Chhattisgarh opposition wants civil militia wound up

Opposition parties in Chhattisgarh Wednesday asked the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to wind up the state backed anti-Maoist civil militia movement, Salwa Judum. The opposition remarks came after the Supreme Court Monday ticked off the Chhattisgarh government for arming tribals to form the Salwa Judum. The apex court said the people couldn’t be armed and encouraged to take law into their own hands.

Welcoming the observation by the court, Congress leader Ajit Jogi said: “Chief Minister Raman Singh should take moral responsibility for killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in recent years in Maoist violence.

“Raman Singh government supplied arms to militia cadres to fight Maoists for the sake of political gains that has actually now threatened the existence of tribal community in Bastar. Hundreds of innocent people (are) massacred and bodies dumped in forests,” Jogi, a tribal leader and former chief minister, told IANS.

Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) state unit asked the government to wind up the Salwa Judum movement in the wake of the apex court’s remarks.

“The government has put tribal civilians against one another in Bastar by promoting Salwa Judum that has resulted in bloodshed. The movement must be wound up to protect human rights and the tribal community,” a CPI-M statement said.

Salwa Judum, which translates as peace mission, is a controversial anti-Maoist movement formed in June 2005 to bring the area dominated by leftist guerrillas back under government control.

Human rights organisations have also blamed the BJP government for funding and arming the Salwa Judum. They allege that the government tactics have created a major law and order problem in the state’s southern Bastar region, as the militia cadres have taken the law into their own hands.

The state government says it is studying the court observations to take further action.

Linked from

 

Vigilante State

Editorial, the Nav Hind Times

THIS is not for the first time that a state government has tried to drag the observation of the Supreme Court into controversy on the plea that it was an obiter dicta; an observation, which is not a judgement. nor even part of the order-sheet of case. No doubt it was an oral observation but the apex court on Monday while indicted the Chhatisgarh government for arming civilians with the sole intention of killing other civilians, it also sought to know from it the legal status of the Salwa Judum movement. Irrespective of the position held by the state government and its police on the apex court observation, the fact is this has exposed the state government’s claim about the fairness in letting masses take the law into their hands. What is significant is the Bench comprising of the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Aftab Alam also observed that the state could not distribute arms to individuals in the name of countering insurgency as this amounted to abatement of crime and agreed to the demand of the human rights group for an inquiry into the operations of Salwa Judum. It is indeed a matter of shame that the state police chief instead of taking the observation of the apex court in right spirit was indulging in the blame game and was resorting to white lies by denouncing the existence of Salwa Judum training camps. But the fact is the political executives of the states have been going around boasting of the achievements and striking power of the Salwa Judum. The state government instead of hiding behind the facade legal jargons, should ensure that civil society does not disintegrate. Arming the people to fight the naxalite is the right panacea. The government must allow the democratic system to function effectively and at the same time should ensure that benefits of the development reach to the rural poor and corruption is weeded out at the micro level.

 

A bad idea called Salwa Judum

Promoting political violence in the name of curbing Left insurgency is not only a bad idea, but could be a precursor to criminalization of society notes Live Mint

The Centre on Monday argued before the Supreme Court that salwa judum, a “defensive movement” of armed people in Chhattisgarh, is necessary and is part of a well-defined model of police-public cooperation. It has also argued that given the lack of resources, there is no option but for citizens to defend themselves.

This is a disingenuous argument. Promoting political violence in the name of curbing Left insurgency is not only a bad idea, but could be a precursor to criminalization of society. The one country that took recourse to such tactics, Colombia, is today a political disaster. Lacking security resources to fight militants, the state armed the local people. Colombia has never looked back: Today, right-wing paramilitaries and murderous Left guerrillas dot the landscape.

Perhaps that is stretching the analogy too far. Then maybe not. The Centre’s argument was similar to the one that Colombia put in place: It did not have enough security personnel. Hence its support to salwa judum.

Equally disingenuous is the attempt to link the salwa judum with village defence committees (VDCs) of the kind that operate in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Not only are the two situations wholly different, but so are the dynamics of interaction between the two sets of opponents, terrorists and villagers in J&K and faction-ridden tribal people in Chhattisgarh.

A group of concerned citizens and academics who went on a fact-finding mission to Chhattisgarh in 2007, concluded that far from countering the Maoist threat, the “movement” had splintered tribal society in the state. Neighbours who had coexisted with each other for long suddenly became enemies. Village after village was emptied and locals now live in abysmal conditions in ring-fenced camps. Instead of improving the security situation, people live in fear.

Security “experts” worldwide believe in the efficacy of such programmes. The dream often is to empty villages in insurgency-ridden landscapes, thus isolating the militants and then “finishing off” the job of destroying them. The strategic hamlet programme in Vietnam is perhaps the best known example of such attempts. Perhaps our “experts” ought to revisit that disastrous experience.

 

Police kills 3 tribals living in Matwada Camp, Bijapur

The bodies of three tribals living in Matwada camp of Bijapur have been discovered under suspicious circumstances. It is suspected that they were killed by the SPOs and Police. Read the news report in Bhaskar Dainik Bhaskar here ( Hindi)

 

Supreme Court disapproves of arming Salwa Judum

J. Venkatesan in The Hindu

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its disapproval of the constitution of the ‘Salwa Judum’ (self-defence groups) by the Chhattisgarh government and giving them arms to tackle the naxal menace.

Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, heading a two-Judge Bench, asked Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam: “How can the State give arms to some persons? The State will be abetting in a crime if these private persons kill others.”

 

The Bench that included Justice Aftab Alam was hearing a petition filed by Nandini Sundar, Ramachandra Guha and E.A.S. Sarma challenging the setting up of Salwa Judum.

 

Government’s Support to Salwa Judum Amounts to Endorsing Vigilantism says Supreme Court

Campaign for Peace & Justice in Chhattisgarh

c/o F-10/12, GF, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi

Phone: 9868099304 / 9868076576

Website: www.cpjc.wordpress.com Email: cpjcindia@gmail.com

PRESS RELEASE

31^st March 2008

Noting that the State cannot distribute arms to individuals in the name of countering insurgency as this amounts to abetment of crime, a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Aftab Alam today said there could be no objection to an independent enquiry into Salwa Judum. They were hearing two Writ Petitions regarding Salwa Judum-one filed by Nandini Sundar, Ramchandra Guha and EAS Sarma and the other by Kartam Joga, Dudhi Joga and Manish Kunjam. The Bench said they were very disturbed by the petitions and that this was a very serious case. The Bench noted that the current policy of the government regarding Salwa Judum amounted to endorsing vigilantism and that such lawlessness cannot be tolerated.

The petitioners reiterated that the Salwa Judum was a state sponsored vigilante force that had been responsible for extreme violence in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, Chhattisgarh, and for forcing people into camps. The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Desai and Mr. T. R. Andhyarujina, argued that there were already independent reports, which contained a scathing critique of Salwa Judum, such as the report of the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights and the Administrative Reforms Commission. The Bench gave the petitioners permission to file an application seeking an independent enquiry with particulars. The next hearing was fixed for the 15^th of April 2008.

 

Policy of Salwa Judum needs to be relooked: Administrative Reforms Council

New Delhi, Mar 18 (PTI) In view of the growing menace of Left wing extremism, mainly in Chhattisgarh, Administrative Reforms Commission has said the situation “continues to cause serious concern” and favoured a relook in the policy of ‘Salwa Judum’ (self-defence groups) in the state. While Chhattisgarh tops the list of 11 States with maximum incidents and deaths due to naxal activities since 2003, the Commission chaired by Veerappa Moily, in its latest report, said even though there is a need to enhance the capacity of security forces to tackle naxalism, the government needs to formulate policies for infrastructure and social development in such disturbed areas.

Referring to ‘Salwa Judum’, the Commission in its seventh report titled “Capacity Building for Conflict Resolution” said, “the situation in the region has not been helped by raising of local resistance groups called Salwa Judum.” It adds, “even though Salwa Judum is publicised as a spontaneous awakening of the masses against extremist, today thousands of tribals are protected in fortified camps pointing to disturbed life they are forced to lead.

” The report mentioned that these camps have been attacked by extremists leading to several deaths and said, “in the process, the poor tribals have been caught between the legitimate sovereign power of the State and the illegitimate coercive power of the extremist who deliver instant justice through peoples’ courts and other informal devices.” ‘Salwa Judum’, an initiative supported by the State government had come in for criticism previously from various political as well as Human Rights Groups.

PTI.

 

Fact finding report on Child rights

The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) conducted a fact finding visit from 17th to 19th December 2007, to Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) and Khammam (Andhra Pradesh), in order to assess the status of children’s health and education in the situation of civil unrest in Dantewada district. The fact-finding team comprised Dr. Shantha Sinha (Chairperson, NCPCR), Mr. J.M. Lyngdoh (Former Chief Election Commissioner of India), and Mr. Venkat Reddy (MV Foundation, Hyderabad).

The complete report can be read here

Excerpts:

“…During the team’s visit to the Dantewada Region, the members’ were struck by the enormous tragedies of one and all especially the tribals, their family members, women and children. This is indeed unfortunate. We strongly feel that the State has an obligation to extricate them from the unusual circumstances they have been caught in and ensure their security and fundamental human rights as paramount concerns…”

 

Can private militias be legal?

Bijo Francis in UPI Asia Online

Can legality be attributed to an armed private militia known for its systematic violence against ordinary people? The simple common sense answer to this question is an emphatic NO; yet this is what the Supreme Court of India has been asked to decide recently. The militia in question is known as Salwa Judum. Litigation in the public interest has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the state government’s support of this militia, on which the court is expected to decide in the coming days. 

 Salwa Judum is a private militia sponsored by corrupt politicians in Chhattisgarh. It was allegedly formed to protect villagers from assault by Maoist groups operating inside and outside Chhattisgarh. The Judum operates in public view, their cadres recruited by serving and retired police or military officers and trained in using weapons and employing armed attack strategies. After the recruitment and training, before deployment the cadres are given official titles as special police officers.  

