terrorism sans terrorists - independent … sans...indian people’s tribunal on environment &...

Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment & Human Rights


THE INDIAN PEOPLE’S TRIBUNAL ON ENVIRONMENT AND

HUMAN RIGHTS

AUGUST 2001

TERRORISM SANS TERRORISTS AN ENQUIRY INTO THE FIRING ON BHIL ADIVASIS IN DEWAS,

M.P.


Members of the Tribunal

Justice Suresh H. was born in Hosbet, Karnataka. He completed his B.A. from Mangalore University and M.A. from Belgaum and later enrolled for his LL.M. with the University of Bombay. He started practice as a lawyer in 1953. In 19687 he was appointed as Government Pleader and in 1968 took up office as a Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court. In 1986 he was elevated to the High Court of Bombay. He held this position with honour till he retired in 1991. As a Judge Justice Suresh always ensured that the weak and the underprivileged received justice. It was only natural that after retirement he should be actively involved in and supportive of human rights movements. He has headed various commissions to look into human rights violations. The most prominent of these was the “People’s Verdict” one of the few unbiased and detailed reports on the Bombay 1993 riots conducted by Justice S.M. Daud and Justice Suresh. Advocate Bhushan Oza graduated from St. Xavier’s College and studied law from Government Law College. Right from his college days he has been associated with democratic rights organisations like PUCL, Bombay and Lok Adikhar Sangh, Ahmedabad. Unit recently he has been working as a coordinator of the Centre for Social Justice. Independently and through the organisation Bhushan has been using the law to fight for the rights of advasis, dalits and other minority groups. He is closely involved with the adivasi movement in the Dangs providing them legal aid whenever needed. He was also instrumental in fighting the Shagbara Rape case right up to the Supreme Court. Advocate Belu George is a law graduate with specialization in Patent Law and a social activist. She has been involved in a campaign for right to housing and livelihood of the poor as an active member of Jhuggi Basti Sangharsh Morcha. IPT Secretariat Sudakshina Mukherjee, Deepika D’Souza, Amarjit Singh Acknowledgements Mr. Rahul Banerjee, Mr. Shanker, Mr. Vijay, Mr. Rajeev John George, Mr. Anand Lakha and other friends from Indore for assistance in organizing the site visits and public hearing. Special thanks to Prabhu Yalavatti for formatting and printing the report and Mr. A.D. D’Souza for proof reading and editing. Mr. Gautam Bandhyopadhya and others from Ekta Parisad for the assistance in releasing the report.


CONTENTS Executive summary Introduction Itinerary of the Tribunal’s visit Chapter 1 Background to the firing as narrated by the AMS Chapter 2 Findings of the IPT team’s visit to the villages Potala Mehendikheda Sabalgarh Patpadi Katukya Kanad Chapter 3 Summary of the public hearing at Kanad Chapter 4 Deliberation with activist Rahul Banerjee in Bagli sub-jail Background to police firing in Mehendikheda Chapter 5 The findings of the IPT enquiry commission Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations Annexures I. Minutes of the meeting held on February 19, 2001 Under the Chairmanship of the

Chief Secretary II. Laws to prevent atrocities III. Macabre dance of State atrocities against adivasis in Dewas, M.P. IV. The Press release of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights V. The application to the Chief Minister of M.P. giving details of material lost during the

demolitions VI. List of Government officials invited to depose before the IPT


The report is available at the IPT secretariat as well as from the Website: www.indiarights.org

The publishers do not hold any copyright with respect to the material printed in this report. However, if any part of this material is reproduced we would be grateful if acknowledgements are given and a copy is sent to the publishers. This report is also available in Hindi at the following addresses: Indian People’s Tribunal Deenbandhu on Environment and Human Rights 12 Usha Nagar Main 4th floor, CVOD Jain School Mhaow Naka, Annapurna Road, 84 Samuel Street, Dongri, Bombay 400 009 Indore, Madhya Pradesh 452 009 Tel: +91 22 3759657 / 3716690 Tel: +91 731 788884 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Printed by : Print House Tel.: 8118074 Published by : The Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights Suggested Contribution : Rs. 50/- Cover design : Deepika D’Souza Cover Picture : Front Page:Injured Villager Showing Bullet Wound Back page: Demolished Dwellings, Adivasi Women Deposing Before the IPT

http://www.indiarights.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Madhya Pradesh is one of the Indian States better known for its pro slum dweller and adivasi policies. Over the last few years the State has passed a series of regulations, which have given adivasis, and slum dwellers land tenure rights and other entitlements. On the other hand in the last few years there have been eight shoot-out where the police of the State have opened fire on unarmed and innocent people especially adivasis. Reports of all these cases state that in the various incidents the adivasis and peasants had gathered in attempts to dialogue with the State but instead of getting food, land or water as they were demanding the State opened fire on them. The two images are so incongruous to each other than when the firing at Dewas took place the IPT immediately responded to the local people’s plea to conduct an independent enquiry. This enquiry was an attempt not only to investigate into the Dewas firing and the incidents which lead to the firing, but in some way to uncover the real intention of the Government – i.e. does it truly seek to empower its people or does it want to deny and undermine the basic rights of its people. The IPT panel headed by Justice Suresh and accompanied by Advocate Bhushan Oza, Advocate Belu George and Sudakshina Mukherjee visited the area in April 2001. The investigation consisted of a series of visits to the affected villages followed by a public hearing. The concerned Government officials were sent invitations to depose before the IPT. They, however, chose not to do so. Neither did the IPT receive any reply or apology as to why the government would not be attending. The Terms of Reference for this enquiry are as follows.

1. Investigating into the facts and circumstances, which led to the firing. 2. The nature of the incident that took place, 3. The consequences and the extent of violence, 4. The persons responsible for the incident, 5. Justification for the violence and subsequent arrests, extent of damage to life,

Liberty and other losses.

On evaluating the evidence presented to the IPT and from the depositions made by the affected people and other concerned citizens the IPT made the following findings:

1. No Justification for Demolition of Residential Structures The Supreme Court has said that the right to life includes the right to shelter and as such it is the fundamental right. Art. 25.1 of universal declaration of human rights expressly recognize “housing” as a human right. This is repeated in Art 11(1) of the International Covenant On Economic and Social Rights and casts an obligation on States to recognize the rights and to take steps to ensure the realization of these rights. The UN Commission on Human Rights (1993/77) which says, “the practice of forced evictions constitutes a great violation of human rights.” And “urges Government to undertake immediate measures, at all levels, to end and eliminate the practice of forced evictions.” India is a signatory to this resolution, which means that it is binding on the Indian Government to abide by this Covenant.


We regret to say that what the Government did was exactly opposed to the universally Recognized human rights. They have demolished the houses of these adivasis, plundered their belongings, and threatened them with persecution if they rebuilt their houses. Under International Human Rights law the Government has three obligations: to recognize the human rights of individuals and groups, to prevent human rights violations and to fulfill these rights by taking positive measures. What we have witnessed here is a total denial of these obligations. 2. The Police Have No Right to Kill In all the areas the witnesses deposing before the IPT stated that armed police entered the village in large numbers in a posse of vehicles. They also stated that on several occasions they were threatened by various Stated Agents. It is clear from these incidents that the main objective of the police was to terrorise the people. Since these attacks were going on, villagers from different areas met at Mehendikheda and waited peacefully for some Government official to come to them for peaceful solution to the violent action on the part of the administration and they waited for three days. On the third day, instead of a Government official, the police came in several vehicles only to disperse the meeting. As people ran towards the forest, the police without any warning or signal opened fire and began shooting indiscriminately. Four people were shot dead by the police. Out of fifty houses at Mehendikheda, four were destroyed. The question is “Why did the Police do it?” The meeting was a peaceful meeting. It was not an unlawful assembly. The people were not armed with any weapons or arms. People were shot as they were fleeing with their backs towards the police. In such a situation, if the police have shot and killed those persons, in law, it should amount to murder, punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. We are of the opinion that these killings were deliberated and not by way of any self-defense. 3. Right to Form Organisations and Join Associations of Adivasis’ a Choice Denied! Under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, all citizens have the right to form associations or unions, which is a fundamental right. Law in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality can only impose restrictions under sub-article (4). We do not understand how the formation of Adivasi Morcha Sangathan could in any way affect the sovereignty, integrity, morality, or public order of India. Under Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association,” and, “no one may be compelled to belong to an association.” In our view, the Government has patently violated these human rights. 4. People Have No Faith in Governmental Inquiries In our preliminary observations, we had said: Our experience of all such official inquiry reports is that if the report is not favourable to the Governments and bureaucrats and if the report is against them, it generally is not acted upon. Moreover, the way the enquiry is carried out, leaves no hopes for the people to get any relief out of it. Most of the people said that they have no faith or confidence in this official inquiry. In such an official enquiry, truth is generally the casualty.


