Political economist, Parakala Prabhakar delivered the Father Stan Swamy Memorial Lecture, St. Patrick’s High School, Secunderabad July 11, 2026. Here is the full text of the lecture:

Dignitaries on the dais and my dear friends,

I felt sad, was moved to tears, when Father Stan Swamy died. There was a chapter on him in my book, The Crooked Timber of New India. The title of the chapter is ‘Who Killed Father Stan Swamy?’ You would have noticed that I asked, ‘who killed’ Stan Swamy’. I meant that he did not simply die. I meant that he was, indeed, killed.

Today I am not asking the same question. I am asking a different one: ‘Who is afraid of Stan Swamy?’ I further ask, ‘Why are they afraid of him?’

In April this year, I went to Bagaicha, Namkum, on the outskirts of Ranchi. I spent two days there. I delivered a lecture on the occasion of his Jayanthi. It was called ‘Stan Swamy Jayanthi Vimarsa.’

 Today I am here not to share my sorrow with you. I am here to celebrate the life of Father Stan Swamy, and together with you to draw inspiration from the values he stood for, and his work to uphold them.

I am grateful to the organisers for giving me an opportunity to speak on this occasion.

A Few Concerns

Before I proceed further, I would like to caution you all about a few things that worry me these days. Some of you might have come across these alarm bells. I say these cautionary words whenever I get an opportunity to address a gathering, big or small. Those who heard these few lines before should forgive me for repeating. I repeat them because I strongly feel that they are important, and bear repetition.

First caution. If some people in this gathering think that we can continue to hold this kind of meetings in future, I appeal to them to shed that delusion. Even now in many parts of the country it is becoming increasingly difficult to air our views freely, and without consequences. If things go the way they are going now, soon it will be impossible to impossible to hold such meetings.

Second. This year it is nearly certain that our beloved tricolour will fly on the Red Fort on our Independence Day. But come next year, I am not sure. Anyone here can guess the colour of the flag that is a likely to fly.

Third. Recently the Union Home Ministry has issued a circular. It makes the singing of all the six stanzas of Vandemataram, compulsory. It also specified that it should be sung before Jana Gana Mana. If the present drift continues unchecked, sooner than later, Jana Gana Mana could be gradually phased out. If the ten-hour marathon debate on Vandemataram in our Lok Sabha tells us anything, it is this.

Our Parliament does not discuss people’s issues any longer. It has no time for them. There has been no discussion on unemployment, price rise, situation in Manipur, rural distress in the country, falling exchange value of the rupee, operation Sindoor, Chinese occupation of large tracts of our territory, falling domestic investment, and many such urgent issues. But our Lok Sabha found time for a ten-hour marathon discussion on Vande Mataram.

If we let the present drift continue unchecked, these three dangerous possibilities would soon be realities.

There is one more danger in the making, the fourth. Recently the government has constituted a High-Level Committee on Demographic Changes (HLCDC). You have to read its terms of reference to understand its import and what it could do to our society. The repeated use of the term ‘illegal immigration’ is a giveaway of the present dispensation’s intentions behind embarking on an exercise like this.

Our Values

When I remember Father Stan Swamy and think of how we look at him and the regime looked at him, I am reminded of William Blake’s words:

A tree that moves some to tears is to others a green thing that stands in the way… As a man is, so he sees.

We all share a set of values and ideals. The best expression of those values was given by Father Stan Swamy just before his arrest on October 8, 2020.

This is what he said: 

“Over the last two decades, I have identified myself with the Adivasi people and their struggle for a life of dignity and self-respect… In this process, I have clearly expressed my dissent over several policies and laws enacted by the government in light of the Indian Constitution. I have questioned the validity, legality, and justness of several steps taken by the government and the ruling class. If this makes me a ‘deshdrohi,’ then so be it. We are part of the process. In a way, I am happy to be part of this process. I am not a silent spectator, but part of the game and ready to pay the price, whatever it may be… I/we must be ready to face the consequences. I would just add that what is happening to me is not unique. Many activists, lawyers, writers, journalists, student leaders, poets, intellectuals, and others who stand for the rights of Adivasis, Dalits, and the marginalised and express their dissent to the ruling powers are being targeted. I am grateful to all who have stood in solidarity with me all these years.”

Let me take out the important words and expressions from what he said and make a list of them.

Adivasis; Dalits; the marginalised; ruling powers; struggle for a life of dignity and self-respect; dissent; solidarity; Indian Constitution; validity; legality; justness; deshdrohi; silent spectator; pay the price; face the consequences.

Situation in the Country 

Economy 

There are some stubbornly enduring features of the present dispensation in the economic domain. It is not able to shed them even well into its third consecutive term: Ad hoc-ism in policy making, reluctance to learn from past mistakes, denial of lived economic reality of the common people, massaging of data to present a rosy picture of the economy, believing its own propaganda (though it is initially meant for setting PR narratives), wrongly interpreting its electoral successes as an endorsement, if not an outcome, of its record of economic performance.

The government remains resolute in sticking to the denial mode. It takes little note of the economic slowdown, the tapering off of capital inflows into the country, flight of capital from India, decline in the domestic private investment despite reduction in corporate taxes, the much-hyped Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme and the so-called ‘crowding in’ of public investment. The unorganised sector in the country is largely in decline or in stagnation is no concern to it. We all know that this is the sector that can give at least subsistence incomes to the vast majority of our people.

Instead, the present dispensation is spending time ideating on how to ‘add more momentum to the reforms journey’, ensure ‘ease of living’ and ‘ease of doing business’. For whom?

Evidently, for a few of its cronies.

Much of the credit offtake in the country is now for consumption. Problems such as rising cost of living especially for the poor and the marginalised, unacceptably high youth unemployment and unemployment among the educated do not matter to it. One of the high-profile economic policy makers is on record saying that it was not the lack of opportunities but lack of aspiration that kept our young people out of work.

Little did he realise that both the organised and unorganised sectors are unable to absorb the labour force. Rising economic inequality matters little to the dispensation. Its policy wonks even exhort us ‘not to lose sleep over inequality’.

The present dispensation lacks appetite for an honest review of its past initiatives and for course correction. That demonetisation has done little to serve any objective, assuming it had even one. It decimated thousands of small businesses and establishments in the unorganised sector. That ghastly experience offered no lessons to it. Even the after-thought sort of objective of reducing cash transactions in the economy remains unserved nearly eight years after the measure. One glance at the disaggregated data of UPI transactions is enough to tell us that.

The dispensation is tone deaf to the plight of the poor and the marginalised.

That damage itself is difficult to undo. But what accompanied that damage is more serious: the institutional compromise that occurred and continues even today. The foremost is the compromise of our economic data infrastructure. Our national accounts estimates have become questionable. They are contestable not merely from the methodological and base-year points of view. Their integrity in collection, lazy erroneous proxying, reporting, analysing and computing have come under a cloud.

Our statistical architecture is now undependable. It is recognised as untrustworthy by global financial agencies. The Planning Commission was perhaps oversized and might not have been the most efficient institution. But at least it did not give the government of the day inaccurate data tailored to suit its political needs. Its replacement, the NITI Aayog, is yet to do anything worthwhile in the last twelve years other than that.

The Reserve Bank of India has been bleeding billions of dollars to protect the rupee’s exchange rate vis-a-vis the US dollar. However, its intervention could only prevent a sudden steep fall but not arrest the currency’s steep slide. Rupee continues to reach newer lows every trading day. The government does not seem to have come to grips with the fundamental problems plaguing the rupee and figure out why it is the worst performing Asian currency today. It is in denial. It wants to look for reasons only in the global headwinds.

The present dispensation is genetically unfit to getting the economy right. Its sole preoccupation is to recast the polity in a majoritarian mould. It has no economic project for the country. Its sole aim seems to be the enrichment of a few of its cronies.

It would be a mistake to think that the last twelve years have been bad for the country’s economic performance alone.

The present dispensation is fundamentally altering the political society of the country. That is equally a serious problem.

Polity: Dismantling Secular, Inclusive India

The present dispensation is fiendishly working to dismantle the idea of India as a secular, plural, and federal state that pledged itself to delivering liberty, equality, justice and fraternity to its people and to foster a humane society. The idea of India embedded in our 1947 tryst with destiny and the political compact enshrined in our 1950 constitution are now in mortal danger.

The secular, plural, democratic conception of India has been the target of unrelenting assaults from this dispensation and several other past-worshipping obscurantist platforms. They have been openly and doggedly championing an unequal social order. Their project is to seek India’s future in its past; to recover from that imaginary past a fabricated pristine glory; to turn the secular, democratic Republic into a culturally, linguistically, religiously homogenized nation. The idea that Indian civilization is a synthesis, and a palimpsest, is abhorrent to them. Their project’s notion of India seeks to obliterate the rich diversity of cultures, languages, lifestyles, eating habits, sartorial practices, ways of worship and syncretism that our country is blessed with.

A flattened India is their notion of a ‘civilizational’ state. That is the goal of the current dispensation. 

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is but one key element in a grand project that seeks to assert exclusive Hindu ownership of the Indian nation, to make that Hindu-owned nation the sole rightful resident in the territory of the Indian state – and turn it into a Hindu nation-state, a Hindu Rashtra. It seeks to redefine the country’s identity as ‘Hindu nation-state’. In that configuration ‘savarna’ is deliberately muted and made illegible for the time being for tactical reasons.

Eventually, when constraints are broken, it would be unveiled as a full-blooded, unapologetic, wall to wall ‘savarna Hindu Rashtra’. Make no mistake.

