(Translation of Article appeared in Loksatta dated 26 October, 2008)
Paromita’s Diwali
One always wishes that Diwali should bring joys to the rich and poor alike. Yet, sometimes Diwali is merely an occasion to express the happiness whose reasons lie elsewhere. One such Diwali, which I witnessed as a journalist, is sketched in my memory for being different from all others. The episode is related to the work of a social organisation, Shramik Elgar, and the difficult times they were facing at that time. Paromita, who originally belongs to Kolkata and who came to Chandrapur after working briefly in Mumbai, is today well-known to us, but this was not the case in 2000. I met her when she was working on the case of Chinna Mattami (a tribal boy killed in police encounter) and later we became good friends. Paromita helped to form Shramik Elgar as a forum to raise social issues and Chinna’s case became famous. The organisation selected the villages in Mul block as its work-area. This area is represented by Shobhatai Phadnavis as the sitting MLA. Shobhatai became uncomfortable at the entrance of a young Bengali woman in the rural area, who raised issues of the poor, the agitations for the rights of the marginalised and at the growing number of youths who joined Paromita in the struggles. Shobhatai calculated that if the popularity of the organisation grew it could potentially undermine her political dominance in the area.
Meanwhile, Paromita and Shramik Elgar, continued to work oblivious of the apprehensions they had caused in the mind of the MLA. In 2002 the organisation brought forward the case of Vishwanath Shende, a bonded labourer, and demanded his release and rehabilitation. This created a good deal of trouble for the District Collector, J.P. Gupta. Shobhatai took this opportunity and gave a written complaint to the District Collector in which she alleged that Paromita was working for Naxalites and her organisation was helping anti-national elements. The District Collector, who was already angry, immediately reported the matter to the central home ministry and brought out a public notice that no person or organisation should make any donations to Shramik Elgar. Apart from this, the district administration initiated independent enquiries against the organisation. Certain newspapers started a series of articles portraying Paromita as a Naxalite. Paromita, who was sincere in her efforts, and her colleagues started to feel the pressure. Even ordinary people started to look upon her with suspicion because she was a Bengali. All donations to the organisation came to a halt. The IB started an enquiry on the orders of the home ministry. Some of us feared that the organisation formed by the youths would be crushed by the politician-bureaucrat nexus.
At that time Loksatta decided to stand by the organisation. In March 2002, I wrote more than one articles clarifying that there were no linkages between the Naxalites and this organisation. Some other journalist friends also wrote in her support, yet the atmosphere of suspicion created by the district administration refused to be dispelled. If a District Collector so wishes he can find many ways to harass a person, because the District Collector enjoys enormous powers. Under the garb of enquiries, the district administration started to find ways to harass the organisation – from making activists sit for the whole day without doing anything under the pretext of hearings, checking account books, interviewing activists about family background, to demanding the definition of Naxalism. All this was aimed to demoralise the young people who were committed in their desire to work for the poor. On the one hand ordinary people started to keep a distance from the organisation which hampered their work and saddened them, and on the other hand the gruelling enquiries continued endlessly.
Finally, Paromita decided to file a writ petition in the High Court where she pleaded that the district administration was violating her rights, maligning her purposefully with the intention of destroying her as well as the organisation. She agreed to submit herself to in-depth enquiries with the only condition that these should be completed within a time-frame and she should be given justice. The High Court at Nagpur admitted her writ petition with an interim order passed in July directing the central, state and district administrations to file the findings of the their respective enquiries. Paromita and her colleagues had, in the meanwhile, decided on a wait-and-watch policy till the court arrived at a conclusion. As weeks passed, it pained me to see the change in the young activists from a energetic and lively group to an increasingly withdrawn one. Paromita or her colleague Vijay would phone me up as a rule to inform me about the happenings in the High Court at each hearing. In November 2002, the central government filed its enquiry report before the High Court in which it gave a ‘clean chit’ to Paromita and her organisation on all counts. The report brought the District Collector J.P. Gupta to his senses. In his own enquiries he had not found any anomalies to present before the High Court. This final hearing on the a few days before Diwali brought back great happiness on the faces of the activists of Shramik Elgar. After the report of the central government was filed, the High Court asked the district administration if they had any objections. The district administration had no objections and the court passed final orders on the same day. Loksatta reported the matter prominently the next day. Soon thereafter, J.P.Gupta paid a visit to the organisation and presented the Certificate of Release to Vishwanath Shende at a public function. In his speech he described Paromita as a person who was sincerely working for the poor and even said she was like a sister to him! I can never forget the joy and sense of achievement with which Paromita and her friends celebrated the day.
The victory in High Court, the sea change in the District Collector’s attitude and the positive reports in the media only increased the public credibility of the organisation putting all suspicions at rest. After this, Shobhatai never opened her mouth on the issue. Slowly she realised that Paromita’s ambitions were not political and she too change her mind over the years. These days if the two ever meet on the same dais they exchange polite courtesies. Recently, when Paromita raised the issue of the gaps in the Forest Rights Act, Shobhatai suggested that they both should work together. I have noticed how the intervening years have reduced the bitterness between the two.