It is a fact that the Inquiry Officer did not visit most of the villages. He should have gone around as we had done, without the police accompanying him. The people are really afraid of the police, and no one would have the courage to tell the truth in front of any police officer or in any such place surrounded by the police. It appears that he visited one village where the Chief Minister had visited. There too, he did not bother to inquire about the incidents, not did he sympathize with the pitiful plight of the people and the victims. Instead he was giving absurd alternatives of living, the effect of which would be the eviction of these people from these areas. 5. Chief Secretary’s Decision Dated February 19, 2001 – Anti-Adivasis and Un-

Constitutional

We have annexed a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on February 19, 2001 under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary. To say the least, the minutes show how the Chief Secretary was biased against adivasis and in particular, against the Sangathan. The Chief Secretary took into account the version, as given by the officials. There is nothing to indicate that the Chief Secretary called for any independent report from anyone. The Sangathan has been fighting against the District Administration, which has become corrupt. In many cases of timber smuggling, with active support from the officials, it was the Sangathan, which informed the authorities and helped in intercepting them. All these things were not taken into account. On the basis of these findings the following conclusions and recommendations were made:

CONCLUSIONS The IPT team therefore concludes the following:

1. There was no justification for the shooting or the sustained atrocities meted out on adivasis of this region prior to the firing. It is not within the terms of reference of this enquiry to go into the legality of ownerships or land tenure but it is sufficient to say that the manner in which the demolitions were carried out were illegal and inhuman. Further the state agents had no right to poison the water sources and the food grain supplies.

2. Prior to both the demolition and firing the need to give sufficient notice has been clearly stated in the law. However, in both the incidents there appears to be no evidence that the Collector or the police have given any notice to the people.

3. Even if the police found it necessary to fire in order to preserve law and order. The fact that the bullet wounds were above the waist and on the backs of the victims clearly amounts to murder and not self-defense.

4. The IPT team strongly felt after evaluating the evidence brought before the Tribunal and the statement of Rahul Banerjee that the main purpose of the firing and earlier demolitions were to crush the movement and struggle for rights. The State’s interests lie in protecting the rich and powerful rather than ensuring that the lives and livelihood needs of the adivasis are met.

5. To this extent the Collector, the Superintendent of Police, SDO, and the Divisional Forest Officer of Dewas and their subordinates are primarily responsible.

6. If the State Agents had been innocent they would not have remained silent and not even sent a written deposition to the Tribunal.


RECOMMEDNATIONS 1. The decision taken by the Chief Secretary on February 19, 2001 should be quashed as it is

biased and patently against human rights. 2. A domestic enquiry conducted by a retired judge must be conducted into the role the

Superintendent of Police Dewas, the Divisional Forest Officer Dewas and the Divisional Forest Officer of Barwah played in the firing. In the meantime these officers should be suspended immediately. Notwithstanding the domestic enquiry these officers should be prosecuted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly a domestic enquiry should be conducted with regard to the officials responsible for killing of people at Mehendikheda. The officers who have looted the things from the demolished houses are also liable for theft. In fact, the demolition of structures also amounts to mischief and criminal trespass under IPC. They should also be prosecuted under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. There is immediate need to conduct a domestic enquiry on Collector of Dewas Shri Ashok Barnwal while the enquiry is going on he should be suspended from duty to prevent him from intimidating the victims. We have observed that all the troubles have started after this new Collector took charge. We also demand that other officers who acted along with him should be transferred or suspended for a period of time pending the enquiry. The Government must consider whether the Collector and other administrative officers also could be liable under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Such atrocities must be dealt with firmly by the State that claims to put the welfare of adivasis as prime concern.

5. Suitable compensation should be given to all the person who is affected by these incidents, directly and indirectly. It is not enough that compensation is paid only to the near relatives of the persons killed by the firing. Compensation should be given to all persons who have lost their homes and the things from their houses.

6. All false criminal cases filed against the activists and members of the Sangathan should be withdrawn and no further arrests with regard to this case should be made.

7. The Government must take steps to restore the confidence of the people in the exercise of their rights to organize, to free speech and expression. The Government should categorically announce that no attempt whatsoever shall be made by the Government and its officials either to compel people to withdraw from the Sangathan or to join the Van-Samiti. They should assure that in future they would not infringe the basic right of adivasis to lie in these areas as they have lived for generations, as adivasis.

8. If the Government-appointed Inquiry Commission brings out a report, the same should be made public without any delay, so that the people can judge how impartial and unbiased the report could be and to know how the facts referred to herein have been dealt with by the Commission.

Justice Suresh H. Bhushan Oza Belu George


INTRODUCTION The Narmada River valley in Western Madhya Pradesh is the abode of Bhilala, Barela, Mankar, Naik and Patelia sub tribes of the Bhil tribe. The village alleging Government victimization under Operation Clean conducted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh lie in Bagli Tehsil of Dewas District and are tucked away between the hills of the Vindhya Range descending from the Malwa plateau and the Nimad plains of the Narmada valley. Bhil adivasis constitute about 60 per cent of the population and scheduled castes about 17 per cent. The ret of the people are from the Rajput, Jat, Dangi, Bania and Brahmin castes with some other backward castes like the Patidars and Gujjars. The scheduled castes belong mainly to the Balai and Koli castes. The Bhils are mostly landless or marginal farmers with the upper castes controlling most of the fertile agricultural land in the tehsil. This area is especially backward as compared to the regions of Malwa and Nimad. Especially wanting are Government services in the education and health sectors. Due to lack of all-weather roads the area remain isolated during the monsoons except for a central market village called Udainagar. Majority of the population lives below the poverty line. The nearest hospital for the 90-add Adivasi villages in this tribal pocket is some 50 km away, the villages that do have schools have “single classes” and the many hamlets do not even have electricity. To look into their livelihood issues and to combat injustice and discrimination by the upper castes and local authorities these adivasis four years ago organised themselves into a Sangathan called the Adivasi Mukti Sangathan (AMS). The AMS since then has been campaigning for the rights of the local adivasis. In April 2001 there was an incident of police firing in the Mehendikheda village in Bagli Tehsil in Dewas district. The Indian people’s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights (IPT) was invited to investigate into this firing. The IPT was constituted by a people’s mandate in 1993 to investigate into gross violations of human rights and environment. The IPT is particularly concerned about cases, which affect the vast majority of urban and rural poor and endanger their lives and livelihood. It consists of a four-part body. Details of the constitution and functioning of the IPT is given at the end of this report. When a local group files a complaint with the IPT a panel consisting of a retired judge, experts and prominent citizens visits the area, meets with the affected people and conducts a site visit as well. The IPT process endeavors to inquire into the exact nature of a problem and provides space for all parties concerned to present there views. Notices are sent to the Government officials to invite them to depose before the panel. Prior to the visit the IPT secretariat and the Panel conduct a through study into the issue. With regard to this investigation a panel headed by a retired judge of Mumbai High Court Justice Suresh H., accompanied by Bhushan Oza, human rights advocate from the Gujarat High Court, Belu George a social activist and Sudakshina Mukherjee from the IPT secretariat visited the area May 17 to 19, 2001 A public hearing was held in Kanad village, Begli Tehsil, on May 18, 2001 between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. All parties involved were invited to depose before the judge and put forward their points of view. A list of Government officials who were invited and notified about the IPT hearing has been annexed in Annexure VI of the report. The terms of reference of the investigating team included:


1. Investigating into the facts and circumstances which led to the firing, 2. The nature of the incident that took place, 3. The consequences and the extent of violence, 4. The persons responsible for the incident, 5. Justification for the violence and subsequent arrests, extent of damage to life, liberty

and other losses. The Itinerary of the Tribunal’s Visit to the Area is as Follows: May 17, 2001 11.00 a.m. - 12.30 p.m. - Potala 12.30 p.m. - 01.30 p.m. - Lunch - Katukya 02.00 p.m. - 04.00 p.m. - Katukya 04.00 p.m. - 06.00 p.m. - Patpadi Night halt - Kanad May 18, 2001 07.00 a.m. - 12.00 p.m. - Mehendikheda 01.00 p.m. - 01.30 p.m. - Lunch Kanad & Sabaigarth 02.00 p.m. - 06.00 p.m. - Public Hearing at Kanad May 19, 2001 09.30 a.m. - 10.30 a.m. - Meeting with Rahul Banerjee in Bagli Jail 04.00 p.m. - 04.30 p.m. - Meeting with Press at Indore Press Club


CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND TO THE FIRING AS NARRATED BY THE AMS Control and use of forest resources is central to the lives and livelihoods of the adivasis of this region. This access has been denied to them by the forest department staff on the pretext of environmental conservation. With the changing ideas about forestry over the past decade the Forest Department has undertaken plantation work along with felling operations. This has led to the closing of vast areas of forests adjacent to the villages in which the tribals and Balais live restricting their access to these forests for cattle grazing and small timber produce. In order to continue to use the forest they were compelled to pay bribes and fines to the forest officers. Bribes range from Rs. 10/- per animal for goats and cattle to be allowed to graze Rs. 50/- to collect a cartful of manure and Rs. 1,000/- to be paid per chasma (compartment) for making their houses (a house of 5 chasmas accounts for Rs. 5000/-). Four years ago the Adivasis started to raise their voice against the injustice and discrimination meted out to them. With this aim they formed a mass organization called the Adivasi Morcha Sangathan. With the inception of the AMS (Adivasi Morcha Sangathan) the villagers stopped giving the forest officers bribes and began to question the development process, which deprives them of the fruits of development. The AMS also began to campaign against the destruction of the forest. A Sangathan member and Chairman of Bagli Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bisram Mandloi, had successfully trapped and handed over a tractor trolled loaded with wooden logs to the range office at Udainagar. The main accused responsible was from the Van-Suraksha Samiti of Tatukhedi, Birjakhal and Pathakhal. The Sangathan also agitated on the Issue of sale and consumption of illicit liquor. Culturally the Bhils are used to consuming alcohol. However, in the past they distilled their own alcohol from fermented Mahua flowers and therefore could only consume a limited quantity. With the abundant availability of readymade liquor due to the operation of two distilleries in the area the problem of alcoholism has assumed serious proportions. The Adivasi Morcha Sangathan protested against the illegal liquor shop at Pandu Talav in 1998 and had it shut down. Through the Sangathan they also tried to counter the illegal practice of exorbitant rates of interest being charged by the moneylenders for loans. With eh drought this year the moneylenders seeing the chance have increased the interest rates which are normally 2 to 3 per cent a month to the level of 10 to 15 per cent a month. Apart from demanding an end to forest department staff repression the Morcha demanded that adequate health services be provided and action to be taken against the exploitative practices of the non-tribal people of the area. This tribal resurgence did not go down well with the richer sections and the administration and soon there was an increase in repression. The modus operandi was to institute false criminal cases against agitating members of the Sangathan and also to ignore complaints made by the Sangathan against upper caste people, goons, bootleggers and Government staff who misbehaved or physically harmed the local adivasis.


In June 1998 the villagers took a rally in Indore and submitted a memorandum of demands to the Commissioner. Complaints made to the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women in New Delhi have led to these organizations sending notices to the Government of Madhya Pradesh which did not reply to these. Eighteen of the Sangathan women members went on a mass hunger strike in June 1998 to demand for a more just livelihood and a repression free existence for the adivasis of Barwah tehsil. The strike ended later that month after receiving an assurance from the National Human Rights Commission that an independent enquiry would be conducted on the basis of the complaints made. Outside Katukiya village there is a Samadhi erected by the villagers in remembrance of Roop Singh, who was shot dead by forest officials in August 1999. The district administration claims that Roop Singh was killed when he and other members of the AMS tried to prevent the confiscation of “stolen” wood. The villagers insist that it was an unprovoked killing meant to instill fear in this “Sangathan” village. Consequently, in May 2000 the adivasis held a large, peaceful and disciplined demonstration at the district headquarters of Dewas. A comprehensive charter of demands relating to the uplift of adivasis was submitted on that occasion. But the administration turned a blind eye towards this and atrocities continued instead. Moreover many false cases have been registered against adivasis. The Sangthan members felt that rather than taking up their demands the Government sided with the rich and powerful embers of society to oppress them. Prior to the current events, in the past two months the District Collector of Dewas, Shri Ashok Barnwal has on at least two occasions (in Pipri and Udainagar) publicly declared on a loudspeaker that he would crush the Sangathan of the adivasis within 6 months. In March 2000, at Udainagar he swore that he would wipe out the Sangathan without a trace within a month. It later came to light that the Government Administration drew up a secret plan to control the plans of the AMS. An extract of the minutes of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of State on February 19, 2001.

1. Since the last 3-4 years in the forest regions of Bagli Tehsil of District Dewas adjacent to the Barwah Forest Range of District Khargone the activities of Adivasi Mukti Sangathan have increased considerably leading to the cutting of forests in bulk and houses have been constructed by the timber thus acquired.

2. The adivasis of these areas are involved in encroaching on forestland though no special agricultural production is received from it. The greed for land continues to increase with every encroachment. At present this problem is not only a social and economic problem but it has become a problem of law and order for the administration as well.

3. A Special Task Force should be constituted for these areas. 4. It was stated by the Chief Secretary that the illegal activities of the Adivasi Mukti

Sangathan in the areas should be controlled in an effective manner. He also said that the activists associated with this organization should be arraigned under the National Security Act if necessary.

5. Any action should be taken after evaluation of the whole position and on the availability of sufficient force. Where ever necessary sufficient women force should be made available.

6. Whenever the action is started it should be carried out to its logical end.


7. Under no circumstances should a situation be created requiring firing. 8. A development package should be designed to uplift this backward region but this

should not be mixed up with the operation to control the law and order situation. The firing incident at Mehendikheda on Aril 2, 2001 was preceded by a general assault by forest officers, police and armed forces of the SAF ravaging and devastating the houses of Adivasis, plundering their belongings and ill-treating their women. These incidents of loot and arson were carried out in an organised manner as follows: CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS March 28, 2001 Wednesday Village Kadudiya March 29, 2001 Thursday Village Potala March 30, 2001 Friday Village Patpadi March 31, 2001 Saturday Village Jamasingh April 1, 2001 Sunday Village Katukiya April 2, 2001 Monday Village Mehendikheda April 5, 2001 Thursday Village Jamasingh


CHAPTER 2 THE FINDINGS OF THE IPT TEAM’S VISIT TO THE VILLAGES POTALA Potala is an interior village surrounded with thickets. Another pocket of habitation is laid at the foot of this hill where resides the upper caste community of the village. There is no road to Potala and the terrain is tough. The inhabitants have been living here for innumerable years and the elderly people stated that they wee born in this village. Chithu Solanki, living here for the past thirty years narrated the incidents which took place on March 29, when a host of police vehicles made their way through a cloud of dust towards Potala, the villagers were rendered panic stricken when they saw the police vehicles encircling the hill and blocking the way out. As the SDM and Collector headed towards the village, the villagers fled to the forest around. The police tear-gassed the area adding to the pandemonium. The young and elderly, men and women ran breathlessly trying to get hold of their children. While the villagers were still running the police began to shoot and a bullet hit Umarsingh, after which the villagers dragged him along into the forest for about a kilometer. Later he was taken to the Bagli hospital where the hospital in-charge refused to treat him. Then on he was taken to Udainagar where again he was refused. Finally, he underwent treatment at Indore. Sayaribai (18 years) stayed behind in the village with her mother. The police officers asked her to fetch some drinking water after which they made them sit quietly in a corner, while the forest officials started demolishing the houses and breaking the roof-lies (kavalus). Despite having assured Sayaribai and her mother that their house shall suffer no damage they began to destroy the roof-tiles. At this Sayari’s mother started crying while Sayari argued with the police for not allowing them to shift the roof-tiles to a safer place. The furious officers forced her into the jeep saying, “You speak a little too much”. The task of devastation and plundering, which began at 9 a.m., continued incessantly till 3 p.m. During these long hours they blended the grains into mud, crushed the drinking water pots and pulled down the houses. They added toxic chemicals to the stored water and carried along the agricultural tools, which included Pas, Dante, Phavada, Geti, and Kulhadi. The police took along Sayari, Kamalabai and Gauribai when they left. Sayari left behind with her mother a small sister suffering from high fever. Kamala had to leave her eleven-year-old son. These three women were taken to the police station where they spend the night. Next day, at 8 a.m. in the morning they were sent to Dewas jail. None of them were produced before the magistrate and each had to bear severe beatings on legs and thighs. Thus for eleven days they were kept in jail without having been told the charge under which they were arrested. None from the village could come to meet these women or enquire about their arrest for the entire village was still seeking refuge in the forest trying to flee away from the police. Finally on the eleventh day when one of the villagers came seeking the release of these three young ladies were they set free without the police stating why they were arrested in the first place.