Bloodless Political Genocide 

When we became a Republic, our founding parents made it a home for everyone who lived in its territory. Membership of the Republic, and citizenship, were not predicated on religion, caste, gender, language, culture, region of residence, colour, economic status, educational qualifications and such other attributes. Everyone who chose India as their land of residence was a citizen, also a voter, and thus a full-fledged member of the country’s political society. Denominational attributes did not privilege one or the other as rightful owners of the nation. Everybody was. Janmabhumi was the sole criterion. We did not entertain Punyabhumi as a criterion for our citizenship or membership of our political society.

Europe went through a different experience when nation states were formed. There were people who rightfully belonged and those who were ‘others’ or minorities. That was the basis of European nation-states. There were majorities and minorities. Not political, but on the basis of birth, race, religion, language, culture. Minorities’ residence was predicated on their becoming tolerable to the majorities. European countries, and countries which adopted that model of building their nation-states, either subjugated minorities, pushed them out of their territories, or even exterminated them. Beginning from the cleansing of the Iberian peninsula in the mid and late 15^th century until the ethnic cleansing that Israel carries out today, history is witness to many bloody attempts to forge homogenized nations. Nazi gas chambers were the most dastardly consequence of this project.

But in India our founding parents and freedom fighters chose a different path. They designed our collective life in a way that the state gave room for everyone, despite their diversity, to live together and thrive.

But ideologies in India that draw their inspiration from the inhumane European concept of nation-owned state want our Republic too to be turned into a state, owned by one nation – the Hindu nation. The present dispensation belongs to that ideological stable. In its conception of a Republic, the ‘others’ needed to be assimilated to the point of obliterating their respective identities, pushed out of the territory of the nation-state, or exterminated through genocide.

Remember, the ideological formulation articulated by the current ruling dispensation a few years ago? It said that there are three ways to deal with the minorities: Tiraskar (Rejection), Puraskar (Appeasement), Samskar (Reform and assimilation).

Initially when the country’s secular consensus was strong, it said that it was not practical to reject a large minority. So Tiraskar was ruled out then. But at the same time, it said, that appeasement or Puraskar was not an ideal option. It wanted to work on the gradual assimilation of minorities, Samskar, into the Hindu fold to the extent that their religious identity and other markers are completely obliterated. You may have heard, expressions from some majoritarians, like, ‘that individual is a Christian, but a good person; that person is a Muslim, but a good individual.’ Meaning, despite being a Christian or a Muslim, ‘they are like us and therefore, tolerable and acceptable.’ That is the harmless looking beginning to the formulation that others had to become ‘tolerable’ and ‘acceptable’ to earn their right to be part of India.

After a few years of unsuccessful dabbling in that experiment, the current dispensation’s ideology finally brought back the initially discarded option on to the top of its political agenda: Rejection, Tiraskar. With the weakening of the secular consensus, or even its breakdown, Rejection has now morphed into Ejection. Ejection from the country’s political society.

Remember, what Shri LK Advani used to say with reference to Muslim minority? He said, ‘with you, without you, in spite of you’. Meaning, ‘if they come along, with them; if they don’t, without them; and if they oppose, in spite of them’ That is a pointer to exclusion of minorities if they do not play along and assimilate or accept an unequal and subordinate place in the country’s political, economic and social life. Lynchings, bulldozing of houses, vandalizing churches on Christmas Eve are physical expressions of these formulations.

Today, look at the political reality in our country. For the first time in the history of independent India, the union council of ministers has no representative from either the Muslim or the Christian minority community. A few weeks ago, even the token presence of a Christian minority presence in the union ministry was dispensed with. The ministry is now composed exclusively of persons from the so-called Indic religions. The task of exclusion in the domain of political representation in the executive is more or less accomplished.

But what could be done about the political society? In the present-day India, both the pushing out and physical extermination of unassimilated minorities are politically impractical.

However, extermination of a political kind of the others is possible.

Instead of exterminating the citizen, citizenship could be exterminated. The ongoing SIR is the weapon forged for that kind of extermination. It exterminates citizenship of those unwanted, impure elements by exterminating their franchise. It is clear that without franchise, citizenship is hollow, without substance. Disenfranchisement hollows out citizenship.

Therefore, SIR is nothing but a bloodless political genocide. It exterminates citizenship, pushes people out of the political society, makes people stateless even as they continue to live within the borders of the Indian state. What CAA-NRC could not do, SIR is tasked to accomplish.

The idea of India as a state-nation (in contradistinction to a nation-state) that is home to diverse peoples, cultures, languages and religions is being dismantled at a fiendish pace.

Stan Swamy’s words once again 

This is the place where we need to recall the key words that I listed out from the statement made by Father Stan Swamy just before he was taken into custody on 8 October 2020.

Let me utter those words once again here:

Adivasis; Dalits; the marginalised; ruling powers; struggle for a life of dignity and self-respect; dissent; solidarity; Indian Constitution; validity; legality; justness; deshdrohi; silent spectator; pay the price; face the consequences.

Many studies have already clearly established that it is the Adivasis, the Dalits, the marginalized sections and specifically women among them who are being systematically targeted for deletion in the ongoing process of SIR.

Father Stan Swamy would have stood for them.

Today many in both the rural and urban India are battling for a life of dignity and self-respect.

Father Stan Swamy would have helped them wage their battles.

He would have given them the much-needed solidarity.

Our country’s social compact of secularism, plurality, federalism, diversity, justice, fraternity, equality and liberty are in mortal danger today.

Fr Stan Swamy would not have been a silent spectator in the face of an onslaught on these core values of our Constitution.

He would have risked being called a Deshdrohi and spoken out for them.

He was already called that. He would not have minded being called a Deshdrohi a thousand times over, and pay the price, if he were to express his dissent and face the consequences.

Whatever they might be.

I am sure, he would want us to do that.

Father Stan Swamy did not make noise. He was quietly working in the remote and neglected parts of the country.

The current dispensation was afraid of a frail, unwell, octogenarian.

That is because he personified all the values that are needed for our country, that are dear to us but are inimical to the project of the powers that be in Delhi.

Thank you for your attention.

Related:

Did Indian Democracy fail Father Stan Swamy?

To a living Saint, now dead five years: Meeting to commemorate July 5

Why Adivasis seek to re-assert their traditional identity

The post Who is afraid of Stan Swamy? And why? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Speaking at a memorial meeting in Bandra, Mumbai, Teesta Setalvad reflects on the extraordinary journey of the 84-year-old Jesuit priest who dedicated decades of his life to defending Adivasi communities, battling systemic injustice, achieving path-breaking victories through India’s judicial system.

Setalvad also recalls his constitutional values, his powerful writings, and the circumstances that led to his incarceration under the UAPA in the Bhima Koregaon case.

As his health deteriorated in custody, repeated pleas for bail were denied.

He died a sick man, a victim of a failed system.

The post Did Indian Democracy fail Father Stan Swamy? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A meeting to commemorate the fifth death anniversary of Father Stan Swamy was held yesterday, Sunday, July 5. Organised by the Bombay Catholic Sabha at the Loyola Hall, it was well attended by close to two hundred Mumbaikars. Invited speakers spoke on the theme “Fr. Stan and his belief in the Constitution”

After a welcome address by Norbert Mendonca, President BCS, Father Luke Rodrigues of the Saint Peters Church initiated the meeting by appealing for efforts to take Father Stan Swamy’s message and sterling work forward amongst the people as the best tribute to Father Swamy and his legacy

Teesta Setalvad, Secretary of Citizens for Peace recounted her Father Stan Swamy’s extensive writings and documentation of the injustices and non-implementation of the laws that accord land rights to Adivasis, in Jharkand and elsewhere. Father Stan Swamy wrote regularly for Sabrangindia and his articles may be read here, here and here. Father Swamy’s biggest strength was his tireless work among Indian Adivasis, especially the indigenous peoples of Jharkand, Setalvad said, urging that his death and the incarceration of dozens of political prisoners whould compel rights groups and citizens to redouble efforts to get the draconian UAPA law, repealed. Read analyses of this law here and here.

Setalvad also detailed how Father Stan was unjustly targeted with the “(im) planting of documents and other evidence” in his computer, facts which came to light in December 2022, ten months after his death through the Arsenal Report that was first published both in The Washington Post and on the NDTV portal. This evidence, she said exposed the work of a malafide state. Campaigns to Repeal the UAPA and to ensure improved Prison Conditions should be the best way to take Father Stan Swamy’s legacy ahead

A message from Father Fraser Mascerenhas was also read out at the event where he emphasised the need to use the occasion of Father Stan Swamy’s death anniversary to renew the commitment for social justice for the disadvantaged and called upon all citizens to honour the Constitution by speaking out against injustice

Irfan Engineer, Director CSSS read out messages of solidarity from both Citizens for Democracy and senior activists Surendra Gadling and Dinkar Gota – who have undertaken a one day fast in memory of Father Stan Swam on July 5. Engineer further highlighted the work of Father Swamy in fighting for the constitutional values of ‘Fraternity & Dignity’ for vulnerable communities especially the Adivasis and defending their collective rights. He also said that Father Swamy made a courageous effort to protect the Adivasis from attempts by unscrupulous MNCs to grab their natural resources

Shakir Shaikh General Secretary, APCR spoke about the need to go to the Common People with Father Stan Swamy’s values and thoughts and the need to help the common citizens in the SIR Process. Advocate Raphael Dsouza, former President of the Bombay Catholic Sabha recounted shameful incidents during the (medical bail hearings that revealed the extent of injustice that Father Swamy was subjected to and how the uncaring process contributed to his death. Well known journalist Anto Akkara who had come from Kochi for the public meeting also spoke on the occasion

Senior advocate Mihir Desai , also national vice president, PUCL strongly asserted that the death of Father Stan Swamy was nothing less than an ‘encounter killing’ because Father Swamy was put in jail knowing well that a) he was innocent and b) Given his fragile health he would not survive the hardships of the incarceration.

