Almost five years after journalist Gauri Lankesh was gunned down in cold blood by men affiliated to various right-wing extremist Hindutva groups, the trial in her assassination case began in Bengaluru.

Her sister, Kavita Lankesh, who is a filmmaker and poet, made her statement before the special Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (KCOCA) court on Monday and said that just days before her murder, Gauri Lankesh had seen some men “loitering suspiciously” near her home in Bengaluru. The case is being heard by special judge CM Joshi.

Kavita told special prosecutor S Balan that though the family suggested she file a police complaint immediately about the suspicious men, Gauri told them she would do it later. It was Kavita who discovered Gauri’s bullet ridden body in a pool of blood. According to the Indian Express, Kavita also told the court that Gauri was targeted by “right-wing and casteist groups for her writings and speeches against Hindutva.”

But the counsel for the defence wanted to spin an entirely different narrative. According to the Times of India, during her cross-examination Kavita was asked about family fueds instead, to which Kavita said that while there were some differences, she wasn’t fully aware of them. She was also asked about Gauri’s alleged “Naxalite connections”. To this she said she was not aware.

The Quint reports that defence advocate P Krishnamurti tried to play up Gauri Lankesh’s Naxal connections by naming her famous friends who he claimed were Naxal sympathisers. This included the late freedom fighter HS Doreswamy, the late playwright and Jnanpith awardee Girish Karnad, and social commentator Chandan Gowda.

At one point the defence counsel also mentioned Gauri Lankesh’s connections to the activists who have been dubbed the “tukde-tukde gang”, namely Jignesh Mewani and Kanhaiya Kumar. But this line of questioning was shot down by the court.         

The defence also tried to rake up Gauri Lankesh’s alleged connections with the Congress Party. But when asked to name the connections, it turns out at least two of the people named – Ramesh Jarkiholi and Pramod Madhwara – are now BJP leaders.

Brief background of the case

Journalist and activist Gauri Lankesh was snatched away from friends, family and her fellow journalists when the fearless journalist was gunned down outside her home on September 5, 2017. Since then, 17 people have been arrested in connection with the case, and one accused is still missing.

The said incident came under the jurisdiction of Rajarajeshwari Nagar police station of Bangalore City and on the same day an FIR was registered under Sections 302, 120(B), 114, 118, 109, 201, 203, 204, 35 of I.P.C. and Sections 25(1), 25(1B), 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Sessions 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the COCA Act, 2000 (Order No.C.R.M./01/158/BC/2017-18 dated 06-09-2017 of the D.G. and I.G.P.) as Crime No. 221/2017. Gauri Lankesh’s sister, Kavitha Lankesh is the first informant in the case.

The Karnataka Special Investigation Team (SIT) began probing the case. Two chargesheets were filed in the case. The primary chargesheet was filed against KT Naveen Kumar, a 37-year-old member of the Hindu Yuva Sena on May 30, 2018. On November 23, 2018 the supplementary chargesheet running into 9,235 pages was filed. 18 people have reportedly been named in the chargesheet. These include shooter Parashuram Waghmare, masterminds Amol Kale, Sujith Kumar alias Praveen and Amit Digwekar. It was in this chargesheet that the Sanatan Sanstha was mentioned for the first time.

The chargesheet also mentions 26 other people who were on a hit list of sorts. These are eminent journalists, educationists and intellectuals who are perceived to be anti-Hindu by the Sanatan Sanstha. These include Siddharth Varadrajan (Editor, The Wire), journalist Antara Dev Sen, JNU professor Chaman Lal, Punjabi playwright Atamjit Singh among others.

According to the Karnataka SIT, the plot to kill Lankesh was hatched a year before the assassination. Amol Kale, a former Hindu Janjagruti Samiti convener, allegedly hired killer Parshuram Waghmare. Waghamare was allegedly a member of the Sri Ram Sene. Kale took him to an isolated spot in Khanapur, Belgaum to practice using an air pistol. Waghmare allegedly did a recce of Lankesh’s house in Rajarajeshwari Nagar in July 2017. On September 5, he and another back-up gunman Ganesh Miskin arrived outside Lankesh’s house on a black motorcycle. Waghmare fired four times at Lankesh and the duo fled the scene.

However, the group responsible came together in 2010-11 suggesting that this was a wider conspiracy planned over a longer period aiming to eliminate more rationalists, journalists and activists. In a press release the SIT had said, “The investigation so far has revealed that all the 18 accused are active members of an organised crime syndicate. This syndicate was formed in 2010-11, under the leadership of Virendra Tawade alias Bade Bhaisaab. One former editor of ‘Sanatan Prabhat’ provided financial support to this syndicate. The members of this organisation targeted people who they identified to be inimical to their belief and ideology. The members strictly followed the guidelines and principles mentioned in ‘Kshatra Dharma Sadhana’, a book published by Sanatan Sanstha.” The statement further added, “In August 2016, in a meeting of the syndicate, the main members identified Ms. Lankesh as a “durjan” as told in the ‘Kshatra Dharma Sadhana’, based on her speeches and writings. They jointly hatched a conspiracy to murder her.”

The arrests

On March 2, 2018, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating Lankesh’s assassination made its first arrest, apprehending right-wing activist K. T. Naveen Kumar, of Maddur, who in 2015 founded the Hindu Yuva Sene. Kumar who reportedly confessed to Lankesh’s murder had previously been arrested in February 2018 in relation to a case involving illegal arms.

On May 30, 2018, when the SIT filed a 650-page chargesheet in the Lankesh murder case, KT Naveen Kumar was named in it. Kumar allegedly obtained the bullets that were used to kill Gauri Lankesh, and that he allegedly supplied logistical support to her killers and directed them to her residence and office in Bengaluru. It alleges that the bullets were from an ammunition store called Bangalore Armoury, and that Kumar purchased them around eight years ago. Syed Shabeer, who works at City Gun House in Kalasipalya, claimed to the SIT that he sold Kumar 18 bullets for Rs. 3,000 about eight years ago.

The SIT, in the chargesheet, stated, “The accused were angry with her for speaking against Hindu dharma, Gods of Hindu dharma and insulting Hindu dharma”. Kumar’s wife, Roopa C. N., gave the SIT a statement, which indicated that Kumar was associated with the Sanatan Dharma Sanstha, largely in 2017.

In late May 2018, the SIT arrested four more people with ties to right-wing group Sanatan Sanstha for a January 2018 conspiracy to kill K. S. Bhagwan. The four individuals also had ties to Sanatan Sanstha’s sister outfit, the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), and were also connected to Kumar, in 2017 had attended multiple HJS meetings. The four individuals are named Amol Kale alias Bhaisab, an HJS activist from Maharashtra, Amit Degwekar alias Pradeep, a Sanatan Sanstha activist from Goa, Manohar Edave of Karnataka, and Sujeet Kumar alias Praveen, an activist with Sanatan Sanstha and the HJS from Mangalore.

On June 11, 2018 the sixth accused in the case, Parashuram Waghmare, 26, was arrested. On Thursday, June 14, police reportedly interrogated Waghmare and the previously arrested Amol Kale. Waghmare had allegedly claimed that Kale instructed him to carry out the killing, and gave him a country-made pistol.

