Notably, the FIR was registered at Bannadevi police station in Aligarh on December 5 last year, charging the petitioners under IPC Sections 379 (theft), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 366 (kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her marriage), and Section 3 and 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Interestingly, the FIR invokes Section 3 and 5 (1) of the anti-conversion law, which relates to prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by fraudulent means and the punishment for the same, respectively, despite the fact that in the present case the petitioner had not converted her religion. This further adds weight to the claims about excessive abuse of Uttar Pradesh (UP)’s draconian anti-conversion law for punishing consenting interfaith couples.

This state law is under a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of India. Citizens for Justice and Peace is the lead petitioner. In its first petition challenging the anti-conversion laws of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court had issued notice in January 2021, Thereafter, CJP challenged Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh laws were also added in this challenge. An additional petition was thereafter filed after the Karnataka and Haryana laws were passed in 2022 and the amendment to the Gujarat law was also enacted. In January 2023, CJP filed an additional petition challenging the anti-conversion laws of Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. Hence the anti-conversion laws of nine BJP ruled states are presently under the challenge in the Supreme Court, in which CJP is the lead petitioner.

Facts of the case

The petitioner by the name of Deepanshi had married her Muslim partner (petitioner no.2) under the Special Marriage Act (SMA, 1954), and since leaving her natal home she had been living with him. After the FIR was registered against them, the couple moved to the Allahabad High Court requesting the court for a direction to be issued to police to not arrest them with regard to the charges filed in the FIR.

In its March 4, 2024 order, the Allahabad HC after hearing both the parties recorded that the petitioners are “major” and have married of their own “free will” under Special Marriage Act, and possesses a valid marriage registration certificate. The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Gajendra Kumar further observed that the statement of the petitioner was yet to be recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, and directed the investigation officer to produce the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, to record her statement under Section 164. Importantly, the bench decided to take the woman’s statement from Prayagraj after the interfaith couple alleged threat to their lives in Aligarh. Directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to send the statement in a sealed cover, it restrained the police from arresting the couple until next date of hearing and asked the parties to cooperate in the meantime.

When the bench re-convened on March 13, it analysed the statement of the woman petitioner, in which she alleged that her father had beaten her up, and accused the police of filing a false and concocted FIR, noting that none of them had changed their religion. The bench after taking note of her desire to stay with her husband, noted that “the offence as alleged against the petitioners is not made out as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner no.2.” It relied on the ratio of Salamat Ansari vs. State of UP, in which the division bench of Allahabad HC had held the right to choose a partner irrespective of creed or religion an integral part of the fundamental right under Article 21. Further accentuating the point, the court reiterating the same judgement noted that “an individual on attaining majority, is statutorily conferred with the right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human right, but also his/her right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Additionally, citing Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, the bench justified the quashing of criminal proceeding in this case. Pertinently, Gian Singh judgement distinguishes between the categories of heinous crimes like rape and murder, and offences which are more of a private nature, like dowry, family disputes, and commercial issues.

The court finally quashed the FIR registered against the couples, pointing out that both the parties were major and the woman had left her home out of free will to live with her husband. It also noted that marriage had been solemnised and no conversion took place for the purpose of marriage.

This judgement assumes significance for the interfaith couples in UP as increasing number of false cases continue to be filed against them in the name of conversion and love jihad, especially after the implementation of UP’s anti conversion law.

The judgement may be read here:

Bumpy ride for interfaith couples at the Allahabad High Court?

While the present judgement has come as a relief to many interfaith couples, such jurisprudence has not been consistent at the Allahabad High Court. Before Salamat Ansari judgement was delivered, the court had on two previous occasions failed to protect the couples from the interference of the family, by holding that conversion by the girl in the respective case was void and invalid, as she did not know about the basic tenets of Islam nor did she show any faith in the aforementioned religion. Essentially, the court instead of granting protection to the couple, alleged that the conversion seems to have taken place for the sole purpose of marriage, and as such the request of the couple cannot be granted for protection.

