publications

VI. Plight of Persons Displaced by the Conflict

Even after three years of the forcible displacement of people into camps and the exodus of people from Chhattisgarh to neighboring states (principally Andhra Pradesh) began, neither the Indian central nor the state governments of Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh have developed a policy for protection of and assistance to displaced persons. Andhra Pradesh authorities claim that there is a need for a national policy on displaced persons. 178 They further added that in the absence of such a policy they are powerless to make decisions to protect and assist such people.179 While there is certainly a need for a national policy, the absence of one does not absolve state governments from their responsibilities to protect and assist displaced persons.

India is party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and has an obligation to “recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to continuous improvement of living conditions.”180 The ICESCR also requires states to respect the rights of all individuals without discriminating against them on the basis of “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status [emphasis added].”181

Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (UN Guiding Principles),182 persons who are displaced have the rights to seek safety in any part of the country, to liberty and freedom to choose their residence, and to protection against forcible return to or resettlement in any place where their life, safety, liberty, or health would be at risk.183 States should not deprive displaced persons of their possessions, or destroy or appropriate their property as a form of collective punishment.184 Unless displacement is necessitated by military imperatives or civilian security in periods of armed conflicts, states should give full information to displaced persons on the reasons for their displacement, the procedures that will govern the process, the relocation facilities that will be made available to them, and the compensation, if any, to which they are entitled.185 Moreover, states should also involve those to be displaced, especially women, in decision-making about the displacement, as far as is practicable.186

Displaced persons also have the right to an adequate standard of living. Competent authorities should ensure safe access to essential food and potable water, basic shelter and housing, appropriate clothing, essential medical services, and sanitation.187 States cannot discriminate against displaced persons on the basis of their displaced status; displaced persons have the right to participate fully and equally in public affairs at all levels and have equal access to public services.188 States are primarily responsible for ensuring the welfare of the displaced, but they must ensure free passage for international humanitarian organizations.189

State authorities are primarily responsible for providing the conditions, as well as the means, to allow displaced persons to return voluntarily in safety to their homes or places of habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in other parts of the country, and should seek to ensure the participation of the displaced in the planning and management of their return.190 In addition, authorities must assist the displaced in the recovery of their property and provide appropriate compensation or another form of just reparation when this is not possible.191    

A. Failure of the Chhattisgarh government to provide adequate assistance to displaced persons

According to a January 2007 official list of camps, there were 47,238 camp residents in 20 camps in Dantewada and Bijapur districts at the start of the year.192 In the course of 2007, at least four additional camps were started, including one in Jagargonda that houses around an additional 2,000 displaced persons.193

In the relocation from villages, most villagers lost their homes, land, most of their livestock, and their primary means of livelihood, which are agriculture and sale of forest produce. Government officials in Chhattisgarh acknowledged to Human Rights Watch that the camps are not sustainable. They have neither a policy for facilitating camp residents’ safe return to their villages nor a plan to provide adequately for camp residents on a long-term basis.194 Further, the government has failed to provide uniform treatment to all persons who have been relocated from their villages.   

The Dantewada superintendent of police described camps as “[a] single window mechanism where the government is providing facilities.”195 “The facilities in camps are 100 percent better than the facilities in villages,” he said.196 The 2007 memorandum of the district collector of Dantewada (undivided) states that “[f]ree residence, free food, free health care, security, education for children, anganwadi [government-run early childhood care and education centre], clean drinking water, electricity, adult literacy centres, training, daily employment at employment centres,” are being provided to displaced persons.197

Living conditions in camps

Contrary to government claims that a host of free facilities are being provided to camp residents, Human Rights Watch’s visits to camps and interviews with camp residents reveal that many camps are lacking in basic facilities and services.198

The 2007 memorandum of the district collector of Dantewada (undivided) states that “[t]he government is providing housing free to the camp residents [who wish to stay permanently] … at the rate of Rs. 12,000 [roughly US$300] for each beneficiary,”199 and “temporary tin sheds” to those who want to “return home once the situation is normalized.”200

Human Rights Watch found that camps typically consist of individual huts constructed by villagers themselves. Many residents from different camps in Bijapur and Dantewada districts maintained that Salwa Judum members and government security forces first drove them out of their villages, brought them to large vacant tracts, and told them to make their own huts. 201 People cut trees, gathered wood, and constructed their own huts, and in the interim, lived under plastic or tarpaulin sheets.202 The government only much later provided roofs in the form of tin sheets or tiles. “Every house got 5,000 rupees [roughly US$125]. Logs are our own. We got no [other] assistance. Some of us got tiles; everything else we built on our own. We used our own money and our own effort to build the walls,” said a villager from Injeram camp.203 Some camp residents complained that this was not an ongoing government scheme, and villagers who arrived after the initial distribution of roofing material have not received any assistance for housing.204

The camps are so cramped that villagers who were initially able to save their livestock were later forced to abandon them. For instance, one girl said, “We let our cattle loose because we did not have a place in the camp to keep them.”205 In their villages, women had separate kitchens, or cooked outside their huts. Since there is no space to cook outside their huts in camps, women are forced to cook inside their huts. “Everyone coughs in the camp because of the smoke. Our eyes water, but we have to keep cooking. Every bit of cloth in our home has turned black from the smoke,” complained one of the women residents.206

Even after two years, many camps do not have proper bathrooms, toilets, or sanitation facilities.207 Access to health and medical facilities is poor. Residents of Konta camp despaired that there was only one health worker who visited the camp everyday.208 Similarly, Dornapal camp, where there are around 17,000 residents, has only 10 health workers to attend to camp residents as well as people in surrounding villages.209

The Chhattisgarh government claims that “[f]ree rations are only being distributed to Dornapal, Errabore, Konta-Injeram, Geedam-Kasoli, Mirtur, Cherpal, Gangalur, Awapalli, Usur, Pharsegarh, and Bedre camps. In the remaining camps, free rations are given only to old and disabled persons. For the remaining residents, employment centres have been opened near the camps and they are being given daily employment. The rice for the camps is being procured through the fair price shops.”210 It also states, “For those settled at the new sites, ration cards have been issued by the concerned gram panchayat [elected village council] so that in future they can buy rice, kerosene oil, sugar etc, at reasonable rates.”211

Contrary to these government claims, Human Rights Watch found that in practice there was no clear food distribution plan for most camps. Some camp residents stated that the Chhattisgarh government initially provided free rations that have either been reduced or discontinued altogether.212 One resident of Injeram camp said, “First, they used to give us lots, but now it is reduced. They used to give us rations once every 15 days; now it is once every 30 days. It changed six months ago.”213 Another resident of Jailbada camp said, “We have not gotten free rations here for over a year. We buy our own rations from the market.”214 People who do not receive free rations or run out of rations are dependent on ration shops or the weekly market.