Sharad Kalaskar was arrested on August 10, 2018 by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) after a tip off from the Karnataka Special Investigation Team (SIT) which was probing the Gauri Lankesh murder case. The ATS claims that Kalaskar was also one of the two gunmen who shot and killed Narendra Dabholkar in August 2013. According to the ATS, the weapon used to kill Gauri Lankesh and other rationalists was also procured and manufactured by Kalaskar.

A note on how to make bombs was also recovered from him. Kalaskar was arrested along with Vaibhav Raut and Sudhanwa Gondhalekar from the Nallasopara home of Raut who is the convener of the Hindu Govansh Raksha Samiti. 20 crude bombs and two gelatin sheets were recovered during this raid. Meanwhile, Gondhalekar is a member of Shiv Shivapratishthan Hindustan, an organisation run by none other than Shambhaji Bhide, one of the two main accused in the Bhima Koregaon violence.

In July 2019, Uma Devi, wife of slain rationalist MM Kalburgi identified the gunman who shot her husband. Earlier the SIT had arrested Praveen Chatur, a Belgavi resident who had allegedly ferried this gunman in the Kalburgi murder. While police had initially suspected Amit Baddi, a friend of Ganesh Miskin, of being the biker, sketches prepared by police artists did not match eye witness descriptions. When the SIT probed the matter again, interrogation of Amol Kale pointed them towards Chatur. Chatur was also wanted in a petrol bomb attack on a theater screening Padmavat in Belgavi in January. He has now turned state’s witness in the Gauri Lankesh case. In his statement he has reportedly admitted to attending training camps in Jalna and Mangaluru.

Rishikesh Dewarkar was the last one to be arrested in the case so far. Dewarkar who also went by the alias Rajesh was arrested from Katras town in Dhanbad district of Jharkhand in January 2020. He had been on the run ever since the assassination and had been laying low, working at a petrol pump in Katras for several months under an assumed identity.

CJP assists Kavita Lankesh

In June 2021, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) assisted Gauri Lankesh’s sister Kavita move a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against an order by the Karnataka High Court dropping charges under Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (KCOCA) against accused Mohan Nayak, who is is a close associate of Amol Kale and Rajesh Bangera, two men who are key accused in planning and committing the assassination of Gauri Lankesh.

Nayak had approached the Karnataka high court for bail on grounds of the ruling dropping the KCOCA charges against him. He had contended that on April 2, 2021, the court had quashed the FIR in relation to offence under KCOCA and therefore he could not be charged for the offence under KCOCA. For this reason, he argued that the chargesheet against him should have been filed before expiry of 90 days from the date of his arrest and remand to judicial custody. Admittedly there was no chargesheet and hence he contended that he should be entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.PC.

But on July 13, the High Court’s Single-judge Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar ruled that Nayak cannot seek bail on the grounds that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) filed a chargesheet against him, only on November 23, 2018, more than 90 days following his arrest on July 19, 2018, since the bail application was moved only after the chargesheet was filed.

Lankesh’s SLP, filed with CJP’s assistance, details the nature and extent of Mohan’s involvement saying that investigations had found that he had been “actively involved in providing shelter to the killers prior to and after committing the offence and has participated in a series of conspiracies, abetting, planning, providing logistics.”

The SLP further reiterated what the investigation agency has revealed, that they have collected sufficient evidence “to connect him with the case and establish his intimate nexus with the mastermind behind the entire event i.e., Accused No.1 Amol Kale and master arms trainer Accused No. 8 Rajesh D. Bangera who are part and parcel of an “organised crime syndicate” from its inception.”

On September 21, the matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices A.M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar. In October 2021, the SC restored KCOCA charges against Mohan Nayak.

Related:

Gauri Lankesh case: SC restores KCOCA charges against Mohan Nayak
Gauri Lankesh case: SC reserves order on plea to keep KCOCA charges against accused
Gauri Lankesh case: SC to decide on keeping KCOCA charges against accused
Gauri Lankesh case: CJP assists sister Kavitha move SC
‘Meticulous’ investigation yet little headway in Gauri Lankesh murder case

The post Gauri Lankesh case: Why is the Defence harping on alleged “Naxalite connections”, family fued? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Father Stan Swamy who passed away on July 5 devoted his life to upholding and defending Adivasi Rights. Here’s a report by him and the Bagaicha research team comprising PM Antony, Jitan Marandi, Damodar Turi, Renny Abraham, Marianus Minj, Sudhir Kerketta and Xavier Soreng that traces why a disproportionately large number of Adivasis are incarcerated in Jharkhand. 

According to the study’s findings, “Disproportionately large numbers of Adivasis, Dalit and other backward castes (generically referred to as Adivasi-Moolvasis) have been trapped in several false cases especially when they try to assert their constitutional and human rights that are often violated by those who consider themselves “upper” castes/ classes and the state system that serves the interests of those who follow the highly manipulated and prejudiced logic of “uppers” versus “lowers” in Indian society.” 

The study backs this finding saying, “This argument is corroborated by discussing the very poor responses from Jharkhand’s jails to petitions served under the Right to Information Act 2005, presenting relevant data gathered from 102 alleged Naxalite under-trials from eighteen districts of Jharkhand and by sharing personal experiences of several alleged Naxalite under-trial detainees in Jharkhand’s jails.”

According to the study, “About 46 per cent of under-trials under study belong to the age-group 29-40 years and 22 per cent belong to 18-28 years. Adivasis or Scheduled Tribes constitute 69 per cent of the respondents. About 42 per cent of respondents belong to Sarna Adivasis; 31 per cent Hindu, 25 per cent Christian and two per cent are Muslims.” Moreover, “Regarding the location of arrests, the data shows that about 57 per cent was arrested from their homes; 30 per cent was arrested from nearby towns or on journey; 8 per cent had surrendered at the court after being informed by the police about their being charge sheeted. Five per cent of the respondents was summoned to the police station to be arrested.”

The entire study may be read here:

The post Impoverished Adivasis Hunted as Criminals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

(This piece authored by Fr Stan Swamy was originally published on Sept 01, 2016. It is being re-published today in his memory.)

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment , declared  “…A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalized citizens.” “…to millions of Indians, development is a dreadful and hateful word that is aimed at denying them even the source of their sustenance…  on the path of ‘maldevelopment’ almost every step that we take seems to give rise to insurgency and political extremism”
[SC Special Leave Petition (C) NO.6933 OF 2007, sections 9,7]
 
Tragically the Cabinet Committee for Security (CCS) has given its nod to recruit 12 tribal battalions for so called ‘Maoist-hit states’ as reported by the media on July 25, 2016

It must be made loud and clear the government’s decision to set up
 
‘Anti-Maoist Tribal Battalions’ all over the country
‘Anti-Maoist Paharia Battalions’  in Jharkhand
‘Anti-Maoist Bastar Battalions’ in Chattisgarh
 
is unjust and unwarranted.
 
The Government is creating a ‘police state’ rather than meeting people’s needs: Instead of doing some re-thinking about  of its developmental model and work towards bringing greater equity among its citizens, it is determined to add more guns against the poorest of the poor.