Thus, in the case of Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra vs. State of UP, the court went into the question of determining whether that conversion was valid or not, and finally determining that it was invalid, it declined to grant the protection to the couple, even though the couple had voluntarily asked for the police protection. The bench of Surya Prakash Kesarwani in the case had wondered, “Whether conversion of religion of a Hindu girl at the instance of a Muslim boy, without any knowledge of Islam or faith and belief in Islam and merely for the purpose of Marriage (Nikah) is valid?” Therefore, instead of determining the plea for what it was, i.e., a request for police protection, the court went into tangential terrain to determine who is real Muslim or practitioner of Islam, in order to verify whether the conversion was valid or not.

The judgement may be read here:

The same judgement was relied upon in the case of Priyanshi @ Km Shamreen vs. State of UP, in which the girl had converted from Islam to Hinduism just one month before her marriage, and the couple were requesting for a direction “not to interfere with their peaceful married life by adopting coercive measures.”

The order noted that “The Court has perused the record in question and found that the first petitioner has converted her religion on 29.6.2020 and just after one month, they have solemnized their marriage on 31.7.2020, which clearly reveals to this Court that the said conversion has taken place only for the purpose of marriage”. On the basis of this reasoning, the court refused to grant any direction and dismissed the petition.

The judgement may be read here:

This problematic understanding of the court in linking conversion with marriage has already been highlighted by us in the piece on the Allahabad High Court’s repeated refusal to granted police protection to interfaith couples.

However, the Allahabad High Court has also stood by interfaith couples in the past. Delivering a progressive verdict in the case of Salamat Ansari vs. State of UP in November 2020, the bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Pankaj Naqvi had observed that the judgements delivered in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi were “not laying good law.” As in the present case, the couple in Salamat Ansari had also requested that FIR registered against them under Sections 363, 366, 352, 506 of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act be quashed and no arrest takes place by the police. Significantly, in this case, the girl had even converted her religion, but that did not stop the bench from granting the relief to the petitioners, perhaps because then the UP’s anti-conversion law did not come into picture.

In Ansari case, the court relied on a number of Supreme Court judgements to grant the couple the requested relief and quashed the FIR.

The bench citing the precedents set in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M, Lata Singh v State of U.P, Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India, KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, and NandaKumar vs. State of Kerala, noted in its order that “We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily over a year…the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.”

The judgment may be read here:

As a constitutional court, the Allahabad High Court had made it clear that no infringement of fundamental rights can be permitted, even by the State, especially in matters of personal liberty and right to live with a person of one’s choice.

Similarly, the present judgement quashing the FIR against Aligarh couple is an empowering verdict, and in line with progressive judicial precedents, effectively strengthening the constitutional protection granted to all citizens.

Related:

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP’s amended petition allowed, CJP also challenges ‘love jihad’ laws of 5 more states

The post By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) condemned the Haryana government for continuing to act against State Roadways workers for participating in the two-day all India General Strike on March 28, 2022 and March 29, 2022.

The union stressed that going on strike with due notice is a constitutional right of workers and demanded that the government withdraw all chargesheets and vindictive measures on workers and officials immediately.

On March 30, News18 reported how the state government intended to act against Hisar, Charkhi Dadri, Faridabad, Palwal and Sirsa general managers (GMs) of state roadways for the sudden suspension of bus services on Monday. News reports said that Transport Minister Mool Chand Sharma recommended a major penalty and chargesheet against the Hisar official. Overall, more than 75 percent of buses of these five depots were impacted.

However, CITU alleged that the government issued threats of such administrative action well before the strike to discourage and prevent the workers from joining the strike.

“Haryana Roadways workers, quite consistent with their fighting tradition, joined en-masse in strike action on both the days, rendering all attempts of the state government to break the strike an absolute failure,” said CITU General Secretary Tapan Sen.

According to him, numerous FIRs were filed in the name of many workers. Six leading workers were arrested and sent to custody and many chargesheets were issued on flimsy allegations against workers as well as some officials.

“CITU also extends its whole hearted support to the Haryana Roadways workers’ struggle braving the atrocities and calls upon the working people to stand in solidarity with the Haryana Roadways Workers’ movement against victimisation and for justice,” said Sen.

