IV. Abuses by Salwa JudumFrom the escalation of the conflict in June 2005 until mid-2007, Salwa Judum leaders typically spearheaded its activities with the support of government security forces. Salwa Judum leaders mostly consist of people aggrieved by Naxalite activitiescontractors or middlemen, members of non-tribal and landed tribal communities, sarpanches (village officials), patels (village headmen), and priests.49 Salwa Judum membersordinary tribal and non-tribal civilians, including childrencarried out their leaders instructions and conducted operations along with government security forces. They travelled from one village to another, particularly to villages that they believed were Naxalite strongholds, conducting violent raids, combing them for Naxalites, evacuating villagers to government-run camps (also known as Salwa Judum camps, base camps, or relief camps), and in some cases, beating, raping, and killing villagers. During this period, Salwa Judum members and government security forces used a range of coercive techniques to force civilians to participate in Salwa Judum meetings or to relocate them to camps. They routinely claimed that villagers who did not join Salwa Judum must be Naxalites. On many occasions, they also carried out reprisal measures against camp residents who returned to their villages or against persons who fled from Chhattisgarh and settled in Andhra Pradesh. The Indian central and Chhattisgarh state governments deny providing support to Salwa Judum.50 The Chhattisgarh government has maintained that:
In our research, however, we found overwhelming evidence of state support for Salwa Judum. Government security forces either actively participated in Salwa Judum abuses or, despite being present at the scene, failed to prevent Salwa Judum members from committing abuses. In fact, the chairperson of the second Indian Administrative Reforms Commission (a commission of inquiry set up by the president of India) criticized the Chhattisgarh government for delegating its law and order powers to an extra constitutional [prohibited by the Constitution] power like Salwa Judum. 52 While there is evidence that joint raids by government security forces and Salwa Judum members have been on the decline since mid-2007, the practice has by no means endedreprisals against villagers who leave camps are ongoing. The Chhattisgarh state government claims that it upholds the rule of law. However, over a three-year period starting mid-2005 it has shown little willingness to directly take on Salwa Judum as an abusive vigilante force and prevent government security forces from participating in such abuses. Under international law, the Indian central and Chhattisgarh state governments are ultimately responsible for the lives and well-being of the population. Internationally recognized human rights set out in core human rights instruments guarantee all people equal and inalienable rights by virtue of their inherent human dignity. 53 Under these instruments, the state as the primary duty holder has an obligation to uphold these rights. This includes not only preventing and punishing human rights violations by government officials and agents, but also protecting communities from criminal acts committed by non-state actors such as Salwa Judum members. India is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), one of the core international human rights treaties. The Human Rights Committee, the expert body that monitors compliance with the ICCPR, has observed that a state partys failure to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by such acts by private persons or entities itself constitutes a violation of the ICCPR.54 Similarly, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions has observed that when [a] pattern [of killing] becomes clear in which the response of the Government is clearly inadequate, its responsibility under international human rights law becomes applicable. Through its inaction the Government confers a degree of impunity upon the killers.55 A. Salwa Judum raids on villages coercing civilian participationHuman Rights Watch interviewed 52 individuals who were eyewitnessesto Salwa Judum raids on 18 villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts. Each of these villages had been destroyed or vacated due to Salwa Judumraids since June 2005. These persons also gave Human Rights Watch a list of 26 additional villages that they said were burned by Salwa Judum members.56 A petition filed in the Supreme Court of India estimates that between June 2005 and August 2007 Salwa Judum members and government security forces killed 537 villagers, burned 2,825 houses, and looted many thousands of other houses in Dantewada and Bijapur districts.57 All the eyewitnesses to Salwa Judum padyatras (rallies) in their villages stated that these were violent events aimed at either enlisting their participation in Salwa Judum meetings or relocating them to camps.58 The coercive tactics ranged from threatening and imposing fines, to beating, abducting, and killing