The police interrogated Mani who returned to the village along with few others after eight days since the demolition. The police officers enquired of Mani –“Who taught you people to cut trees and build your houses? Who taught you to make a Sangathan and organize yourself?” Before the incident, the police frequently visited the village. The forest officers often warned to villagers to give up their association with the Sangathan and become members of the Van Suraksha Samiti (Forest Department sponsored Forest Protection Committee). And the forest officers would ensure that those failing to join the Van Suraksha Samiti do not get their Tendupatta leaves sold through the forest officers, as is the normal procedure. The police had made selective arrests of those who were members of the Sangathan. The Panch Sutaria of this Gram Panchayat was also arrested and the Sarpanch is being threatened with possible arrest in the immediate future. The villagers stated that a sense of fear still prevails in the region. Men and women are reluctant to move in and around the area. When asked of their attempt to talk to the administration and the Collector of the atrocities committed, the villagers informed the IPT team that few days after the incident of killing a meeting was called by the Collector in Udainagar which attempted to ensure the participation of those who were the members of Van Suraksha Samiti. Vehicles were arranged by the Government to bring the members of the Van Suraksha Samiti to the meeting while the members of the Sangathan who had been targeted during the incident did not have access to such transport facilities. The bus fare to Udainagar is Rs. 15/- per person, which the villages are unable to pay. The Sangathan members were eager to talk with the Government but the repetitive threats of arrest had restricted their mobility. The villagers categorically stated that they would be able to voice their reactions to the incident only when effective measures are taken to check the repeated threats of arrest and beatings by the police. The villagers have also been told by the police. The villagers have also been told by the police that at least 150 villagers of whom 50 belong to Potala alone are on the wanted list of the police. MEHENDIKHEDA On May 18, 2001 the team arrived at Mehendikheda at around 12 noon. The IPT team was seated at a place, which was the centre of the entire operation, which was carried out on April 2, 2001. While the villagers collected around the team, Chotu Singh narrated the incident, which was as follows. On March 28, 2001 the police repression started in Kadudiya village followed by Potala. Subsequently, an ox at Jamasingh village was shot by the police and on March 30, 2001 more atrocities were committed at village Patpadi. Twenty-one houses were razed. The villagers held a protest meeting for three consecutive days with the hope that some Government officers would come and talk to them. This three day meeting was a peaceful meeting held merely with the intention of deliberating with the administration, on a peaceful solution to the violent oppression. Unfortunately none of the officers turned up to talk to them. Finally, disheartened with this disregard by the administration, on April 2, 2001 the villagers assembled in Mehendikheda to sort out the problem. Tanu Bai says the aim of this meeting was to tell the Government officers that, “Ni ham jungle kati riya” (We are not cutting the forest.) “Ni ham jhadi kati riya” (We are not cutting the trees around.) “Ni ham looti riya” (Nor are we looting anybody.) “To fir kyon piti riya” (Then why is it that the Government is beating us.)


“Do we have a Government who would hear us? The Government sits for the bureaucrats. So there should be a Government for adivasis as well.” Tanu Bai says, “This whole fracas has been converted into one of Sangathan versus Van Suraksha Samiti. So we wanted to request the administration not to attempt to tear apart the Adivasis by encouraging mutual confrontations. After all bureaucrats do not stay here for more than two years. While the adivasis have to live in harmony with each other for years to come.” The meeting at Mehendikheda was about to begin. Suddenly a host of vehicles were approaching towards the meeting place. Before we could talk to them they tear-gassed the area. With this the villagers and those who had collected for the meeting headed towards the forest. People ran away to protect themselves. All of a sudden, without sounding any alert signal or warning the police opened fire and began shooting indiscriminately even before we could open a dialogue with it. Four people were killed in police firing – Balram s/o Jerma (village Kanad, aged 25 years), Pathansingh s/o Chhotusingh (village Kanad, aged 25 years), Bholu s/o Ida (village Jamasingh, aged 30-35 years) and Nemichand Jaiswal (village Bisali, aged 40-45 years) and many others injured. Of these one was taken to the Dewas hospital while two others were taken to Indore. The administration even abducted some of our women of whom three women from Potala village were in jail for ten days. After these murders the repression increased even further. Our of fifty houses in Mehendikheda four were devastated. When inquired of any further investigation held by the administration, the people spoke of the J.L. Bose committee of which the villagers were informed on May 10, 2001 by the police Strict instructions were given not to fear or run away when the investigation team approaches the villagers for the inquiry. The villagers said that on the day of inquiry the person who came for investigation was accompanied by the Collector and other officers, supervised the demolitions, killing and looting of adivasis. The daunting presence of fourteen police vehicles and the uncertainty as to what would happen if they came forward and deposed before the committee caused them to flee back to the jungle and not attend the investigation. SABALGARH In Sabalgarh the villagers attended the IPT inquiry with great hope and enthusiasm. Women were present in large numbers. One of the villagers stated that a few years ago having heard of the success of Adivasi Shakti Sangathan in Katkut village we met them and became part of their Sangathan. The Sangathan vigorously addressed the issues of adivasi development and thus grew in strength. Approximately forty such villages became Sangathan members. Form then onwards as part of the Sangathan the adivasis actively participated in and organised rallies and submitted memorandums on the issues of employment and health. Three months prior to the IPT investigation a chakka jam (road block in protest) was organised in Chapda. The Collector though invited did not turn up and only the Superintendent of Police was present. Villagers stated what “We demanded a regular supply of electricity for our pumps instead of the six hourly supply that was being given. We also demanded that adequate drought relief works be instituted. This was then followed by months of inaction on part of the administration while the villagers kept waiting at the other end. Then all of a sudden an incident of assault by a combined force of forest and police officials accompanied by Van Suraksha Samiti members took place on Kadudiya village forcing us to stage a dharna at Udainagar. There, once again to pacify us the administration promised to attend to all our


needs within fifteen days and within a month and a half of this promise what they gave us were bullets in lieu of employment. Before the actual incident took place, we the villagers from seven villages waited for three consecutive days expecting a police officer or the members of legislative assembly of Bagli or any other officer to come and talk to us, but none appeared. Terrorised as we were with the happenings of the previous days on the April 2, 2001 at Mehendikheda all of us fled into the forest. One of our women who had just given birth to a baby a day ago was forced to bear the hardships of this exile in the forest. The livestock left behind in the village; the buffaloes and oxen died of thirst and for want of care.” Nahar Singh, one of the villagers was battered and thrown alongside the road by the police. Still after a month the officers continue to threaten us to join the Van Suraksha Samitis and leave the Sangathan. About four months back in a meeting held at Udainagar the Collector had categorically stated that only the Van Suraksha Samiti will continue in the area and I shall scatter and diffuse the Sangathan. When asked if any other investigation had been conducted after the Mehendikheda incident the villagers said that the Additional Collector was appointed to conduct the magisterial investigation into the incident. “Shocking as this was we wrote down an application questioning the tenability and validity of such a subordinate officer conducting an investigation who by the very virtue of his subordination was rendered incompetent to raise questions against his higher officers. The village women who asked for a receipt of this letter, Reshambai w/o of Ratan Singh and Mangalibai w/o Daniya were admonished by the receiving officer.” The Government Administration had stated in newspaper reports that the adivasis had plated land mines in the region and was involved in Naxalite activities. When asked about these allegations to blast the vehicles of the administration and about the recovery of gelatin sticks, the adivasis disclaimed having any knowledge and repudiated the allegation. They said that with our children starving how and where should we get the bombs and ammunition. Besides we did not even dream of a possibility of such an assault on our villages so as to act in such a manner. These men invaded even our village and destroyed our corn and cotton crops. Our water pumping machines were thrown deep down into the wells and our property stolen. Even those, which we had managed to hide at some inconspicuous place, were recovered and destroyed. When inquired of any investigation held after the incident, the villagers stated to being witness to a regular march of police jeeps and some visitors who kept shunting to and fro on the roads, it appeared as though an investigation was being made about the road conditions. Thus none of us had a clue regarding any investigation conducted into the incident. The Chief Minister made a visit to this area. Throughout his visit, however, the villagers said he was surrounded by upper caste villagers whose presence hindered our communication with the Chief Minister. PATPADI Binu, a resident of Patpadi village, narrates that on March 23, 2001 forest officials caught him while he was still asleep. He was accused of illegal cutting of trees from the forest. In retrospect Binu remembers himself being photographed by the forest officers in the jungle