Desai also said that the reason the system wanted Father Swamy behind bars was that they did not want representatives from marginalised communities to speak up. He highlighted ongoing efforts to judicially prove Father Swamy’s innocence and establish accountability for his “judicial murder”. He called upon citizens to be bold enough to fight for justice and believe in inherent good nature of humanity for the ‘Truth to Prevail.’

The session was moderated by Dolphy Dsouza, spokesperson of the BCS and closed with a Vote of Thanks by Brian D’souza of the BCS. The public meeting was co-organised by organisations like the Bombay Catholic Sabha (BCS), Centre for Study of Society & Secularism (CSSS), Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Christian Development Association (CDA), Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), Mumbai for Peace and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) etc and was well attended by a large crowd of 150+ citizens braving the heavy rains.

Related:

How is it sedition if Adivasi’s choose self-governance through Gram Sabha?

SC bats for Adivasis’ rights over natural resources, Govt disagrees

How PESA, an Act of Parliament is Being Subverted in Jharkand

90% of mining in India is illegal: Deprived of basic rights, tribals treated as untouchables in their lands

Why Adivasis seek to re-assert their traditional identity

The post To a living Saint, now dead five years: Meeting to commemorate July 5 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

‘Adivasi history is an unbroken chain of broken promises’: Dr. B.D. Sharma

What are these broken promises?

1. Massive displacement without rehabilitation:  Independent studies estimate that about 24 lakh acres of their land has been forcibly acquired by the govt and industries, resulting in about 19 lakh persons being  displaced. Of the displaced only 25% have been resettled, but no one has been rehabilitated because rehabilitation implies restoration of their social, cultural and community values.
2. Depletion of natural resources with local population having no share in it leading to enrichment of outsider companies, contractors and migrants. Beginning from the start of 20^th century excavation of minerals of all kinds has been taking place. But the plight of people in whose land all this mineral wealth is found have been reduced to increasing poverty, disease and lack of basic amenities.
3. Constitutional, legal and judicial provisions for the welfare and development of the Adivasi have been consistently violated.

(a)  the Vth Schedule of the Indian Constitution [Indian Constitution, Article 244(1)]clearly stipulates that a ‘Tribes Advisory Council’ (TAC) composed solely of members from the Adivasi community who will advice the Governor of the State about any and everything concerning the protection, well-being and development of the Adivasi people in the State.
Whereas the reality is that the meeting of the TAC takes place rarely, and it is convened by and presided over by the Chief Minister of the State and is controlled by the ruling party. TAC has thus been reduced to a toothless body. Verily a constitutional fraud meted out to the Adivasi people.

(b) The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act [PESA],1996 [No:40 of 1996]  which was a fruit of long drawn disenchantment and struggle of the Adivasi people and their political representatives and which for the first time recognized the fact the Adivasi communities in India have had a rich social and cultural tradition of self-governance outlined the composition and functioning of the Gram Sabha. It gave significant powers to Gram Sabha in all matters pertaining to the welfare and development of tribal adivasi people.
Whereas the reality is this Act of the parliament has deliberately been left unimplemented in all the nine states. It means the capitalist ruling class does not want the Adivasi people to self-govern themselves.

(c) the Samatha Judgment, 1997 of the Supreme Court [Civil Appeal Nos:4601-2 of 1997] came as a huge relief to the Adivasi communities in Scheduled Areas infofar as it decreed that mining in Scheduled Areas can be undertaken only by Adivasi Cooperatives.  The judgment was meant to provide some significant safeguards for the Adivasis to control the excavation of minerals in their lands and to help develop themselves economically.
Whereas the reality is consistent efforts have been made by the state to ignore this verdict of the highest court. Several cases have been filed by affected communities but the ‘law of eminent domain’ of the colonial rulers are invoked to alienate Adivasi land and to loot the rich mineral resources.

(d) Forest Rights Act, 2006: [Act of Parliament No:2 of 2007] jal, jangal, jamin, as we know, are the basis of the  economic life of the Adivasi people. Of particular importance is their traditional rights in the forest have been infringed upon systematically over the decades. At long last, the govt came to the realization that a historic injustice has been done to the Adivasi and other traditional forest-dwellers. To correct this anomaly it enacted this Act empowering each forest-dwelling family to four acres of land. 
Whereas the reality is far from desirable. As per the information collected in the nine Scheduled Area States till 28th February, 2017, 41,65,395 claims (40,26,970 individual and 1,38,425 community claims) have been filed and 17,90,624 titles (17,27,655 individual and 62,969 community claims) have been distributed. That means about 24 lakh claims [41%] have been rejected! As for Jharkhand State, 1,02,510 claims were made, of which 56,181 claims have been distributed, and 46,329  (45%) have been rejected. It is a painful reality that nearly half of Adivasis and other forest-dwellers have been refused their ages-long existence in the forests of Jharkhand.

(e) ‘Owner of the land is also the owner of sub-soil minerals’. The Supreme Court of India in a path-breaking judgment [SC: Civil Appeal No 4549 of 2000] has said “we are of the opinion that there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth sub-soil rights vest in the State, on the other hand, the ownership of sub-soil/mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid process.”
The rich minerals in their lands are being looted by the govt and private companies. The Supreme Court has declared 214 out of the 219 Coal-Blocks in the country illegal and ordered their closure and levied a fine on them for their illegal mining. But the Central & State Govts have found a way out by re-allotting these illegal mines through auction to make it look legal!  Lot of assurance is given that Adivasi land will not be given to industrialists, yet at the same time mines in Scheduled Areas are being allotted to govt and private companies. Cheating game.

(f) Mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence. [SC: Criminal Appeal No: 889 of 2007] The court rejected the doctrine of ‘guilt by association‘.
It is common knowledge that very many young men & women are held in prison on the suspicion of being naxalites”.  After arresting them other penal clauses are added on. It is an easy label that can be put on any one whom the police  want to catch. It does not require any proof or witness. Let us keep in mind that they are  not even members of any naxalite outfit. Supreme Court says even membership in a banned organisation does not make a person a criminal. How far removed are  the law and order forces from the judiciary!

(g) Domicile Policy, already enacted by the govt, is meant to side-line the native population and to facilitate outsiders to grab the job opportunities.
Six Criteria to define who could be called a sthaniya niwasi or local resident of Jharkhand

1. Those who have their or their ancestors’ names in land records as per the last survey. The gram pradhan (village head) can identify the landless as a local resident on the basis of his language, cultural practices and traditions.
2. Those living in Jharkhand for the past 30 years for reasons of business, jobs, etc., and have acquired immovable properties, and their children, would be considered locals.
3. Employees of the Jharkhand government, or government-aided institutions, organisations etc. — and their spouses and children — would be considered locals.
4. Employees of the Central Government living in Jharkhand, and their spouses and children.
5. Those holding constitutional posts, their spouses and children.
6. Those who were born in Jharkhand, and have completed their education till matriculation.

Needless to say, this policy is meant to push the native Adivasi Moolvasi people to the margins of society and enable outsiders to capture whatever job opportunities available in the state. This is already in practice and exclusion of indigenous people is taking place very quietly. This must be reversed by all means.

(h) ‘Land Bank’ is the most recent plot to further weaken Adivasi people.  The State govt plans to acquire about 20 lakh acres of land of which about 10 lakh acres are to be allotted to industries. This includes even ‘Common Land’ such as water bodies, rivers & rivulets, hills & hillocks, village roads, sarnas, masnas.  This is being done without the knowledge and consent of people and their respective Gram Sabhas. People have started to express their protest by appealing to the  Governor to stop this illegal action of the govt. Sad to say Adivasi leaders have not taken up this problem and mobilize people into an andolan.

Enough is enough . . .                                                                                                                           
– the frustration of Adivasi people is expressed through some of them erecting Pathalgadis. We may not agree with all that is written on them, but we need to ask WHY they are doing this.

• The govt must stop looking at this as a law & order problem but make sincere effort to remedy the ‘historic injustice’ being done to Adivasi people;
•  The ruling class must realize that Adivasi People are not asking for charity but certainly want their constitutional, legal, judicial rights are  acknowledged and honoured by the rest of society;
• Rights are never given but always taken !

The post Why Adivasis seek to re-assert their traditional identity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Stan Swamy listed all the activities that have made him a ‘Desh Drohi,’ a traitor of the country, in his open letter after he was charged with sedition. This short note was written by Fr Stan Swamy after the Jharkhand authorities filed a case of sedition against him for supporting the adivasi Pathalgadi movement. He is one of 20 activists accused of sedition, a committed Jesuit priest.

During the past two decades, I have identified myself with the Adivasi people and their struggle for a life of dignity and self-respect. As a writer, I have tried to analyse the different issues they are facing. In this process, I have clearly expressed dissent with several policies, laws enacted by the govt in the light of the Indian Constitution. I have questioned the validity, legality, justness of several steps taken by the govt and the ruling class.

As for the Pathalgadi issue, I have asked the question “Why are Adivasis doing this?” I believe they have been exploited and oppressed beyond tolerance. The rich minerals which are excavated in their land have enriched outsider industrialists and businessmen and impoverished the Adivasi people to the extent there are starvation deaths taking place.

They have had no share in what is produced. Also, the laws and policies enacted for their wellbeing are deliberately left unimplemented. So they have reached a situation where they realised ‘enough is enough’ and are seeking to re-invent their identity by empowering their Gram Sabhas through Pathalgadis. Their action is understandable.

Some questions that I have raised are as follows:

1. I have questioned the Non-implementation of the 5th Schedule of the Constitution [Indian Constitution, Article 244(1)]clearly stipulates that a ‘Tribes Advisory Council’ (TAC) composed solely of members from the Adivasi community who will advise the Governor of the State about any and everything concerning the protection, well-being and development of the Adivasi people in the State. The Governor is the constitutional custodian of the Adivasi people and he/she can make laws on his/her own and can annul any other law enacted by the parliament or state assembly always keeping in mind the welfare of the Adivasi people.