villagers, and burning and looting hamlets (See Appendix I). According to some villagers, during Salwa Judums most active period, between June 2005 and the monsoon season of 2007 (June to September), Salwa Judum members and government security forces conducted raids on their villages at least two or three times every month, and sometimes every day. Eyewitnesses estimated that they came in numbers varying from 50 to 2,000.59 For instance, describing the number of people who raided his village, one local resident pointed to a field approximately the size of a soccer field and said, this entire field was filled with them [Salwa Judum members and government security forces].60 During such raids Salwa Judum members were usually armed with sticks, axes, daggers, spears, and bows and arrows, while government security forces were armed with rifles.61 Sometimes the raid was preceded by a mandatory Salwa Judum public meeting. Explaining why her family members attended Salwa Judum meetings, Vasanti Kumar said,
A woman from Kothooru described how Salwa Judum members and government security forces came to her village, beat her, and forcibly took her to a Salwa Judum meeting.63 Another woman from Neeram attended a meeting because Salwa Judum leaders had given a letter to a local sarpanch stating that if they did not come, then their village would be attacked.64 One villager from Nambi described how Salwa Judum and government security forces went to the weekly market and intimidated villagers into attending meetings or relocating to camps.65 In these public meetings, Salwa Judum leaders appealed to villagers to join Salwa Judum to fight Naxalites. A teenage boy who attended the public meeting in Basaguda in June 2006 recounted the speeches at these meetings:
Sometimes senior police officials, administrative officials, and politicians attended these meetings.67 In some cases Salwa Judum members took away children and adults (both male and female) to attend meetings. In some others they took away only men and boys, leaving behind women, girls, and young children. Sometimes people who were forcibly taken to attend meetings were prevented from returningto force the family to relocate to Salwa Judum camps. Explaining how the men who were taken away did not return, Mihika said,
Mihika left her village and moved to another village with her five children who were all under age eight. She did not know where her husband was for a long time. She said that her husband eventually managed to escape from the camp and came looking for his family.69 Several other people interviewed by Human Rights Watch described similar experiences.70 Kaskul Naiyya said,
Naiyyas brother, age 17, who was forcibly taken away along with her uncle to attend a meeting, returned after a few days and told them that they had been taken to a Salwa Judum camp. But her uncle was prevented from returning.72 Salwa Judum members harassed villagers who did not voluntarily relocate to camps. For instance, one strategy was to cut off villagers access to the weekly market.73 One villager said,
A villager from Lingagiri described how after a Salwa Judum meeting in Lingagiri in early 2006, government security forces asked all villagers who had not relocated to the Basaguda camp to report at the police station every day. He said,
Typically, if villagers refused to relocate to camps despite threats and harassment, then Salwa Judum members and government security forces used other coercive techniquesthey terrorized civilians by beating or abducting them, taking away their livestock, and burning huts and at times entire villages. Raids on villages usually came without warning. As soon as Salwa Judum members and CRP people [CRPF] entered the village, they started beating people and setting huts on fire. They didnt make any announcements or give any orders [to vacate the village], said Vachcham Ragu from Sankanpalli.76 Describing an attack by Salwa Judum and government security forces on Pidmel, one villager said,
In many cases Salwa Judum members along with government security forces killed civilians and raped women to terrorize them and force relocation. Human Rights Watch received reports from villagers of approximately 55 killings of family members, friends, or acquaintances but was not able to independently verify every case.78 While most villagers typically fled at the first sign of a Salwa Judum raid, they sometimes returned to their villages to find bodies of people who were not able to escape. A villager from Kamarguda explained how he cremated others from his village, and fled for safety:
Villagers from Mukudtong described a raid on their village immediately before dusshera [an Indian festival in September-October] in 2006:
Salwa Judum members came back again and burned their entire village. They continued,
The villagers said Mukudtong was not close to the road, making access difficult. Villages that were close to the roads had it worse, they said:
Villagers also reported that Salwa Judum members abducted many people from markets and took them to camps. One villager from Toodayem said,