while he was grazing his cows. They subsequently manipulated and registered a false case against Binu. Binu was released only o April 27, 2001 with a warning that he would be put behind bars if he tried to lodge a report against anyone or otherwise dared to open his mouth. Binu was forced to given his thumbprints on an agreement (raajinama) saying that he had withdrawn his membership from the Sangathan and joined the Van Suraksha Samiti instead. Similarly, the villagers asserted that all those who were associates of the Sangathan were selectively harassed and taken into custody. Continuing as a Sangathan member would mean a total loss of Government support whether it was the purchase of tendupatta bundles or employment in Government schemes. On March 31, 2001 a host of police vehicles of about 15-20 headed towards the village. Alarmed the villagers fled into the forest around. The police stayed in the village for long hours. There they rampantly destroyed grains and feasted on the livestock. The police thus devoured two goats of Prem Singh. The agricultural appliances (darata, pas and kulhadi) were seized. Out of hundred houses, fifteen were ravaged for having used the timber illegally collected from the reserved forest. The house owners explained that the houses destroyed on the said plea were actually those using the wood as old as 15-20 years. Also the police officers alleged that nothing less than 15-25 logs of wood were used to build a single house. This assumption, however, is flawed since adivasis’ houses have been constructed in a row with each houses shares a wall with another. Thus the structure, which appeared as a single housing unit, was in fact a row of 5-6 housing units and thus each family uses only a minimal number of wooden logs. When inquired about their alleged involvement in the illicit felling of trees from the forest the villagers stated that they were living a hand to mouth existence. They die in the scorching sun with no transport facility available whatsoever. They have neither a bullock-cart nor a bicycle to carry the said wood to their homes located on the hilltops. Therefore this allegation does not hold any ground. The villagers felt that the genesis of the problem was the arrival of the new Collector, the DFO and SP. Their advent was marked with a tussle between the Sangathan and Van Suraksha Samiti. There were instances when the wrongs committed by the Van Suraksha Samiti were foisted on the Sangathan to tarnish its image. When asked about any investigations that took place after firing incident, the villagers stated that the police threatened the villagers not to make any adverse remarks on the administration. No one visited the Patpadi village for investigation. KATUKYA The villagers here also faced the same kind of treatment as done by the Task Force in the other villages. These are around 65 houses and 500 people live here. 22 houses were demolished. The SDM, SDO, and DFO led the force when they started demolishing and terrorising people. The head of the village Moti Singh has been falsely charged of possessing a gun and has been booked under the Arms Act. They claim to have found the gun in the house of the accused while the villagers had fled to the forest. The people have no faith on the enquiry commission set up by the Government, all the more because the police threatened them and forbade them from deposing before the Commission. Secondly the Government Commission did not even visit this village.


KANAD Villagers in this village stated that they did not even have proper roads or transport facilities and are not even given employment from the Government in their Food for Work Programme or in the Employment Guarantee Scheme. The felt that they were being discriminated against because they were members of the AMS and not the Van Sukrasha Samiti. According to a statement by Mr. J. L. Bose as narrated by one of the villagers “… the Collector has already done the inquiry, what am I going to accomplish by visiting the villages again…” This village was also part of the police demolition, destruction of property, food stock and water sources.


CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AT KANAD The IPT Enquiry Commission held a public hearing at the village Kanad. The IPT sent invitations to the DFO, Collector and the SDM of the district as well to other Government officials well in advance to come and present their case before the Tribunal. The Government officials, however, were noticeably absent nor did they reply to the IPT as to why they were unable to attend The Public Hearing was attended by around five hundred adivasis of the villages of Dewas district. The response from the people was overwhelming. One representative of each village put forth the problems and expectations of that village. The Jan Sunvai (public hearing) started with the speaker from Semli village Sri Jerma, Late Balram’s father. He told the people and the IPT members how his son was killed without any reason or fault of his. The speaker told the audience about the different incidents where the people had been forced to run away to the forests and hide there for days without proper food or shelter. The speaker also told the Tribunal about the increasing demands of the forest rangers and other officers on each and every piece of wood or cattle grazing in the forest. The speaker asked which law gives the police the liberty to shoot at oxen or which law teaches the police to fire right at the forehead as a part of self-defense. The Government gives the compensation when there is a natural calamity or mishap. But, what about such man-created mishaps where innocent people are victimized. The adivasis have been living in the forest for years but the forests are still intact. The adivasis are the real protectors. Once it goes to the Government officials, it is deforested, the results are visible but instead of the Government being punished the poor adivasis are victimized. Every one understands the truth but no one has done anything to improve the pathetic life of the people stated Sri Jerma. Chidu Ram from Potala told the Tribunal about the conditions after the attack by the administration and how the plight of the people got worse after such a dreadful incident of demolishing the houses. Though the people still stick to the Sangathan, they are losing hope in being rescued from the hands of their torturers. From Katunkya, Smt. Parim Bai, mother of Late Roop Singh said that Roop Singh was alleged to have been stealing timber. Is killing an unarmed innocent allowed and justified by any law. He should have been arrested and not killed for alleged offenses and tried in Court to see if he was guilty. Smt. Mauli Bai from Jamasingh, told us about the plight of the ladies of the village when they were forced to go to the forest during the attack. She also told us how she lost three of her sons who were approximately 13 years and younger due to lack of medical treatment and food. And there was nothing that could be done. Smt. Kali Bai from Katukya, sister of Mr. Chote Lal said how unnecessary and false charges were slapped on her brother. The poor people who have very little resources to make their


living suffer when the man, the main earning source, is picked up by the police. The worst part is that the police still come to their home every new and then and unnecessarily harass them. They cannot bear this torture. From Bharakpur, Mr. Ganju has been charged of looting a bus. He stated at the public hearing how he was picked up by the police at 3 a.m. one morning and put in custody and tortured by the police. Mr. Narsingh from Nayanpura has been associated with the Sangathan for last three years and lost his brother in the Mehendikheda firing incident. He said that if the poor people had guns and ammunitions, then the police would not have gone untouched by the adivasis. None of the police were wounded during the incident. Mr. Mansingh from Jamasingh said that his house was constructed with funds provided under the Indira Awaas Yojana for Rs. 17,500/- and that this house was also demolished. From Semi, Mr. Hira Lal said that if the administration wanted they could have taken the timber out of the houses without demolishing them. But they did not do anything like that. They just demolished the houses to worsen the living condition of the Adivasis. Is this justified under any law? He is studying at Barwah College where even Late Balram was studying. There seems no justification of killing the youth of the community for no substantial reason. The hearing came to an end at 5 p.m. The details of the material destroyed during the demolition have been listed by the adivasis and an application has been forwarded to the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh signed by all the adivasis. A copy of the application has been annexed as Annexure III of this report. (Image) Villagers deposing before IPT Panel


CHAPTER 4 DELIBERATION WITH ACTIVIST RAHUL BENERJEE IN BAGLI SUB JAIL On May 19, 2001 one of the members of the IPT team visited Mr. Rahul Banerjee in the sub-jail of Bagli district. Mr. Banerjee has been involved with the activities of the Sangathan and the adivasis from the very beginning of the formation of the Sangathan. He advocates the concept of the development of adivasis in terms of their unique cultural and social aspects. The adivasis have not only been forced to give up their environment friendly ways but also have been denied the benefits of the development of the modern world. These villages have no basic amenities like regular electric supply, telephones, good schools, health centres or roads. The villages have officially been given million of rupees but the money has been siphoned off by vested interests. Mr. Rahul Banerjee told us about the roots of the Sangathan and also about the atrocities that had been happening in this district and in the adjacent district of Khargon. There have been instances when the people protested against the illegal smuggling of timber by the Forest Officials. For example 6-7 months ago, the Sangathan members intercepted a tractor of the Ranger of Pipri charring teakwood. A year ago, a head of the Golanpati an Suraksha Samiti in Khargon district, Kalu, was carrying wood on a tractor and was apprehended at a barrier on the Nachanbor Ghat. According to the villagers, the Van Suraksha Samitis were involved in a lot of illegal selling of wood planks. The Forest Department and the Van Suraksha Samitis were carrying out the illegal sale of timber in the area. It has been admitted by the administration that the Adivasis cut trees for building their houses and not for selling them. But there’s nothing new about this since for millennia Adivasis have been using forest wood for house construction and other minor needs. This does not destroy the forests. Even the houses of the forests officers and that of the Deputy Chef Minister Smt. Jamuna Devi and other adivasi ministers are made of wood and use more wood than that of the adivasi households. The Adivasi Morcha Sangathan had for some time taken measures against the destruction of the forests. Two months ago, the heads of the Van Suraksha Samitis of Tatukhedi, Birjkhal and Patakhal were carrying wood on a tractor. They were stopped by the head of Bagli Krishi Upaj Mandi, Shri Bisram Mandloi who turned them over to the Udainagar Range Officer. About 6-7 months ago, a Flying Squad was caught in Punjapura when it was taking wood it has seized in an attempt to sell it to Dewas. This had 200 planks. Sangathan members had made phone calls and helped in intercepting them in Hatpiplia. The Sangathan had also opposed commercial felling. The forest officers had not only been very much involved in these kind of activities but the moment the Sangathan questioned these illegal transactions the administration responded with repression instead of looking into these complaints. The activists of the Sangathan have also worked to oppose the illegal brewing of liquor among the Adivasis and also worked for the legal and educational awareness of the people. Mr. Rahul Banerjee had been in jail for more than a month at the time and his bail application had been rejected by the session’s court on flimsy grounds once. He stated he was more worried about the arrest warrants issued for the rest of the 116 people of the area. He felt that


the arrest of these people. Will affect their living because if the people are behind bars during the main agricultural season they will not have anything to survive for the whole year and this is going to affect their standard of living. The plight of the poor people will worsen for no great fault of theirs. This is in no way justified by the provisions of the Constitution. In the second week of June, Rahul Banerjee was granted bail and he has given the following article to contribute to the report:

BACKGROUND TO POLICE FIRING IN MEHENDIKHEDA

The tragedy of police firing in Mehendikheda village leading to the deaths of four members of the Adivasi Morcha Sangathan in Bagli Tehsil of Dewas district is the direct result of the neglect of both the socio-economic deprivation and the cultural sensibilities of the Bhil adivasis of western Madhya Pradesh not only after independence but also from colonial times. The district administration and the state Government has tried to pass off this tragedy as resulting from the need to control anti-state violence b otherwise peaceful adivasis who have been instigated by nefarious activists like myself. To determine the truth or otherwise of this allegation it will be necessary to delve into the history of Bhil adivasi protests in the western Madhya Pradesh region and the organization process of the adivasis in Bagli over the past few years. Their forest habitats being vital to their existence, traditionally the Bhils have jealously guarded them from encroachment by others. There is historical evidence of the Bhils having defied the might of the Gupta emperors on the strength of their superb archery skills and retained their independence. The introduction of firearms into the subcontinent by the Muslims invading from the west, however, led to this independence being circumscribed. As the Muslim rulers extended their control over the northern and central parts of India, the Rajputs who had been in ascendance in these areas had to move into the Bhils’ territories. Thus started the exodus of the Bhils from their original habitats in Sind and Rajasthan, which over the centuries has led to their dispersal to the areas that they now occupy including the western Madhya Pradesh region. Even though the Rajputs ruled over them, apart from having to do beggar or free labour and pay some nominal taxes, the Bhils largely remained free to pursue their subsistence lifestyles. So much so that they frequently used to waylay trade caravans on the route from the north of India to the west, not so much for looting but more to prevent what they considered to be trespass into their territory. The advent of the British brought about a sea change in the socio-economy of western India. Having decimated their own forests to fuel industrial development and international trade the British began to exploit the forests of India from the early nineteenth century onwards, This exploitation increased with the laying of rail lines, which began in western Indian in the 1850s. The extraction of timber reached altogether new levels requiring deep inroads into adivasi territory all over India and the domain of the Bhils too was encroached upon. The British also settled Kanbi Patidars from Gujarat so as to increase the acreage under settled cultivation and so increase the earnings from land revenue. Naturally the Bhils fought this displacement and destruction throughout the nineteenth century and during the Great Bhil Rebellion from 1957-60 posed a serious challenge to British rule in the present day western Madhya Pradesh region, which was overcome with great difficulty. Later there were revolts led by Tantia Bhil and Chitu Kirar, which too were crushed.


The Bhils have traditionally depended on shifting agriculture for their livelihoods. They have lived in small tightly knit communities bound by customs of labour sharing and communitarian harmony. Thus any encroachment on their habitats and obstruction to their style of living seriously endangers their livelihoods. The isolation that they managed to retain even in colonial times because of the fact that most of the western Madhya Pradesh region was ruled by various princes and not directly by the British came to an end immediately after independence. Despite a provision in the fifth schedule of the Constitution of Indian that adivasis residing in areas notified under this schedule would have the privilege of living according to their traditional laws and customs outside the pale of the general laws of the country if the Governor of the state so deemed, this was never invoked and the Indian Forest Act 1927 was indiscriminately extended to all the forest areas in western Madhya Pradesh. This immediately made the adivasis criminals in their own backyard as they could neither practice shifting agriculture anymore nor could they access the forest for their timber needs. Moreover timber contractors in collusion with forest department staff began indiscriminately decimating the forests while at the same time demanding bribes from the adivasis for allowing access to the forests for agriculture and other purposes. This seriously affected their livelihoods. Government services such as health, education, infrastructure and revenue were ridden with corruption and were either non-functional or repressive in character further adding to the woes of the Bhils. Government development policies too were designed to integrate individual adivasis into the mainstream market economy without any allowance being made for the specificities of the Bhils’s communitarian subsistence lifestyle or their inexperience regarding modern culture. Thus the Bhils have been caught in a cleft stick between the destruction and alienation of their traditional habitats on the one hand and the improper functioning of modern Government services on the other. The whole region has become a chronically drought prone area and the adivasis have no option other than migrating either seasonally or permanently in search of employment. Moreover their precarious economic condition has meant that they have fallen into the clutches of moneylender traders who control the local economy. Consequently the culture of the Bhils has come under pressure with the destruction of their resource base. Scarcity and poverty have led to earlier community links breaking down. The minions of the state, whether Government servants or workers of political parties, have co-opted the village elders into helping them fleece the rest of their people. Modern education, what little has been provided, has promoted selfishness and competitiveness and resulted in the drain of the more successful Bhils into towns and cities. Alcoholism and crime are on the rise. Continuous downgrading by the non-indigenous people has led the Bhils to regard their own culture as something inferior and to be disdained. There is no sense of identify among the Bhils of western Madhya Pradesh today. The region has witnessed organised protests against this sorry state of affairs right from the time of independence when there was the Lal Topi Andolan in Jhabua, Dhar and Ratlam districts. Later there were the movements by the Khedul Mazdoor Chetna Sangath in Jahbua district in the 1980s and that by the Adivasi Mukti Sangathan in Khargone and Khandwa districts in 1990s. All these movements have raised the various issues of exploitation of the adivasis. There have been agitations against moneylenders, liquor contractor, non=-payment of minimum wages and corrupt Government servants and for the provision of proper health, education, drinking water and transportation services. Primarily, however, these organizations have concentrated on the access to forest resources, which is central to the


adivasis’ livelihoods. Given a lack of other livelihood opportunities and their traditional practice of cultivating forestlands the adivasis have continually encroached upon forestland for agriculture. Indeed this is a countrywide phenomenon in adivasi areas. The movement against the building of dams on the Narmada river brought into focus the gross injustice of wrong development policies of the Government which have resulted in the total neglect of low cost local area watershed development on a large scale that could have provided the adivasis with sustainable livelihoods in preference for big dams which benefit rich farmers and contractors at the cost of the adivasis who are involuntarily displaced. Not only has the movement against the dam been crushed by the Government through repression but also only lip service has been paid to local area watershed development. A few villages have been developed as showpieces while the vast majority of the region continues to groan under severe unemployment resulting from a lack of investments to improve the downgraded environment. Over the past two years most of this region has been struggling under drought condition but there has been little relief work initiated despite agitations showing the callousness of the Government in this regard. The Adivasi Morcha Sangathan in Bagli Tehsil began in 1997 as an offshoot of the Adivasi Mukti Sangathan. Over the years it made many demands for the institution of developmental works, provision of adequate education, health, drinking water, irrigation and transport services and the banning of the sale of liquor through peaceful means. However, the administration instead of providing these took the repressive step of crushing the organization through the registration of false cases against its members and their physical chastisement in custody from 1999 onwards. Roopsingh of Katukiya village was even shot dead by forest department staff without any rhyme or reason. The Sangathan members also began to take action against corruption in Government departments. Many illegal shipments of timber being made by the forest department were caught by Sangathan members. It is true that the members of the Sangathan were using timber from the forest to build their houses but they were not illegally trafficking in timber. Houses were being built by all and sundry in the area and not only by the members of the Sangathan. If raids were to be conducted in the market village of Udainagar even today these would unearth vast caches of illegal timber. Thus the cutting of timber was used as a pretext to crush the organization. The real reason being that the administration did not like the strength that the organization had acquired. As Gandhiji has conceived it Gram Swaraj means that the village people have the right to decide on all matters relating to their village and it is for them to decide what powers they would like to delegate to the state at a higher level. The organization was only putting into practice this concept of Gram Swaraj, which is also being promoted by the State Government. Yet the Government perceived this as a threat to its authority and decided to crack down on the Sangathan, which it alleged had become a parallel power centre. First a cabinet meeting was held in mid January to review the allegedly lawless situation prevailing in Khargone, Khandwa and Dewas districts due to the activities of the adivasi sangathans. It is noteworthy that there were no serious cases registered against the Sangathan members to substantiate this accusation. Then a meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary and attended by other senior officers from the police, forest and revenue departments was held on February 19, 2001 in which it was decided to undertake a sudden secret operation using heavy force to crush the Adivasi Morcha Sangathan in Dewas district and reestablish the lost presence of the state. I was singled out several times during the meeting as being a


