navtej Singh’s case reveals.
And the community may also learn from this to provide support to such people in our community who need our help.
The questions raised above, among others, will help Police Conduct Authority to probe deeper into this case and learn from it to avoid another wanton death.
We extend the deepest sympathy to Aruna Prasad and the extended family of the deceased.
May his soul rest in a more peaceful place now.
Thakur Ranjit Singh is an Auckland-based journalist and media commentator. He is active on Social Media and runs his Blog, ‘Fiji Pundit.’