Related:

CTUs celebrate success of General strike
Over 20 cr estimated participants in workers General Strike
Trade unions condemn move to reduce EPF interest rate to 8.1 percent
Right to protest not taken away if law is challenged before court: Andhra HC

The post Haryana: Protest a constitutional right: CITU appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Human Rights Defender Alert (HRDA) on September 29 condemned the Chhattisgarh local police’s failure to protect a group of journalists including veteran journalist Kamal Shukla from a 3-hour-long assault by a mob outside the Kotwali police station on September 26.

“If journalists are assaulted or live under fear of reporting stories critical of the local administration or politicians, it will be a breach of both the Constitutional rights and international human rights,” said the HRDA in a press release.

The organisation appealed to the National Human Rights Commission to protect the journalists who were targeted for demanding the recognition of their constitutional rights. Accordingly, they made the following demands:

·       Investigation of the alleged nexus of police, local administration and local political leaders for the assault of journalists Kamal Shukla, Santosh Yadav and others and of the role of police in protecting the assailants.

·       Submission of CCTV footages, wireless records, duty records and other necessary information for the date and duration of the incident. This should also include video footage taken by witnesses while the assault was taking place in the streets.

·       Disposal of the fabricated FIR against Kamal Shukla and other journalists as well as assured physical security to Shukla who is still at risk from the perpetrators.

·       Implementation of laws recognised by the Indian government to protect journalists.

A mob of 250-300 people led by well-known Congress leaders physically assaulted around 25 journalists outside the local police station on Saturday. According to one of the survivors, Shukla and his colleague Satish Yadav, who was originally dragged to the station compound, asked the police for help on two occasions but were refused both times. Shukla was even threatened at gun-point during the incident. Earlier, Yadav who reported on corruption in the Kanker municipal corporation was beaten outside the police station until Shukla, a nearby resident, came to help the man.

Later, Shukla said that the police station in-charge stonewalled their attempts to charge the assailants with attempt to murder. Instead he registered a counter complaint alleging that Shukla started the whole thing with verbal abuse and death threats for not paying for an advertisement published in his newspaper.

The HRDA added that the accused people were arrested later in the evening after the organisation contacted the HRD Focal Point, C. S. Mawri and the Joint Registrar Mr. Sunil Arora. Even so, concerned about the manner in which the local police had handled the incident, the organisation questioned in its statement, “Why was the mob of assailants allowed to enter the police station and attack the journalists? Why did the police not register an FIR and arrest them immediately after the assault took place inside the police station? Why did they not allow the journalists to remain inside the police station? Why were the FIRs registered [initially] under bailable sections and not attempt to murder (307 IPC), despite a video showing a serious assault on Mr. Shukla in the streets?”

Related:

I am not scared, this attack on me will resonate in society: Kamal Shukla
Indian journalists decry attack on freedom of press amidst Covid-19
No FIR yet, but Delhi Police sends rejoinder to journalists who were attacked
Virtual collapse of rule of law on the street: Prashant Bhushan

The post HRDA condemns attack on Kanker journalists, calls it breach of Constitutional rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pathalgadi is a traditional practice of Munda Adivasis of erecting stone slabs (pathals) in honour of their ancestors, to announce important decisions regarding their families and villages or to simply mark the boundary of their villages. Since 2017, pathals painted with Constitutional provisions for Adivasis, judicial orders and their interpretations have been erected in several villages of Jharkhand. The villagers read these provisions and orders to mean the following – 1) the supremacy of the powers of the traditional Gram Sabha and the traditional Adivasi governance systems, 2) the rights of Adivasis over land, 3) the restricted rights of non-adivasis and outsiders in the scheduled areas to settle down and work and 4) that Adivasis are the original inhabitants and owners of India.

The fact-finding team (report attached) found that Pathalgadi to be a non-violent response to specific policies of the government; primarily its attempts to dilute land laws, failure to respect the worldview of the Adivasis, implementing schemes without the consent of the Gram Sabha, non-implementation of PESA and provisions for the fifth scheduled areas and rampant violations of human rights violations. While most of the interpretations of the Constitutional clauses written on the pathals may be wrong or far-fetched, they are based on valid issues and demands of Adivasis and their basic idea about the supremacy of the Gram Sabha.