Villagers need government-issued ration cards to purchase rations at subsidized rates from ration shops. Human Rights Watch spoke to around 20 camp residents who stated that the government had not issued replacement ration cards to those who lost their ration cards either during the hurried evacuation to camps or because their hamlet was burned, leaving them unable to buy rations.215

The Dantewada district collector stated that officials were struggling to deliver provisions in camps created in 2007 in interior areas of Dantewada district due to security concerns. The government delivers provisions to Jagargonda camp, for instance, once every three months.216 One police official stated that the road to Jagargonda is heavily mined making it difficult to transport rations. He said, “Before the last installment [of rations] was delivered about two weeks ago [in December 2007], there was a delay because we could not arrange for the required police force to accompany the trucks [carrying rations]. As a result, about 20-22 children became very sick due to malnourishment and starvation, and 2-3 children also died.”217

The food that is distributed by the Chhattisgarh government either free or through its subsidized public distribution program is different from the staple diet of tribal communities. Instead of meat, fish, and forest produce, which is their normal diet, the government provides camp residents lentils and rice. “Food we get [in the camps] is not what we used to eat at home. [We used to eat] different herbs and plants from the jungle. Here we don’t get that,” said one villager.218 Another villager put it simply—“We cannot live without fish, and without the jungles.”219

The lack of food is compounded by the Chhattisgarh government’s failure to provide a sustainable livelihood option for camp residents. Denied their traditional livelihood of agriculture and sale of forest produce, camp residents are completely dependent upon the state for their survival.  The Chhattisgarh government acknowledges that “[t]hose in camps have no source of income” and claims that it provides daily-wage jobs under the National Food for Work program and the Employment Guarantee Program. 220  Government data indicates that between 2005 and 2007, 715 public works were sanctioned and 457 works were finished.221

Residents from different camps, however, complained that the government provides few livelihood opportunities for them, which are not adequate to replace their previous income. Many camp residents also stated that the manual labor opportunities under the government employment schemes are not sufficient to employ all camp residents. They said that the lack of jobs left them idle.222 “In my village, I used to do my work. But here there is nothing to do. I am idle all day,” said a resident of Injeram camp.223 Many, in desperation, have used up their savings because there is no alternative employment. 224 Another resident described the livelihood crisis he was facing and said, “We have got employment only once last year … We ask around for whatever manual work is available and try and earn some money. When I was in [name of village withheld], I had fields and used to cultivate them. Now it is just an overgrown jungle that we cannot cultivate anymore.”225 “I have lots of expertise in agriculture, but it is not being put to use here,” complained another resident of Konta camp.226 

The Chhattisgarh government claims to have started vocational training classes such as sewing and weaving to help villagers generate employment.227 However, camp residents and activists stated that very few camps offered such classes, that they were generally run for a short period, and that villagers were not able to use these skills to generate any income.228 A teacher from Bijapur who visits camps to encourage children to attend schools said,

Initially, in 2005, the government provided some vocational training—sewing, basket-making. Now there is no training in the camp. People have not been able to use this training for any employment and government does not provide any assistance to give them any employment.229

Volunteers who work in camps in Bijapur district said, “No one has benefited in any way from the [vocational] training. They may make some things for themselves, but make no income. Some people have kept sewing machines, but for personal use.”230

Activists and volunteers working in camps pointed out that camp residents no longer celebrate traditional tribal festivals. “We can monitor nutrition and health indicators, provide clean water and vaccinations,” said one activist working in the camps. “But where are the songs? Where are the festivals? I have not heard a single family play the drums in the evenings in over two years. Their cultural identity has been destroyed and that is a wound that will be impossible to heal,” he said.231

Unofficial camps and permanent housing sites

Government data for January 2007 shows that there are government-run camps in Bijapur, Cherpal, Gangalur, Awapalli, Basaguda, Usur, Bangapal, Kasoli, Bhairamgarh, Pharsegarh, Matwada, Nelasnar, Jangla, Kutru, Mirtur, Bedre, Dornapal, Errabore, Injeram, and Konta.232 In 2007, as noted above, at least four additional camps were started.233 Assuming the Chhattisgarh government did not close or merge any of them, there are at least 24 officially recognized camps. 

The Chhattisgarh government also maintains a list of “sanctioned [permanent] houses for Naxal affected displaced families” (permanent housing list) which is a list of locations where the government claims to be providing permanent housing “at the camp site and nearby villages” for those residents who wished to stay at such locations permanently. 234

Human Rights Watch interviewed NGO volunteers and journalists who stated that they worked in or had visited the following areas that are listed as permanent housing sites—Uskapatnam, Bodli, Karkeli, and Patarpara.235 The NGO volunteers working in these sites said that the “permanent housing sites” were created in 2006 when people were forcibly relocated to these areas, and that the government does not provide most facilities like police protection, health care facilities, and rations at these sites.236

In December 2007, Human Rights Watch visited a permanent housing site in Dantewada district. The people residing at this site consistently stated that Salwa Judummembers and government security forces had forcibly relocated them from their village in 2005. 237 They also stated that they wanted to return to their home village eventually. Many of them had begun visiting their village to cultivate their fields, and as a result, had faced reprisal measures in December 2007 from Salwa Judum members and government security forces.238 There are approximately 170 huts at this site, and the residents describe this site as a “camp.”239

At this so-called permanent housing site the government has failed to provide even the limited facilities that are provided in camps.240 There is no security, no visits by government health workers, and no anganwadis or schools are run in or around this site. Residents also complained that government had issued some ration cards but had not provided any free rations. They also stated that until December 2007, the government had provided employment opportunities to them only once.241

Human Rights Watch also collected a list of areas that are referred to as “camps” by displaced persons but do not appear on any of the government’s lists. Displaced persons settled in Andhra Pradesh stated that people were forcibly relocated to areas in Maraiguda, Gollapalli, Asirguda, Banda, and Bejji.242 While the government gave Human Rights Watch updated information in December 2007 about Jagargonda and Polampalli camps in Dantewada district, they did not mention that they had started new camps in Gollapalli, Asirguda, Banda, and Bejji. Barring some information regarding Maraiguda camp, Human Rights Watch is unaware of any estimate of the number of displaced persons living in these unofficial camps or any reporting on living conditions there—worrying facts given the poor conditions existing even in camps that have received some scrutiny.243

Impediments to return

The Chhattisgarh government has no policy for facilitating the safe and voluntary return of camp residents to their villages. Almost all camp residents told Human Rights Watch that they eventually want to return to their villages. The Dantewada superintendent of police stated that the government was “slowly facilitating return by creating new camps closer to the [interior] villages” from where people were originally relocated.244 However, another police officer stated that administering and protecting these interior camps was extremely difficult.245

There are several impediments to camp residents’ return to their villages. The greatest is the danger of possible Naxalite reprisals against camp residents, particularly sarpanches (village officials), patels (village headmen), and special police officers or SPOs (including former SPOs).246 NGOs, activists, and camp residents said that Naxalites had distributed and displayed pamphlets inviting camp residents to return to their villages to resume farming, assuring them of safe passage and treatment.247 Many camp residents questioned whether Naxalites would actually abide by these statements.