This is in addition to the already deployed 5,00,000 police and para-military forces in the 88 ‘naxal affected’ districts with the financial investment of Rs.30 crores per district per year under the ‘Integrated Action Plan’ for infrastructure development. Now this addition of 12 battalions is to be composed of mostly (75%) ‘local youths’. This raises the following questions:

• Question No 1: Who are the “local youths” to be recruited for the Reserve Battalions?

Answer: the ‘local youths’ are Adivasi youths

• Question No 2: who are the Maoists they should fight under the label of ‘Left Wing Extremism’?

Answer: they are also Adivasis labelled as ‘maoists’

• Question No 3: why should Adivasis be made to fight/kill Adivasis?

Answer: so Adivasi communities can be weakened and their unity can be replaced by distrust.
 
This is a plot to divide Adivasi Community and force Adivasis to fight/kill fellow Adivasis
 
Traditionally, the Adivasi Community, as we well know, is characterised by a sense of equality, mutual cooperation, communitarianness, consensus decision making, and closeness to nature. The so-called ‘modern’ society, on the other hand, stands for values which are just the opposite. Renowned scholars affirm that if nature and earth are going to be saved (from the rapacious greed of the developmental model that destroys land, water and natural resources) it will be only by the indigenous Adivasi peoples.
 
Currently,  the dominant capitalist society, supported by mighty state power, is waging a war against the  economically weakened Adivasi community.  Once it is weakened, its social and cultural values will disappear automatically. This process of weakening their economic base is being furthered by foisting one Adivasi against another.   
 
The Government is spreading a false picture: The Indian Government is spreading a serious misconception that Adivasis have come under the sway of Maoists, that they shelter and feed Maoists, they have become by and large supporters of Maoists and many of them have become Maoists themselves.  This is far from the truth. The reality is that Most Maoists are Adivasis but most Adivasis are not Maoists.
 
True, some of them have joined the militant forces mostly because of their rights over jal, jangal, jamin are being snatched away by the government in collusion with big business with hardly any rehabilitation or any alternate means of livelihood. But that does not entitle a government to blame the whole Adivasi community as being extremist.
 
Wherein lies the solution?  Certainly not through amassing more and more troops, supported by helicopters. Central Indian states have already become ‘police states’ with more than half a million para-military and police personnel stationed there.  Practically every village has a police post and people cannot even move around on a day to day basis, without being stopped, questioned, searched because all the people have become ‘suspects’.  This cannot go on indefinitely.
 
If the government wants to end its self-created extremism, the only way is to honestly acknowledge the traditional rights that Adivasi Communities have enjoyed over their natural resources. There are clear constitutional provisions, parliament enactments, Supreme Court verdicts meant to protect their rights.
 
To spell out just the most significant of these:

• Abide by the Vth Schedule of the Constitution which empowers the Tribes Advisory Council  (TAC) to approve or disapprove any project meant for the tribal people. It directs the Governors of the ‘Scheduled Areas’ states to seek the advice of the TAC and instruct the government of the respective states to act as per the advice of TAC. Unfortunately no governor has ever  acted as per the provisions of the Vth Schedule. It is time they do so.
• Implement the Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Caste [ST/SC] (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 by which any non-tribal person/officer infringes on the economic, social rights of tribals must be punished. With recent amendments, late this law has been more stringent. It only needs rigorous implementation.
• Empower the Gram Sabhas through the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 2006 which authorizes  Gram Sabhas as the custodians of their tradition, culture and as consultants when displacement , rehabilitation  measures are to be worked out and whose consent is necessary when their land and natural resources are to be alienated from them for specific projects. Tragically these legal provisions are neatly ignored by the governments, state and central.
• The Supreme Court’s Samata Judgment 2007 should be carried out in letter and spirit because it clearly mandates that coal mining in Scheduled Areas cannot be undertaken by any private company  nor even by the government, but it can only be handled by tribal cooperatives and it is the government’s responsibility to functionalize this process. Sadly nobody even thinks of this significant judgment of the SC, let alone apply its fundamentals.
• The Forest Rights Act 2006 is an important legislation passed by the Indian parliament in the history of tribal empowerment especially relating to tenure security on forests and forest land. It is a legislation created with the intent to recognize, vest and record forest rights of the forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests  for generations and whose rights could not be recorded, due to which they underwent a serious historical injustice.  But sadly the injustice continues to be done. At an all India level, only about half of applications under the Act have been granted rights. Even those who get their patta, receive only a small portion of what they have actually claimed.  To make matters worse, a recent amendment to the Act does away with the power of Gram Sabhas insofar as their consent is not required to give forest land to companies.  Through an executive decision this power has now been given to the District Collector. So where will poor forest-dwelling Adivasis go?
• ‘Owner of the land is also the owner of sub-soil minerals’ The 2013 SC judgment makes it clear that the State/government is not the owner of sub-soil minerals. If the government wants that particular mineral, it must buy it from the land owner. That means that a Gram Sabha can say yes or no to selling its minerals. It also means that it is the Gram Sabhas have the power to excavate and market the minerals to companies whether public or private. This way rural communities can acquire legitimate wealth and become economically independent and well to do. This will lead them to social and political development and enable them to assume their due place within society.                                                                                       Very understandably, the government, the industrial and business class has chosen to neatly ignore this order of the judiciary. For obvious reasons. Gram Sabhas have to take the initiative and assert their natural right over natural resources.

 
Given the above considerations. . .
 
The Government’s decision to create Tribal Battalions is unjust and unwarranted. They are meant to weaken tribal communities by making Adivasis fight/kill one another. The ultimate aim is to make them leave their land with all its mineral resources so that this rich resource can be handed over to corporate houses.  This trickery of the government must be resisted at all costs.
 

The post Who is responsible for Extremism or Naxalism? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo Courtesy: The State

Noor Sridhar, an activist who has been working with people’s movements all his life went underground when several false cases were filed against him identifying him with the Naxal Movement. Due to the reconciliation efforts done with the Karnataka government by freedom fighter H.S. Doreswamy, Gauri Lankesh and Late A.K Subbiah around 2013-14, Noor Shridhar could return to the mainstream and now is acquitted of all charges that he was facing since 5 years of his return.

He returned to the mainstream on December 8, 2014, with fellow activist Sirimane Nagaraj after spending a month in jail and was released from prison on January 15, 2015. The Court after four years and a half years has acquitted him from all cases. After coming into the mainstream, Noor Sridhar has mobilised several movements for primarily the ones for poor and landless in Karnataka called “Bhoomi mattu Vasati horata” ( Struggle for land and shelter). Along with social recognition, he has also gained legal recognition now.

Out of four cases he was facing, two cases were related to Chikamagalur that resulted in acquittal one year ago. And out of the other two remaining cases in Udupi court, one case he got acquittal six months ago and today he was acquitted of the other remaining case.

The court ruled that he was not involved in any of the crimes and that there were no witnesses of that nature. Padmanabh, who had returned to the mainstream after Noor Sridhar, is acquitted in 5 out of 07 cases. The court today acquitted him as well in the other three cases.