Whereas the reality is that in none of the States during all these nearly seven decades has any State Governor ever used his/her constitutional discretionary power to reach out to the Adivasi people proffering the excuse that they have to work in harmony with the elected government of the State. The meeting of the TAC takes place rarely, and it is convened by and presided over by the Chief Minister of the State and is controlled by the ruling party. TAC has thus been reduced to a toothless body. Verily a constitutional fraud meted out to the Adivasi people.

2) I have questioned why the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act [PESA],1996 [No:40 of 1996] have been neatly ignored which for the first time recognized the fact the Adivasi communities in India have had a rich social and cultural tradition of self-governance through the Gram Sabha.
Whereas the reality is this Act of the parliament has deliberately been left unimplemented in all the nine states. It means the capitalist ruling class does not want the Adivasi people to self-govern themselves.

3) I have questioned the silence of the govt on Samatha Judgment, 1997 of the Supreme Court [Civil Appeal Nos:4601-2 of 1997] which came as a huge relief to the Adivasi communities in Scheduled Areas. It came at a time when consequent to the policy of globalization, liberalization, marketisation, privatisation national and international corporate houses started to invade particularly the Adivasi areas in central India to mine the mineral riches. The govt machinery gave its full cooperation to these companies. Any resistance by the Adivasi people was put down with an iron hand. The judgment was meant to provide some significant safeguards for the Adivasis to control the excavation of minerals in their lands and to help develop themselves economically.

Whereas the reality is the state has ignored this verdict of the highest court. Several cases have been filed by affected communities but the ‘law of eminent domain’ of the colonial rulers are invoked to alienate Adivasi land and to loot the rich mineral resources.

4) I have questioned the half-hearted action of govt on Forest Rights Act, 2006: [Act of Parliament No:2 of 2007] jal, jangal, jamin, as we know, are the basis of the economic life of the Adivasi people. Of particular importance is their traditional rights in the forest have been infringed upon systematically over the decades. At long last, the govt came to the realization that a historic injustice has been done to the Adivasi and other traditional forest-dwellers. To correct this anomaly, it enacted this Act.

Whereas the reality is far from desirable. From 2006 to 2011 of its operation, about 30 lakh applications were made all over the country for title-deeds, of which 11 lakhs were approved but 14 lakhs were rejected and five lakhs were pending. Of late the Jharkhand govt is trying to bypass the Gram Sabha in the process of acquiring forest land for industrial set up.

5) I have questioned the inaction of the govt to carry out the SC order ‘Owner of the land is also the owner of sub-soil minerals’. [SC: Civil Appeal No 4549 of 2000] wherein it has said “we are of the opinion that there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth sub-soil rights vest in the State, on the other hand, the ownership of sub-soil/mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid process.”

The rich minerals in their lands are being looted by the govt and private companies. The Supreme Court has declared 214 out of the 219 Coal-Blocks in the country illegal and ordered their closure and levied a fine on them for their illegal mining. But the Central & State Govts have found a way out by re-allotting these illegal mines through auction to make it look legal!

6) I have questioned the reasons why SC observation is being ignored that ‘Mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence. [SC: Criminal Appeal No: 889 of 2007]. The court rejected the doctrine of ‘guilt by association’.

It is common knowledge that many young men and women are held in prison on the suspicion of being “helpers of Naxalites”. After arresting them other penal clauses are added on. It is an easy label that can be put on anyone whom the police want to catch. It does not require any proof or witness. Supreme Court says even membership in a banned organisation does not make a person a criminal. How far removed are the law and order forces from the judiciary!

7) I have questioned the recently enacted Amendment to ‘Land Acquisition Act 2013’ by Jharkhand govt which sound a death-knell for the Adivasi Community. This does away with the requirement for “Social Impact Assessment’ which was aimed at safeguarding the environment, social relations and cultural values of affected people. The most damaging factor is the govt can allow any agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. So, any and everything can be included.
8) I have questioned ‘Land Bank’ which I see as the most recent plot to annihilate the Adivasi people.

During ‘Momentum Jharkhand’ in February 2017 the govt announced that 21 lakh acres in Land Bank of which 10 lakh acres is ready for allotment to industrialists.

Gair-Majurwa” land (uncultivated land) can be ‘khas’ (private) or ‘aam’ (common). As per tradition, individual Adivasi families or communities have been in possession and use this land [jamabandi]. Now the govt shockingly cancelled all ‘jamabandi’ titles and claims that all ‘gair-majurwa’ land belongs to the govt and it is free to allot it to anybody (read industrial houses) to set up their small and big industries.

People are in the dark about their land being written off. The TAC has not given its approval as is required by the Vth Sched., the respective Gram Sabhas have not given their consent as required by PESA Act, affected Adivasi people have not given their consent as required by Land Acquisition Act (2013).

Above are the questions I have consistently raised.

If this makes me a ‘Desh Drohi’ then so be it!

The post I raise my voice for Adivasis, am I a Traitor? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to data presented in Lok Sabha during March, at least 622 sanitation workers died in sewers and septic tank incidents across India since 2017 with Uttar Pradesh recording the highest fatalities at 86. This highlights the structural risks and vulnerabilities faced by sanitation workers.

At a press conference organised by the Dalit Adivasi Shakti Adhikar Manch (DASAM) in New Delhi in May 2026, they revealed that at least 36 sanitation workers died while cleaning sewers, septic tanks, drains and sewage chambers between March and May 2026. Referring to the data presented in Parliament, DASAM said that out of the 622 deaths, 317 occurred between 2021 and 2025. Most of the workers belonged to Valmiki communities, other historically marginalised caste groups, or migrant labour background. [1]

Most sanitation workers in Ward 66 belong to the Balmiki caste, historically associated with sanitation labour and among the most marginalised Dalit communities. Many of these workers live in clustered settlements and are employed, directly or indirectly, by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation (LMC), reflecting the enduring link between caste and sanitation work.

Workers further allege that Rajput used casteist slurs for the workers, even threatening termination for non-compliance. Such allegations also raise questions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which criminalises caste-based abuse and intimidation.

Altogether, these accusations point to potential violations of legal protections against caste-based discrimination. Despite these allegations, the supervisor continues to remain in his position, raising questions about accountability and enforcement of existing laws.

While sanitation workers employed by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation (LMC) are issued formal joining letters outlining the terms and conditions to their employment, access to these documents is not always guaranteed. A 25-year-old worker, who wished to remain anonymous, said he has been working with the LMC for nearly a year, yet his joining letter has been withheld. He alleges that requests for the document have been met with derogatory remarks about his caste and class, along with threats of termination. “What are we supposed to show when we get into an accident?” questioned one of the workers.

The workers expressed their dissatisfaction by gathering on June 10, 2026 to protest and demand their additional Rs. 2000 and four days of holidays, while giving the authorities 3 days to act. They allege that authorities at Lucknow Swachhata Abhiyan (LSA) had stated they will be firing Avinash, but they are yet to hear back, despite three days already having passed by.

The allegations against Rajput, however, are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern within the sanitation system in Lucknow. One where accountability is inconsistent and often remains unchecked.

“The mayor, Sushma Kharakwa, had already fired him once. We are not sure why he came back,” said another worker.

While ward 66 is struggling to call out the corruption and discrimination, workers say that such situations are far from unique. Across all wards, Sweepers working with LMC are expected to also clean the sewers or pick up animal carcasses if asked. Many of these workers, often in their 20s, say they are required to descend up to five feet into sewers to carry out manual cleaning. For deeper drains, the Lucknow Municipal Corporation (LMC) deploys mechanised equipment, though workers allege this is not always consistently implemented.

Cost considerations often shape these decisions, with workers revealing that bringing in machinery to clean the sewer becomes expensive. The cost adds up with fuel, travel and hiring operators.

This is where private contractors come in with the hopes of saving money that would otherwise be spent on the machinery. “thekedaars allegedly take Rs. 5000-6000 and give their workers 500-600. A government employed sanitation worker would get around Rs. 1000.”

While law is framed to safeguard Scheduled castes, sanitation workers in Lucknow are still fighting for lawful existence. On June 6, 2026 Lalaram, a 28-year-old sanitation worker went into a manhole with only a rope as instructed by his supervisor on scene, Akash Kumar. He soon lost consciousness and was rushed to a hospital, his supervisor. Initially being taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences (RMLIMS), Akash diverted him to a private hospital. Lalaram died before receiving medical care and Akash Kumar fled the scene. The ward’s corporator is Arun Rai, a representative of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). When contacted, he refused to be interviewed on the topic.

The incident drew responses from city authorities. Mayor Sushma Kharakwa and Municipal Commissioner Gaurav Kumar announced action against the contractor, including blacklisting the firm and initiating an FIR. Financial assistance was also promised to the family.

Workers remain sceptical, questioning whether meaningful change will follow. Many say that the response to the incident has been driven largely by media attention and local political support, which may ensure compensation for the family. However, the larger concern around the safety of sanitation workers continues to persist. “Usually, the supervisors of these private contractors run away after such incidents, and then nothing ends up happening,” said one of the workers.

With Lucknow ranking the third cleanest city in 2024-2025. The irony remains, with regular derogatory comments and a clear spatial hostility moving fluidly between the private and government employees for sanitation work. 