In many cases, the fear caused by previous Naxalite reprisal measures against camp residents outweighed the Naxalite promises.248 One villager from Jailbada camp said, “If I go to the village, they [Naxalites] will beat me, so I don’t want to go.”249 A girl from Jayanagar camp, speaking for a larger group of girls, said, “We prefer it in the camp and don’t want to go back to our village now because we are scared of Naxalites attacking the village. Naxalites did not come before, but they will now.”250 A former camp resident of Errabore was too scared to return to his home village and therefore relocated to another village. He said, “We told the police that they should also come and live with us otherwise we will not go because we are scared of Naxalites.”251

The Chhattisgarh government has not yet offered police protection to villagers who want to return to their villages permanently. A resident of Dornapal camp highlighted the difficulties: “[It is] difficult for police to give protection in the village. The only way would be to have one police station for every panchayat area [geographical area comprising of a group of villages].”252 Some NGO volunteers felt that police protection would not be helpful to villagers because the police themselves are primary targets of Naxalites.253

The police also claim that Naxalites have heavily mined interior areas.254 NGO volunteers who work in camps said that landmines posed a problem for safe return. One of them pointed to a recent incident of such landmine explosion saying, “A few days back there was a blast in Konta, so people are scared [to leave the camps].”255

Even if people are assured of safe return, civilians cannot lead a normal life in villages unless government services are restored in interior areas. Schools in many villages have been destroyed.256 Government health workers and teachers live in and around camps, and do not provide services in interior villages.257 Government fair price ration shops, anganwadis, residential schools, and day schools have been shifted to or around camps.258 In some areas Chhattisgarh authorities have cut off villagers’ access to markets making it very difficult for them to survive should they return.259

The conflict between Naxalites, Salwa Judum, and government security forces has forced people to take sides making them enemies. Villagers who did not relocate to camps continue to be perceived as Naxalite sympathisers, and villagers who voluntarily or otherwise relocated to camps are perceived as pro-Salwa Judum. This has caused tremendous friction among villagers. One villager from Jangla camp said,

People living here [camp] have become enemies of people living there [village]. This happened after Salwa Judum started. Before Salwa Judum, we were living together­­­­—we used to go to the market together and celebrate festivals together. Now we can’t do any of that. If we see each other, we will beat or even kill each other.260

Despite these formidable obstacles, many camp residents still wish to return home. For instance, a group of people who were forcibly relocated said, “We have all our land and property there [in the village]. If we die, we want to die on our land. We don’t want to die in the camp. The last place we want to die is in the camp.”261

B. “Double jeopardy”: Abuses against displaced persons by Andhra Pradesh authorities

Tens of thousands of people fled from Dantewada and Bijapur districts of Chhattisgarh to escape the conflict, and settled in the reserved forest areas of neighboring Andhra Pradesh state. NGOs and government officials estimated that since June 2005 around 30,000-50,000 displaced persons have settled in the Khammam and Warangal districts of Andhra Pradesh.262 A professor from Osmania University who is an expert on tribal-related issues explained: “It’s very difficult to get clear estimates because displaced people are very scared—they live under assumed names and don’t want to tell us who they are.”263

Despite being aware of the circumstances under which displaced persons from Chhattisgarh settled in reserved forest areas, the Andhra Pradesh government has repeatedly evicted displaced persons unlawfully and by force, and failed to assist them. A senior forest department official candidly summed up the plight of displaced persons settled in Andhra Pradesh:

They are refugees in their own country…. No one will support them. Police also fear them [IDPs]—if they come and settle here it will become another Chhattisgarh. Police department will not support them, forest department will not support them, revenue department will not support them…. From a human rights angle their life is very pathetic.264

An eviction is unlawful when it is carried out in violation of domestic law or international human rights law.265 While interpreting the right to adequate housing and right against forced evictions under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that:

  1. Prior to carrying out evictions, authorities should explore all feasible alternatives in consultation with affected persons in order to avoid or minimize the need to use force;266
  2. Eviction should be carried out in accordance with the general principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and they should not render individuals homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights;267
  3. In case of eviction, authorities should ensure that “adequate” alternative housing or resettlement options are provided;268
  4. All individuals affected by forced evictions have a right to adequate compensation for any property that is affected.269

It has also outlined a list of procedural and due process safeguards as follows:270

  1. Opportunity for genuine consultation with those affected;
  2. Adequate and reasonable notice prior to the scheduled date of eviction;
  3. Information on the proposed evictions;
  4. Government officials to be involved during evictions;
  5. Persons carrying out evictions to be properly identified;
  6. Evictions not to take place in particularly bad weather or at night without consent;
  7. Provision of legal remedies;
  8. Provision of legal aid for those who want to seek redress from courts.

Unlawful forced eviction of displaced persons

Burned logs stood as mute witnesses to repeated Andhra Pradesh forest department-led destruction of IDP hamlets. Local NGO workers took Human Rights Watch researchers on a tour of one IDP hamlet and pointed to huts that displaced persons were building afresh—again. “They cannot chop any more wood so they have begun to reuse burned logs for huts,” one explained.271

The divisional forest officer of Bhadrachalam said that the IDP hamlets are illegal. He further said that the Andhra Pradesh forest law empowers the forest department to destroy illegal hamlets. However, all officials including the divisional forest officer claimed that forest department officials “do not burn huts” and explained that local tribal communities were burning IDP hamlets.272

Human Rights Watch visited 17 different IDP hamlets in Khammam and Warangal districts. Displaced persons from nine different hamlets stated that forest department officials had repeatedly burned their hamlets, destroyed their personal belongings despite pleas for minimizing damage, beat hamlet residents (including children), or forcibly relocated them to other areas without prior consultation, and without offering adequate alternative housing.273 In some of these cases forest department officials reportedly instigated local tribal communities to harass displaced persons. Human Rights Watch has evidence that between June 2005 and August 2007 at least 700 displaced persons from nine hamlets were repeatedly rendered homeless by these government actions. 274

In Kothooru, a displaced person who witnessed his hamlet being burned eight or nine times since January 2007 said,

Our village was burned for the first time in January 2007. The forest department people along with [local] villagers came here and burned our huts. About 10 forest department people and 40 villagers came and beat everyone, even children and women…. They have come about eight or nine times like this. Each time the forest department comes with villagers and burns everything. Forest department people come in jeeps and on motorcycles and the villagers come on foot. Sometimes they [officials] do it [burn] sometimes they tell the villagers what to do and then stand back and watch. They say “Go and set their huts on fire” and stand and watch.275

Villagers from only three of the 17 IDP hamlets stated that there was acrimony between local tribal communities and displaced persons, and while local tribal communities were indeed involved in the violence in each of those three hamlets, the forest department was also involved.276