Indeed there are very few people who sincerely work with a social consciousness. The backlash against such persons or organisations puts their patience and courage to test. The way in which Paromita and her organisation crossed the river of fire made the Diwali of 2002 an unforgettable one for me.
(Devendra Gawande, the writer of this article, is a very senior journalist. He is the district correspondent of Loksatta and member of the State Accreditation Committee for Journalists. He can be reached at 9822467714.)
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Grey Areas in Maharashtra Naxalite Surrender Policy
Three incidents
On 9th March 2008, a tribal called Deu Atram died inside the premises of Tadgaon police station in district Gadchiroli. The newspapers reported that the death was in suspicious conditions and his family members had alleged foul play by the police. The reports also noted the version of the police that Deu Atram and another tribal person had surrendered with weapons and uniform on 21st February 2008 before the police at Tadgaon. The S.P. was on record saying that although the death had occurred in the Tadgaon police station premises, it was not a case of death in police custody because Deu Atram were not arrested. They had surrendered and were with the police for interrogation.
Between 17th and 19th March 2008 naxalites killed three persons in Gadchiroli district who had surrendered.
On 29th March 2008 two surrendered naxalites who had subsequently been employed as police ‘guides’ decamped with two AK-47 and seven magazines from Deori police station in Gondia district.
These incidents force us to consider what ‘naxalite surrender’ really entails, and how it is carried out under the provisions in the Maharashtra surrender policy.
The Gist of Maharashtra Surrender Policy
The government of Maharashtra issued a circular titled ‘Surrender Scheme for Naxalites’ dated 29th August, 2005. The stated objective of the scheme was to give a way out to the local people who had joined the Naxalite movement and to stop recruitment into Naxalite groups, to motivate surrendered Naxalites to live a life as law-abiding citizen and finally to ensure that nobody was taking advantage of the financial benefits of the scheme by first joining the movement and then surrendering. The surrender scheme offers the following to the surrendered Naxalites – (a) cash reward and rehabilitation (b) blanket amnesty including for those in judicial custody (c) to consider withdrawal of prosecution under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.
While hard-core Naxalites from Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Chhatisgarh are eligible for the scheme, Naxalite sympathizers or informers are not. Those who divulge relevant information regarding their hideouts, training camps, weapons and ammunition, area of operation, modus operandi, etc are eligible for the blanket amnesty. The eligibility is to be fixed by the S.P. The surrendered naxalite, on their part, have to take a public oath that they would not further indulge in anti-national activities.
The cash rewards range from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10 Lakhs depending upon the rank of the surrendered person within the movement and other considerations like whether they are surrendering in a group, whether with weapons, type of weapons etc. They are paid separately for any weapon in working condition and ammunition that they bring along on market rates. The cash rewards are according to rank of the surrendered person within the Naxalite movement which is determined by the SP and are meant to be paid within a month of surrender.
If a surrendered person asks for police protection of the ground that his/her life is in danger from the Naxalites, such police protection shall be granted by the Special Inspector General of Police. Similarly, if he/she asks for a change in residence, this shall also be considered.
The rehabilitation of the surrendered persons was to be done within 3 months of surrender. The rehabilitation package consists of house or homestead and financial support for building the house, scholarship for the children, self employment through existing government schemes.
The withdrawal of prosecution is through the recommendation of a committee consisting of District Magistrate (chairperson). District Public Prosecutor and District Superintendent of Police.
Responsibilities of enforcement agencies
As per the policy, a Naxalite can surrender before the district magistrate, the superintendent of police, the sub-divisional magistrate, the sub-divisional police officer, police station in - charge or any other official designated by the state government. The officers other than the police shall hand over the person to the police for further action. A district level approval committee consisting of the district magistrate, superintendent of police and assistant commissioner of S.I.D (state intelligence department) shall finally decide on whether the person has surrendered and approve the surrender. The police shall keep a strict watch on the surrendered naxalites for a year. The district collector shall be responsible for rehabilitation of the naxalites through various government schemes.
Observations
1. The first stage of surrender is when a person comes to the police (or another official and is thereafter handed over to the police) and says that he wants to surrender. Here a mere entry is noted in the station diary and then the person is produced before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and the Superintendent of Police for interrogation. The entire procedure of surrender is a departure from the normal procedure as envisaged in the Criminal Procedure Code where the statement of confession is recorded by a judicial magistrate who confirms that the person making the confession is doing so voluntarily. Naxalite surrenders have come under a lot of controversy partly because these are done before the police and there is no independent, impartial third party to ensure that there is no threat or inducement to bring about surrenders, and that there is no violence during the extraction of information.
2. The second stage is that of interrogation by the police, which can go on for one or two months. During this time the person is either in the police station or attends police station to divulge information. In Gadchiroli and Gondia the police have allowed persons who have come to surrender to live in the premises of the police stations partly to ensure the security of these persons who fear reprisal and partly because they would like to keep persons within their reach for interrogation. Although technically the police claim that the persons are not in custody and have the freedom to move anywhere and meet people, yet in reality one can presume that their movements are restricted by fear of the naxalites as well as the police.