Noor Sridhar, who was activist since his student days, after coming to the mainstream has played an instrumental role in the struggle for Land and shelter movement and with Diddalli Adivasis Land struggle in Coorg district of Karnataka. He has an organic link with all people-centric movements.

It is ironic that on one hand activists who were linked with the Naxalite movement and were booked in false cases are acquitted and around the same time, Raichur police have arrested social activist and journalist Doddipalya Narasimhamurthy on false charges last week.

Speaking to Gauri Lankesh news, Noor Sridhar said- ” There were four cases against me. All were false cases but I had to go through the legal procedure. I had to do the democratic struggle in society and legal struggle for justice. This process is going on for the last five years and one by one, I was getting acquitted. Today even the final case was closed.

“I am relieved but happiness is only temporary as many activists are still in prison under false cases. This foisting of false cases will continue and only increase. We have to be ready for this and still continue the struggle for justice.”

He thanked Late A. K. Subbaiah Late Gauri Lankesh and H.S. Doreswamy who fought with the government for him.

He also thanked his family, friends, and comrades who stood by him and supported him whenever needed.

First published in https://gaurilankeshnews.com/
 

The post Karnataka: “Former Naxalite” Noor Sridhar acquitted from all cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sangajata is a village about 23 kilometers from Goilkera block of West Singhbhum district. The villagers had planned a meeting, on April 8 2018, to discuss about pathalgadi in their villages. They had invited the mundas (village headmen) and other important persons of neighbouring villages to come to Sangajata to discuss the matter. They had printed and distributed leaf-lets about the same. However, the administration, especially the police, publicised the proposed meeting as being organised by Naxalites!

The meeting took place on April 8 as planned. On April 9, two groups of CRPF personnel came to the village. One of them caught hold of Mr. Bipin Gope, a villager who was collecting fire wood, and began to beat him up mercilessly asking him, “Where are the Naxalites?” He replied that he did not know anything about them. They kept beating him. When some women saw him being beaten up and they gathered others and approached the CRPF personnel with some sticks, surrounded them and shouted at them. The Jawans fired in the air to frighten the women. The women got frightened and ran back. While one of the women told others to stop and called her co-villagers to stop and see if the force wanted to tell them anything, the force said, “There, she is the leader of Naxalites.”

Then this group of the force went to another direction. Meanwhile, the women and men of the village had gathered in one place; they were filled with anger and fear. They wrote a note on a piece of paper saying, “If you want to talk to us, we are ready to talk.” This note was sent to the force through two women. The note reached the other group of CRPF and they came to talk. However, they started talking about development schemes, such as old age and widow pensions, BPL cards, etc. and they said till now there is no development in the village; and there were many development schemes with the government, etc.

An encounter with Naxalites in a patch of forest between Boroyi and Patung villages on 15^th April 2018.
The villagers could hear the sound of exchanging fire between two groups on 15^th April 2018. They also agree that there were some Naxalites staying in this patch of forest between Boroyi and Patung villages, near Nakahasa about 8 kilometres from Sangajata. They do not know anything more than this about the encounter between these two groups. However, the manipulation of fact the media (both Hindi and English) was obvious, all the newspaper reports said that the encounter was taking place in Sangajata village; either it was wrong reporting to target Sangajata and there is a proposal to put up a CRPF camp in Sangajata or they did not know the name of the place where the encounter actually happened. Moreover, one thing is very clear:  CRPF camps in Adivasi villages have very disastrous consequences.

Arrest of four villagers from Kuida hat (market place at Kuida) on 1^st May 2018
Four men, Premsingh Angaria, Junesh Tiu, Sukhram Gope (Village Education Committee Chairman) and Mangal Singh Angaria (Dakua’s son), had gone to Chakradharpur (CKP) and were coming back to their village (Sangajata)[1] on 1^st May. On arriving at Kuida, they went to take some rice-beer and some chana. While they were taking these, the police were there in plain clothes; inside the police vehicle, a person was sitting with his face covered. The police came and caught hold of all four of these men and put them inside the vehicle; Mr. Sakal Dev Oraon, the DSP of CKP, (who is said to be acting as the Khalluri of Kolhan) was there in the vehicle; he said, “chalo thana (come let us go to the police station)”; two other police men each took their two motorbikes; they rode the motorcycle to CKP police station and left them there. While they crossed Goilkera police station, Prem Singh asked the police officer, “This is the police station why are you not stopping the vehicle here since you want us to go to the Police station?” He replied, “This place is not good; there will be many reporters here.” The police took them to Sonua, from Sonua to Chakradarpur, to Jhinkpani and to Chaibasa. At CKP, near the railway gate there is a police camp-like place, where they made the four persons sit separately. They began to torture them and to get some clue about the whereabouts of Naxalites. On saying that they did not know anything about their whereabouts, they hit them thoroughly. This torture continued for an hour.

From CKP, two of them, Mangal Singh Angaria and Sukhram Gope, were taken to Chaibasa police station and then put in jail with an FIR filed on them under 17 CLA. They are in Jail now. Nothing has yet been done towards bailing them out.

The other two (Prem Singh and Junesh) were kept in lockup from 1^st to 9^th June (nine days) at Tonto police station Jhinkpani, near Chaibasa and were released on the ninth day. While all this transpired, the family and the other villagers did not have any information about what had happened to these four men who had gone to CKP on 1^st may 2018 and had not returned for several days.

Finally, the villagers contacted the Zila Parishad member from Goilkera Mr. Lakshman Melgandi (mob. 9631840280) and with his help they found out what was going on with the four men of their village and got these two men out of illegal custody of the police. They were told to report once every week at Goilkera police station and at the SP’s office at Chaibasa which is about 45 kilometres from their village. However, their bikes are under police custody, how will they be able to do this reporting at the police station and SP’s office?

Some important points

• There is some valuable mineral in Sangajata and other neighbouring villages;
• There is a plan to set up a CRPF camp in Sangajata village; there have been very disastrous consequences in having a CRPF camps near Adivasi villages;
• The villagers are angry and distressed;
• The police has entered the village without first informing the village-headman as it should be done;
• The two men were kept under police custody without informing the court about it; such activities of the police is unlawful.

The plan of action
We discussed this entire issue with Mr. DN Champia an ex-MLA and former Dep. Speaker of Bihar LA and Mr. Ramesh Jerai of Johar office, Chaibasa. Champiaji has agreed to go and meet the DGP, Kolhan with the Zila Parishad member from Goilkera as soon as possible and to submit a written (formal) complaint to him about these happenings.
[date of above report – 21 May 2018. Names of informants withheld for their safety]
 

The post Eyewitness narrates instances of state repression before the “Naxal” encounter in Jharkhand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a letter dated 16 June 2017, The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) directed the People’s Union of Civil Liberties (Chhattisgarh) to make further inquiries into a complaint it had received regarding the looting and burning of huts and the killing of seven persons of Kondasawali, a village in district Sukma of Chhattisgarh.