In some cases, local tribal communities actively assisted displaced persons to find new homes.277 One displaced person who witnessed his hamlet being burned said, “After that [burning] the local villagers helped us and told us to come and live here—to come and stay with them over here. So now we have made our huts amidst the local villagers’ huts. If we go to the jungle for something, then we get beaten.”278

In one case, a displaced person in Warangal district stated that forest and excise officials destroyed his hamlet even though they had the support of local villagers:

We came [from Chhattisgarh] to Bootharam [in Andhra Pradesh] … and we built huts. About three months later, 20 forest and excise officials came and said that they knew that we had come from Chhattisgarh because of the trouble there and that we could not stay here. We told them that we had the permission of village elders to live here. The officials said that village elders’ permission did not matter … the officials set fire to all the huts.279

In their efforts to evict displaced persons, forest officials burned not only IDP hamlets but also all their personal belongings without showing any concern for their plight. A displaced person from Kothooru described to Human Rights Watch how they starved because their food grains were burned along with their money:

One of the villagers had saved 5,000 rupees (roughly US$125) and they burned that also. When they were about to burn everything, we begged them to at least allow us to take our food grains and money but they beat us more and set everything on fire.They also took away our poultry, goats, and cattle … We had no where to go and so every time our huts were burned, we used to stay under the trees over here. One time they came during the monsoons—we stayed under the trees for three days because we could not go out and get help. The nearest help is 14 kilometers away. So we starved for three days.280

Another displaced person in Khammam district bitterly recalled how officials burned his life’s savings and showed us its charred remains:

See this [holding burned currency notes] … They put all our belongings in the fire and burned it. First time I had 7,700 rupees [roughly US$192] and they burned it. When I begged them and told them all my savings were there, the [forest] ranger said, “Let it burn. We will burn everything else.”281

A volunteer with an NGO that provides humanitarian assistance to displaced persons described how they gathered and distributed clothes to them at least three times because officials burned their clothes every time. “They would not leave a shred of cloth except what was on their bodies,” she said.282

Forest officials not only burned IDP hamlets in their attempts to evict them but also beat and forced displaced persons into trucks, and dropped them to locations closer to the Chhattisgarh-Andhra Pradesh state boundary. The divisional forest officer of Bhadrachalam admitted to such relocations but described them as peaceful: “Usually we give notice and take our lorry [truck], go and take them [IDPs], and peacefully leave them in the borders.”283 However, Human Rights Watch found that displaced persons were often beaten or detained to facilitate such relocation. One man, speaking for a group of displaced persons from a village in Warangal district, recounted how they were detained, presumably to prevent protests during relocation:

In June or July 2007, four forest officials came here and took away the adult males to the [forest] range office and locked us in a room overnight. The next day, the children and women were taken, loaded in a truck, dropped in Cherla, and threatened. After forcibly putting people in trucks, the forest officials burned our huts. They burned about twelve huts and left five or six huts. The women and children walked for two days to return to the village.284 

A displaced person from a village in Khammam district described how he was brutally beaten:

The [forest] department people came with villagers [from a village nearby]. There were about 8-10 forest department people and around 20-25 villagers. They came in the afternoon, surrounded the village, beat us, and burned the village. I got beaten severely. They beat me and broke my ribs and fingers. They also hit me on my head and I got many stitches. Even now my fingers hurt and I can no longer lift weights and do manual labor because my ribs are weak. After they beat me, they dragged me to [village name withheld] and left me there. My brother found me there and took me to Chinturu [for medical help]. They hit women and children also with lathis [wooden sticks]. They showed no mercy and even little children—two- and three-year-olds—were beaten.285

A local activist from Warangal district described to us how he found a group of displaced persons who had been forcibly relocated from their hamlet in February 2006:

I was walking past the forest checkpost and I found these people [IDPs] looking very scared and asked them what happened. Then they told me that the forest department officials had brought them from Domada and left them here. So I told them to come with me and helped them.286

These evictions are particularly traumatic because the forest department forcibly relocates displaced persons without previous warnings or consultations. The Bhadrachalam divisional forest officer claimed that they “give notices—both written and oral” and “follow due procedure under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act.”287 Displaced persons, however, say that they were not consulted to explore feasible alternatives to eviction and were given no warnings, written or oral.288 

In fact, many displaced persons say that they repeatedly have sought protection and assistance from government authorities, but their pleas have been ignored or have met with further retributive measures.289 After the IDP settlement in Kothooru was burned, as described above, residents said that they even wrote a letter to the Integrated Tribal Development Agency but there was no response.290 When displaced persons in another hamlet sought police action against forest department and local villagers who burned their hamlet, not only did the police ignore their complaint and allow forest department officials and local villagers to destroy their hamlet again, but the police also forced them to withdraw their complaint and slapped additional charges on them. One of the displaced persons said,

Immediately, about two or three days after the incident [burning of hamlet], the police called everyone to the police station and made us sign papers. Later we were told that it was the razinama [settlement between parties] saying that we agreed to withdraw the case. Then they booked a case against the five of us who had gone to the police station to complain … for illegally occupying the land. We were produced before the magistrate in Bhadrachalam and were in jail for 12 days. I got my relative to stand as surety for us and we were released on bail.291

A resident of Warangal district stated that he was part of a group of local villagers who met with forest department officials to dissuade them from forcibly relocating the displaced. Forest department officials threatened them and sent the group back. He said,

We are tribals. They [IDPs] are also tribals. So we asked them [forest department officials] why they are treating our fellow tribals like this—why they are differentiating between us. Forest officers did not listen to us. Instead they threatened us and said that since we had invited them here they would file charges against us. We found out that they [forest department] wanted to shift them [IDPs] to a place in Nalgonda where there are no forests and it would have been very difficult for them to survive. We negotiated with them [officials] and finally convinced them to take them [IDPs] to Bhadrachalam instead of Nalgonda.292

A senior police official from Andhra Pradesh confirmed that the police do not register complaints against the forest department because they are performing their duties under the law:

IDPs make complaints against the forest department. Strictly speaking these are not complaints and we do not register them. We can’t register complaints against the forest department because they are authorized to evict encroachers. We try to find via media [middle ground] and tell the forest department that they cannot be very harsh on the IDPs.293

After enduring repeated forced relocation for over two years, in mid-2007 local NGOs assisted displaced persons in petitioning the Andhra Pradesh High Court for its intervention.294 The court passed interim orders in September 2007: “the respondents [forest department officials] are directed not to demolish or set fire the huts, if any, of the Petitioners.”295 Local NGOs and the petitioners’ counsel informed Human Rights Watch that the court-granted relief was merely temporary—they feared that forest department officials would recommence their punitive actions if the High Court’s interim orders were vacated.296

Despite the court’s orders, forest department officials continued to harass the displaced communities in other ways. One displaced person said,