The immediate trigger for Pathalgadi was the state government’s repeated attempts to amend the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act to ease acquisition of Adivasi land. The state government also did not allow Adivasis to protest against this move, by forcefully preventing their entry into Ranchi for a demonstration in 2016. The police also fired at the crowd, which resulted in the death of one person from Khunti. There are also apprehensions that the recently auctioned Parasi gold mines in the neighbouring block of Tamar will lead to acquisition of people’s land in Khunti for construction of roads and other infrastructure related to the mines. The people firmly said that nature (including land) is an integral part of the Adivasis’ religion and governance system. According to the DC, however, acquisition of land is essential for development projects.

There is also anger against the constant attack on Adivasis’ right to self-governance. Gram Sabha is not consulted before implementing projects in Adivasi-dominated areas. Several residents of Pathalgadi villages have publically rejected Aadhaar as they are apprehensive that Aadhaar will ease exploitation of Adivasis and their resources by outsiders, as the unique identification system equates Adivasis with the ‘aam aadmi’ (common man). Many people in the visited villages did not vote in the recent Lok Sabha elections as they feel that their Gram Sabha and Gram Pradhans are the primary governance entities. Anger against the government’s policies also played a role.

The team found that the state responded to Pathalgadi with severe repression and violence. A day after the Pathalgadi ceremony in Ghaghara on 26 June 2018, thousands of police personnel lathi charged at the people. Several people were beaten up with sticks, including the elderly, women and children. One deaf man was beaten as he was unable to hear the instructions given by the police. One woman was stripped and beaten by the mahila police and was unable to move for a week. A pregnant woman, Ashrita Munda, was at home when the police came into her house and beat her with a stick. She delivered a physically disabled baby. The police vandalised houses, vehicles and livestock.

It addition to using tear gas, the police also fired at the people. Two people were shot at. One of them, Birsa Munda, died at the spot. Many people ran away from their villages for several months and as a result, also missed the sowing season. The DC denied all the violence unleashed by the police. The violence was not restricted to Ghaghara. People were also beaten in the villages of Uduburu and Jikilata. Several houses were ransacked by the police in ‘kurki jabti’ (impoundment). In Totkara, the police let their dog loose on the people. The dogs badly bit a 25-year woman, Mariam Soy.

Due to this violence, there is immense fear amongst people. The police has continued its visits to the villages and picking up of villagers at random or raiding their homes. According to 15 FIRs, available with the factfinding team, (attached) analysed by lawyers associated with the team, the police has charged about 100-150 persons and 14000 unnamed people under several charges that include abetment, obstruction to public servants while discharging their duty, creation of public nuisance, criminal intimidation and even sedition. It also includes 20 people, including activists, writers and journalists, who have been charged with sedition only because they had raised questions, on social media, on the government’s actions in Pathalgadi villages and attack on Adivasi rights.

A total of 29 FIRs have been filed against people of pathalgadi villages. There is an apprehension that these FIRs may have charged all the Gram Pradhans of the pathalgadi villages and about 30,000 unnamed people under various charges, including sedition. The villagers get scared whenever the police visits their village, because any of them could be considered as one of the ‘unknown others’ in the FIRs. There were reports of more arrests in Ghaghara as recently as this month. Many people named in the FIRs or picked up by police were not even aware of the charges against them.

The police has forcefully set up camps in schools and community buildings without the consent of Gram Sabhas in many Adivasi villages. The team found that government schools in Kochang and Kurunga were merged with faraway schools and their building was converted into police camps. The local administration even forged a resolution of the Kochang Gram Sabha to show consent to acquisition of a land for setting up a permanent police camp in the village. The Gram Pradhan of Kochang, Sukhram Soy, who opposed it fiercely was murdered a few months ago. The villagers alleged lack of adequate action and investigation by police in this matter.

It is likely that the situation is similar in several other Pathalgadi villages of Khunti district. Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha is deeply concerned with the silence of political leaders on the violations of Adivasi rights in Pathalgadi villages. It appeals to all opposition parties to stand with the Adivasis of Khunti and seek accountability from the state government. Based on its findings, the fact-finding team, and the Mahasabha demand the following from the government:

• The government must immediately withdraw all FIRs and charges of sedition on the thousands of unnamed residents of Khunti and activists. It must also undertake judicial inquiry into the charges framed against the named people in the FIRs within a stipulated timeframe. It must make public all the evidence that formed the basis for these FIRs and the evidence collected in all related inquiries since then.

