Chhatisgarh: Salwa Judum's Excesses and Supreme Court's Verdict
Sanjay Parate
JUSTICE B Sudarshan Reddy is on the target of BJP after becoming the Vice Presidential candidate from India Block. He is being accused of being responsible for the Maoist violence in Chhattisgarh, because he was the one who banned the Salwa Judum sponsored by the BJP government in Chhattisgarh.
In the inhumane excesses that took place in this violent movement, 650 villages were forcibly evacuated and dozens of villages were burnt, hundreds of women were raped and hundreds were killed in this campaign. More than one lakh people were displaced from their homes and villages and even today thousands of people are missing. Large scale massacre of villagers was carried out by the police and paramilitary forces in the name of Naxalites, which was confirmed by the CBI, Human Rights Commission and Scheduled Tribe Commission in their various investigation reports, but till date the officers responsible for this have not been punished. Tribal children and former Naxal elements were made Special Police Officers (SPOs), thus pitting tribals against tribals. And all this was done to facilitate corporate plunder of Bastar's natural resources. Even after the ban on Salwa Judum, this campaign of plunder continues unabated and there has been no let-up in the oppression of tribals and violation of their human rights. As a result, the 2011 census recorded a decline of more than 2 per cent in the tribal population in Bastar.
Justice Sudarshan has clarified in one of his statements that the decision on Salwa Judum was of the Supreme Court and not his personal one. In the context of the attack being made on him by the BJP, it would be useful to briefly recall the Supreme Court's decision on Salwa Judum, because a party which has no faith in the Constitution and constitutional decisions can neither protect democracy nor respect human rights. Today, the BJP has become a mere weapon in the hands of corporate capital.
This interpretation of the Supreme Court exposed the anti-people policies of the BJP government of the state, which are generally being adopted in the name of suppression of Naxalism to suppress the tribals, violate their human rights and loot the geological wealth of Bastar. The Supreme Court's direct attack was on the neo-liberal and globalisation-induced policies of the government, whose "cost" is being recovered from the poor, but "a large part of its benefits are being captured by the dominant section of the society". In its decision, the Supreme Court has quoted the report titled 'Challenges of Development in Insurgency Affected Areas' of a group of experts constituted by the Planning Commission -- "Due to this, they (tribals) have inevitably had to face displacement... This has destroyed their social organisation, cultural identity and resources... The purpose of all this is to capture their resources and violate the dignity of the deprived people." (Para-6).
Terming this model of development as 'development terrorism', the court quoted renowned economist Amit Bhaduri saying -- "In this, continuous violence is being committed against the poor in the name of state development. The state is working mainly in the interest of the corporate elite. In this work, it has the support of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as well as the selfish political class. This development terrorism is being described as progress by political groups... The poor facing 'development terrorism' will reject it by their direct resistance." (Para- 14).
The policies that are being adopted for the so-called development of the country and to exploit the natural resources in favour of the dominant class and to ensure a high growth rate have increased the number of deprived and neglected people and deprived of human dignity on a very large scale. The high economic growth and development rate that is being talked about has only and only ensured unequal distribution of income. The process of land acquisition going on in the entire country and the rise of people's movements against it also makes this point clear.
The court has accepted that during 1950-1990, 213 lakh people had to be displaced due to development projects, in which the number of tribals alone was 40 per cent (85 lakh), but only 25 per cent of these people were rehabilitated. But these are the figures before the implementation of the new economic policies supported by the Fund-Bank. Due to the policies of liberalisation and globalisation that are being implemented after 1990, the number must have more than doubled at present. This is the 'dark side of globalisation', which demands the sacrifice of the majority of the underprivileged -- almost all of whom are adivasis, dalits and people from the economically weaker sections -- for the sake of a few in the affluent classes. Hence the Court's observation that the "false development paradigm promoted by the Indian state has no human face." (Para- 14). "The state has directly supported and promoted the predatory forms of capitalism in violation of constitutional norms and values." (Para- 12).