The last time our huts were burned was in the monsoon season of this year [2007]. Then we went to the High Court and got a stay order. After the stay order, the forest department has not come to burn our huts. But they came about eight days ago [around the last week of November 2007] and confiscated all our working tools—axes, daggers, sickles, and spades. Now we cannot do any work and earn any money. We cannot build our houses also—how can we build them without our tools?297

In April 2008, Andhra Pradesh forest department officials violated the court’s orders and destroyed the IDP hamlet in Kothooru for the ninth or tenth time since January 2007.298 

Government failure to protect displaced persons from Salwa Judum harassment

Many displaced persons in Andhra Pradesh stated that Salwa Judum members cross over to Andhra Pradesh in search of villagers from Chhattisgarh who have settled there. Many other displaced persons stated that they had seen Salwa Judum members on the Andhra Pradesh side, and live in constant fear of being recognized and taken away.299

When Human Rights Watch asked a senior police official from Andhra Pradesh whether the police had received any complaints against Salwa Judum members, he said,

Salwa Judum [members] come to Andhra Pradesh but only for meeting their daily needs—groceries, markets, and medical assistance. Salwa Judum is with the [Chhattisgarh] government and therefore doesn’t cause any problems to the public, and there are no complaints against them. Salwa Judum [members] are law abiding people who are with the government. They are the people who rebelled against the Maoists. They are welcome anywhere at any time.300

As described earlier, villagers from Warangal district told Human Rights Watch that persons displaced from Chhattisgarh were abducted as recently as November 2007—Salwa Judum members and police abducted two villagers who had fled Chhattisgarh and settled in Andhra Pradesh.301 Despite police claims that Salwa Judum poses no threat in Andhra Pradesh, displaced persons from Chhattisgarh are understandably fearful of harassment, abduction, or other reprisals.

Government failure to provide humanitarian assistance to displaced persons

Having been forced to abandon their homes, fields, and livestock in Chhattisgarh, displaced persons are largely dependent on the Andhra Pradesh government for  income and food. But the Andhra Pradesh government has refused to extend the benefit of government welfare schemes such as the employment guarantee and food subsidy schemes to displaced persons who are not “local residents.”

The government practice is discriminatory because “local residence” is not an eligibility criterion under these schemes.  Under the employment guarantee scheme, the Indian central government seeks to provide employment security for rural households.302 The law calls upon all state governments (including the Andhra Pradesh government) to provide to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to perform manual labor “job cards” that will guarantee wage employment for at least 100 days a year.303 The job card is a prerequisite to participate in the scheme. The registration process requires adult members to make an application “to the Gram Panchayat at the village level in the jurisdiction of which they reside for registration of their household for issuance of a job card.”304 The law does not prescribe any minimum residence rule.305

As mentioned earlier, displaced persons from Bijapur and Dantewada districts have settled in Andhra Pradesh since June 2005. During the agricultural season, almost all displaced persons are dependent on daily-wage agricultural labor for their livelihood.306 In the non-agricultural season, they are mostly dependent on daily-wage manual labor as their access to forest produce has been cut off.307 Barring a few cases where displaced persons have received job cards with the help of local communities, in many cases authorities refused to accept job card applications from displaced persons as they were not “locals.”308 Even in many cases in which authorities accepted these applications, they had yet to issue job cards when we spoke with the displaced persons months after the applications had been filed.309

A local NGO wrote letters to the Andhra Pradesh government requesting them to issue job cards to displaced persons. 310 Despite these applications and requests, the government has promised but failed to take steps to issue job cards to the vast majority.311

Displaced persons’ lack of or limited access to forest produce, coupled with the lack of a stable income, poses a serious food security problem. 312 The government’s targeted public distribution scheme (TPDS) is meant to ensure the distribution of food grains at subsidized rates to the poor. Under the scheme, the state governments (including the Andhra Pradesh government) are responsible for issuing ration cards to villagers who are below the poverty line to enable them to make use of the scheme. Ration card holders can purchase food grains from ration shops at subsidized rates.

Many displaced persons from Khammam and Warangal districts complained that their ration card applications were not processed because the district collector refused permission:

We gave our photographs for a ration card one year ago but it has not yet been issued. The ration officer said that ration cards will be issued only after permission is given by the district collector.313

The sub-collector of Khammam district explained the Andhra Pradesh government’s policy:

[T]he stated policy is not to give ration cards. Ration cards—the state government is giving the subsidy—why should our state subsidize people coming from another state?… There is also a law and order, and security issue. Not many [displaced persons] are really displaced. There are many Naxal elements. Under the guise of displacement they [displaced persons] are helping Naxalites. So we do not want to encourage it [settling in Andhra Pradesh].314  

In many places, displaced persons did not have access to potable water. For instance, local NGO workers showed Human Rights Watch mosquito-infested ditches that displaced villagers used for water in one village; many fall ill repeatedly. Many displaced persons complained that they had to walk from one to five kilometers to access potable water.315

Not only should the Andhra Pradesh government immediately ensure protection to IDP hamlets but they should also extend the benefit of all government welfare schemes to displaced tribal communities until a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme is developed in consultation with them.




178 Human Rights Watch interviews with B. Shafiullah, divisional forest officer of Bhadrachalam, Bhadrachalam, December 7, 2007; K. Bhaskar, sub-collector of Khammam district, Bhadrachalam, December 7, 2007.

179 Ibid.

180 ICESR, art. 11.1.

181 ICESR, art. 2.1.

182 United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, UN Document E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2; November 11, 1998. The UN Guiding Principles though not binding on governments, reflect and are consistent with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and are intended to provide guidance to states confronting internal displacement. UN agencies and nongovernmental umbrella groups in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee have endorsed the Guiding Principles. Regional bodies in the Americas, Africa, and Europe have endorsed or acknowledged the Guiding Principles with appreciation. The Council of Europe has also endorsed the Guiding Principles through its Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography, which recommends respect for the Guiding Principles in the course of fact-finding missions to displacement-affected countries. Individual governments have begun to incorporate them in national policies and laws, and some national courts have begun to refer to them as a relevant restatement of existing international law. For more information, see United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Representative of the Secretary General on internally displaced persons, Dr. Francis Deng, Specific Groups and Individuals: Mass Exodus and Displaced Persons, January 16, 2002 E/CN.4/2002/95, published in The Brookings-CUNY Project on Internal Displacement: Recent Commentaries about the Nature and Application of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, April 2002.

183 UN Guiding Principles, principle 15 (d).

184 UN Guiding Principles, principles 6(e) and 21.

185 UN Guiding Principles, principles 15 (a) and 7(b).

186 UN Guiding Principles, principle 7(e).

187 UN Guiding Principles, principle 18.

188 UN Guiding Principles, principle 29.

189 UN Guiding Principles, principle 30.

190 UN Guiding Principles, principle 28.

191 UN Guiding Principles, principle 29.

192 District Collector, “Jan Jagaran Abhiyan (Salwa Judum)—District South Bastar Dantewada: Brief Memorandum,” 2007 (unpublished). There are camps in Bijapur, Cherpal, Gangalur, Awapalli, Basaguda, Usur, Bangapal, Kasoli, Bhairamgarh, Pharsegarh, Matwada, Nelasnar, Jangla, Kutru, Mirtur, Bedre, Dornapal, Errabore, Injeram, and Konta.

