May 20, 2011

Chhattisgarh: Eye of the Civil Society Storm

The Chhattisgarh government was challenged by the Supreme Court as well as civil society in April. Human rights activist Binayak Sen, undergoing life imprisonment on charges of sedition and links with outlawed Maoists was released on bail on 18 April. The Supreme Court observed that mere possession of Naxal literature does not make a person a Naxalite or guilty of sedition. As anticipated the Supreme Court provided relief to Dr Binayak Sen in a high profile order which would have major implications on implementation of the sedition clause on civil rights activists in the future. The Indian government would also have to see how the challenge from separatists who have an agenda of sedition is to be met.

The set back to the Chhattisgarh government is likely to also have a political fall out with central government ministers including the Home Minister welcoming the release even as Law Minister indicated that the sedition law itself will have to be changed. Thus the issue is likely to remain in the limelight along with the larger one of how the state can tackle insurgency while allowing access to civil rights activists to information and media and not be seen as supporters or sympathizers of the guerrillas. The Chhattisgarh government in its enthusiasm to target civil rights activists has possibly used the sedition clause which may not be at all applicable in the case of Naxals who are not seeking sovereignty.

Secondly the State Home Minister Nankiran Kanwar attempted to pass on the blame of an attack on three villages which were burnt down and inhabitants brutalized between 11 and 16 March on the Maoists. He reportedly told the state assembly that Maoists attacked the villagers and burnt homes to divert the attention of police, who were on an “area-domination exercise” between March 11 and 16, 2011. Police claimed that 36 Maoists and three SPOs were killed. However media firmly indicated that the locals have accused police of atrocities. There is likely to be an investigation by a High Court judge for enquiring into the incident.

The Supreme Court also questioned the State practice of appointing Special Police Officers (SPOs). The government states that SPOs, whose salary was borne mainly by the central government (80%), were not peculiar to Chhattisgarh. While there are 6,500 SPOs in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand had 6,400, Bihar had 6,353, Orissa had 4,480, Andhra Pradesh had 2,130 and Maharashtra 1,500. SPOs are paid Rs 3,000 a month. "Presently, the SPOs are attached to the police operation groups as guides, spotters and translators. The SPOs work as a source of intelligence. They are provided with arms for their self-defence in case of any Naxalite attack during search operations," the Government stated. The Chhattisgarh government's counsel and senior advocate Harish Salve also pleaded that there was shortage of force to meet the challenge posed by the Naxals which forced recruitment of SPOs.

As clarified by the DGP Chhattisgarh on 22 April in an interview to the media that about 50,000 police are deployed in the State. "The amount of additional pressure we are putting on Naxals was not possible without these (central) forces. The total forces' strength in the state deployed for anti-Naxal operations is about 50,000 personnel," the top police official said. So the SPOs formed almost 101-12 percent of the force.

A Bench of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar said: "Just because the tribal youth knew the local language and terrain, how could you recruit them and arm them with sophisticated rifles? This is dividing people and arming one against the other. We would like to know the Union government's stand on this issue." "We have serious doubts about the constitutional validity of the appointment of SPOs on the basis of an 1861 colonial rule and we apprehend grave danger to both the local population and to the SPOs as well. And the most disturbing thing is Union government is funding the SPOs legitimising their existence," the Bench said. "What are the terms and conditions of appointment of SPOs? Are they recruited for three months and continue on extensions? Some of them must have died in operations or received injuries. What happened to their families? Did the governments take care of them, paid pension and ex-gratia or are they left in the lurch," it asked.

The point of dispute apparently is in employing SPOs organized as a group called as Koya Commandos who are primarily from the Koya tribe. "Koya Commando is not an official term and therefore, no one is appointed as Koya Commando," the government clarified to the Supreme Court.

The government forces have been using Special Police Officers (SPOs) who are men with local knowledge for intelligence purposes to great effect and this practice has been prevalent not just in the Naxal areas but in other parts of the country in the past. The main advantage of the SPOs is that they enable good linkages with local population and raise the confidence of the people in the police as well as provide intelligence and information to the police. However in the case of Chhattisgarh it is seen that there has been some concern over formation of the SPOs in company sized groups such as Koya Commandoes who are operating on military lines which is not the purpose of the SPO model. This is where the State has possibly exceeded the brief and may be the reason for the ire of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court-appointed Special Commissioner on violations of interim orders vis a vis right to food, Harsh Mander, has also come down heavily on the State government for the conditions in Dantewada calling the same as, “undeclared civil war,” in Morpalli, Timapuram and Tarmetla villages of Dantewada district. Mander did not find evidence of starvation deaths, but evidence of people “living with starvation”. Mander has condemned both Maoists and the government forces. “The state is attempting to suppress endemic Maoist violence with fear of its security forces and incarceration, and local vigilante groups. The result is a virtual civil war against our poorest people, aggravated gravely by the abdication of the state from its welfare duties.” Of security forces the report says: “Security forces often camp in villages, or march through these, and make similar claims on the impoverished local residents, grabbing their grain and livestock, and demanding that they cook for them and serve them.” [Based on Indian Express Report 1 May 2011].