3. Whether the person staying in the police station for security or for interrogation before being produced before the approval committee is in custody or not is a debatable issue. Yet the fact remains that as long as he is in the premises, the police is responsible for what happens to him. In case of any allegations the onus shall be on the police to prove their bonafides, especially given that Supreme and High Courts as well as Human Rights Commissions have taken an extremely serious view of custodial torture and deaths.
4. The legal status of the person from the moment he comes for surrender and till the moment he is formally declared as surrendered naxalite by the approval committee is totally unclear. The police claim that since he is not arrested and not in custody they are not expected to follow the usual norms like informing his family or well-wishers, taking him for medical examination. This, in effect means that the person who has come to surrender voluntarily has far lesser rights than an arrested accused.
5. An arrested person is produced before the magistrate within 24 hours, but in the case where persons come for surrender they may admittedly be kept for months for interrogation or security giving rise to peculiar situations. Deu Atram was already with the police for 17 days when he died, and subsequently he did not get any cash reward or rehabilitation or compensation. This can be construed to be a violation of the constitutional rights of a person.
6. There are other provisions in the circular which are not being followed viz. (a) The Special I.G has not taken any special steps to provide protection to the surrendered naxalites. (b) the government has not allocated a single paisa as against the promised Rs. 2 Crores to be spent through the revenue commissioner, Nagpur Division for rehabilitation. (c) Surrendered naxalites are not kept under police surveillance for a year, as can be seen from the free access that surrendered naxalites had into the Deori police station even to extent of having access to arms and ammunition.
Need for Guidelines
One can deduce that inspite of the laudable objectives the present surrender policy has certain grey areas. It is true that the surrender policy should be flexible enough to give the police and administration the scope to function with a certain amount of freedom, yet clear and carefully framed guidelines can help to protect the rights of citizens, and convince the public about the bonafides of police action instead of creating doubts in their minds. The following may be considered while framing such guidelines -
1. The judicial magistrate should record the statement of the person who wants to surrender and verify that he is doing so voluntarily.
2. The legal status of the person who comes forward to surrender should be clarified from the day that he comes forward to the day that the approval committee formally declares him to be a surrendered naxalite.
3. The approval committee should include the judicial magistrate or a member nominated by the State Human Rights Commission.
4. Since a number of surrendered naxalites are women, their needs in terms of protection and rehabilitation should be considered separately.
5. If the person requests to stay in the police premise for protection or is asked to stay for interrogation then -
a. The judicial magistrate should be informed by the police.
b. Medical examination of the person should be mandatory as soon as he comes for surrender.
c. Informing the family or well-wisher or the Gram Panchayat should be mandatory.
d. The Executive Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate must personally visit the police station where such persons are staying to ensure their well being.
e. Beyond fifteen days the person should be physically produced before the judicial magistrate or approval committee.
6. If a person dies after coming forward to surrender and before he is presented before the approval committee, his family should be considered for cash reward / rehabilitation.
7. The cash rewards should be given in the presence of Sarpanch or other elected representatives and members of the public.
8. Provisions of the policy like rehabilitation package within three months, police protection and option of changing residence should be followed.
The present surrender policy should be reconsidered to remove the present anomalies and also to present a framework for other states in similar situations.
On 9th March 2008, a tribal called Deu Atram died inside the premises of Tadgaon police station in district Gadchiroli. The newspapers reported that the death was in suspicious conditions and his family members had alleged foul play by the police. The reports also noted the version of the police that Deu Atram and another tribal person had surrendered with weapons and uniform on 21st February 2008 before the police at Tadgaon. The S.P. was on record saying that although the death had occurred in the Tadgaon police station premises, it was not a case of death in police custody because Deu Atram were not arrested. They had surrendered and were with the police for interrogation.
Between 17th and 19th March 2008 naxalites killed three persons in Gadchiroli district who had surrendered.
On 29th March 2008 two surrendered naxalites who had subsequently been employed as police ‘guides’ decamped with two AK-47 and seven magazines from Deori police station in Gondia district.
These incidents force us to consider what ‘naxalite surrender’ really entails, and how it is carried out under the provisions in the Maharashtra surrender policy.
The Gist of Maharashtra Surrender Policy
The government of Maharashtra issued a circular titled ‘Surrender Scheme for Naxalites’ dated 29th August, 2005. The stated objective of the scheme was to give a way out to the local people who had joined the Naxalite movement and to stop recruitment into Naxalite groups, to motivate surrendered Naxalites to live a life as law-abiding citizen and finally to ensure that nobody was taking advantage of the financial benefits of the scheme by first joining the movement and then surrendering. The surrender scheme offers the following to the surrendered Naxalites – (a) cash reward and rehabilitation (b) blanket amnesty including for those in judicial custody (c) to consider withdrawal of prosecution under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.