193 Human Rights Watch interviews with Rahul Sharma, superintendent of police of Dantewada district, Dantewada, December 10, 2007 (first interview); police officer-2 (who requested anonymity), other details withheld.

194Human Rights Watch interview with Rahul Sharma, first interview, December 10, 2007.

195 Ibid. 

196 Ibid.

197 District Collector, “Brief Memorandum [Dantewada (undivided)],” 2007.

198 Human Rights Watch visited seven camps and one permanent housing site. Human Rights Watch group interview GR8 with volunteers working in camps (name and details withheld). Accounts from these volunteers working in other camps suggest that similar or worse conditions prevail there.

199 District Collector, “Brief Memorandum [Dantewada (undivided)],” 2007. The 32 sites of permanent housing that have been listed in the collector’s memorandum are: Bijapur–75 houses, Cherpal–60 houses, Gangalur–200 houses, Nelasnar–173 houses, Bhairamgarh–583 houses, Jangla–288 houses, Kutru– 436 houses, Pharsegarh–61 houses, Mirtur–142 houses, Patarpara.–147 houses, Matwada–145 houses, Bedre–165 houses, Phulgatta–161 houses, Uskapatnam–120 houses, Karkeli–17 houses, Kompalli–80 houses, Eramangi–50 houses, Ketanpal–35 houses, Tumla–10 houses, Ranibodli–25 houses, Pinkonda–180 houses, Basaguda–40 houses, Awapalli–100 houses, Usur–50 houses, Kasoli–148 houses, Hiranar–168 houses, Bangapal–59 houses, Bodli–15 houses, Talnar– 150 houses, Konta–200 houses, Injeram–100 houses, Errabore–177 houses, and Dornapal– 640 houses.

200 Ibid.

201 Human Rights Watch interviews with Poosam Kanya and Pottem Satish (pseudonyms), former residents of Errabore camp, location withheld, December 5 and 6, 2007 respectively; Madkam Dhairya (pseudonym), camp resident, Jailbada camp, December 13, 2007; group interview GR6 with camp residents (who chose to remain anonymous), Jayanagar (Nayapara) camp, December 13, 2007; group interview GR3 with former residents of Mirtur camp (who chose to remain anonymous), other details withheld; group interview GR7 with women camp residents (who chose to remain anonymous), Dornapal camp, December 12, 2007.

202 Ibid.

203 Human Rights Watch group interview with V3 and V4 (who chose to remain anonymous), camp residents, Injeram camp, December 9, 2007.

204 Human Rights Watch interview with camp residents (who chose to remain anonymous), Konta camp, December 9, 2007.

205 Human Rights Watch interview with Poosam Kanya (pseudonym), former resident of Errabore camp, location withheld, December 5, 2007.

206 Human Rights Watch group interview GR7 with women camp residents (who chose to remain anonymous), Dornapal camp, December 12, 2007.

207 Human Rights Watch group interview with Wanaji (pseudonym), Moner (pseudonyms), and V5 (who chose to remain anonymous), camp residents, Konta camp, December 9, 2007. Residents of Konta camp stated that they had made a petition for a toilet to be constructed in the camp about two weeks before their interview with Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch interview with A2 (name withheld), local activist, Dornapal camp, January 31, 2008; group interview GR8 with volunteers working in camps (name and details withheld). These volunteers shared similar stories regarding toilets and sanitation facilities in camps.

208 Human Rights Watch group interview with Wanaji and Moner (pseudonyms), December 9, 2007.

209 Human Rights Watch interview with N1 (name withheld), local activist, Dornapal camp, January 31, 2008.

210 District Collector, “Brief Memorandum [Dantewada (undivided)],” 2007.

211 Ibid.

212 Human Rights Watch interviews with camp residents from Jailbada, Jayanagar (Nayapara), and Jangla camps on December 13-14, 2007; group interview GR3 with former residents of Mirtur camp (who chose to remain anonymous), other details withheld. Residents from these camps stated that they were no longer receiving free rations.

Human Rights Watch group interview GR7 with women camp residents (who chose to remain anonymous), Dornapal camp, December 12, 2007. These women stated that even though they received free rations, the rations had been reduced over a period of time, and that many of them were forced to purchase rations from shops at non-subsidized rates because they did not have ration cards. 

213 Human Rights Watch group interview with V3 and V4 (who chose to remain anonymous), camp residents, Injeram camp, December 9, 2007.

214 Human Rights Watch interview with Madkam Dhairya (pseudonym), camp resident, Jailbada camp, December 13, 2007.

215 Human Rights Watch group interview GR7 with women camp residents (who chose to remain anonymous), Dornapal camp, December 12, 2007; group interview GR1 with residents (who chose to remain anonymous), B1 permanent housing site, Dantewada district, December 15, 2007.

216 Human Rights Watch interview with S.P. Sori, district collector of Dantewada, January 28, 2008. District Collector Sori assumed office after December 17, 2007. Human Rights Watch also interviewed his predecessor District Collector K. R. Pisda.

217 Human Rights Watch interview with police officer-2 (who requested anonymity), other details withheld. 

218 Human Rights Watch interview with V5 (who chose to remain anonymous), camp resident, Konta camp, December 9, 2007.

219 Human Rights Watch interview with Oyam Suresh (pseudonym), camp resident, other details withheld.

220 District Collector, “Brief Memorandum [Dantewada (undivided)],” 2007.

221 Ibid.

222 Human Rights Watch interviews with camp residents from Konta, Injeram, Dornapal, Errabore, Jailbada, and Jangla camps, and former residents of Mirtur and Kasoli camps, December 9-14, 2007.

223 Human Rights Watch interview with V3 (who chose to remain anonymous), camp resident, Injeram camp, December 9, 2007. 

224 Human Rights Watch group interview GR3 with former residents of Mirtur camp (who chose to remain anonymous), other details withheld.

225 Human Rights Watch group interview GR1 with residents (who chose to remain anonymous), B1 permanent housing site, Dantewada district, December 15, 2007.

226 Human Rights Watch interview with V5 (who chose to remain anonymous), camp resident, Konta camp, December 9, 2007. 

227 Human Rights Watch interviews with K. R. Pisda, district collector of Dantewada district, Dantewada, December 10, 2007; S.P. Sori, district collector of Dantewada district, Dantewada, January 28, 2008. 

228 Human Rights Watch group interviews GR2 with residents of Dornapal camp (who chose to remain anonymous), location withheld, December 12, 2007; GR8 with volunteers working in camps (name and details withheld).