This is the political-economic background of the country, from which Chhattisgarh is no different. 23 per cent of the country's total iron ore is found here and we have seen how the process of land acquisition was completed in favor of Tata by pointing guns at the tribals. How even today, protests against the land being forcibly taken over in the name of power plants are being lathi-charged. How Jindal, notorious for the plunder of mineral wealth, is the apple of the eye of the BJP and Congress governments in Chhattisgarh and Karnataka respectively. The Supreme Court has commented -- "These policies certainly violate the principles which are considered the 'foundation of governance'." (Para- 13).
Therefore, in the context of the Salwa Judum sponsored by the BJP government in Chhattisgarh, the question was relevant: Is the BJP government following the values and limits prescribed by the Constitution for governance? (Para-16). The Supreme Court believed -- 'No', because its policies and actions violate Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (dignity of human life) of the Constitution and this violation is being done on a very large scale.
In its order (para- 75), the Supreme Court had questioned the appointments of the so-called Koya Commandos or Special Police Officers (SPOs) who were conducting Salwa Judum and ordered to be neutralised. The Supreme Court was not only concerned about the human rights of innocent tribals but also draws attention to the human rights of these SPOs who “instead of giving books in their hands, have been given guns and have been given the job of standing guard against the plunder of the forests” (para- 18). The Chhattisgarh government has considered the SPOs as “part of the regular security forces” while their appointment was temporary and they were paid very low honorarium. This was clearly a violation of their human rights.
The BJP government of Chhattisgarh had falsely claimed in its affidavit that these SPOs were adequately trained and were not being used in direct combat with the Maoists. The court found that apart from other tasks, the SPOs have “one of the main tasks of identifying Maoists and their sympathizers”. This task made them a direct target of the Maoists and after their tenure ends and they surrender their weapons to the government, they will be completely vulnerable. Rejecting the claims of the Chhattisgarh government, the court has pointed out that between 2004-11, out of 6,500 SPOs, 291 SPOs have been killed, which is about 5 per cent of the total SPOs, while during the same period only 1 per cent of the regular security forces have been killed. A large number of these SPOs have also been killed in Naxal attacks on government-run relief camps.
The Supreme Court has also pointed out why their appointment as SPOs was unconstitutional. The court has said that these SPOs are so poorly educated that they cannot even understand the modern concept of self-defense, so there is a high possibility of their using these weapons in the wrong way, because most of the youth recruited as SPOs are either victims of Naxalite atrocities or are former Naxalites. Therefore, they have already been dehumanized with a feeling of anger and revenge. But there can be no place for anger and revenge in the government force. If the mental state is not right, these SPOs can declare anyone a Maoist and use these weapons to settle local enmity.
These apprehensions of the Supreme Court were correct. “The Human Rights Commission has also mentioned in its report that many incidents of looting, arson and violence have been carried out by the SPOs and security forces.” (Para-59). These SPOs also attacked anti-Salwa Judum activists on a large scale. Even as a civilian, free movement was hindered in the areas where Salwa Judum was operating. They attacked villages on a large scale and were accused of burning hundreds of houses in Morpalli, Tadmetla and Timapuram villages, killing and raping people. After these incidents came to light, the relief material that the then Collector tried to send to these affected villages on the instructions of the government was also stopped by these SPOs. In this way, these SPOs tried to establish their parallel power. The Chhattisgarh government itself has admitted in the Supreme Court that disciplinary action was taken against about 1,200 SPOs and they were dismissed. This number was 20 to 40 per cent of the total people recruited as SPOs.
The decision of the Supreme Court, spread over 81 paragraphs, was criticised by the BJP even at that time. The Supreme Court's decision on Salwa Judum was a constitutional decision, but the BJP has no faith in the Constitution of this country and its values, the basic principles of democracy and human rights. The attack on Justice Sudarshan Reddy proves this fact.