While hard-core Naxalites from Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Chhatisgarh are eligible for the scheme, Naxalite sympathizers or informers are not. Those who divulge relevant information regarding their hideouts, training camps, weapons and ammunition, area of operation, modus operandi, etc are eligible for the blanket amnesty. The eligibility is to be fixed by the S.P. The surrendered naxalite, on their part, have to take a public oath that they would not further indulge in anti-national activities.
The cash rewards range from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10 Lakhs depending upon the rank of the surrendered person within the movement and other considerations like whether they are surrendering in a group, whether with weapons, type of weapons etc. They are paid separately for any weapon in working condition and ammunition that they bring along on market rates. The cash rewards are according to rank of the surrendered person within the Naxalite movement which is determined by the SP and are meant to be paid within a month of surrender.
If a surrendered person asks for police protection of the ground that his/her life is in danger from the Naxalites, such police protection shall be granted by the Special Inspector General of Police. Similarly, if he/she asks for a change in residence, this shall also be considered.
The rehabilitation of the surrendered persons was to be done within 3 months of surrender. The rehabilitation package consists of house or homestead and financial support for building the house, scholarship for the children, self employment through existing government schemes.
The withdrawal of prosecution is through the recommendation of a committee consisting of District Magistrate (chairperson). District Public Prosecutor and District Superintendent of Police.
Responsibilities of enforcement agencies
As per the policy, a Naxalite can surrender before the district magistrate, the superintendent of police, the sub-divisional magistrate, the sub-divisional police officer, police station in - charge or any other official designated by the state government. The officers other than the police shall hand over the person to the police for further action. A district level approval committee consisting of the district magistrate, superintendent of police and assistant commissioner of S.I.D (state intelligence department) shall finally decide on whether the person has surrendered and approve the surrender. The police shall keep a strict watch on the surrendered naxalites for a year. The district collector shall be responsible for rehabilitation of the naxalites through various government schemes.
Observations
1. The first stage of surrender is when a person comes to the police (or another official and is thereafter handed over to the police) and says that he wants to surrender. Here a mere entry is noted in the station diary and then the person is produced before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and the Superintendent of Police for interrogation. The entire procedure of surrender is a departure from the normal procedure as envisaged in the Criminal Procedure Code where the statement of confession is recorded by a judicial magistrate who confirms that the person making the confession is doing so voluntarily. Naxalite surrenders have come under a lot of controversy partly because these are done before the police and there is no independent, impartial third party to ensure that there is no threat or inducement to bring about surrenders, and that there is no violence during the extraction of information.
2. The second stage is that of interrogation by the police, which can go on for one or two months. During this time the person is either in the police station or attends police station to divulge information. In Gadchiroli and Gondia the police have allowed persons who have come to surrender to live in the premises of the police stations partly to ensure the security of these persons who fear reprisal and partly because they would like to keep persons within their reach for interrogation. Although technically the police claim that the persons are not in custody and have the freedom to move anywhere and meet people, yet in reality one can presume that their movements are restricted by fear of the naxalites as well as the police.
3. Whether the person staying in the police station for security or for interrogation before being produced before the approval committee is in custody or not is a debatable issue. Yet the fact remains that as long as he is in the premises, the police is responsible for what happens to him. In case of any allegations the onus shall be on the police to prove their bonafides, especially given that Supreme and High Courts as well as Human Rights Commissions have taken an extremely serious view of custodial torture and deaths.
4. The legal status of the person from the moment he comes for surrender and till the moment he is formally declared as surrendered naxalite by the approval committee is totally unclear. The police claim that since he is not arrested and not in custody they are not expected to follow the usual norms like informing his family or well-wishers, taking him for medical examination. This, in effect means that the person who has come to surrender voluntarily has far lesser rights than an arrested accused.
5. An arrested person is produced before the magistrate within 24 hours, but in the case where persons come for surrender they may admittedly be kept for months for interrogation or security giving rise to peculiar situations. Deu Atram was already with the police for 17 days when he died, and subsequently he did not get any cash reward or rehabilitation or compensation. This can be construed to be a violation of the constitutional rights of a person.
6. There are other provisions in the circular which are not being followed viz. (a) The Special I.G has not taken any special steps to provide protection to the surrendered naxalites. (b) the government has not allocated a single paisa as against the promised Rs. 2 Crores to be spent through the revenue commissioner, Nagpur Division for rehabilitation. (c) Surrendered naxalites are not kept under police surveillance for a year, as can be seen from the free access that surrendered naxalites had into the Deori police station even to extent of having access to arms and ammunition.
Need for Guidelines
One can deduce that inspite of the laudable objectives the present surrender policy has certain grey areas. It is true that the surrender policy should be flexible enough to give the police and administration the scope to function with a certain amount of freedom, yet clear and carefully framed guidelines can help to protect the rights of citizens, and convince the public about the bonafides of police action instead of creating doubts in their minds. The following may be considered while framing such guidelines -
1. The judicial magistrate should record the statement of the person who wants to surrender and verify that he is doing so voluntarily.