229 Human Rights Watch interview with T-1 (who chose to remain anonymous), government teacher in Bijapur, location withheld, December 14, 2007.

230 Human Rights Watch group interview GR8 with volunteers working in camps (name and details withheld).

231 Human Rights Watch interview with N2 (name withheld), local activist, Dantewada, January 28, 2008.  

232 District Collector, “Brief Memorandum [Dantewada (undivided)],” 2007.

233 Human Rights Watch interview with Rahul Sharma, first interview, December 10, 2007. Sharma stated that two new camps were started in Jagargonda and Polampalli in 2007. Human Rights Watch also visited Jayanagar (Nayapara) and Jailbada camps in Bijapur, whose residents stated that it was started in 2007. The Jagargonda camp houses around an additional 2,000 people while the other new camps house residents from existing camps. For instance, the new Polampalli camp near Dornapal now houses many villagers who formerly resided in the Dornapal camp, and the Jayanagar (Nayapara) and Jailbada camps house villagers who formerly resided in Bijapur camp.

234 District Collector, “Brief Memorandum [Dantewada (undivided)],” 2007.

235 Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with A3 andA4 (names withheld), volunteers working at permanent housing sites, Dantewada, March 15, 2007; group interview GR9 with journalists (names withheld), Dantewada, February 1, 2008.

236 Ibid.

237 Human Rights Watch group interview GR1 with residents (who chose to remain anonymous), B1 permanent housing site, Dantewada district, December 15, 2007.

238 See above, section IV C, Salwa Judum reprisals against villagers who leave camps.

239 Human Rights Watch group interview GR1 with residents (who chose to remain anonymous), B1 permanent housing site, Dantewada district, December 15, 2007.

240 For facilities provided in camps recognized by the government, see above, Living conditions in camps.

241 Human Rights Watch group interview GR1 with residents (who chose to remain anonymous), B1 permanent housing site, Dantewada district, December 15, 2007.

242 Human Rights Watch group interview with IDPs from Etagatta (who chose to remain anonymous), village K5, Khammam district, December 4, 2007. They said, “There is no Judum in Jagdalpur and Sukma. Judum is only in Dornapal, Errabore, Injeram, Konta, Banda, Maraiguda, and Gollapalli. Banda, Maraiguda, and Gollapalli are interior areas. There are camps in all these places and we have seen them. We know that there are camps here because we sometimes go to the forests over there. We have seen these camps 15 days ago.”

Human Rights group interview G4 with IDPs from Tolnai (who chose to remain anonymous), village K9, Khammam district, December 7, 2007. One of them said, “We all came from Tolnai, which falls under Tetrai panchayat and is about 20 kilometers from Dornapal. The closest Judum camp [from Tolnai] is the Bejji camp, which is about nine kilometers away.”

243 Email communication from J. P. Rao to Human Rights Watch, March 2, 2008. According to Rao, an additional 3,000 people are living in Maraiguda camp.

244 Human Rights Watch interview with Rahul Sharma, first interview, December 10, 2007.

245 Human Rights Watch interview with police officer-2 (who requested anonymity), other details withheld. See above, Living conditions in camps.

246 See above, section III, Background, for the reasons why sarpanches and patels are particularly targeted, and for more information regarding the SPO system.

247 Human Rights Watch interviews with T-1 (who chose to remain anonymous), government teacher in Bijapur, location withheld, December 14, 2007; Himanshu Kumar, Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, Kawalnar, December 9, 2007 (first interview); telephone interview with Manish Kunjam, former member of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, Sukma, March 18, 2008. 

248 See below, section VII C, Reprisals against Salwa Judum camp residents, for more details.

249 Human Rights Watch interview with Madkam Dhairya (pseudonym), camp resident, Jailbada camp, December 13, 2007.

250 Human Rights Watch group interview GR6 with camp residents (who chose to remain anonymous), Jayanagar (Nayapara) camp, December 13, 2007.

251 Human Rights Watch interview with Pottem Satish (pseudonym), former resident of Errabore camp, location withheld, December 6, 2007.

252 Human Rights Watch group interview GR2 with residents of Dornapal camp (who chose to remain anonymous), location withheld, December 12, 2007.

253 Human Rights Watch group interview GR8 with volunteers working in camps (name and details withheld).

254 Human Rights Watch interview with Rahul Sharma, first interview, December 10, 2007.

255 Human Rights Watch group interview GR8 with volunteers working in camps (name and details withheld).

256 See below, section XA, Disruption of Schooling in Dantewada and Bijapur districts.

257 Human Rights Watch group interview GR8 with volunteers working in camps (names and details withheld).

258 District Collector, “Brief Memorandum [Dantewada (undivided)],” 2007.

259 Human Rights Watch interview with Mandavi Siddharth (pseudonym), person displaced from Neeram, location withheld, December 11, 2007.

260 Human Rights Watch interview with camp resident (who chose to remain anonymous), Jangla camp, December 14, 2007.

261 Human Rights Watch group interview GR10 with residents (who chose to remain anonymous), location confidential, Dantewada district, December 15, 2007.

262 Human Rights Watch interviews with J. P. Rao, professor from Osmania University, location withheld, November 30, 2007 (second interview); S4 (who requested anonymity), senior police official, location withheld, December 5, 2007. National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), “Visit to Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) and Khammam (Andhra Pradesh) to Investigate Status of Health and Education of Children affected by Civil Unrest, December 17-19, 2007” report, March 2008, p. 37. The Commission and senior police official S4 estimate that 30,000 people relocated to Andhra Pradesh while Rao estimates that around 50,000 relocated to Andhra Pradesh.

263 Human Rights Watch interview with J. P. Rao, first interview, November 28, 2007.

264 Human Rights Watch interviews with B. Shafiullah, divisional forest officer of Bhadrachalam, Bhadrachalam, December 7, 2007.

Other officials expressed similar views. Human Rights Watch interviews with K. Bhaskar, sub-collector of Khammam district, Bhadrachalam, December 7, 2007; senior police official S4 (who requested anonymity), December 5, 2007.

These government officials cited several reasons for their current approach to the IDP influx. Their primary reason for not providing protection and assistance was security-related. A senior law enforcement official reasoned that the influx of IDPs created a security alarm in the state: “Many of them [IDPs] are pumped in by the Maoists so that they can form a cover in the forests to increase their operations and attacks.” The sub-collector of Khammam district admitted that the IDP issue was a “social problem” but stated that “till now, for us [Andhra Pradesh government] it has been more a security issue than a social issue.” Another oft-cited reason for not providing assistance to IDPs was resistance from local tribal communities.

265 See below. There is an ongoing legal dispute in the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding the legality of the evictions under domestic law.  

266 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “The Right to Adequate Housing: Forced Evictions (art.11.1),” General Comment No. 7, E/1998/22, annex IV (1998), para. 13.