Sometime during the years 2006–2007, there was an increase in the presence of the members of Salwa Judum, a local militia aimed at “countering” Naxalite violence, in the hills surrounding the Kondasawali village. According to the testimonies collected, they regularly harassed the villagers; looted and burnt village property; beat up the villagers; and sexually assaulted women. Because of this, most of the villagers fled from their homes. While a few went to Bailadila, Andhra, and other nearby areas to look for work, the rest lived in the forest. Those living in the forests survived on whatever the people from nearby villages gave them, and the little that they could forage in the forest. A number of them died because of the harsh living conditions there. Around 2009–10, when Salwa Judum was starting to lose its influence in the area, the villagers started returning. It is around this period that a group of about 60-80 Selwa Judum leaders, SPOs, and the state force, attacked, burnt and looted three settlements in the Kondasawali Gram Panchayat i.e. Karrepara, Kamaraguda, and Kondasawali.  About 95 huts were burnt and seven people killed. In 2011, the Supreme Court declared the Salwa Judum illegal and unconstitutional and ordered its disbanding.

By 2013, the surviving villagers had returned and were well on their way to rebuilding their homes and tilling their lands. Because enough time had passed since the last incidence of violence, the villagers felt that it was now safe enough to file a complaint against the perpetrators who had pillaged the village and killed seven people. Finally, the then Sarpanch of Kondasawali, Sandam Sannu, filed an official complaint to the Collector on 12 July 2013. Following this, on 13 August 2017, Barse Nande, a villager, was attacked and killed by the security forces. She had been one of the key complainants in the case, as her husband, Barse Nanda, was one of the seven people who had been killed in the 2009–10 violence. Fearing that this was an act of retribution for filing the complaint, and worried about any further violence or killings against the complainants, Sudha Bhardwaj, on behalf of the Chhattisgarh chapter of PUCL, took up the matter with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

The report, prepared by PUCL and submitted to the NHRC says, “A delegation of the PUCL also met the Inspector General of Police and Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur on 13 September 2013, and apprised them of the case.” On 16 June 2017, the NHRC wrote to Sudha Bhardwaj, and asked her to visit Kondasawali as the General Secretary of the Chhattisgarh PUCL, and gather more information regarding the incident and the complaint. Being unable to visit the area personally, Bhardwaj request Soni Sori’s help, a human rights defender. Sori, along with JK Vidhya, a researcher, formed a fact finding team that could go to Kondasawali Gram Panchayat. Bhardwaj wrote to Sumedha Dwivedi, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of NHRC, informing her of the same.

Ultimately, an eight member fact finding team — comprising Soni Sori (human rights defender), JK Vidhya (researcher), Lingaram Kodopi (human rights defender), Sukul Prasad (human rights defender), Danti Poyim (interpreter), Pushpa Rokde (journalist), Nitin Rokde (journalist), and Soni Sori’s guard and PSO — was put together. Due to various unavoidable delays, the team finally managed to visit the village on 21st–22nd August 2017.

Once there, they got in touch with the erstwhile Sarpanch who had filed the original complaint, and he sent word to all the villages in the Kondasawali Gram Panchayat that anyone willing to give their testimonies or speak to the team could come to a specific common ground the next day.

A sizable crowd had gathered there the next day. The report says, “After a brief discussion with everyone present, it was decided that each person who lost a family member during the incidents in 2009-10 and 2013 would testify on camera. Following their testimony, all those present from the three [settlements] where homes were burnt would testify collectively on camera. And finally, after that, all those present could speak up if they wished to do so.”

Among those who gave their testimonies to the fact-finding team sent by PUCL (Chhattisgarh), there were people who could name and recognise at least a handful of those who were responsible for the violence. One of the primary demands of the villagers is that these men be removed from their posts in the government and be punished for their role in the incident. The report lists other demands as well: “The villagers of Gram Panchayat Kondasawali gathered together and prepared a list of demands. They read out these demands in public which has also been recorded by the team. The team assured the villagers that the same would be conveyed to the NHRC though they did not all strictly pertain to the complaint that the team had come to enquire into.”

The team then submitted all their findings, testimonies, observations, along with all the videos and relevant documents, to the PUCL. A report detailing the entire matter, from the complaint originally launched, to the fact finding team’s visit, was written by Sudha Bhardwaj and JK Vidhya, and submitted to Sumesha Dwivedi, SSP NHRC. Al the findings of the fact-finding team, including the video testimonies, their observations, and other documents, were submitted along with this report.

 
The NHRC has come out with an order. It says, “The Commission concludes that these incidents had come to the notice of police, revenue and other officials of District Sukma soon after they had taken place but police and district officials had deliberately turned a blind eye to these killings and incidents of arson.”

(Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum)

The post How the Salwa Judum Looted and Killed Villagers in Kondasawali Village in Chattisgarh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the brutal attack on a team of 90 CRPF personnel who were on duty, sanitising a stretch of the public road being constructed in the Burkapal-Chintagufa area of Sukma district, at least 25 CRPF personnel died in ambush, while scores of others were injured.

According to surviving CRPF jawans, an unspecified number of militants are also said to have been killed in the attack. Later, the media reported on the preliminary findings of an internal inquiry conducted by the CRPF to determine what went wrong that cost so many human lives.

Based on media reports on preliminary findings of an internal inquiry conducted by CRPF to determine what went wrong that cost so many human lives, well-known right to information (RTI) activist VenkateshNayakinvestigated, using the Right to Information (RTI) Act, from the CRPF whether it considers “unfortunate deaths of serving CRPF personnel” in the incident as a “prima facie” case of “violation of the human rights of the CRPF personnel”.

Nayak, who is with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi, also sought a photocopy of the report of the inquiry conducted by CRPF into the circumstances surrounding the attack.”

An official CRPF reply has denied that the murderous attack amounted to human rights violation, stating, “There appears to be no violations of human rights”. The reply received by Nayak under RTI can be read here.

It added, the inquiry report into the incident contained “various security and tactics related issues” and therefore “cannot be shared under RTI Act because it might adversely affect CRPF's strategic response.”

Explains Nayak in an email alert to Sabrangindia, “The Constitution of India guarantees several fundamental rights to all citizens. However, when a citizen enters any of the notified security forces, some of their fundamental rights are curtailed, so long as they are in service.”

“Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate any of these fundamental rights in the case of citizens joining the armed forces (army, navy, air force etc.) and forces involved in the maintenance of public order (such as the police)”, he adds.

According to Nayak, the CRPF Act, 1949, including the Schedule of The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, validate restrictions on CRPF personnel.

However, insists Nayak, “They continue to have the fundamental right to life while in service. Clearly, the murderous attack in April by left-wing extremist groups amounts to violation of their human rights by non-state actors. By denying this reality, the CRPF may be doing injustice to its own personnel.”

Ironically, says Nayak, the CRPF reply comes in the face of attack occurs, at a time when “self-appointed conscience-keepers of the ‘nation’ and advocates of a belligerent brand of ‘nationalism’ operating through TV news channels (official spokespersons of ruling political parties and news-anchors alike) accuse human rights advocates of not raising their voice against the violation the human rights of security personnel.”