Another villager from Tolnai said Salwa Judum members abducted around 15 people from his village who had gone to the weekly market in Errabore during the harvest season in 2006, and took them to Konta camp. 84 In some cases, villagers disappeared after they were forcibly taken away by Salwa Judum members or government security forces: their relatives had no further information about them. Kadti Gowri from Nendra said that in February 2006 Salwa Judum members and government security forces forcibly took her to Errabore camp along with three othersher son-in-law, and his brother and father. The last she saw them was near a river behind Errabore camp. She said that she had searched for them, had not found them, and still did not know their whereabouts at the time of her interview with Human Rights Watch in December 2007. She fears that Salwa Judum members or government security forces may have killed them.85 B. Coercing camp residents participation in Salwa JudumNot only were villagers forcibly evicted from their villages and moved into camps, but once in the camps, they were coerced into participating in Salwa Judums activities, which included attending meetings, going on processions, and even raiding other villages. One former resident of Mirtur camp narrated the trauma of camp residents:
A former resident of Errabore camp described the hierarchy and rules in the camp. She said,
Another former resident of Geedam camp (now Kasoli camp) complained,
One resident from Jailbada camp tried to escape but was caught, brought back to the camp, and forced to attend Salwa Judums meetings and rallies. Narrating how he was routinely harassed, he said, [W]hen I tried going back, the police caught me, brought me back, and beat me. I have to go for meetings and rallies with Judum members. If I do not participate, then they [government security forces] drag me out of the house and say Go back to your village and force me to leave; or they threaten to beat me. Then if I go back [to the village], they come looking for me, beat me, and bring me back.89 C. Salwa Judum reprisals against villagers who leave campsMany camp residents return to their villages during the day to restore their homes and cultivation. Some flee from the camps and attempt to return to their villages permanently. Salwa Judum leaders from Dantewada told Human Rights Watch that villagers are free to go wherever they want.90 Several government officials also stated that camp residents are free to leave and return to their villages. The Dantewada Superintendent of Police Rahul Sharma assured Human Rights Watch:
Another police officer from Dantewada stated,
The Dantewada district collector said the same, People in the camps are free to go back to their villages, free to go anywhere at any time.93 These statements were contradicted by many camp residents who described reprisals for attempting to return to their villages. Salwa Judum members and government security forces have carried out reprisal measures against villagers who left camps. One former resident of Mirtur camp said that any attempt to leave the camp was viewed with suspicion. He said,
These reprisals are ongoing. Describing a Salwa Judum attack on their village a week earlier in December 2007, the former resident from Mirtur camp said:
Some residents who went to their village every morning to cultivate their fields described an attack on them in December 2007,
D. Salwa Judum reprisals against villagers who have fled to Andhra PradeshSalwa Judum and government security forces also cross over to Andhra Pradesh searching for people from Chhattisgarh who have settled there. In one case, they went to a village in Andhra Pradesh and abducted two men who had fled and settled there in February 2006. Eyewitnesses to the incident said that Irma Madan and Irma Vandan are brothers who were residing with them in the hamlet. Madan went to Surpanguda (in Dantewada district) in October 2007 to meet his cousin. His cousin then brought Salwa Judum members and government security forces to their village (in Warangal district) in search of Madan and his brother. The villagers said,
The fear of reprisals is so high that people who have settled on the Andhra Pradesh side said that they hide and run when they see Salwa Judum members. A member of a group of displaced persons said,
One of the displaced persons continued,