In the past two years, cases of rape, murder and extortion were reportedly carried out by the Judum in Chhattisgarh. A simple Internet search will provide thousands of links to well-documented articles and reports about the Judum and their atrocious activities. The Judum has been known to recruit child soldiers and use them as human shields. Their activities resemble those of fundamentalist religious groups or armed secessionist groups — acts of organized crime committed against innocent persons with impunity.  

Yet when the case was filed in the Supreme Court, the Chhattisgarh state government defended the Judum by trying to categorize it as a “village people’s association” against extremist forces. The central government of India has also supported the Judum in several ways. An affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh state administration in the court tries to justify its support to the Judum. The state administration has been openly promoting the group’s activities by promising that cadres recruited and trained by the group will be absorbed into the state police force.  

The intention of the state administration in supporting the Judum is quite obvious. The Judum cadres, who are not affiliated with the government, can get away with any criminal activities they are asked to commit while the government insulates itself from responsibility.  

For example, the Judum is responsible for forcibly evicting tribal communities from their ancestral grounds so the land could be sold by the state administration to private companies for excavation of minerals and other natural resources. These activities contravene Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the government of India has sworn to promote, protect and fulfill with regard not only to its own citizens, but to the international community as well.  

In Chhattisgarh, rivers, forests and other tribal lands are being sold by the state administration to multinational and national companies in the name of industrial development. Those who resist are exterminated by the Judum and those who organize protests are branded as anti-state activists. Not a single case has been registered against any of the Judum cadres, though human rights activists who raised their voices against the militia have been charged with crimes and detained. The case of Dr. Binayek Sen is just one example. Sen, a renowned pediatrician and activist, is still in custody after repeatedly been denied bail by the Supreme Court.  

Salva Judum is not an isolated group in India. There are several such private militia operating with the blessing of state governments. Most of them were started by Hindu fundamentalist groups, whereas Salva Judum’s parentage is traced to a Congress politician, though its functions are supported by a Hindu fundamentalist state government.  

Yet the Judum did not come into existence in a vacuum. Any armed movement, whether the people join it voluntarily or otherwise, whether it is state sponsored or not, is the reflection of intolerance in society. This intolerance may have diverse reasons, but one element that coexists with intolerance is exploitation. Salva Judum is an organized, state-sponsored tool intentionally created for exploitation. When the people’s inability to tolerate exploitation reaches its maximum threshold, the society degenerates into chaos. This is what is being alarmingly reported from India. 

 In the past year there have been more than 50 cases of mob justice reported from India. In most of these cases a person suspected of committing a minor crime was beaten up and often killed by a violent mob. These mob attacks on suspects are a reflection of the people’s lack of trust in the mechanisms of justice. When the official justice system fails to deliver true justice, the people take the law into their own hands. Of course the result of such spontaneous actions might be way beyond justice. In short, when people believe that unless they take the law into their own hands justice will not be served, society will degenerate into a state of anarchy and madness.  

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in the case of Salwa Judum will have far-reaching implications. Given that anti-state activities are spreading across the country – in the name of Maoism or Naxalism or whatever name one may attribute to such activities – the court’s decision will impact the law-and-order situation in India. If the court decides that Judum and its activities are legal, hundreds of such forces will be free to operate across India. 

 In a country that is ethnically, religiously, geographically and linguistically diverse, such a judgment could be the unwarranted catalyst for trouble. If the court decides that a militia like the Judum is illegal and the state has a responsibility to prevent such organizations, without defining what is legal and what is not, the state can use the judgment as an excuse to prevent any association, whether peaceful or not, within the country. 

 The Supreme Court has an enormous responsibility in these circumstances. The Supreme Court of India in the past has discharged its role as an instrument for social engineering with commendable skill. The expansion of the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, from a mere guarantee of the “right to life” to include everything that is conceivable for the “right to a decent and peaceful life,” is just one example.  

But that was in the past. In recent years the court has shown a tendency to restrict personal liberty by delivering some of the most lopsided judgments. A recent judgment limiting the scope of public interest litigation, which forced the court to subsequently clarify its position, is an example.  

What is required in India today is not just a judgment-delivering court. India needs a judiciary that will not just sit and decide cases, ignoring the social realities, but one that would deliver justice, in its full legal sense.

 

Bloody Padyatras to begin again

Since the initiation of Salwa Judum, Padyatras or rallies in which armed SPOs and Salwa Judum members set out to ‘persuade’ villages to join them and root out sangham members, have been used to take Salwa Judum to new areas. These padyatras have always left a trail of blood and gore behind them. Salwa Judum members and SPOs loot, rape and burn houses and villages at will. Anybody who shows reluctance in leaving behind their house, fields and villages and joining Salwa Judum or going to the so called relief camps are accused of being sangham members and tortured or killed. The padyatras were often flagged off the District Collector, Superintendent of Police or Mahendra Karma who is one of the people responsible for the on-going genocide of Adivasis in south Bastar.

Media reports over the past few weeks say that Karma is planning to restart these padyatras, this time from the interiors of Bijapur district and neighbouring Dantewada. Though all this is done in the name of ‘rooting’ out Naxalites, what it will inevitably unleash another round of violence, brutality on the ordinary citizens of Dantewada and Bijapur.