• The government should undertake judicial inquiry into the violence unleashed by security forces in Ghaghra and other villages and ensure punitive action against the personnel responsible for the human rights abuses. It must also ensure compensation to victims of police atrocities in these villages.

• The government must remove all police camps from the nine schools and two community buildings in Adrki, Kochang, Kurunga Birbanki, Kitahatu, Kewra and Hut.

• The government should initiate genuine dialogue with representatives of the Pathalgadi villages, Adivasi organisations and experts on the interpretation of Constitutional provisions written on the pathals.

• The government must ensure strict immediate implementation of all provisions for the fifth scheduled areas and PESA.

Photographs, factfinding report and other documents can be downloaded from the link – https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wImHv8kXRi-7VJlXj9Kz0uuVrTwAaUXM . For more details, please contact Aloka Kujur (8986683426), David Solomon (8757690775), Elina Horo (9939559039) or Praful Linda (7763074746) or write at jharkhand.janadhikar.mahasabha@gmail.com

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post Jharkhand Government responds to Pathalgadi with violence instead of honouring Constitutional rights of Adivasis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When the Adivasi children of Attappady are dying of starvation caused by the destruction of their ecosystem and their traditional agricultural practices, what the government does is to give them some rice and dal curry through community kitchens! Instead of giving adivasis their constitutional rights of self governance and forest rights Left Front Government in Kerala is behaving like a totalitarian state. The government’s attitude towards Adivasis is just like any other totalitarian state. The Kerala government doesn’t even consider Adivasis as citizens, not to speak of the constitutionally guaranteed special rights. What Adivasis need is not charity but their constitutional rights.

The Sabotage of Adivasi Self Governance
Act 244 (1), Schedule (5), (6) of Indian constitution guarantees Adivasi areas right to self governance. Schedule (6) applied only to  the North Eastern states of Assam, Meghalya, Tripura and Missoram. The Government of India has agreed in 1976 to bring all other Adivasi areas of India under Schedule (5) and declare them are Scheduled Tribe areas. Once the area has been notified as Scheduled Tribe, Adivasi Gramasabhas (Adivasi advisory council) will get sovereignty of the designated area. In these scheduled areas most decisions will be made by these Adivasi Gramasabhas, including land transfer and the restrictions on it, development of the area, trade and money transfer etc. Most importantly the authority to implement the laws made by central or state governments in the designated area wrests with the Gramasabhas. If they deem it’s not in the interest of the Adivasis, they will have the right not to implement it in the scheduled areas. Adivasi self governance gives the right to protect their ecosystem and farming practices. Adivasi rights got big boost when in 1996 PESA ACT (Panchayath Extension to the Scheduled Area, Act 1996 ) was implemented.

These are the main provisions of the PESA Act:

1. The laws that the state government makes about Panchayats should be compatible to the ritualistic laws of Adivasis, their social and religious customs, the handlings of the common resources of the Adivasis.
2. The projects and programmes that the Panchayat initiates for the development of the Adivasis should be approved by the Gramasabha
3. Panchayat and the Gramasabha should arrive at a consensus if land of the scheduled areas is to be acquisitioned for development projects and also on the rehabilitation of the evicted Adivasis.
4. Gramasabhas has the authority to re-acquisition the Adivasi land lost to the Adivasis
5. The authority to run village markets
6. The authority to extend control over all parties who are in social service sector working in the scheduled area
7. The authority to control locally planned projects and its financial management including the Tribal Sub-plan fund

Even though there was constitutional mandate and the relevant laws were passed, Kerala government and civil society did not find it necessary to discuss or enact the Adivasi self governance laws or PESA Act until Adivasis started the historic ‘Kudil Ketti Samaram’ in August 29, 2001. After 48 days of strike, on October 16 government agreed to give land to all landless Adivasis, for this government would allocate land including forest land and to implement Adivasi self-governance. The government also agreed to implement it in a time bound manner.