Suggesting the RTI reply make these “pontificators of nationalism” to question the government's attitude towards such incidents, Nayak wonders, “Why does the Government and in this case, the CRPF, fight shy of treating these attacks as ‘human rights violations’ of their personnel?”

What the CRPF treats as "human rights violations" under the RTI Act is one of the questions that will come up for examination next month in two of my Writ Petitions filed before the Delhi High Court.
 
 
This is how VenkateshNayak went about his investigation:
 
CRPF denies that the Sukma attack amounts to violation of the human rights of its personnel
 
A couple of weeks after the attack, I sought the following information from the CRPF, under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act):
 
"Apropos of the enclosed news report, I would like to obtain the following information under the RTI Act, from your public authority, as prima facie,it pertains to allegations of violation of the right to life of the CRPF personnel who were killed in the attack that occurred on 24 April, 2017 in Sukma, Chhattisgarh:
 
1)    A clear photocopy of the report of the inquiry conducted by the CRPF into the circumstances surrounding the said attack on the CRPF personnel along with annexures, if any.
 
I am a citizen of India. I have attached an IPO (bearing #38F 122978) for Rs. 10/- towards payment of the prescribed application fee. The reports of the unfortunate deaths of serving CRPF personnel in the said incidents prima facie may constitute allegations of violation of the human rights of those CRPF personnel. Therefore I believe this is a fit case for disclosure of information under the second proviso of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Kindly obtain the approval of the Central Information Commission prior to disclosing the information described above as is the statutory requirement under the said proviso of the RTI Act." [emphasis supplied]
 
Recently, in June, taking refuge under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), CRPF has sent a reply denying that the murderous attack amounted to human rights violation. 
 
Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts 26 intelligence and security organisations from ordinary obligations of transparency like other public authorities. However they are duty bound to give information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Information about allegations of human rights violations can be given only with the approval of the Central Information Commission. Exempt agencies like the CRPF simply do not provide any information at all even if it is related to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. Often they simply deny the existence of such allegations.
 
The CRPF CPIO's reply to my RTI application is reproduced below:
 
"b) In the instant matter, there appears to be no violations of Human Rights as well as facts of the case do not attract the allegations of corruption. Moreover your application does not make any reference to such allegations. Hence this department is not liable to provide any information in this regard to you under RTI Act-2005." [emphasis supplied]
 
The CPIO of CRPF also said that the inquiry report into the incident contains various security and tactics related issues and cannot be shared under RTI Act because it might adversely affect CRPF's strategic response. (The CPIO's reply, the RTI application, the attached news report of the deadly ambush are in the attachment.)
 
 
What is problematic with the CRPF's RTI reply?
The CRPF's CPIO has held that the deaths of the 25 personnel in the ambush do not amount to violation of their human rights by non-State actors even though I had specifically pointed out this connection in my RTI application. This reply is hugely problematic for the following reasons:
 
1) Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees several fundamental rights to all citizens. Some fundamental rights such as the rights to life and equality before the law, are guaranteed even for individuals who are not Indian citizens. However, when a citizen enters any of the notified security forces, some of their fundamental rights are curtailed, so long as they are in service. Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate any of these fundamental rights in the case of citizens joining the armed forces (army, navy, air force etc.) and forces involved in the maintenance of public order (such as the police).
 
The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966enacted by Parliament, restricts three categories of fundamental rights of every member of a notified police force:
 
i) Personnel of police organisations notified in the Schedule of the Act cannot become a member of any trade union, labour union or political association or any other society, association, institution or organisation unless they are part of the force or have been set up for social, recreational or religious purposes [restriction on the fundamental right to form associations or unions guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c)];
 
ii) Police personnel are prohibited from communicating with the press or publishing a book, letter or document unless it is about the discharge of official duties and with proper authorisation or if it is purely artistic, literary or scientific in character [restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a)]; and 
 
iii) Police personnel are prohibited from participating in any meeting or taking part in any demonstration organised by any body for political purposes [restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 19(1)(b)].
 
As the CRPF Act, 1949 is included in the Schedule of The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966– all three restrictions apply to CRPF personnel as well. As this is a law duly enacted by Parliament, such restrictions are treated as being reasonable and have been upheld by Courts in umpteen cases.
 
However, nowhere in The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 is the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution restricted for CRPF personnel or the members of other police forces listed in the Schedule. They continue to have the fundamental right to life while in service. Clearly, the murderous attack in April by LWE groups amounts to violation of their human rights by non-State actors. By denying this reality, the CRPF may be doing injustice to its own personnel.
 
2) There is another reason why this denial is problematic. Every time such an attack occurs, self-appointed conscience-keepers of the "nation" and advocates of a belligerent brand of "nationalism" operating through TV news channels (official spokespersons of ruling political parties and news-anchors alike) accuse human rights advocates of not raising their voice against the violation the human rights of security personnel. Instead of barking up the wrong tree, these pontificators of nationalism must question the Government's attitude towards such incidents. Why does the Government and in this case, the CRPF, fight shy of treating these attacks as "human rights violations" of  their personnel? Surely, there must be a reason for it. If such attacks causing the deaths of security personnel are not treated as "human rights violations" committed by non-State actors, why paint human rights advocates as villains even though they always condemn such incidents in unequivocal terms?
 
 
In response to another RTI application of mine, sent in May 2014, during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime, the CRPF denied that there was any human rights violation when its personnel posted on election duty in Chhattisgarh and Bihar, died due to attacks launched by LWE groups. This policy of denial continues under the present National Democratic Alliance (NDA) regime. It is high time the Government made a clean breast of its understanding of attacks on security personnel- as "human rights violations" or merely as "criminal offences". Surely, "the people" in the "times now", as citizens of the "Republic" have the right to know – what rationale determines the Government's attitude towards such murderous attacks? (pun intended)
 
 
 

The post No, the Attack by Naxals on the CRPF Killing 25 personnel in Sukma is Not a Human Rights Violation: CRPF appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Why was Madkam Hidme allegedly raped and killed by Chhattisgarh police: Himanshu Kumar’s Video appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This article is based on Suvojit Bagchi’s reports from Chattisgarh for The Hindu and few of his recent presentations on conflict in south Chattisgarh.

 
My presentation is on the challenges faced by the journalists, especially of the Hindi language press, working in Chattisgarh State in central India. 
 
South Chattisgarh’s Dandakarnya area is about 40,000 square kilometres in size – nearly as big as Netherlands or Kerala – and very sparsely populated, mostly inhabited by Gond tribals. Since the 80s this area has witnessed a leftist armed movement. In response to which the police and paramilitary stepped-up their operations from time to time. This has been the story in south Chattisgarh since Independence. Even before the Maoist party was formed in the late 1960s, police action on the tribals was a routine affair.
 
Let us look at a paper clipping from an English language newspaper, Dandakarnya Samachar, published in 1961.
 

Slide/caption: Newspaper clipping of 1961. Photo courtesy: Suvojit Bagchi
 
The newspaper was full of such news at the time. So, in 1961, when the Indian State was not half as powerful as now, the government did not stop such reports from rolling out, reports which were directed against the police. However it is far more difficult for the local press to publish such reports today saying “police opened fire”. Such newspaper reports from the early 1960s establish that long before even Maoist or Naxalite parties were formed, such police action was commonplace in Bastar division in south Chattisgarh. I have many newspaper clippings to establish this fact.
 