(The author is an independent journalist, currently pursuing masters in Convergent Journalism at AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia)

[1] These statistics presented in Parliament were reported I The Hindu among other publications

Related:

ASHA workers, Anganwadi workers and sanitation workers overlooked in India’s healthcare protection reforms

8 sanitation workers die in UP in last 10 days due to hazardous cleaning, activists calls for FIR 

Safai Shramik Union raises demands for a law that safeguards rights of sanitation workers: Maharashtra

The post Lucknow: Caste hierarchies & contract labour exploitation among sanitation workers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Published by the Human Rights Advocacy and Research Foundation (HRF), The Elusive Search for Justice: 30 Year Review of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act brings together the work of former civil servants, lawyers, academics, human rights defenders and Dalit rights activists to assess how India’s principal anti-atrocities legislation has functioned over three decades. Across its chapters, the report paints a troubling picture of rising atrocities, persistently low conviction rates, and poor implementation of victim compensation schemes, weak monitoring mechanisms, and widespread institutional failures that continue to undermine access to justice. The report’s central conclusion is that while Parliament has repeatedly strengthened the law through amendments and expanded protections for victims, the institutions responsible for implementing these safeguards have largely failed to match the law’s ambition.

Among the most revealing contributions to the volume is a chapter by activist, writer and human rights defender Vidya Bhushan Rawat, who examines the functioning of the Act in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana. While the broader report identifies national trends of weak implementation and institutional apathy, Rawat’s chapter shows how these failures manifest on the ground, in police stations, district administrations, courts and villages across northern India.

Unlike chapters that focus on legislative history or national statistics, Rawat’s contribution is rooted in lived experiences. Drawing on field investigations, case studies, Right to Information disclosures and years of engagement with Dalit communities, he examines the obstacles faced by survivors seeking justice under the PoA Act. Rawat’s account suggests that the greatest barriers often emerge not in the courtroom but much earlier, at the stages of complaint registration, investigation and administrative response.

Rawat’s central argument is that the crisis confronting the PoA Act is no longer one of legislative inadequacy. Over three decades, Parliament has progressively strengthened the law, expanded the list of recognised offences, enhanced victim protections and introduced new accountability mechanisms. Yet the effectiveness of these provisions ultimately depends upon the willingness of police officers, prosecutors, district administrations and local governments to enforce them. It is at this level, he argues, that the law repeatedly breaks down.

The result is a system in which the formal existence of legal rights often bears little resemblance to the realities experienced by Dalit survivors attempting to access protection, accountability and justice.

The hidden crisis behind atrocity statistics

Rawat begins by challenging a common assumption that official crime statistics adequately capture the scale of caste violence.

For many observers, NCRB data provides the principal measure of atrocities committed against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Rawat argues that these figures reveal only a fraction of the reality. The larger problem, he suggests, lies in the vast number of incidents that never enter official records at all.

Across Uttar Pradesh and neighbouring states, Dalit complainants frequently encounter resistance at the very first stage of the criminal justice process. Police officials may refuse to register FIRs under the PoA Act, dilute charges, classify incidents as ordinary criminal disputes, or encourage parties to arrive at informal compromises. In many villages, survivors must navigate local power structures before they can even reach a police station.

The consequence is that official statistics may reflect only those cases that successfully overcome multiple layers of institutional resistance.

Rawat argues that any assessment of the PoA Act that relies exclusively on registered cases risks overlooking the structural barriers that prevent countless incidents from being formally recognised as atrocities in the first place.

Uttar Pradesh: The limits of legal protection

Among the three states examined, Uttar Pradesh occupies a central place in Rawat’s analysis. The state has long recorded some of the highest numbers of crimes against Scheduled Castes in the country. Yet Rawat contends that these figures tell only part of the story. The deeper problem lies in the persistent inability of victims to secure meaningful justice after a case is reported.

According to the chapter, many police officials continue to approach caste atrocities through the lens of local disputes rather than recognising them as manifestations of entrenched social discrimination. Complaints are often discouraged, investigations delayed, and statutory provisions under the PoA Act either ignored or improperly applied.

Rawat argues that this administrative response reflects a broader reluctance within state institutions to confront caste power directly. Rather than functioning as neutral enforcers of the law, institutions frequently mirror the social hierarchies that the legislation was intended to challenge.

The Case of Shivam: A child, a crushed arm, and a system that failed

To illustrate these dynamics, Rawat recounts the case of Shivam, an eight-year-old Dalit child from Jaunpur district whose arm was allegedly crushed in a sugarcane-crushing machine owned by an upper-caste family in December 2015.

The incident should have triggered an immediate legal response. Instead, according to the account presented in the chapter, the family encountered resistance from law-enforcement authorities when they sought to pursue the matter. Efforts to register a complaint were allegedly met with indifference, while those assisting the family reportedly faced hostility from officials.

What makes the case particularly significant for Rawat is not merely the injury itself but the social environment surrounding it.

The family belonged to a community economically dependent upon dominant-caste landowners. Villagers were reportedly unwilling to speak openly about the incident, fearing repercussions. The imbalance of power was such that even seeking justice carried social and economic risks. Ultimately, concerns for safety and survival reportedly forced the family to leave the village.

For Rawat, the episode demonstrates how caste violence cannot be understood solely as a criminal act. It is sustained by relationships of economic dependence, social exclusion and institutional indifference that make accountability exceptionally difficult to achieve.

Hundreds of cases, no convictions

Perhaps the most striking evidence presented in the chapter comes from information obtained through Right to Information applications in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Seeking to understand how the PoA Act functioned in practice, activists requested data from police authorities in Deoria and Kushinagar districts regarding cases registered under the Act between 2015 and 2019.

The responses revealed a startling pattern. In Deoria district, 568 cases had reportedly been registered under the Act across seventeen police stations during the five-year period. Yet not a single conviction had been secured. In neighbouring Kushinagar district, 754 cases had reportedly been registered across thirteen police stations during the same period. Again, there was not a single conviction. For Rawat, these figures are among the most compelling indicators of institutional failure.

The issue is not merely that convictions are low. Rather, the complete absence of convictions despite hundreds of registered cases raises fundamental questions about investigations, prosecutions, witness protection and judicial outcomes. Such figures suggest a justice system in which the formal registration of cases does not necessarily translate into accountability.

The chapter argues that marginalised communities such as Mushahars and Doms—among the most socio-economically vulnerable groups in the region—face particular obstacles in sustaining legal battles against socially and politically influential perpetrators.

Haryana and the Bhagana struggle

The chapter also revisits the Bhagana movement in Haryana, one of the most prominent Dalit rights struggles in recent years. The Bhagana episode became emblematic of the vulnerabilities faced by Dalit communities confronting dominant-caste power structures. Rawat argues that despite national attention and public mobilisation, many affected families continued to face displacement, insecurity and uncertainty long after the initial incidents.

The chapter questions whether state institutions have meaningfully addressed the grievances of survivors or ensured accountability for those responsible. Years after the events, the promise of rehabilitation and justice remained largely unrealised.

For Rawat, Bhagana exemplifies a recurring pattern visible across many atrocity cases: public outrage may generate temporary visibility, but institutional follow-through remains weak.

Uttarakhand: When administrative structures complicate justice

Rawat’s discussion of Uttarakhand focuses particularly on the Jaunsar region, where he raises concerns about the interaction between social realities and administrative classifications.

According to the chapter, the widespread Scheduled Tribe classification in the region has created complex challenges for the implementation of the PoA Act. Rawat argues that social hierarchies and discriminatory practices continue to exist despite official classifications that often obscure these realities. The chapter points to continuing experiences of exclusion faced by communities such as the Kolta and Bajagi. Practices associated with untouchability, restrictions on social participation and entrenched caste hierarchies, Rawat argues, remain part of everyday life in many areas.

Rawat’s broader concern is that administrative categories sometimes fail to reflect the actual distribution of social power on the ground. When legal frameworks are built upon such classifications, opportunities for accountability may be weakened. The Jaunsar example thus serves as a reminder that the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws depends not only on legal provisions but also on the accuracy with which institutions understand social realities.

The Larger Lesson: The problem is enforcement

Running through the chapter is a consistent theme. The PoA Act has not failed because Parliament neglected to create legal protections. Successive governments have expanded the law, strengthened penalties, increased compensation, established monitoring mechanisms and introduced procedural safeguards.

Yet none of these measures can succeed when the institutions responsible for implementation remain unwilling or unable to act. Across Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana, Rawat identifies recurring patterns: reluctance to register cases, weak investigations, pressure on victims to compromise, social and economic intimidation of witnesses, delays in prosecution and negligible accountability for officials who fail to perform their duties.

The cumulative effect is the creation of a justice system that often places the burden of enforcement upon the very communities it was designed to protect.

Thirty years after the enactment of the PoA Act, Rawat’s assessment is sobering. The greatest challenge facing India’s anti-atrocities framework is no longer the absence of legal safeguards. It is the persistence of caste power within the institutions responsible for enforcing them.

As long as that reality remains unchanged, the chapter suggests, the promise of justice embodied in the PoA Act will continue to remain beyond the reach of many Dalit survivors.

The complete chapter may be read below:

The complete report may be read below:

Detailed story on the complete report may be accessed here.

Related:

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos

‘We Were Promised Rehabilitation’: Gurugram’s oldest Dalit settlement bulldozed after decade long battle; police violently beat and detain residents for protesting

CJP flags casteist, anti-Dalit videos on YouTube targeting CJI Gavai; seeks urgent takedown

Unending Violence: Caste atrocities haunt Uttar Pradesh’s Dalit communities

Custodial Death of Dalit Law Student Somnath Suryawanshi: FIR registered after Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC directive

Dalit Justice Demanded: CJP exposes 30 brutal anti-Dalits atrocities, urges NCSC to confront nationwide caste violence under Article 338

The post Thirty years on, justice remains elusive for Dalits in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The findings emerge from The Elusive Search for Justice: 30 Year Review of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, a 267-page report published in 2020 by the Human Rights Advocacy and Research Foundation (HRF), a Tamil Nadu-based human rights organisation that has extensively documented caste discrimination, atrocities, and the functioning of the PoA Act. The volume brings together contributions from a wide range of experts, including former civil servants, lawyers, academics, Dalit rights advocates, human rights defenders, and international observers working on caste discrimination and access to justice.