As usual the government cheated on the Adivasis and didn’t implement the committed assurances. It is in this context that in January 3, 2003 that Adivasis began their ‘Kudil Ketty Samaram’ in Muthanga forest.  When the agitators announced that they are only reinforcing the constitutionally guaranteed right to self governance and that Muthanga forest where they set up hutments is a scheduled tribe self governance area, the government and the media spread the lie that ‘Adivasis are trying to create a separate country.’ They rubbished and denied  the constitutional rights of Adivasis. On 19 February 2003, police forced opened fire on innocent Adivasis. Jogi, an Adivasi died on the spot. Police also unleashed a brutal physical assault on the hapeless Adivasis. At least 10 Adivasis died later on who became sick from the brutal police assault. Many became bedridden. Over 700 Adivasi women, children and elderly were jailed. In spite of all laws protecting child rights, 148 children were jailed. This is one of the greatest blot on modern Kerala history. Still, Adivasis haven’t got justice.

When all doors were closed on the Adivasis, On July 9, 2014 Adivasis started a ‘standing protest’ (Nilpu Samaram) in front of the Kerala secretariate with the slogan that “ To keep word is a democratic decency”. Adivasis continued this standing protest for 162 days under scorching sun and pouring rain with the demand that Adivasi self governance and the forest rights acts must be implemented.  On December 18, 2014 Congress led Oomman Chandy government agreed the main demands of the protesters. Government gave a report to the central government to implement PESA Act in 2445 Adivasi ooru in 31 Panchayats and 3 municipalities of Wayanad, Palakkad, Idukki, Kannur and Malappuram districts. This report was given on April 7, 2015.

The communist party led Left Front Government assumed power on May 25, 2016. Ever since the new government assumed office they are scuttling the process to implement the earlier recommendation of the UDF government to implement PESA Act. The government even care to do follow up on the report given to the central government.

A question was raised in Kerala Assembly as to the process of implementing PESA Act. The Scheduled Tribe Welfare minister A.K Balan gave an evasive answer. He said, “ There is no clarity on the boundaries of Adivasi ooru.  The problems that may come up in implementing Adivasi self governance areas within the same Panchayt wards have to be looked into in detail.”

The ministers stand bewilders Adivasis, since it has been clearly pointed out how PESA Act can be implemented in the Kerala context during the 2014 ‘standing protest’, before that during the ‘kudil ketty samaram’. It is indeed a fact that PESA Act can not be implemented in its entirety in Kerala except in the Adivasi majority Attappady Block of Palakkadu district, Edamalakkudy Panchayat in Idukki district and Aralam in Kannur district. All other Adivasi areas are not Adivasi majority areas and are interspersed with local population. It was pointed out that if the government enacts a law that acknowledge the Adivasi ooru as gramasabha the problem can be solved. The same thing was advised by Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) in a study conducted in 2016.

PESA Act only acknowledges the legacy rights of Ooru. This includes land also. To determine the land boundaries is not such a difficult. The government can determine boundaries and do the mapping within months, if it wishes so. Still the Scheduled Tribe Welfare (?) minister informs the assembly that this is an impossible task. This shows the intention of the government not to implement PESA Act in Kerala.

On August 9, 2017 Scheduled Tribe Welfare minister informed the Kerala Assembly that a high power committee has been formed to determine scheduled tribe areas. Efforts to find out the workings of this committee never materialized. When the issue was raised to the director of KILA who is a member of this committee, he feigned ignorance and kept silence.   It is reliably learnt that this committee has never met. From the functioning of the Communist led Left Front government so far, it can be understood that they have no interest to implement PESA Act or to give self governance to Adivasis.

On the other hand the government is very proactive in giving land rights to the migrant communities of Idukki and Wayanad. Even the Chief Minister himself chaired many meetings for this. Why this negligence towards Adivasis? It is nothing other than racist and casteist attitude towards the Adivasis.

When the Adivasis youth Madhu was lynched in Attappady in a racist act by the settlers this racist attitude of the government reached its logical conclusion. Adivasis of Kerala are fighting for their survival. The Adivasis of Kerala will overcome this casteist and racist attitude of the government with a new democratic movement.

K. Santhosh Kumar is a social activist working for dalit/aadivasi land and resource rights

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/
 

The post Adivasis Are Not Begging For Charity, But Their Constitutional Rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.