 Kamal Shukla is a prominent journalist in south Chattisgarh who routinely talks about rights of the journalists in Chattisgarh. He told me last week that it is impossible for scribes to enter a village when a shootout occurs in which innocent villagers are killed, especially when it is by the police.We, in India, call them encounter killings. A journalist’s key job in a conflict area is to identify a “fake” encounter from a “real” one. Fake is one when a person is killed point blank without an exchange of fire, whereas the real one is when a genuine exchange of fire takes place between the police and the insurgents.
 
Dandakarnya is a huge area, an extremely hostile terrain with hardly any motorable road inside the forest areas, dotted with camps of joint forces. So it is an exceptionally difficult job for a journalist to (a) develop his/her contacts to get an access inside the forest (b) convince the contact to take him/her inside as its extremely risky for the person who is permanently residing in the area (c) to evade the paramilitary force to walk 20-30 kilometres to reach a village in extreme weather and (d) to convince your editor to give you a week or more to go inside the forest to investigate one story of killing or a rape.
 
It indeed is a luxury to propose one story in a week in a newspaper. However, time is a significant factor for an in-depth and nuanced story.Any serious and sincere journalist needs time and financial and professional support from his/her newspaper to venture into hostile territory. Without such institutional support it is impossible to work in – forget Bastar – in any place of conflict. It is impossible for freelancers to operate freely in Bastar and central Indian conflict areas – which also is the mining and tribal India – the poorest part of India, stretching over six states: eastern Maharashtra, southern Chattisgarh, north Telangana, west-south Odisha, western Jharkhand and west-south Bengal.
 
Kamal Shukla, while attempting to reach Sulenga village in Bijapur district (in the extreme south), was detained by the police. This was on the February 19, two weeks after the death of a villager Hedma Ram. Shukla was trying to investigate Hedma Ram’s death.He was later threatened and told that he would be arrested. After a month he tried to re-enter the village with a well-known English language television journalist and he was successful.

Without entering Sulenga village Shukla would have never known that Hedma Ram, who was killed in a fake encounter was not a Naxalite but the brother of one who was. The Hindu has reported this incident in May in the context of another story. Actually, there was no real encounter. Hedma Ram was simply picked up on February 2 and killed. The police said that there was an award of about one lakh rupees on him as he was a “dreaded Naxalite”. Hedma Ram was in jail for two years on a fake charge for not getting his brother arrested. After being acquitted by the court he was declared a Maoist – and a "dreaded one" – and shot within a week of his acquittal.  
 
Had he not been to the village Shukla would have never known that a man turned into a “dreaded Naxalite” within a week of his acquittal from all charges and was so dangerous that he had to be eliminated.
 
If one investigates the arrests or encounter killings on a case by case basis one would find that an overwhelming majority of cases against the tribals are fake. That is why it is dangerous for the police to let the local journalists enter the villages to unearth the truth.

So if one investigates the arrests or encounter killings on a case by case basis one would find that an overwhelming majority of cases against the tribals are fake. That is why it is dangerous for the police to let the local journalists enter the villages to unearth the truth.
 
Police wants the journalists to report everything – from the condition of schools or health centres in interior areas, surrenders of insurgents, alleged rapes or fake encounters – but on basis of police hand outs and press statements. They do not want journalists to visit the family of the victims.
 
If the journalists keep on challenging the administration, as they do by keeping on entering villages to investigate – after a point their houses will be ransacked and finally they will be arrested under a draconian state law.
 
Journalist and former Chattisgarh chief of ICRC Malini Subramaniam’s house was ransacked and she left south Chattisgarh while, Somaru Nag, Santosh Yadav, Prabhat Singh and Deepak Jaiswal were arrested over last one year. The last two – Singh and Jaiswal – even met chief minister Raman Singh with an appeal to create an atmosphere where fair journalism can be practised. The chief minister promised to create space for journalists. What in fact happened was that they were promptly arrested soon after meeting the CM. One of them has got bail only recently.

It is not only journalists; social activists, lawyers, legal activists, doctors and ordinary who are being monitored and pressurised. The judges are also being systematically harassed by the police – for stating that some of the tribals are wrongly implicated. In this context kindly refer to the series of reports published by Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group on the legal and illegal modes of harassment of the Bastar tribals.

It is not only journalists; social activists, lawyers, legal activists, doctors and ordinary who are being monitored and pressurised. The judges are also being systematically harassed by the police – for stating that some of the tribals are wrongly implicated. In this context kindly refer to the series of reports published by Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group on the legal and illegal modes of harassment of the Bastar tribals. 
 
It is also important to highlight that I lost a dear friend Sai Reddy, an excellent reporter and analyst, to this ongoing conflict. Reddy was hacked to death by the Maoists who later claimed that he had helped the police to put in place a vigilante force in south Chattisgarh that killed many tribals. Later, many leaders from Maoist party’s central committee or politburo told me that it was a mistake to kill Reddy and that they acknowledge their mistake. While the outlawed party has not targeted any journalist after Reddy’s killing in 2013, the security forces keep harassing the scribes. Interestingly, in 2008, Reddy was arrested by the state police and charged under the Special Public Security Act of Chhattisgarh for his alleged connection with the Naxalites.This treatment has been meted out to many other journalists and civil society activists of Chhattisgarh

Here, it may not be out of context to quote from a concept note for a seminar that I recently addressed. The note prepared by Delegation of the European Union to India reads:
 
“An issue of concern is also protection for journalists when they cover emergencies. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols contain only two explicit references to media personnel [Article 4 A (4) of the Third Geneva Convention and Article 79 of Additional Protocol I] but, read in conjunction with other humanitarian rules, journalists have a comprehensive protection under the existing humanitarian framework. Article 79 provides journalists all rights and protections that are granted to civilians in international armed conflicts. The same holds true in non-international armed conflicts by virtue of customary international law (Rule 34 of the ICRC’s Customary Law Study). Journalists’ right to life, liberty, security and freedom of expression are all protected under the various Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
 
The routine harassment of journalists reminds me of the comment by Adele Balasingham, wife of Anton Balasingham, who worked among LTTE in north and east of Sri Lanka for many decades. When journalists were targeted by Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka before the aerial attacks commenced, Ms Balasingham wrote that the “world’s largest democracy carried out the heinous crime of striking down the very instrument of democracy, the media of the people of Jaffna, to stifle their freedom of opinion and expression.” The state perhaps has now decided to “stifle” freedom of expression inside its border, in Bastar, so such military operations can be conducted freely.
 
However, there are also journalists who obediently report as the security forces want them to.
 
And those who listen to the police and report from press briefings get many awards: road construction contracts, government building contracts and above all pay packets from the police.
 
In rural India, most of the papers and TV channels do not pay their reporters in Hindi or other local languages in the districts. They ask their reporters to raise funds from companies, from the local administration or traders.