2. The legal status of the person who comes forward to surrender should be clarified from the day that he comes forward to the day that the approval committee formally declares him to be a surrendered naxalite.
3. The approval committee should include the judicial magistrate or a member nominated by the State Human Rights Commission.
4. Since a number of surrendered naxalites are women, their needs in terms of protection and rehabilitation should be considered separately.
5. If the person requests to stay in the police premise for protection or is asked to stay for interrogation then -
a. The judicial magistrate should be informed by the police.
b. Medical examination of the person should be mandatory as soon as he comes for surrender.
c. Informing the family or well-wisher or the Gram Panchayat should be mandatory.
d. The Executive Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate must personally visit the police station where such persons are staying to ensure their well being.
e. Beyond fifteen days the person should be physically produced before the judicial magistrate or approval committee.
6. If a person dies after coming forward to surrender and before he is presented before the approval committee, his family should be considered for cash reward / rehabilitation.
7. The cash rewards should be given in the presence of Sarpanch or other elected representatives and members of the public.
8. Provisions of the policy like rehabilitation package within three months, police protection and option of changing residence should be followed.
The present surrender policy should be reconsidered to remove the present anomalies and also to present a framework for other states in similar situations.
Paromita
the same essay appeared in
'The Hitavada' Nagpur edition 6th April 2008
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
(ABSENCE OF) FOREST RIGHTS IN CHANDRAPUR
In Gadchiroli district more than 1000 pattas have been distributed to tribals under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, including a joint patta to the village Mendha Lekha which has exercised its forest rights under the leadership of Mohan Hirabai Hiralal.
However, the story in Chandrapur district is quite the opposite. More than 12000 claims have been filed and almost nobody has got a patta yet. The district administration started out on a very slow note. In fact Shramik Elgar prepared and filed claims even before the administration started to move. Initially the Tribal Development Department which is the nodal implementation agency did not know what to do because it did not have any personnel at the village level and had to depend on Gram Sevaks who were under the Zilla Parishad. Additionally the forest department was not cooperative at all. Even six months back the village level claims had not been forwarded to the SDOs. Presently the claims are being verified using GPS introduced by the Forest Department.
Meanwhile, the injustice against local communities continues. In September 2009 the forest department confiscated the fishing nets of fishermen at village Mohadi, Taluka Sindewahi on the grounds that half of the Naleshwar reservoir, which has been the fishing source for communities since 1920s, has been included under the forest buffer zone. Shramik Elgar agitated to retrieve the nets as also to establish the fishing rights of the neighbouring villages.
In November 2009, twenty tribal cultivators were charged by the forest department and eight were arrested. Shramik Elgar agitated to compound the POR and also establish the right to cultivation.
The snail’s pace of implementation of the Forest Rights Act in Chandrapur district is a case study in itself. The contrast with Gadchiroli district which is affected by Naxalite violence is particularly telling. It is quite clear that in Maharashtra the administration works under fear and pressure of the Naxalites otherwise why should there be such a difference in the performances of two contiguous districts?
Chandrapur farely poorly even in comparison with Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh. Twelve villages on the border of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh are claimed by both states. A cursory survey of these villages showed that the district administration of Adilabad, AP have moved far ahead in implementation of the Act whereas Chandrapur administration is nowhere in the picture.
However, the story in Chandrapur district is quite the opposite. More than 12000 claims have been filed and almost nobody has got a patta yet. The district administration started out on a very slow note. In fact Shramik Elgar prepared and filed claims even before the administration started to move. Initially the Tribal Development Department which is the nodal implementation agency did not know what to do because it did not have any personnel at the village level and had to depend on Gram Sevaks who were under the Zilla Parishad. Additionally the forest department was not cooperative at all. Even six months back the village level claims had not been forwarded to the SDOs. Presently the claims are being verified using GPS introduced by the Forest Department.
Meanwhile, the injustice against local communities continues. In September 2009 the forest department confiscated the fishing nets of fishermen at village Mohadi, Taluka Sindewahi on the grounds that half of the Naleshwar reservoir, which has been the fishing source for communities since 1920s, has been included under the forest buffer zone. Shramik Elgar agitated to retrieve the nets as also to establish the fishing rights of the neighbouring villages.
In November 2009, twenty tribal cultivators were charged by the forest department and eight were arrested. Shramik Elgar agitated to compound the POR and also establish the right to cultivation.
The snail’s pace of implementation of the Forest Rights Act in Chandrapur district is a case study in itself. The contrast with Gadchiroli district which is affected by Naxalite violence is particularly telling. It is quite clear that in Maharashtra the administration works under fear and pressure of the Naxalites otherwise why should there be such a difference in the performances of two contiguous districts?
Chandrapur farely poorly even in comparison with Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh. Twelve villages on the border of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh are claimed by both states. A cursory survey of these villages showed that the district administration of Adilabad, AP have moved far ahead in implementation of the Act whereas Chandrapur administration is nowhere in the picture.