49 Human Rights Forum, Death, Displacement and Deprivation: The War in Dantewara: A Report, 2006, http://cpjc.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/hrfdantewadareport.pdf (accessed October 2, 2007), p. 26; Independent Citizens Initiative, War in the Heart of India, An Enquiry into the Ground Situation in Dantewada District, Chhattisgarh, 2006, http://rightsandresources.org/blog/WarintheHeartofIndia.pdf (accessed July 16, 2007), pp. 21-22; Human Rights Watch interview with Pottem Satish (pseudonym), former resident of Errabore camp, location withheld, December 6, 2007. Satish told Human Rights Watch that sarpanches (heads of elected village councils) and influential people are made camp leaders. 50 Human Rights Watch interviews with K. R. Pisda, district collector of Dantewada district, Dantewada, December 10, 2007; Rahul Sharma, superintendent of police of Dantewada district, Dantewada, December 10, 2007 ( first interview); Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Annual Report 2006-2007, http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/ar0607-Eng.pdf (accessed May 13, 2008), p. 24. The report describes Salwa Judum as a voluntary and peaceful initiative by local people against naxalites in Dantewada district [undivided] of Chhattisgarh. 51 Nandini Sundar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 250 of 2007, Counter Affidavit on Behalf of Respondent, January 22, 2008, pp. 308-9, para. 8; Sur-Rejoinder on Behalf of Respondent State of Chhattisgarh, April 10, 2008, p. 513, para. 4a. 52 Nitu Jain, UPA wants Cgarh anti-Naxalite village militia disbanded, video report, IBN Live Video, March 18, 2008, http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/61451/upa-wants-cgarh-antinaxal-village-militia-disbanded.html (accessed March 18, 2008). In an interview with IBN Live, a leading Indian news and current affairs channel, the chairperson of the Administrative Reforms Commission, Veerappa Moily, said, Salwa Judum will amount to being an extra-constitutional power which you cannot have, and further implied that Salwa Judum was in fact acting as the agent of the state. He continued, [i]f there is a constitutional government, it is the duty of the constitutional government to function, [and] not delegate its power [to Salwa Judum]. Ibid. 53 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), International LawThe Core International Human Rights Instruments, undated, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/index.htm#core (accessed April 20, 2008). Seven of the nine core international treaties are in force. India is party to four of the seven core treaties that are in forcethe International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force January 3, 1976, acceded to by India on April 10, 1979; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976, acceded to by India on April 10, 1979; the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted November 20, 1989, G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force September 2, 1990, acceded to by India on December 11, 1992; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted December 18, 1979, G.A. Res. 34/180, 34 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 46) at 193, UN Doc. A/34/46, entered into force September 3, 1981, ratified by India on July 9, 1993. 54 UN Human Rights Committee, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (art. 2), General Comment No. 31, UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6, March 29, 2004, para. 8. 55 Philip Alston, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, E/CN.4/2005/7, December 22, 2004, http://www.extrajudicialexecutions.org/reports/E_CN_4_2005_7.pdf (accessed April 15, 2008), para. 72. 56 Chintagupha, Jinetong, Nilamadgu, Dongrigudem, Ethuguppa, Mukram, Singaram, Nillampalli, Penta, Baiyampalli, Parlagatta, Tolewarti, Kursangal, Kariguda, Gondupalli, Kondasawali, Gorkha, Kotacheru, Nagaram, Bandaras, Gaganapalli, Gomapad, Regadgatta, Maraiguda, Tetrai, and Arlampalli. 57 Kartam Joga and others v.State of Chhattisgarh and Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 119 of 2007. 58 Fifty-two eyewitnesses from 18 different villages described Salwa Judum rallies and recounted threats, abductions, beatings, killings, rape, pillage, and village burnings in their hamletsSankanpalli, Durma, Darbha, Nambi, Kamarguda, Surpanguda, Boreguda, Nayapara, Lingagiri, Kothooru, Pisheypara, Etagatta, Nendra, Ramavaram, Pidmel, Tolnai, Mukudtong, and Sunnamguda. 59 Human Rights Watch interview with numerous displaced persons from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts who witnessed raids by Salwa Judum and government security forces, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 29-December 8, 2007. In their descriptions, these individuals gave different numbers for Salwa Judum members and government security forces who raided their village. 60 Human Rights Watch group interview GR1 with residents (who chose to remain anonymous), B1 permanent housing site, Dantewada district, December 15, 2007. 61 Human Rights Watch interview with numerous displaced persons from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts who were victims of raids by Salwa Judum members and government security forces, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 29-December 8, 2007. These victims were consistent in their description of the nature of weapons carried by Salwa Judum members and government security forces. 62 Human Rights Watch interview with Vasanti Kumar (pseudonym), IDP from Pandiguda, location withheld, December 6, 2007. 63 Human Rights Watch interview with Sita (pseudonym), IDP from Kothooru, village K1, Khammam district, December 1, 2007. 