Chhattisgarh Massacre: State Terror, Human Rights and Naxalites

War on Adivasis

The message of the mass killing in Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, on the night of June 28, 2012 was clear. The security forces, both at the Centre and in the States, have declared a war on the Adivasis. The objective of the war is to tell the Adivasis that they do not have the first right over their fertile land and resources. The state has every right to take over these and do what it desires. The state is the boss and in charge of ‘public interests’ and the people have to be subordinate to the interests of the state. Though undefined, the state interests mean the interests of the corporations, land mafia and those who have decided to mortgage the country to transnational and multinational corporations. Nothing else can explain the extraordinary callousness with which the cold-blooded murders of the innocent were committed on that fateful night. The country was told by this brutal public act of doing away with the lives of the innocent that the state is no more going to tolerate any kind of resistance when the people oppose its interests.

Voices of Contradictions

OF course, various kinds of explanations were offered to confuse the people of the designs of the state. The first official explanation was that those who were murdered were Naxals, waging a war against the state. As long as they wage their war against the state they have no right to live. It is a strange logic! They need to be killed! It is a doctrine of vengeance and retaliation that is unacceptable in a democracy. There was a big euphoria with the sensational announce-ment across the country that the forces of the state had nabbed the Naxals and in one of the finest operations, the security forces had succeeded in killing 19 of them. The media was there to further add to the lies of the state. Channels after channels were presenting the heroic deed of the security forces of putting an end to 19 suspected Naxals (while some channels even said that they were dreaded terrorists) in a fierce gun-battle in the dense jungles of Dantewada during the night-long encounter in a joint operation by over 300 Central Reserve Police Force and State personnel.

When questions were raised on the authenticity of the operation, the Chief Minister, Raman Singh, said the rebels were using humans as “shields†and in the process some innocent persons were killed. In one of those rarest of rare cases the Congress party, the main Opposition in the State, struck a discordant note and blamed the ruling regime of the State for the blood of the innocent tribals and minors. The Chhattisgarh Pradesh Congress chief, Hariprasad, said that it was a “completely fake encounter†. The preliminary report of the Congress’ twelve-member fact-finding team said among the victims were seven minors who were 15 years old and below.

There was another sane voice of reason coming from the Union Tribal Affairs Minister, V. Kishore Chandra Deo, who called the offensive “completely unacceptable†and targeted the State’s BJP Government. Dubbing as “notorious†the Chhattisgarh Government’s record in conducting the anti-Naxal operations, Deo said: “Salwa Judum was one of such notorious movements by the Chhattisgarh Government which I had opposed as a Member of Parliament.†Deo further pointed out that the biggest sufferers during these operations were the women and children from tribal areas. “For how long our tribal people will be used as cannon fodder in the name of action against Naxals, especially women and children? We need to protect them and address their issues and protect their dignity,†he said. More than a Congress voice, this was a tribal voice.

No Clarity on the Numbers Killed and the Manner of Killing

THERE was no clarity on the numbers killed. Initially while some reports said it was 16, some others stated it to be 17 and others 20. The State Government stated the number was two while Home Minister Chidambaram said there were three persons killed. The DG of the CRPF was vague and mentioned four or five. Some reports said there were seven. It took time to announce that the numbers were close to 20 though no official statement has been made to that effect. However, it is important to realise that as far as the state is concerned tribal lives have no value. They are mere numbers and it does not matter how many of them are killed. On the other hand there is a need to demand from the State an explanation for the many dead. It is a serious criminal offence.

Citizens need to ask the state the reasons for gunning down innocent villagers, mutilation of their bodies and molestation of the women there. Why were the villagers gunned down? According to people’s sources, men, women and children had assembled to perform beej pandum—seed festival—in which some lower level elements of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) too may have joined though the Congress party in Chhattisgarh has asserted that no Maoists were present. One is not sure of the facts. They were encircled by about 600 troopers from the CRPF and the Combat Battalion for Resolute Action, who opened fire from three sides, and killed villagers, mostly men, women and school-going boys. Available accounts, gathered from villagers, local leaders, even from officials, indicate a botched operation which was based on faulty intelligence. Pure imagination was passed off as intelligence and the forces went into this operation, three km from their camp. While a majority of the villagers deny the presence of Maoists, six injured CRPF jawans point to the presence of armed men. Again, villagers assert that these injuries were sustained in crossfire as the forces fired from three sides.

There are other questions that have been raised about the mutilated bodies and molested women. If it was a pure operation to nab the culprits, why were the bodies mutilated with axes? Why were the women molested and the men shot the next morning? The Congress fact-finding team has claimed that there was no exchange of fire between the security forces and alleged Maoists at the spot on the intervening night of June 28-29.