Forest Rights Act - Injustice against Non-tribals
In Vidarbha, especially in the forest laden districts of Chandrapur and Gadchiroli, this distinction between tribals and non-tribals is quite fallacious. With more than 50% of the land in Chandrapur and more than 75% of the land in Gadchiroli under the control of the forest department, it is obvious that poor people dependent on forest land for cultivation and other usage belong to both tribal as well as non-tribal communities.
While the present Act will be a boon to the tribal communities whose most vital interests like cultivation and access to minor forest produce shall be protected, the non-tribal community shall remain in a state of fear and uncertainty in the days to come. What the Act has given to the non-tribals with one hand it has taken away from the other.
The very definition of non-tribal i.e. traditional forest dwellers shall deprive a huge number of non-tribals from the benefits that should rightfully be theirs.
Section 2 (o) defines “other traditional forest dweller” as ‘any member or community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood needs.
Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, “generation” means a period comprising of twenty-five years.
This definition along with the explanation is the most mischievous piece of legislation by driving a wedge between tribals and nontribal communities living side by side for generations.
As a direct outcome of this provision extremely marginalized groups like dalits, nomadic tribes, denotified tribes, OBCs and other sections of rural poor shall suffer eviction and other atrocities by the forest department. How will these people bring evidence of three generations of twenty years each, in effect seventy five years i.e. of 1930 or before? Are they expected to bring birth certificates of their grandparents and great grandparents? How can our lawmakers forget that they are asking poor forest dwellers for evidence from British times? This is the most cruel and hateful attitude that our rulers have shown towards forest dwelling communities.
Some of the specific examples of groups that are going to suffer in Chandrapur and Gadchiroli include: -
1. Rehabilitated East Bengali refugees – Between 1964 and 1980 more than 5000 families from the erstwhile East Bengal were rehabilitated in the Dandakaranya region comprising of forest areas in Chandrapur, Gadchiroli and Bhandara districts. At present there are a total of 55 villages of these resettled refugees. Obviously, they would be unable to present any document of 1930 although they have documents from the Department of Rehabilitation of the Central government.
2. Dalits, minorities, OBCs and nomadic tribes – Kurmars or Dhangars are a nomadic tribe whose livelihood used to be mainly dependent on rearing sheep and goats. These people are largely landless have cultivation on forestland. There are other nomadic tribes like Pardhis who are still being rehabilitated by the government and have no other source than forest land. Apart from this minorities, Dalits, and OBCs are bound to suffer injustice under this Act.
3. Resettled villages – a number of non-tribals were settled in different villages after the formation of the district in 1982. For example families from village Manjewada of Armori taluka were resettled in Jogishankra and Pathargota in the late 1960s. Similarly, non-tribals were allotted land and resettled from various areas in villages like Rajgopalpur, Reshmipur, Priyadarshini, and Tumri in Chamorshi Taluka of Gadchiroli district.
4. Migrants – Gadchiroli district is contiguous with Andhra Pradesh and there are many Andhraites who left that state and are settled in this district since 1960s or 70s. Similarly, during the famine in Marathwada, people from Nanded and Osmanabad districts migrated to Chandrapur districts.
5. Cultivators previously declared eligible - The government of Maharashtra had passed a GR in October 2002 under which thousands of non-tribals had been considered eligible for regularisation. Now under the present Act they are facing the threat of being declared ineligible.
While the present Act will be a boon to the tribal communities whose most vital interests like cultivation and access to minor forest produce shall be protected, the non-tribal community shall remain in a state of fear and uncertainty in the days to come. What the Act has given to the non-tribals with one hand it has taken away from the other.
The very definition of non-tribal i.e. traditional forest dwellers shall deprive a huge number of non-tribals from the benefits that should rightfully be theirs.
Section 2 (o) defines “other traditional forest dweller” as ‘any member or community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood needs.
Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, “generation” means a period comprising of twenty-five years.
This definition along with the explanation is the most mischievous piece of legislation by driving a wedge between tribals and nontribal communities living side by side for generations.
As a direct outcome of this provision extremely marginalized groups like dalits, nomadic tribes, denotified tribes, OBCs and other sections of rural poor shall suffer eviction and other atrocities by the forest department. How will these people bring evidence of three generations of twenty years each, in effect seventy five years i.e. of 1930 or before? Are they expected to bring birth certificates of their grandparents and great grandparents? How can our lawmakers forget that they are asking poor forest dwellers for evidence from British times? This is the most cruel and hateful attitude that our rulers have shown towards forest dwelling communities.
Some of the specific examples of groups that are going to suffer in Chandrapur and Gadchiroli include: -
1. Rehabilitated East Bengali refugees – Between 1964 and 1980 more than 5000 families from the erstwhile East Bengal were rehabilitated in the Dandakaranya region comprising of forest areas in Chandrapur, Gadchiroli and Bhandara districts. At present there are a total of 55 villages of these resettled refugees. Obviously, they would be unable to present any document of 1930 although they have documents from the Department of Rehabilitation of the Central government.