267 Ibid, paras. 14, 16.

268 Ibid, para. 16; UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “The Right to Adequate Housing (art. 11.1),” General Comment No. 4, E/1992/23 (1991), para. 8. General Comment No. 4 examines the concept of “adequate housing.” “Adequate” housing includes legal security of tenure, availability of services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location, and cultural adequacy.

269 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “The Right to Adequate Housing: Forced Evictions,” para. 13.

270 Ibid, para. 15.

271 Human Rights Watch tour of village K7 with volunteers from Sitara organization, Khammam district, December 5, 2007.

272 Human Rights Watch interviews with B. Shafiullah and K. Bhaskar, December 7, 2007; senior police official S4 (who requested anonymity), December 5, 2007.

273 Human Rights Watch group interviews with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, villages W1, W2, W3, W4, W7, K5, Kothooru, K7, and K8, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 29-December 8, 2007.  Six of the nine instances of burning and forced relocation involved only forest department officials. In the remaining three instances of burning in villages Kothooru, K7, and K8, IDPs told Human Rights Watch that forest department officials instigated local villagers to destroy their hamlets.

274 Human Rights Watch group interviews with IDPs in villages W1, W2, W3, W4, W7, K5, Kothooru, K7, and K8, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 29-December 8, 2007.

275 Human Rights Watch interview with Prakash (pseudonym), IDP from Kannaiguda, Kothooru, Khammam district, December 4, 2007.

276 Human Rights Watch group interviews with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, villages Kothooru, K7, and K8, Khammam district, December 4-6, 2007. IDPs settled in these three villages told us that forest department officials along with local villagers attacked their hamlets.

277 Human Rights Watch group interviews with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, villages W2, W3, W4, W7, K5, K9, W6, K1, K2, K3, K10, and K11, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 28-December 8, 2007. IDPs in these 12 villages shared with Human Rights Watch stories of the different ways in which local tribal communities had assisted them to settle safely in Andhra Pradesh.

278 Human Rights Watch group interview with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, village K5, Khammam district, December 4, 2007.

279 Human Rights Watch interview with Dilip (pseudonym), IDP from Barrem, village W4, Warangal district, November 30, 2007.

280 Human Rights Watch group interview with Prakash (pseudonym) and another villager (who chose to remain anonymous), IDPs from Kannaiguda, Kothooru, Khammam district, December 4, 2007.

281 Human Rights Watch interview with IDP-3 from Nendra (who chose to remain anonymous), village K7, Khammam district, December 5, 2007.

282 Human Rights Watch interview with Sarojini Haneef, Sitara Organization, Chinturu, December 5, 2007.

283 Human Rights Watch interviews with B. Shafiullah, December 7, 2007. The sub-collector of Khammam expressed similar views: Human Rights Watch interview with K. Bhaskar, December 7, 2007.

284 Human Rights Watch group interview with numerous IDPs (who chose to remain anonymous), village W2, village W2, Warangal district, November 29, 2007.

285 Human Rights Watch interview with IDP-3 from Nendra (who chose to remain anonymous), village K7, Khammam district, December 5, 2007.

286 Human Rights Watch interview with a local activist (name withheld), village W7, Warangal district, December 1, 2007.         

287 Human Rights Watch interview with B. Shafiullah, December 7, 2007. 

288 None of the IDPs who were evicted reported any notice by government, written or oral. 

289 Human Rights Watch group interviews with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, villages K5, K7, Kothooru, and K8, Khammam district, December 4-7, 2007.

290 Human Rights Watch group interview with Prakash (pseudonym) and another villager (who chose to remain anonymous), IDPs from Kannaiguda, Kothooru, Khammam district, December 4, 2007. 

291 Human Rights Watch interview with IDP-3 from Nendra (who chose to remain anonymous), village K7, Khammam district, December 5, 2007.

292 Human Rights Watch group interview with local villagers (who chose to remain anonymous), Warangal district, November 29, 2007. 

293 Human Rights Watch interview with a senior police official S4 (who requested anonymity), location withheld, December 5, 2007.

294 Madkam Nandaiah  and others v. Forest Range Officer, Konnavaram, Khammam district and others, Writ Petition No. 19594 of 2007, Vanjam Kannaiah  and others v. Forest Range Officer, V.R.Puram, Khammam district and others, Writ Petition No. 19571 of 2007, Thurram Muthaiah and another v. Forest Range Officer, Chintoor, Khammam and others, Writ Petition No. 19599 of 2007. In these petitions, the evictions have been challenged as being violative of the tribal communities’ rights under Indian forestry laws.

295 Ibid, interim orders, September 27, 2007.

296 Human Rights Watch interviews with K. Balagopal, Human Rights Forum, Hyderabad, November 27, 2007 (first interview); Dr. Haneef, Sitara Organization, Chinturu, December 4, 2007 (first interview).

297 Human Rights Watch interview with IDP-3 from Nendra (who chose to remain anonymous), village K7, Khammam district, December 5, 2007.

298 Human Rights Watch phone interview with Dr. Haneef, Chinturu, April 9, 2008 (third interview).

299 See above, section IV D, Salwa Judum reprisals against villagers who have fled to Andhra Pradesh.

300 Human Rights Watch interview with a senior police official S4 (who requested anonymity), location withheld, December 5, 2007. 

301 See above, section IV D, Salwa Judum reprisals against villagers who have fled to Andhra Pradesh.

302 National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Act 42 of 2005, http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/num_act/nrega2005375/ (accessed May 13, 2008).

303 National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, sec. 5 read with Schedule II.

304 Ibid.

305 Human Rights Watch interview with K. Balagopal, first interview, November 27, 2007.

306 Human Rights Watch group interviews with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, villages W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, W7, K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, Kothooru, K7, K8, K9, K10, and K11, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 29-December 8, 2007. 

307 Ibid.

308 Human Rights Watch group interview with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada district, villages K2 and K9, Khammam district, December 4-6, 2007.

309 Human Rights Watch group interview with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, villages W3, W4, and W7, Warangal district, November 29-December 1, 2007.

310 Letter from K. Balagopal, general secretary, and S. Jeevan Kumar, vice president, Human Rights Forum, to the principal secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, December 2006; Letter from K. Balagopal, general secretary, Human Rights Forum, to the principal secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, January 2008.

311 Human Rights Watch interview with K. Balagopal, first interview, November 27, 2007.

312 Human Rights Watch group interviews with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts. villages W1, W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, W7, K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, Kothooru, K7, K8, K9, K10, and K11, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 29-December 8, 2007.

313 Human Rights Watch interview with Dilip (pseudonym), IDP from Barrem, village W4, Warangal district, November 30, 2007; group interviews with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts, villages K2, K5, and K10, Khammam district, December 2-7, 2007.    

314 Human Rights Watch interview with K. Bhaskar, December 7, 2007.

315 Human Rights Watch group interviews with numerous IDPs from different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur district, villages W1, W3, W4, K4, Kothooru, and K7, Warangal and Khammam districts, November 29-December 6, 2007.