None of the 19 persons killed in the gunfire were Maoists contradicting Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s claim that at least three of them were Maoists. It was only a friendly fire by the security forces at the spot that injured the security personnel in the incident. Markhan Suresh, who was killed in the encounter, is being “branded†by the State Police as a Maoist and the mastermind of the Dantewada jail break incident that took place in 2007, while he was just a petty criminal who had escaped from the prison then and was staying in the village for the last four years. To prove the point further, the fact-finding report states that Naxalites are not allowed to marry, but Suresh was married and had two children.
There are no satisfactory answers to these queries and the way the people, including women and children, were killed. A police force is not an occupying force and they are not allowed to behave as they desire with the impoverished tribals. Its primary role is to protect the innocent and not to violate their rights. There are no takers of the allegation of the security forces that those forces were fired upon. Even if the security forces were fired upon, what explanation can they offer for gunning down villagers at a village meeting where children and women had to become victims? Such mass slaughter of innocent people is not even legal under the laws of war. US troops are facing prosecution after their massacre of 25 people in Iraq was exposed. They had claimed they had opened fire in “retaliation†after a bomb blast and a “firing†.

Security Forces are Accountable

WILL the Government of India prosecute the security forces that were responsible for the blood of the innocents? Going by past records it is unlikely. At the first instance, the security forces were praised. Once it was known that the encounter was fake and innocent children and women were made scapegoats, there was no denunciation of the security forces. Home Minister Chidambaram nauseatingly referred to Operation Green Hunt as being intended to “restore the rule of law†, where many innocent tribal leaders were done away with. In the present case he has expressed deep sorrow “if†innocent people died. In his view, the claim that three of those killed had “criminal records†justifies them being shot. He and the establish-ment he heads are not even bothered by the questions and demands of numerous mainstream parties, including his own, or for that matter those of his fellow Cabinet Minister, K.C. Deo.

Meanwhile, the CRPF DG has told a news magazine that it is not the responsibility of the security forces to consider who a person is before killing him/her. This is a criminal statement and the person needs to be taken to task or ousted from the security forces. What he does not know is that the right to life is a sacred right and the security forces exist to protect that right and not to do away with it. The DG, too, shares Chidambaram’s view of the world. If, by bad luck, innocents were hurt, it is a matter of regret. Does the mere expression of regret absolve these guys of their criminality? How do they continue in office in a democratic state? The government believes that the Adivasis can simply be killed at will when convenient for its “counter-insurgency†. The definition of “rule of law†for the state is wherever there are protests, armed or unarmed, they are to be met with massive force and if the state massacres innocent people, it can go ahead with mere expressions of “regret†.

Designs behind the Killings

WERE there larger designs behind the killings? According to one note in one of the newspapers, the DG let slip the deeper logic of what is happening. He compared the situation in Bijapur to that of Saranda where out of 800 acres in Saranda Forest Division, 500 are being sought for mining. Twentyfour police camps are being built there to terrorise the local tribal population to break their resistance. The police forces are said to be using indiscriminate firepower, kill innocents, wipe out resistance by calling every protest “Maoist†, and deploy thousands of police—so that the area can then be mined to destruction.

The state simply does not believe in the practice of democracy in India’s forests and tribal areas. What they want are the fertile lands of the tribals for loot and plunder while depriving the tribals of their right to livelihood.

Respect for Tribal Model of Development

THE security forces, while fighting insurgents, are not known for restraint. Shouldn’t there be an action against the security forces? After all, they are not the security forces of an authoritarian or fascist state but of a democratic country. The BJP Government leading a full-scale fight against the Maoists is now on the back foot. The Chief Minister and his party have been exposed. They cannot hide anymore.

What does this incident mean for the country? Killing of innocents, whether in a crossfire or otherwise, deprives the fight of any moral meaning for any kind of operation against the Naxals or Maoists. No one doubts that Maoist insurgency, covering one-sixth of India, is a serious challenge to the Indian state. But then the problem is not a purely military one and cries for a developmental solution. There are vital questions of life and death as far as tribal land, mines and forest rights are concerned.

As far as the state is concerned, no satisfactory solution has been found. The tribals have a solution. The problem with the state is that it simply refuses to listen to tribal wisdom. The mainstream wisdom that has caused havoc on environment resulting in pollution, impacting health and livelihoods negatively threatening our very existence is not the mode of develop-ment that the tribals want to imitate. They have their own model of development. The state needs to respect and learn from them instead of sandwiching the tribals between the security forces and Naxalites or Maoists. The issue of development is central to the whole debate and very sensitive.

Unless the State and Central governments ensure security to the tribals in the State and allow them to move with their mode of sustainable development, we are likely to see more of these encounters by the state against the innocent tribals. Whenever an encounter takes place in the tribal belt, the victims are mostly poor tribals. This has happened in the past. It is happening now and we need to stop this. More important for the civil society actors is to raise their voice along with those few small voices within the state who believe that the tribals have a right to live with their own mode of life and living.

Dr Ambrose Pinto SJ is with St Joseph’s College Institutions in Bangalore.