2. Dalits, minorities, OBCs and nomadic tribes – Kurmars or Dhangars are a nomadic tribe whose livelihood used to be mainly dependent on rearing sheep and goats. These people are largely landless have cultivation on forestland. There are other nomadic tribes like Pardhis who are still being rehabilitated by the government and have no other source than forest land. Apart from this minorities, Dalits, and OBCs are bound to suffer injustice under this Act.
3. Resettled villages – a number of non-tribals were settled in different villages after the formation of the district in 1982. For example families from village Manjewada of Armori taluka were resettled in Jogishankra and Pathargota in the late 1960s. Similarly, non-tribals were allotted land and resettled from various areas in villages like Rajgopalpur, Reshmipur, Priyadarshini, and Tumri in Chamorshi Taluka of Gadchiroli district.
4. Migrants – Gadchiroli district is contiguous with Andhra Pradesh and there are many Andhraites who left that state and are settled in this district since 1960s or 70s. Similarly, during the famine in Marathwada, people from Nanded and Osmanabad districts migrated to Chandrapur districts.
5. Cultivators previously declared eligible - The government of Maharashtra had passed a GR in October 2002 under which thousands of non-tribals had been considered eligible for regularisation. Now under the present Act they are facing the threat of being declared ineligible.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS DAY 'CELEBRATION'
SHRAMIK ELGAR ‘CELEBRATES’ HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Shramik Elgar asked for permission from the district magistrate to demonstrate on Human Rights Day highlighting drought related issues in the district of Chandrapur. The application for permission was submitted on 5th December and on 8th December the police informed the organization that the permission was denied by the district magistrate. Not only this the district magistrate promulgated special preventive orders under section 144 Criminal Procedure Code apart from the regular preventive orders under Section 37 (1) (3) to prevent the organization from pressing for just demands. The organization decided to demonstrate in spite of the preventive orders and against the preventive orders on 9th December itself.
Two hundred activists of Shramik Elgar gathered at Gandhi Chowk (city centre) of Chandrapur in presence of press and electronic media. Several activists made speeches against the anti-people and anti-democratic stance of the district magistrate and strongly denounced the promulgation of preventive orders and denial of constitutional rights.
The activists then tied black cloths around their mouths and also tied their hands behind their backs and walked in a rally and handed over the memorandum to the district magistrate. The strong protest was marked by the common people many of whom congratulated the organisation for taking the bold step. From 10th to 12th December, for four days continuously the media prominently covered the demonstration, as well as the various issues – water, drought relief, fodder and NREGA – raised by the organization. The district administration became apprehensive of the impact of the demonstration and media reports in the Legislative Assembly which is in session. At the district and block levels the administration has invited the activists of the organization to discuss the issues.
The organization has tried to send a message that preventive orders are passed under the garb of ensuring law and order but in effect they infringe the citizen’s fundamental right to peaceful assembly, therefore as citizens we have the right to conduct civil disobedience against such orders - peacefully.
Shramik Elgar asked for permission from the district magistrate to demonstrate on Human Rights Day highlighting drought related issues in the district of Chandrapur. The application for permission was submitted on 5th December and on 8th December the police informed the organization that the permission was denied by the district magistrate. Not only this the district magistrate promulgated special preventive orders under section 144 Criminal Procedure Code apart from the regular preventive orders under Section 37 (1) (3) to prevent the organization from pressing for just demands. The organization decided to demonstrate in spite of the preventive orders and against the preventive orders on 9th December itself.
Two hundred activists of Shramik Elgar gathered at Gandhi Chowk (city centre) of Chandrapur in presence of press and electronic media. Several activists made speeches against the anti-people and anti-democratic stance of the district magistrate and strongly denounced the promulgation of preventive orders and denial of constitutional rights.
The activists then tied black cloths around their mouths and also tied their hands behind their backs and walked in a rally and handed over the memorandum to the district magistrate. The strong protest was marked by the common people many of whom congratulated the organisation for taking the bold step. From 10th to 12th December, for four days continuously the media prominently covered the demonstration, as well as the various issues – water, drought relief, fodder and NREGA – raised by the organization. The district administration became apprehensive of the impact of the demonstration and media reports in the Legislative Assembly which is in session. At the district and block levels the administration has invited the activists of the organization to discuss the issues.
The organization has tried to send a message that preventive orders are passed under the garb of ensuring law and order but in effect they infringe the citizen’s fundamental right to peaceful assembly, therefore as citizens we have the right to conduct civil disobedience against such orders - peacefully.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
Chandrapur and Gadchiroli are twin districts in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, contiguous with Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. They are situated on the eastern end of the state at a distance of a thousand kilometers from Mumbai – the state capital.