Among those contributing to the review are P.S. Krishnan, former Secretary to the Government of India and one of the country’s foremost authorities on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe rights; Paul Divakar, Convenor of the Global Forum on Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent; Gerard Oonk, Ambassador of the International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN) and former director of the India Committee of the Netherlands; Sandra Claassen, Director of Advocating Rights in South Asia (ARISA); senior advocates, grassroots activists, researchers, and organisations that have spent decades documenting caste-based discrimination and the implementation of protective legislation.

Published to mark three decades of the anti-atrocities law, the report is both a historical review and a contemporary assessment of the Act’s functioning. Drawing on government records, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics, court data, implementation reports, policy documents, and field-level experiences, it seeks to answer a fundamental question: why, despite one of the strongest legal frameworks against caste violence in the world, do Dalits and Adivasis continue to struggle for justice?

The answer offered by the report is stark. While Parliament has repeatedly strengthened the law through amendments, expanded victim protections, increased compensation, created monitoring mechanisms, and established special courts, implementation has lagged so dramatically that the law’s transformative potential has been severely undermined. According to the review, the crisis facing Dalits and Adivasis today is no longer primarily a legislative one. It is a crisis of enforcement, accountability, and institutional will.

Across its chapters, contributors describe a system marked by rising atrocities, low conviction rates, massive case pendency, poor investigations, dysfunctional monitoring mechanisms, delayed compensation, and widespread impunity for perpetrators. The report’s central contention is that while India has created an impressive legal architecture to combat caste violence, the institutions responsible for enforcing these protections have repeatedly failed those they were intended to protect.

Why the PoA Act was considered necessary

The report places the Act within the broader historical context of caste oppression and the limitations of earlier legal protections. Although the Constitution abolished untouchability through Article 17 and guaranteed equality before the law, violence and discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continued largely unabated in the decades following independence. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, was intended to address practices of untouchability but proved incapable of tackling the growing incidence of organised violence, social boycotts, land-related attacks, sexual violence, economic coercion and collective punishment directed at Dalit and Adivasi communities.

The report notes that atrocities frequently occurred when members of historically marginalised communities sought to exercise rights formally guaranteed to them. Assertions of dignity, attempts to access public resources, educational advancement, economic mobility, political participation or resistance to exploitative labour arrangements often provoked violent backlash from dominant caste groups. Rather than being random criminal acts, such violence frequently functioned as a mechanism for maintaining entrenched social hierarchies.

It was this recognition—that caste violence was systemic rather than incidental—that ultimately led to the enactment of the PoA Act in 1989.

A stronger law, but not a safer reality

One of the report’s most significant findings is that the strengthening of legal protections has not been accompanied by a corresponding decline in atrocities. Over the years, the PoA Act has been repeatedly amended to address gaps in implementation and expand protections for victims. Amendments in 2015 and 2016 broadened the list of offences, strengthened victim and witness protections, increased compensation amounts, imposed stricter timelines for investigations, and expanded state obligations towards survivors. Further amendments in 2018 restored automatic registration of FIRs and removed procedural barriers to arrest that had been introduced through judicial interpretation.

Yet the report argues that these reforms have not translated into meaningful protection on the ground. Drawing on National Crime Records Bureau data, the review notes that registered atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continued to rise throughout the decade. The report cites figures showing 44,946 cases in 2015, 48,679 in 2016, 51,712 in 2017, and 50,749 in 2018. Far from indicating a decline in caste violence, these figures suggest that atrocities remain widespread across the country. The authors caution that the real scale of violence is likely much larger because many incidents are never reported or formally registered.

The report rejects the argument that rising registration necessarily reflects greater awareness or improved reporting alone. Instead, contributors argue that persistent violence, combined with weak enforcement, continues to create conditions in which dominant caste perpetrators often act with confidence that punishment is unlikely.

The Central Problem: A justice system that rarely delivers justice

At the heart of the report lies a devastating critique of India’s criminal justice response to caste atrocities.

According to the review, the problem is not merely that atrocities continue to occur; it is that survivors rarely see justice even when they approach the legal system. The report points to chronically low conviction rates and massive case backlogs across the country. Referring to national data and official observations, the review notes that conviction rates in atrocity cases have remained alarmingly low while pendency rates have hovered around 80 percent. In practical terms, this means that a large proportion of cases either remain unresolved for years or end in acquittal.

Contributors argue that these outcomes cannot simply be attributed to false complaints, as is often alleged by critics of the Act. Instead, they identify a range of systemic factors that undermine prosecutions from the outset. These include delays in registering FIRs, improper invocation of PoA provisions, poorly conducted investigations, failure to collect evidence, hostile witnesses, intimidation of complainants, prosecutorial negligence, institutional bias within law enforcement agencies, and inadequate legal support for survivors. The cumulative effect is a justice system that frequently fails long before a case reaches trial.

The report warns that every acquittal secured through institutional failure reinforces a broader culture of impunity. When perpetrators repeatedly escape punishment, the deterrent value of the law erodes and confidence in legal remedies diminishes.

Tamil Nadu: A disturbing example of impunity

Among the most striking sections of the review is its detailed examination of Tamil Nadu’s implementation record. The report describes the state’s performance as a cautionary example of how strong laws can be rendered ineffective through administrative neglect.

According to the findings cited in the review, Tamil Nadu recorded an acquittal rate of 92.21 percent in cases under the PoA Act, substantially higher than the already troubling national acquittal rate of 74.3 percent. Approximately 94 percent of accused persons were acquitted. Even more alarming, the report notes that the State government did not file appeals against a single acquittal during 2015 and 2016.

The implications of these figures are profound. If acquittals are neither challenged nor reviewed, the report argues, the criminal justice system effectively communicates that caste-based crimes carry little risk of punishment.

The review identifies several additional implementation failures in Tamil Nadu:

• Less than 10 percent of survivors received compensation despite statutory entitlements.
• Only six of the thirty-two mandated Exclusive Special Courts had been established.
• Barely 55 percent of District Vigilance and Monitoring Committees were functioning.
• None of these committees conducted all mandatory meetings required under law.
• No action was taken against police officials accused of negligence despite explicit provisions enabling such accountability.

For the report’s authors, these failures demonstrate that the crisis lies not in the text of the law but in the state’s unwillingness to enforce it.

The Implementation Gap: India’s most persistent problem

Throughout the review, contributors repeatedly return to what they describe as India’s most enduring governance challenge—the gulf between legal promise and administrative reality.

The PoA Act creates a comprehensive framework for accountability. It mandates special courts, special public prosecutors, relief and rehabilitation measures, district-level monitoring bodies, state-level review mechanisms, time-bound investigations, and compensation schemes. Successive amendments have only expanded these protections.

Yet the report argues that many of these mechanisms exist only on paper. Monitoring committees frequently fail to meet. Compensation payments are delayed or denied. Investigations exceed statutory timelines. Exclusive courts remain unestablished in many districts. Police officers often fail to invoke relevant provisions. Survivors are left without meaningful support throughout the legal process. Several contributors describe this not merely as bureaucratic inefficiency but as evidence of deeper structural prejudice operating within state institutions. The report repeatedly suggests that caste bias continues to shape the functioning of the police, bureaucracy and judiciary, undermining implementation at every stage.

Untouchability has changed form, not disappeared

A particularly important intervention made by the report concerns the changing nature of caste discrimination in contemporary India. The review argues that while the PoA Act addresses many forms of physical violence and overt discrimination, large areas of everyday exclusion remain either inadequately addressed or entirely outside the law’s reach.

Contributors point to discrimination in access to public services, exclusion from marketplaces, discrimination in recruitment and employment, caste segregation in private institutions, barriers within educational institutions, workplace discrimination, and violence associated with inter-caste relationships. These forms of exclusion may not always manifest as spectacular acts of brutality, but they continue to shape the lives of Dalits and Adivasis in profound ways.

The report argues that while the legal framework has evolved from addressing untouchability to addressing atrocities, many contemporary manifestations of caste hierarchy remain insufficiently recognised within the legal system.

As a result, the review calls for a broader understanding of caste discrimination—one that moves beyond criminal incidents to include structural barriers affecting education, employment, housing, public participation and social mobility.

The Report’s Broader Argument: The crisis is structural

Perhaps the most important contribution of the review is its insistence that the crisis cannot be understood solely through the lens of criminal law.

Writing in the report, international human rights advocate Gerard Oonk argues that the struggle for justice must be viewed within a larger framework of caste hierarchy, economic inequality, social exclusion and institutional discrimination. According to him, expecting a single law—even a powerful one like the PoA Act—to transform social realities is unrealistic when the broader structures producing discrimination remain intact.

Oonk argues that what is missing is a shared societal commitment to dismantling caste-based inequality. He contends that meaningful progress requires equal access to education, healthcare, land, public resources, government institutions and the justice system itself. Without such structural changes, legal protections alone will remain insufficient.

The report repeatedly emphasises that caste discrimination intersects with class, gender, religion and economic vulnerability. Dalit women, Adivasi communities, informal workers and other marginalised groups often face multiple layers of exclusion that compound barriers to justice.

Thirty years later, the promise remains unfulfilled

The report ultimately presents a paradox. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act remains one of the strongest legal instruments enacted by the Indian state to protect historically oppressed communities. Over three decades, Parliament has expanded its scope, strengthened its enforcement mechanisms, increased relief measures, and responded to judicial attempts to dilute its protections.

Yet the report’s findings suggest that legal reform has consistently outpaced institutional commitment. Atrocities continue to rise. Conviction rates remain dismal. Compensation is frequently denied. Monitoring bodies are dysfunctional. Special courts remain absent in many areas. Officials rarely face consequences for negligence. Survivors continue to encounter barriers at every stage of the justice process.