troublemaker who needed to be tackled with the strictest action through such means as the National Security Act if necessary. It was clearly stated that even though the main reason for the adivasis discontent was the lack of socio-economic development and so stress would have to be given to initiating adequate development work. Nevertheless it was categorically stated that the operation to maintain the presence of the state and impose its law and order system must be carried out without any letup. The district administration of Dewas was assured full support. The meeting also dwelt on the propensity of the adivasis to encroach on and cultivate forestland. This is a nation wide problem and not one that is peculiar to this region. As has been mentioned earlier the Bhils have been shifting cultivators traditionally and have been forcibly made to adopt settled agriculture only after independence. In the absence of alternative means of livelihood and the lack of adequate education and health facilities, which have resulted in a burgeoning population, the pressure on land has meant that the Bhils have been forced to encroach on forestlands. The Government and the administration have continually sidestepped this basic cause and instead treated it continually as a law and order problem. A confrontation situation was created by the district administration subsequent to this by not entering into a dialogue with the people. A force of armed men and Van Samiti members raided Kaduriya village in early February without prior notice and broke houses and maimed people. This force was repulsed by the villagers and later the Sangathan members sat in dharma in front of the police station in Udainagar demanding that the collector should come and talk to them about this injustice. The collector instead launched a programme of public threatening of the Sangathan members saying that he would wipe out the Sangathan within six months. Elected village level representatives associated with the Sangathan were threatened with dire consequences if they did not desist from taking part in its activities. The demolition and looting operations of the task force were started in a secret manner from the March 28, 2001 in the course of which houses of Sangathan members were torn down and the timber taken away while the belongings of the people were looted. The people were not given any opportunity whatsoever to state their point of view as no show cause notice was issued to them as is legally mandatory. Major leaders of the Sangathan including elected representatives were either arrested or forced to go into hiding. A team of forest and police officials raided Jamasingh village at the break of dawn on March 30th to arrest Jahnjhad Bhargava a senior member of the central committee of the organization and fired on people killing a bullock. The members of the Sangathan sat in dharma in Jamasingh village from March 31, 2001 onwards hoping that someone from the administration would come to talk to them but no one did. Thus there was no legitimate outlet for the anger that was generated in the people by the wanton destruction undertaken by the administration. On the fateful April 2, 2001 the administration disregarded the massive mobilisation of thousands of people in Sabalgarh village and nonchalantly proceeded to demolish houses in Mehendikheda thus angering the people even further and forcing them to come to the rescue of the people there leading to the confrontation that resulted in the tragic deaths. Thus the whole episode smacks of grossly illegal and undemocratic behaviour on part of the district administration that was sanctioned by the state level administration on the basis of false reports that the area had become a breeding ground for naxalism.


I myself have been associated with the various movements of the adivasis in this region since 1985 when I came to work with the Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath in Jhabua district. Ever since I have continually worked to ensure that the adivasis are not deprived of the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of India. All the movements I have participated in have always been of a peaceful nature. However, the administration whether at the local or the state level has invariably resorted to violent repression of these movements. This has sometimes led to spontaneous counter violence on the part of the adivasis angered by the injustice being perpetrated against them. I have been implicated in many serious criminal cases along with the adivasis but to date have not been convicted in any of them. Thus there is no firm basis for the accusation that I have instigated the adivasis to be violent. In the present instance I was in Indore at may residence in Machla village where I do not have access to any newspapers. Thus! came to know of the depredations of the task force only when Jhanjhad came and told me about them on the March 31, 2001. I had been busy with some personal work and had not visited the Udainagar area for more than three months. Thus I was not aware of the gravity of the situation until Jhanjhad described the incidents taking place there. My seven-month-old son was ill at the time so I could not come back with Jhanjhad to Udainagar to try and cool down matters. I advised Jhanjhad to organize a dharma and hope that the administration would talk to them. I also sent out email alarms to all and sundry regarding the tenseness of the situation appealing for mediation to sober up the administration. Given the history of police firing by the administration on previous occasions over the past three years in the Nimad region and also the fact that firing had been resorted to by the task force already in the present operations I feared that there could be deaths of adivasis once again if the administration used force in the face of resistance by the adivasis to the wanton destruction it was causing. When I learnt that the people had brought tow of the dead to Indore for post mortem I went to the Maharaja Yashwant Rao hospital to help with the process and was arrested from there on the charge of instigating the adivasis. Thereafter the administration launched a totally false campaign to brand me as a naxalite. Previous to this in September last year too I was once arrested on false charged of trying to instigate adivasis to indulge in violence. This in fact has been my fate ever since I began working among the adivasis in this region. There is not an iota of doubt that the Bhils have got a raw deal since independence and are continuing to live in extremely sorry conditions. The Government has continually neglected its constitutional duty of improving their socio-economic status and is guilty of abandoning them to their plight over the last two drought hit years. It is indeed a shame that adivasis should be sprayed with bullets just because they have dared to demand their rights through organised protest. Instead of providing good social services and employment opportunities the state is bent on repressing the Bhils and branding those who make them aware of their rights as outsiders, naxalites and troublemakers. The Adivasi Morcha Sangathan’s influence is restricted to only some twenty villages or so and all it was doing was protesting against the illegal activities of Governmental and private exploiters. Thus at first sight it may seem surprising that the Government perceived it to be a threat to its might. The Bhils of the whole western Madhya Pradesh region are simmering in discontent plagued as their livelihoods are seriously threatened because of the kind of developmental policies being followed by the Government. The Government has neither the will nor the resources in this era of liberalization to develop this extremely backward region in accordance with the wishes of the people and so is wary of any organised popular upsurge that may spark a major uprising. So a secret “Operation Clean” on the lines of the attack


carried out on the Golden Temple in Amritsar to flush out Khalistani activists in the early eighties was carried out. Such knee-jerk repressive action by the state is bound to prove to the counter productive in the absence of any genuine people oriented developmental thrust. “Outsiders” like me will be rendered redundant a few years hence when the people will rise in protest on their own against this continuing injustice as things become unbearable. Stringent action should be taken against the collector, superintendent of police and the divisional forest officer of Dewas and their subordinates for behaving in a totally illegal and unconstitutional manner against the adivasis. As well as for misinforming the higher administration about the situation on the ground in order to get the sanction to unleash this repression which has cast a slur on the reputation of the Government of Madhya Pradesh as being one that is sensitive to the problems being faced by adivasis. The Government’s use of force to deny the people their fundamental right to organise is most reprehensible and not at all befitting of a democracy.


CHATPER 5

THE FINDINGS OF THE IPT ENQUIRY COMMISSION

1. No Justification of Demolition of Residential Structures The Supreme Court has said that the right to life includes the right to shelter and as such it is the fundamental right. Art.25.1 if universal declaration of human rights expressly recognizes “housing” as a human right. This is repeated in Art 11(1) of the International Covenant On Economic and Social Rights and casts an obligation on states to recognize the rights and to take steps to ensure the realization of these rights. The UN Commission on Human Rights (1993/77) which says, “the practice of forced evictions constitutes a great violation of human rights.” And “urges Government to undertake immediate measures, at all levels, to end and eliminate the practice of forced evictions.” Indian is a signatory to this resolution, which means that it is binding on the Indian Government to abide by this Covenant. We regret to say that what the Government did was exactly opposed to the universally recognized human rights. They have demolished the houses of these adivasis, plundered their belongings, and threatened them with persecution if they rebuilt their houses. Under International Human Rights law the Government has three obligations: to recognize the human rights of individuals and groups, to prevent human rights violations and to fulfill these rights by taking positive measures. What we have witnessed here is a total denial of these obligations. The officials’ version appears to be that the structures have come on Government land by the way of encroachment and that the houses have been built by cutting trees and bringing timbers from the forests. The evidence before us shows that many of the houses are old and many have stated that they have been staying there for more than three generations. In some cases, they have only replaced some of the old timbers with the new ones. In any case, the Government ought to have appreciated the following: a) All these people have been living in these forest areas for generations and in such a

case, they cannot be considered as encroachers. They have been living in their natural habitation from days immemorial.

b) It is but natural that they live on forest produce. They also cut wood for fuel and for housing. As a family expense, it’s possible that there could be additions and alteration. To demolish their houses it to strike at the very existence of these people and drive them away form these lands.

c) As we have seen, the whole area is underdeveloped and so neglected by the Government that it seems the advent of freedom five decades ago has not made any change in their living conditions. In such a situation, what right does the Government have to demolish their houses, loot their things, and force them to live in the open?

d) It is also wrong to assume that the adivasis are responsible for the depletion of the forest. On the contrary whatever forest is found is because of these adivasis. It is they who are vitally interested in preserving and growing forest. As opposed to these adivasis it is generally the corrupt officers who cut trees and smuggle timbers out in connivance with smugglers, the industrialists who wants to use the land for industries with cheap and exploited labors, the politicians or the greedy landlords or


gangsters like Veerappan, who want to grab land and amass wealth. We have no hesitation in holding that it is these persons who instigated the atrocities on the adivasis in this area.