Now, you may ask, why their respective media houses, some of which are national brands, never question such violation of media ethics. For two reasons:
 
1. Most of these papers do not pay their journalists. I repeat, in rural India, most of the papers and TV channels do not pay their reporters in Hindi or other local languages in the districts. They ask their reporters to raise funds from companies, from the local administration or traders. The terms of employment are simple: Deposit a percentage of your collection as ad-revenue, also look after the circulation. So the reporter in many parts of rural India is a reporter- cum-sales person-cum-circulation manager, thus aligning his personal and company’s interest, in violation of all media ethics.
 
This is precisely the reason why a newspaper or a television channel can always disown its journalists when they are arrested saying that the journalist is an ad-sales person or a freelancer who is not on the company’s pay roll. The fact is that hardly any of the staff in the remote areas in the districts is on the company’s pay roll. In states like West Bengal, for example, where the crisis is not as acute, this is not a major issue. But in a conflict area such a policy of the media house is traumatic for the journalists who end up in jail for several months or years for being not backed by respective media houses.
 
2. Secondly, the newspapers or media houses get leases of iron ore, bauxite or coal mines themselves, making it virtually impossible for them to criticise any of the government’s policies. Imagine a situation when the media houses, which are expected to write against the government, are acquiring mines from the same government against whom they are expected to write. So, they do not mind if their reporters incarcerate in jail as their objective is not journalism but mining. And let us not forget that some of these papers and television channels are well-known national brands deciding national policies from terrorism to fiscal deficit. There is absolutely no monitoring of these papers or channels as to what are they producing and how are they treating their reporters.
 
In a situation like this, with the trauma and helplessness of the adivasis remaining hidden from the rest of the world, as journalists are censured, the Bastar tribals have slowly started etching their stories on memorial plaques which they call Mritak Sthamv.

In this context, we journalists or at least I had some hope from the English language press – print and television – as the local administration takes it little more seriously.

Unfortunately the English language press has failed to realise the scale of this tragedy in the Maoist, mining and tribal heartland of India. According to official figures 3,000-4,000 people have died here over the last five-six years. The unofficial death toll is far higher. If a traffic signal does not work on Lodhi Road for half-an-hour, perhaps 20 reporters will assemble. However, thousands getting killed, raped or going hungry in tribal India doesn’t get reported by the English press. The reason being none of the English press has a full-scale bureau or even a correspondent in Dandakarnya.
 
In a situation like this where the trauma and helplessness of the adivasis remains hidden from the rest of the world the Bastar tribals have slowly started etching their stories on memorial plaques which they call Mritak Sthamv.
 
As we reported in The Hindu a few days ago, villagers in the heavily militarised areas of south Chhattisgarh “have embraced the traditional Gond art to document fake encounters that are not uncommon in that part of India. The last moments of Gond tribals, as they are killed by the security forces, are narrated on stone plaques. Kamal Shukla, the journalist who has documented such plaques says that he has never come across such unique storytelling earlier.

Time will tell whether this unique storytelling on memorial plaques will evolve as a form – which is unusually similar to the paintings of 19^th century artists of Bengal called Potuas, to a layman like me – or disappear with time. But it is a fact that at the moment such storytelling is evolving because the traditional 20^th century forms, to document an event using a camera or a note pad and pen are blocked. The story published in The Hindu, on Mritak Sthamv may be read here.

To end, I would quote John Pilger: “Journalism, not truth, is the first casualty of war”. So it is in south Chattisgarh.
 
(Suvojit Bagchi has covered conflict in south Chattisgarh for the BBC World Service and The Hindu).

The post Shooting the Messenger: Life and Death of Journalism in the Bastar Forest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tarkunde celebrated his 90th birthday on July 3, 1999. Few men could have led so full a life, a life so rich in achievement, a life devoted without a break for what is right, what is fair and just.

Having become a barrister, he started practising law, first in Pune, then in Bombay. From the very beginning, he devoted a large part of his life to social work. Social work for Tarkunde meant hard and uncomfortable work in the villages which he was fully qualified to do as he had a degree in agricultural economics. He did not do such work for publicity and self–advancement, but because he thought it right to do it. After he shifted to Bombay, social work meant assisting the trade union movement. He was also involved in the freedom movement.

He was appointed a judge of the Bombay High Court and proved to be an outstanding judge with a passion for justice. For Tarkunde, the very object of law was to bring about justice. He analysed the underlying principle behind the law and to the extent possible decided in a manner that was fair and just. He was a judge for 12 years during which he delivered a number of judgements of distinction in the field of administrative and other branches of law.

On retiring, he started practising in the Supreme Court. He soon had a flourishing practice. He was always, however, available to appear for an impecunious client or a worthy cause. Many lawyers have done such work but few have done it so extensively. And, unlike most lawyers, Tarkunde did such work whenever required, not only when convenient so as not to disturb the flow of flourishing and paying work. Tarkunde in fact gave priority to such work and there were weeks when he did nothing else.

He was always in great demand for such work as he devoted all his energy and formidable legal ability to such work. But that was not all. He did not merely appear in court for good causes. That is easy. He also attended conferences and conventions all over the country, participated in demonstrations and protests. He travelled to small towns, staying in inconvenient and uncomfortable places. He was not afraid, and on at least one occasion, he was in a silent procession which was ruthlessly dispersed by the police, with Tarkunde himself being beaten up.

It is not even possible to list his many activities. He was at the fore–front of the campaign to end police atrocities against the Naxalites. After the vicious anti–Sikh pogrom in Delhi which followed the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi, he took the lead in exposing the involvement of the Congress leadership and the higher police authorities in the pogrom. He supported the Bohra reformists in exposing the policies of the Bohra priesthood in suppressing all kinds of dissent. When the Khalistan movement was at its height, he had the courage to condemn the way in which the police and the para–military authorities had functioned. He did the same when Kashmir was racked by militancy later.

Unlike some activists, he condemned all acts of violence and atrocities, whether committed by the police or by the militants. He had the courage to do so in Srinagar when he was attending a militant rally!

Tarkunde is not a Gandhian in the formal sense; he does not wear khadi, and he enjoyed his game of golf. But if being Gandhian means a devotion to truth and principle, he is a great Gandhian.

He is a person who puts the human being first, above all "isms"; what he is devoted to is the freedom and welfare of the man. He abhors dogma and fundamentalism of all kinds.

At the function held to felicitate him on his 90th birthday in Mumbai, he spoke and made a few points which sum up the man, and which deserve to be widely known.

He stressed that he believed in morality which he explained meant doing what was good and right, not to oblige others, not to be thanked or praised, but because doing good should satisfy and please the person who does it. He called this enlightened self–interest. He said that he was a nationalist, but also a democrat; nationalism to him meant not believing in an abstraction called the nation, but working for the welfare, freedom and happiness of the people who constitute the nation. And speaking at the height of the Kargil crisis, he said that he unhesitatingly condemned the action of the militants in torturing and killing some Indian jawans, but reminded the audience not to forget that thousands of Kashmiris who had disappeared without a trace after being arrested by the police. Saying this required courage and this reveals the real Tarkunde, a man of great courage with the highest principles.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999. Year 6  No. 51, Tribute 1

The post Crusader for Human Rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.