Chandrapur is among the top ten industrialized districts out of the state’s thrity-five. It has a well-established coal industry, a thermal power station, cement factories, and limestone quarries. India’s largest paper-producer the Ballarpur Industries Limited (BILT) is based here. Yet these industries have not solved the livelihood issues of the rural people. The main livelihood is farming and related activities. Farmers who cultivate forest land for sustenance are termed as ‘encroachers’ and face eviction threats at the hands of the forest department. Across the district people produce rice, cotton, soyabean, chillies, tomatoes, pulses and some vegetables. Like in most places of India, the land distribution is skewed. Small land holdings and the underdeveloped irrigation facilities leaves a large section of the population at the mercy of the monsoon and the government’s Employment Guarantee programs for unskilled manual labour to keep their bodies and souls together.
Gadchiroli was carved out of Chandrapur in 1982. It is one of the poorest districts in India, starved of industries and infrastructure development. It has the largest forest cover in Maharashtra – 76% of the district’s land is with the forest department. Yet there are no forest-based industries. It is also the source of two major raw materials – bamboo and tendu leaves, which feed the paper industry and the bidi industry in this part of the country. The main crop is rice and the tribals depend on the bamboo cutting and tendu leaf-gathering seasons for extra income.
The population has a large percentage of tribes, mainly Gond, Pardhan, Kolam and Madiya. Rajura, Jivti, and Korpana blocks of Chandrapur where the Kolams live and the Etapalli, Bhamragad and Sironcha blocks in Gadchiroli, which are home to the Madiyas are the areas of maximum impoverishment. The Kolam and the Madiya tribes are included in the category of Primitive Tribal Groups by the central government. The Gond and Pardhan tribes are scattered across the length and breadth of the two districts.
In recent times Vidarbha has been in news because of severe drought leading to suicides by debt-ridden farmers, malnutrition and starvation in tribal children, and injustice towards Vidarbha region in the state’s budgetary allocations. Both districts are overshadowed by the activities of the ultra-leftist Naxalite groups; though Gadchiroli is more a zone of active violence than Chandrapur. The tribals in Gadchiroli are trying hard to change the insecure situation brought about by the circle of attacks and counter-attacks between the Naxalites and the police force, restore security and hope in their lives.
Chandrapur is among the top ten industrialized districts out of the state’s thrity-five. It has a well-established coal industry, a thermal power station, cement factories, and limestone quarries. India’s largest paper-producer the Ballarpur Industries Limited (BILT) is based here. Yet these industries have not solved the livelihood issues of the rural people. The main livelihood is farming and related activities. Farmers who cultivate forest land for sustenance are termed as ‘encroachers’ and face eviction threats at the hands of the forest department. Across the district people produce rice, cotton, soyabean, chillies, tomatoes, pulses and some vegetables. Like in most places of India, the land distribution is skewed. Small land holdings and the underdeveloped irrigation facilities leaves a large section of the population at the mercy of the monsoon and the government’s Employment Guarantee programs for unskilled manual labour to keep their bodies and souls together.
Gadchiroli was carved out of Chandrapur in 1982. It is one of the poorest districts in India, starved of industries and infrastructure development. It has the largest forest cover in Maharashtra – 76% of the district’s land is with the forest department. Yet there are no forest-based industries. It is also the source of two major raw materials – bamboo and tendu leaves, which feed the paper industry and the bidi industry in this part of the country. The main crop is rice and the tribals depend on the bamboo cutting and tendu leaf-gathering seasons for extra income.
The population has a large percentage of tribes, mainly Gond, Pardhan, Kolam and Madiya. Rajura, Jivti, and Korpana blocks of Chandrapur where the Kolams live and the Etapalli, Bhamragad and Sironcha blocks in Gadchiroli, which are home to the Madiyas are the areas of maximum impoverishment. The Kolam and the Madiya tribes are included in the category of Primitive Tribal Groups by the central government. The Gond and Pardhan tribes are scattered across the length and breadth of the two districts.
In recent times Vidarbha has been in news because of severe drought leading to suicides by debt-ridden farmers, malnutrition and starvation in tribal children, and injustice towards Vidarbha region in the state’s budgetary allocations. Both districts are overshadowed by the activities of the ultra-leftist Naxalite groups; though Gadchiroli is more a zone of active violence than Chandrapur. The tribals in Gadchiroli are trying hard to change the insecure situation brought about by the circle of attacks and counter-attacks between the Naxalites and the police force, restore security and hope in their lives.
WELCOME
Elgar means an Army on the March. The word Elgar was taken from the title of a famous poem composed by the beloved poet of Vidarbha – Suresh Bhatt. The last two lines of the poem say –
Sadhyach mansancha elgar yeth ahe
Ha thor gandulancha bhondu jamav nahi
The army of ordinary people is on the march,
This is not the spineless gathering of renowned earthworms.
The word Elgar is common to our efforts in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra.
Elgar Pratishthan - a development organisation formed in 1999
Shramik Elgar - a people's movement started in 2000
Elgar believes that marginalised citizens of India should have equal access to their constitutional and legal rights, and be able to live in peace, security and harmony with their neighbours and the natural environment.
We aim to strengthen the voice of the poor, develop community leadership especially that of women and youths and also use various democratic institutions to further the rights of the vulnerable sections.
This blog is to give you updates of our work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)