For the authors of The Elusive Search for Justice, this is the central lesson of the last thirty years: India’s challenge is no longer simply creating laws against caste violence. The challenge is ensuring that those laws are implemented with the seriousness, urgency and political will necessary to make justice a reality rather than a promise.

Three decades after the PoA Act came into force, the report concludes, the struggle against caste violence remains not merely a legal battle but a test of the Indian state’s commitment to equality, dignity and constitutional justice itself.

The complete report may be read below:

Related:

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos

‘We Were Promised Rehabilitation’: Gurugram’s oldest Dalit settlement bulldozed after decade long battle; police violently beat and detain residents for protesting

CJP flags casteist, anti-Dalit videos on YouTube targeting CJI Gavai; seeks urgent takedown

Unending Violence: Caste atrocities haunt Uttar Pradesh’s Dalit communities

Custodial Death of Dalit Law Student Somnath Suryawanshi: FIR registered after Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC directive

Dalit Justice Demanded: CJP exposes 30 brutal anti-Dalits atrocities, urges NCSC to confront nationwide caste violence under Article 338

The post Three decades after the PoA Act, justice remains elusive appeared first on SabrangIndia.

More than 200 renowned Adivasi-mulvasi leaders, representatives of people’s organisations, traditional self-governance representatives, academics, and activists have issued a joint statement appealing to Adivasis and all Jharkhandis to observe coming Tuesday, June 9, the martyrdom day of Dharti Abba Birsa Munda, across every corner of the state by commemorating his Adivasi culture, struggles, and the Ulgulan. Most critically, they have urged them to declare a solemn pledge to protect his legacy from manuvadi organizations such as the RSS, the Janajati Suraksha Manch, and the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram.

The signatories to the appeal include prominent socio-political leaders such as former minister Geetashree Oraon, former MLAs Bahadur Oraon and Mangal Singh Bobonga, Jyotsna Kerketta, Devkinandan Bedia, Kumar Chandra Mardi, Demka Soy, Ramesh Jarai, Rajni Murmu, Sukhnath Lohra, Durgawati Oraon, Aloka Kujur, Binsay Munda, Hari Kumar Bhagat, Kalicharan Birua, Dinesh Murmu, Sadhu Ho, Jaikishan Godsora, and Vasvi Kido; as well as renowned intellectuals like Jacinta Kerketta, Joseph Bara, Anuj Lugun, and Nitish Khalkho.

Other representatives from numerous organisations have also signed the appeal, including the Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Samiti, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, Sarna Sagom Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Adivasi Moolvasi Adhikar Manch (Bokaro), Bharat Jakat Majhi Pargana Mahal (Ramgarh), Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanvay Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha (West Singhbhum), Adivasi Ho Samaj Sewanivrit Sangathan (Chaibasa), Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Adivasi Samanvay Samiti, Birsa Sena, Adivasi Ekta Manch, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha, Sanyukt Gram Sabha, Yuva Jhumur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, JOHAR, OMON Mahila Sangathan, and Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha.

The appeal has also been supported by several national activists and intellectuals working on Adivasi rights issues, such as Nandini Sundar, Bela Bhatia, Prafulla Samantara, and Ishwar Ahire. The entire list is attached to the appeal.

The appeal draws specifically attention to the ‘Janajati Sanskritik Samagam’ organised in Delhi on May 24, 2026, by the Janajati Suraksha Manch—an organization affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). During this event, speakers—particularly Amit Shah—repeatedly addressed the Adivasis as ‘Vanvasis’. Throughout the gathering, not once was Birsa Munda’s struggle for jal, jangal, jameen emphasised and remembered nor was his fight against the exploitation by dikus, commemorated.

The signatories believe that the RSS and its affiliated organisations deliberately avoid using the term ‘Adivasi’ because they view tribal communities co-optively as ‘Vanvasis’—occupying the lowest rung of the Hindu caste hierarchy. On one hand, these organisations are actively seeking to erase the independent identity of Adivasis by propagating the slogan “Sarna-Sanatan Ek”. On the other hand, they are attempting to fracture the collective solidarity of Adivasis by demanding the delisting of Christian Adivasis from the official list of Scheduled Tribes. The RSS, according to the signatories, is appropriating Birsa Munda’s name and legacy to serve its own agenda: to reduce Adivasis to mere ‘Vanvasis,’ to dismantle their collective unity, to plunder their natural resources, and to obliterate the heritage of the dharti aba.

The appeal asserts that Birsa Munda’s Ulgulan—waged for the sake of jal, jangal, jameen and against the British colonialists as well as all forms of exploitative dikus—laid the very foundation of the state of Jharkhand. However, the Sangh is actively engaged in an attempt to rewrite this history. The BJP-led Raghubar Das government, in particular, even attempted to dismantle the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act—a landmark legislation born out of the Ulgulan movement. In the very Munda Disum where Birsa Munda had first raised the clarion call of Ulgulan, the Raghubar government went so far as to label thousands of Adivasis as ‘anti-nationals’. The Modi government, too, state the group, is systematically working to erode the autonomy of Adivasis and to strip them of their constitutional and legal rights. Furthermore, these Manuvadi organizations have consistently opposed the demands of Adivasis for formal recognition of their distinct religious systems and for the inclusion of a separate religious code for them in the national census.

Therefore, prominent figures have appealed to all Adivasis and Jharkhandis, as well as all proponents of Adivasi identity, to safeguard Birsa’s legacy from the RSS and to convey the truth to the people on this death anniversary.

Names of all Signatories may be read here:

1. Geetashree Oraon, Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Ranchi
2. Bahadur Oraon, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
3. Mangal Singh Bobonga, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
4. Jacinta Kerketta, Poet and writer, Ranchi
5. Anuj Lugun, Poet, East Singhbhum
6. Jyotsana Kerketta, Adivasi Mulvasi Manch, Khunti
7. Kumar Chandra Mardi, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, East Singhbhum
8. Neetisha Xalxo, Assitant Professor, Dhanbad
9. Basavi Kiro, Indigenous Women India Network, Ranchi
10. Devkinandan Bedia, Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Ramgarh
11. Joseph Bara, Historian, Ranchi
12. Prabal Mahto, Film Maker, West Singhbhum
13. Ramesh Jerai, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
14. Rajni Murmu, Adivasi feminist organization, Deoghar
15. Aloka Kujur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
16. Sukhnath Lohra, Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Jharkhand, Ranchi
17. Durgawati Oraon, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
18. Binsay Munda, Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanway Samiti Jharkhand, Khunti
19. Chandramohan Birua, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
20. Demka Soy, Jharkhand Andolankari Morcha, East Singhbhum
21. Dinesh Murmu, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
22. Hari Kumar Bhagat, Concerned citizen, Latehar
23. Jaykishan Godsora, Research scholar, West Singhbhum
24. Kalicharan Birua, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha, West Singhbhum
25. Krishna Lohar, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
26. Ajay Bankira, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
27. Anant Kumar Hembrom, Activist, West Singhbhum
28. Anupam Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
29. Asman Hembram, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha Kharsawan, Seraikela-Kharsawan
30. Bablu Munda, Sayukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
31. Bahadur Hans, Sarna Sagom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
32. Basingh Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
33. Chandra Prabhat Munda, Adiwasi Samanway Samiti Khunti, Khunti
34. Chunulal Soren, Ekta Parishad,Jharkhand, Hazaribagh
35. Deepak Ranjeet, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
36. Jaisingh Bodra, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
37. Jamadar Kairam, Birsa Sena Noamundi, West Singhbhum
38. Kamal Purti, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, West Singhbhum
39. Laldeo Soren, Bharat Jakat Manjhli Pargana Mahal, Ramgarh
40. Mangal Singh Kuntia, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
41. Manik Chand Korwa, Samudayik Van Prabandhan Federation Garhwa, Garhwa
42. Mukta Hans, Sarna Sagam Samiti Khunti, Khunti
43. Narayan Kandeyang, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
44. Pramod Khalkho, Adivasi Ekta Manch and Jan Sangharsh Samiti Chainpur, Gumla
45. Renu Oraon, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Latehar
46. Sadhu Ho, Deshauli Foundation, West Singhbhum
47. Sanjay Horo, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
48. Shyamal Mardi, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Saraikela Kharsawan
49. Siddharth Honhaga, Bhagwan Birsa Munda Red Cross Volunteers., West Singhbhum
50. Somnath Pareya, Birsa Seva Dal, East Singhbhum
51. Sukhram Hansda, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
52. Sukhram Pahan, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
53. Sunil Hembram, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
54. Sunil Soren, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
55. Sunita Boipai, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
56. Sunita Lakra, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
57. Tarkan Munda, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha Khunti, Khunti
58. Tej Munda, Adibashi Bhumij Munda Samiti Kukru Balak, Seraikela-Kharsawan
59. Vibhishan Jerai, Birsa Changul Malhar Club, Devgaon, West Singhbhum
60. Ajay Ekka, Adivasi Kshetra Yuva Manch, Simdega
61. Ajit Kumar Tirkey, Jharkhand organization for social harmony, East Singhbhum
62. Aman Kumar Marandi, Concerned citizen, Dhanbad
63. Anjana Besra, Activist, Khunti
64. Ashim Ashish Tigga, Tribal Journalist Association, Ranchi
65. Bineet Mundu, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
66. Elina Horo, Adivasi Women’s Network, Ranchi
67. Gadadhar Tiyu, Kendriya Ho Samaj Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha
68. Gautam Minj, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
69. Jagmohan Singh Angaria, Activist, West Singhbhum
70. James Herenj, Activist, Latehar
71. Jennifer Baxla, Activist, Ranchi
72. Jugal Munda, Jaura Sika Akhara, Khunti
73. Kailu Baskey, Concerned citizen, Sahebganj
74. Krishna Tudu, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
75. Lakhan Mardi, Jhalak (majhi Baba), Seraikela-Kharsawan
76. Madan Mohan, Jharkhand Navnirman Abhiyan, East Singhbhum
77. Manita Deogam, Activist, West Singhbhum
78. Mathiyas Suren, Adivasi Association Noamundi, West Singhbhum
79. Mission Soy, Adivasi Ho Samaj Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
80. Nelshan Munda, Adivasi researcher, Khunti
81. Parmeshwar Manjhi, Concerned citizen, Bokaro
82. Rahul Oraon, HEC Hatia Vishthapit Parivar Samiti, Ranchi
83. Sadhu Charan Samad, Activist, West Singhbhum
84. Saroj Soreng, Concerned citizen, Simdega
85. Suresh Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
86. Abdus Subhan, Activist, Sahibganj
87. Abhinash Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbum
88. Abhishek Kujur, Student, Ranchi
89. Ajay Minj, Activist, Gumla
90. Albinus Lakra, Activist, Simdega
91. Ambika Yadav, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
92. Anamika Hansda, Activist, Godda
93. Ankit Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
94. Arpana Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
95. Ashok Verma, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
96. B B Choudhary, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Jharkhand, Ranchi
97. Badal Kumar Singh, Jharkhand Navnirman Dal,Gumla, Gumla
98. Balma Purty, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
99. Balram Karmakar, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
100. Bharat Birua, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
101. Bharti Barjo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
102. Binod, Adivasi Mahasabha, Simdega
103. Biplab Gorai, BGVS, East Singhbhum
104. Blacius Ekka, Activist, Simdega
105. Deepak Dholakia, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Delhi
106. Deepak Laguri, Student, West Singhbhum
107. Deepti Mary Minj, Concerned citizen, Simdega
108. Divya Vani Tirkey, Adivasi Yuva Chetna Manch (AICUF/AYCM), Ranchi
109. Dorothy Fernandes, Aashray Abhiyan, Patna
110. Emil Kandulna, Activist, Ranchi
111. Eric Murmu, Teacher, Deoghar
112. Faisal Anurag, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
113. Gangaram Jerai, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
114. Gabriel Bodra, Activist, West Singhbhum
115. Gautam Kumar Bose, Jharkhand Qaumi Ekta Manch, East Singhbhum
116. Geeta Godsora, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
117. George Monippally, Van Adhikar Manch, Latehar, Latehar
118. Jagat, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
119. Jano Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
120. Jawahar Mehta, Activist, Palamu
121. Jayman Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
122. Jitendra Baraik, Activist, Ranchi
123. Jitendra Oraon, Concerned citizen, Latehar
124. Jitendra Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
125. Jivan Hembram, Majhi Baba, East Singhbhum
126. Joseph Kisku, Activist, Dumka
127. Jyoti Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
128. Jyoti Behan, Mahila Mukti Sangharsh Samiti, Chatra, Chatra
129. Kamal Pahan, Concerned citizen, Khunti
130. Kamil Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
131. Kamlesh Korwa, Concerned citizen, Garhwa
132. Khetro Mohan Birua, Activist, West Singhbhum
133. Kiran, Sambhava injor, Ranchi
134. Kiran Veer, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Seraikela-Kharsawan
135. Kita Sinku, Activist, West Singhbhum
136. Kumari Leena, Human Rights Activist, Ranchi
137. Madhu Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
138. Manimala, Journalisr, Delhi
139. Manthan, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, East Singhbhum
140. Mathias Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
141. Michael Jojo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
142. Mikhael Hassa, Activist, Khunti
143. Mugli Kandeyang, West Singhbhum
144. Mukesh Hembram, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
145. Narendra Kumar, True Gandhian Group, Bokaro
146. Nawin Lugun, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
147. Nikita Hemrom, Bagaicha, Ranchi
148. Nimesh, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
149. Om Prakash, Azadi Bachao Andolan, East Singhbhum
150. Pius Topno, Student, Khunti
151. Ponderam Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
152. Poonam Deogam, Sprouts Child Grooming Center, West Singhbhum
153. Praphul Kujur, Activist, Ranchi
154. Praveer Peter, Sajha Kadam & Sadbhav Manch (NAPM), India
155. Prince Gill, JCM, East Singhbhum
156. Prof Yogendra, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Ranchi
157. Raj Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
158. Rajendra Champia, Activist, West Singhbhum
159. Rajesh Ramakrishnan, Campaign to Defend Nature and People, Chennai
160. Rajshree, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
161. Ram Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
162. Rashmi Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
163. Ravi Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
164. Rita Kandey, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
165. Rose Madhu Tirkey, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
166. Rose Xaxa, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Gumla
167. Sanjana Mehta, Student activist, Garhwa
168. Sarita Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
169. Satish Munda, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
170. Saurabh Sinha, Activist, Deoghar
171. Savita Kachhap, Social activist and Research Scolar, Ranchi
172. Shailendra Sinku, Student, West Singhbhum
173. Shakha Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
174. Shashi Shekhar Singh, Citizens for Democracy’s, Delhi
175. Shivam Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
176. Siraj Dutta, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
177. Solomon, Concerned citizen, Dumka
178. Soumya, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
179. Subhash Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
180. Sunil Champia, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
181. Sunil Kumar Bansingh, Activist, East Singhbhum
182. Sushila Minj, Concerned citizen, central
183. Thakur Baske, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
184. Vicky Beck, Activist, Ranchi
185. Vijay Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
186. Vijay Kumar Barwa, Concerned citizen, Latehar
187. Vikas Das, Concerned citizen, Khunti
188. Vikash Kumar, Activist, East Singhbhum
189. Vikram Minj, Activist, Latehar
190. Vishwanath Azad, Ekal Nari Sashakti Sangathan, Hazaribagh
191. Vivek Vishal, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
192. Ananta, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
193. Ashok Vishwarai, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini (JASWA) / Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Unnao (Uttar Pradesh)
194. Ashok, MKSS, Pali, Rajasthan
195. Avinash Kadam, Shramik Mukti Dal, Thane, Maharashtra
196. Bela Bhatia, Human rights lawyer, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
197. Bimal Ekka, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
198. Sricharan Behera, Campaign for Survival and Fignity, Odisha, Khurdha
199. Shambhu Nath, Jan Sangharsh Vahini, Begusarai, Bihar
200. Ishwar Ahire, Manjur Sangharsh Vahini, Dhule, Maharashtra
201. Jag Narayan Mahto, Concerned citizen, Delhi
202. Joshy Jacob, Samajwadi Janaparishad, Kottayam, Kerala
203. Nandini Sundar, Sociologist, Delhi
204. Narbhinder Singh, Association for Democratic Rights Punjab, Tarn Taran, Punjab
205. Nelson Xess, Concerned citizen, N&M Andaman
206. Nootan, CDNP, Wardha, Maharashtra
207. Prafulla Samanthara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
208. Ranjana Kanhere, Activist, Nandurbar
209. Richa Singh, SKMS, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh
210. Sanjay Kumar Lakra, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
211. Shalini Gera, Lawyer, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
212. Somar Singh Bhokta, Mazdoor Kisan Samiti and Jaswa, Gaya Ji, Bihar
213. Sujata Gothoskar, Nari Atyachar Virodhi Manch, Mumbai, Maharashtra
214. Umakanta Naik, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
215. Vinod Vikram, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, Allahabad (UP)
216. Virendra Kumar, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Mumbai

Related:

How Not To Remember Birsa Munda 

Adivasis protest BJP’s ‘insult’ to freedom fighter Birsa Munda

Jharkhand Adivasis celebrate Birsa Munda Jayanti on Jharkhand formation day

The post Appeal by Adivasi-Mulvasi leaders to Jharkhandis: Protect Birsa Munda’s legacy from the RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gujjar Bakkerwal community is a recognised Scheduled Tribe (ST) community and has lived in forest areas for centuries, sustaining their livelihoods, while maintaining a close relationship with nature and forest resources. The implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 in Jammu & Kashmir in 2021 recognized the legitimate rights of forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers over their traditional lands, traditional migratory routes and habitats.
In view of these legal protections, any forceful eviction, intimidation, or use of violence and demolition of the houses of tribal families is a matter of serious concern. The Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted to protect the rights of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD), and following its provisions is mandatory for all authorities.

The signatory organisations have demanded an immediate inquiry into the incident, repair and reconstruction of their demolished houses, protection of the affected families, and strict action against responsible officials regarding this grave violation of the rights of tribal communities.
The statement further says that “it is unacceptable that a sub divisional magistrate who carried out these demolition is faking ignorance of a parliament enacted law. The officer has been directed under FRA, a special Act of the Parliament in 2006 that the rights of the nomadic tribe should be protected. Government departments and authorities are supposed to help the forest communities to claim their rights. To the contrary, in Jammu, a government officer has uprooted dozens of families without any authorisation and violated the law of the land.”

AIWFP and others have demanded that Section 7 of the FR Act should be immediately invoked against the erring official and the person should be immediately punished for violation of this central Act. They have also urged the administration to ensure that no eviction takes place and that the rights guaranteed under the Forest Rights Act are fully implemented.

The AIUFWP is an Adivasi and Forest Dwellers Union and it has stated that they stand in solidarity with the Gujjar nomadic community and reaffirm our commitment to the protection of rights of forest dwelling communities, environmental justice, and the constitutional rights of all marginalised communities.

Related:

J&K: “Tribals Bachao” protest intensifies over govt move to declare upper castes as ST

J&K to implement Forest Rights Act by March 2021

Bakerwal girl was Brutalised Because She Was a Muslim; Period

The post Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP appeared first on SabrangIndia.