Disband Salwa Judum

Economic Times Editorial

We endorse the Supreme Court’s disapproval of the creation of anti-Naxal Salwa Judum by the Chhattisgarh government, and the subsequent logistical support and legitimacy it has been extending to what is essentially a private militia. The apex court, while hearing a petition challenging the establishment of Salwa Judum, has rightly observed the state giving “arms to some persons” would mean it is “abetting in a crime if these private persons kill others”.

A democratic state is a keeper of the sovereignty of the people. Any attempt by it to arm one section against another constitutes a clear violation of this principle. It’s time governments realised that Maoist insurgency indicates a crisis of sovereignty for the Indian state. And there is no way it can be overcome without first rendering state institutions inclusive and functionally democratic through a politically-driven process of social transformation.

The Chhattisgarh government has, however, only served to deepen this crisis by aiding and abetting the Salwa Judum. The Judum is, for all practical purposes, a militia of the avaricious local elite, pretending to be an expression of spontaneous local anger against the Maoists. The apex court would do well to accept the plea to set up a committee to visit the camps where local villagers from Naxal-affected areas are reportedly being held against their will.

The perils of political vigilantism have, of late, become much too visible to be ignored. The bloody ‘recapture’ of Nandigram by the CPI(M) cadre last November, or the frequent acts of vandalism carried out by the Shiv Sena and similar outfits to defend Hindu/Maratha culture, point towards a growing propensity to settle disagreements outside the pale of law and institutions.

According vigilante justice primacy over constitutionally ordained legal-judicial procedures risks legitimising private and sectionalist ideas of right and wrong over democratically instituted ideas of justice and fairness. The state would do well to not merely disband the Salwa Judum, but review the entire model of police-civilian cooperation in fighting insurgencies.

 

Call off Salwa Judum

Times of India Editorial

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the legal premise of the Salwa Judum movement in Chhattisgarh. Echoing observations of various civil society groups, the court told the Chhattisgarh government that it was illegal to arm civilians and to allow them to kill. The Chhattisgarh government should now stop defending the indefensible and immediately disband private militias it has put together to fight Maoists.

Surveys by civil society groups have indicated that the movement has been a coercive affair and hardly the voluntary effort the state government claims it to be. It is high time the government recognised the disastrous impact the Salwa Judum has had on the people. Since its inception in 2005, over 50,000 villagers have been displaced from their homes and deprived of livelihoods. Large parts of the state are in a state of civil war.

As the apex court observed, the government cannot abet violence; it is illegal under the Constitution. Maoist violence is a problem that calls for political and administrative solutions. It feeds on social unrest that has resulted from bad governance. Mainstream political parties have failed to stem the rot; instead, these have actively furthered corruption and cornered public funds. Maoist violence is also an outcome of under-policing as authorities simply make up for the lack of professional police by arming private groups. Maoists have attempted to exploit the failures of democratic politics and spread their influence. They have had limited success so far.

Correctives to the failures of democratic politics have to be sought within the constitutional framework. These can’t be achieved by curtailing the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to citizens or by promoting vigilantism. What is needed in states like Chhattisgarh is a right mix of public policies that address problems of education, health and employment and democratic institutions to ensure effective delivery of public funds.

Crony capitalism and private militias are not substitutes for genuine market forces or a professional police force.

A strong civil society is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in public administration. Efforts like Salwa Judum and laws like Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act do not help in the formation of a civil society.

The latter especially has become a handy tool for the state government to stifle voices critical of the administration. Dissent and debate are essential features of a democracy and necessary to foster a democratic public culture. Absence of these leads to state-sponsored repression and only benefits anti-democratic forces including Maoists.

 

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…”