64 Human Rights Watch interview with Mandavi Siddharth (pseudonym), person displaced from Neeram, location withheld, December 11, 2007. 65 Human Rights Watch interview with Kalma Pandu (pseudonym), IDP from Nambi, village W7, Warangal district, December 1, 2007. 66 Human Rights Watch interview with teenage boy (who chose to remain anonymous), IDP from Basaguda, village K2, Khammam district, December 2, 2007. 67 Human Rights Watch interviews with T-1 (who chose to remain anonymous), government teacher in Bijapur, location withheld, December 14, 2007; IDP-1 from Lingagiri (who chose to remain anonymous), village K1, Khammam district, December 1, 2007; Santosh Poonyem, Bijapur district chief bureau for Dainik Prakhar Samachar (Hindi newspaper), Bijapur, December 14, 2007. 68 Human Rights Watch interview with Mihika (pseudonym), location withheld, December 11, 2007. 69 Ibid. 70 Human Rights Watch interviews with Madkam Dhairya (pseudonym), camp resident, Jailbada camp, December 13, 2007; camp resident (who chose to remain anonymous), Dornapal camp, December 12, 2007. 71 Human Rights Watch interview with Kaskul Naiyya (pseudonym), IDP from Nayapara, village K3, Khammam district, December 2, 2007. The Central Reserve Police Force or CRPF is a paramilitary police force deployed by the Indian central government in the region. 72 Ibid. 73 Human Rights Watch interview with Kosambi Mukesh (pseudonym), IDP from Durma, village W6, Warangal district, November 30, 2007. 74 Human Rights Watch interview with Mandavi Siddharth (pseudonym), person displaced from Neeram, location withheld, December 11, 2007. 75 Human Rights Watch interview with IDP-1 from Lingagiri (who chose to remain anonymous), village K1, Khammam district, December 1, 2007. 76 Human Rights Watch interview with Vachcham Ragu (pseudonym), IDP from Sankanpalli, village W4, Warangal district, November 30, 2007. 77 Human Rights Watch interview with Tati Dhiren (pseudonym), IDP from Pidmel, village K8, Khammam district, December 6, 2007. See above, section III, Background, for additional information regarding SPOs. 78 Human Rights Watch interviews with numerous displaced persons from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts who were victims of raids by Salwa Judum and government security forces, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 29-December 8, 2007. See Appendix I for list of villages from where IDPs reported killings. 79 Human Rights Watch interview with Irma Gokul (pseudonym), IDP from Kamarguda, village W7, Warangal district, December 1, 2007. 80 Human Rights Watch interview with Vadtam Veera and Vadtam Cheena (pseudonyms), IDPs from Mukudtong, village K10, Khammam district, December 7, 2007. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. Note that this Madkam Adma is a different individual from the Madkam Adma named in the previous account. It is not unusual for villagers to have identical names. 83 Human Rights Watch interview with Madavi Abhinay (pseudonym), IDP from Toodayam, village K9, Khammam district, December 11, 2007. 84 Human Rights Watch group interview GR4 with IDPs from Tolnai (who chose to remain anonymous), village K9, Khammam district, December 7, 2007. 85 Human Rights Watch interview with Kadti Gowri (pseudonym), IDP from Nendra, village K11, Khammam district, December 8, 2007. 86 Human Rights Watch group interview GR3 with former residents of Mirtur camp (who chose to remain anonymous), other details withheld. 87 Human Rights Watch interview with Poosam Kanya (pseudonym), former resident of Errabore camp, location withheld, December 5, 2007. 88 Human Rights Watch interview with Mandavi Siddharth (pseudonym), person displaced from Neeram, location withheld, December 11, 2007. 89 Human Rights Watch interview with camp resident (who chose to remain anonymous), Jailbada camp, December 13, 2007. 90 Human Rights Watch interview with Ram Bhuwan Khushwaha, Salwa Judum leader of Dornapal camp, Dornapal, date withheld; Soyam Muka, Salwa Judum leader of Errabore camp, date withheld. 91 Human Rights Watch interview with Rahul Sharma, first interview, December 10, 2007. 92 Human Rights Watch interview with police officer-1 (who requested anonymity), other details withheld. 93 Human Rights Watch interview with K. R. Pisda, district collector of Dantewada district, Dantewada, December 10, 2007. 94 Human Rights Watch group interview GR3 with former residents of Mirtur camp (who chose to remain anonymous), other details withheld. 95 Ibid. 96 Human Rights Watch group interview GR1 with residents (who chose to remain anonymous), B1 permanent housing site, Dantewada district, December 15, 2007. 97 Human Rights Watch group interview with numerous displaced persons from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts who witnessed the abduction, village W7, Warangal district, December 1, 2007. 98 Human Rights Watch group interview GR4 with IDPs from Tolnai (who chose to remain anonymous), village K9, Khammam district, December 7, 2007. 99 Ibid. |