Assuming that they are “encroachers” no demolition could have been permitted without due process. They should have been given a show cause notice before demolition. They should have been offered suitable alternative accommodation. Once their houses are demolished and they are forced to vacate the land, they become landless / homeless people. In that even, the Government has obligation to offer them suitable housing. Lastly, we wonder under what legal provisions the Police or the Forest officials or the collector carried out the demolitions. In absence of any legal provision, the demolition of these houses should be considered arbitrary, unjustifiable and illegal under any circumstances. 2. The Police Have No Right to Kill In all the areas the witnesses deposing before the IPT stated that the police entered the village in large numbers armed in a posse of vehicles. They also stated that on several occasions they were threatened by various State Agents. It is clear form these incidents that the main objective of the police was to terrorise the people. In Potala, the police came with several vehicles armed with guns and lathis for no reasons but only with the view to demolishing certain houses. This was on March 29, 2001. Potala is on segregated hill with no proper road and situated on difficult terrain. No incident of any kind had taken place prior to March 29, 2001 so as to necessitate the police coming there almost like an army. On seeing the posse of armed police force, the villagers, out of sheer panic, ran to the jungles. The police then fired as them as they were running and one of the witnesses showed us the mark on his body where the bullet had hit him. Thereafter the Police demolished some of the houses, broke the tiles, destroyed the stock of grains and shattered drinking water pots. Finally, as they left the village they took their women with them and detained them for eleven days. Similarly, on March 30, 2001 atrocities were committed at village Patpadi. On the nest day similar attack was at Jamasingh, and on April 1, 2001, at the village Katukiya. And April 2, 2001 at village Mehendikheda. In all these villages, the police had gone in huge numbers and terrorised the people. Since these attacks were going on, the villagers form different areas met a Mehendikheda and waited peacefully for some Government official to come to them for peaceful solution to the violent action on the part of the administration and they waited for three days. On the third day, instead of a Government official, the police came in several vehicles only to disperse the meeting. As people ran towards the forest, the police without any warning or signal opened fire and began shooting indiscriminately. Four people were shot dead by the police. Out of fifty houses at Mehendikheda, four were destroyed. The question is that why did the Police do it? The meeting was a peaceful meeting. It was not an unlawful assembly. The people were not armed with any weapons or arms. People were shot as they were fleeing with their backs towards the police. In such a situation, if the police have shot and killed those persons, in law, it should amount to murder, punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We are of the option that these killings were deliberate and not by way of any self-defense.


In any case, whether the police were required to shoot or not, and if so, for what reason, will have to be decided by the court, and not by the police or the administration. In fact, there is no provision in the Constitution of India, or even in any criminal procedure code, which confers a right on the police to kill. The only provision in law is in Indian Penal Code (section 100), which confers the rights of private defense to the extent of causing death. The defense has to be established in the court of law, and not at the police station. We are therefore of the view that all these police official who have resorted to firing and killing these innocent Adivasis, are liable for prosecution under section 302 IPC. This must include all those officers at whose instance these atrocities were committed. We are also of the view that they are also liable for prosecution under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. We further hold that all these acts amount to terrorizing poor innocent people and, as such, are a serious violation of human rights. They are acts of state terrorism, which required to be universally condemned. Similarly when investigating into the facts of the matter the arrest of Rahul Banjeree is also another act of state repression as through the arrest the police further sought to crush the movement and instill fear in the hearts of the Sangathan members. 3. Right to Form Organisations and Join Associations Of Adivasis’ a Choice –

Denied! Under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, all citizens have the right to from associations or unions, which is a fundamental right. Law in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India a public order or morality can only impose the restrictions under sub-article (4). We do not understand how the formation of Adivasi Morcha Sangathan could in any way effect the sovereignty, integrity, morality, or public order of India. Under Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association,” and, “no one may be compelled to belong to an association.” In our view, the Government has patently violated these human rights. In our Preliminary Observations, we has stated as follows: The main reason for these attacks is that the authorities do not want Adivasis to join the Adivasi Morcha Sangathan. The Sangathan has grown in strength. As a result of Sangathan’s growth, many of the people stopped giving bribes to the forest officials; similarly, they stopped giving high rates of interest to the moneylenders. They have also stopped bribing the police and other officials. In their own way they have also tried to reform themselves by means of advising people not to indulge in alcohol and by building social responsibility. All these things are not to the liking of the vested interest of the establishment. The Sangathan has been functioning for nearly four years and now that they have grown in strength, the officers have realized that their side-income and other activities would be affected. This seems to be the main reason for attacking those people who have joined the Sangathan. It is significant to note that they have demolished those houses specifically belonging to the Sangathan members and not others.


Pressures have been brought on these villagers to give up the Sangathan and join Van Suraksha Samitis in the following way: - 1. Many of them have been forced to sign letter of resignation form the Sangathan. 2. They have been prevented form attending the meetings of the Sangathan and other

general meeting held in the area. 3. They have been denied the right to be called for work, particularly to have the Tendu-

leaf collections sold or doing the work of the digging of wells or ponds in the villages. Under the Constitution of India, as well as under International Human Right Law, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person has the right to freedom of opinion. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that, “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.” Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR) makes it clear that everyone had the right to receive and impart “ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers either orally or in writing” or through any media. Article 22 of the ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of association of all person. Thus, it is clear that atrocities on these people are for the purpose of forcing them to leave Sangathan as Tanu Bai rightly says, “Ni ham jungle kati riya” (We are not cutting the forest.) “Ni ham jhadi kati riya” (We are not cutting the trees around.) “Ni ham looti riya” (Nor are we looting anybody.) “To fir kyon piti riya” (Then why is it that the government is beating us.) “Do we have a Government who would hear us? The Government sits for the bureaucrats. So there should be a Government for adivasis as well. […] This whole fracas has become one of Sangathan versus Van-Samiti. So we wanted to request the administration to not to attempt to tear apart the adivasis by encouraging mutual confrontations. After all bureaucrats shall not stay here for more than two years. While the adivasis have to live in harmony with each other for years to come.” Rahul Banerjee took the lead in organizing Sangathan. He was put behind bars. What is his crime? He and the Sangathan exposed the illegal handing of timber by the forest officials, illegal selling of wood planks by the Van Suraksha Samities, encouraged the adivasis not to give brides to the officials, advised them not to borrow from the money-lenders, and education them to come out of the evils of liquor-brewing and alcoholism, and above all, supported them to lead a life a dignity and respect for all. It is unfortunate that the Government is suppressing these people at the behest of corrupt officials and upper-caste moneylenders. 4. People have no Faith in Government Inquiries In our Preliminary Observations, we had said: Our experience of all such official inquiry reports is that if the report is not favourable to the Government and bureaucrats and if the report is against them, it generally is not acted upon. Moreover, the way the enquiry is carried out, leaves no hopes for the people to get any relief out of it. Most of the people said that they have no faith or confidence in this official inquiry. In such an official enquiry, the truth is generally the casualty.


It is a fact that the Inquiry Official did not visit most of the villages. He should have gone around as we had done, without the police accompanying him. The people are really afraid of the police, and no one would have the courage to tell the truth in front of any police officer or in any such place surrounded by the police. It appears that he visited one village where the Chief Minister had visited. There too, he did not bother to inquired about the incidents, nor did he sympathize with the pitiful plight of the people and the victims. Instead he was giving absurd alternatives of living, the effect of which would be the eviction of these people form these areas. We do not know what report the Inquiry Officer will bring out. As far as we are concerned, we can say that the people have vented their feeling of the trauma they have undergone. In this sense, as compared to any officer tribunal, a tribunal like ours has a better chance of arriving at the truth. 5. Chief Secretary’s Decision dated February 19, 2001 – Anti-Adivasis and Un-

Constitutional We have annexed a copy of the minutes of the meeting held February 19, 2001 under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary. To say the least, the minutes show how the Chief Secretary was biased against the adivasis and in particular, against the Sangathan. The Chief Secretary took into account the version, as given by the officials. There is nothing to indicate that the Chief Secretary called for any independent report form anyone. The Sangathan has been fighting against the District Administration, which has become corrupt. In many cases of timber smuggling, with active support form the officials, it was the Sangathan, which informed the authorities and helped in intercepting them. All these things were not taken into account. The minutes proceed on the assumption that the activities of the Sangathan are “anti-social.” The minutes further assert that the Sangathan is putting village ladies and children in front as a matter of “strategy,” whenever the officials come to attack the villagers. The Chief Secretary should know that many social struggles have taken place in this country with women and children taking active part. The very fact that so many woman and children have come forward to face the on-rush of the officials shows that the atrocities have reached such an intolerable stage that even women feel that they should come out and take the lead. We may also point out that, even as we went round, it was the women who came forward to depose before us. The Chief Secretary makes a grave error when he finds fault with the Sangathan when it claims that the forestland belongs to the adivasis. Certainly the forestland is not for the private gain of the officials or for the benefits of the upper-caste, or for grabbing by greedy landlords or industrialists. This assumption on the part of the Chief Secretary clearly sets out the motive for the action against the adivasis. It is strange that the Minutes should reveal “that there is not much zeal in the region for the development works of the Tribal Development Department.” The question is, who should have shown the zeal to do the development works? What has the Government done for the development of these areas during the last fifty years? We wish the Government could come out with a white paper, so that we can thoroughly expose the total neglect on the part of Government in developing these areas. Why should the Adivasis come in the way of


development, if the Government wants to carry out any project? On the contrary, the whole area has been so neglected with no proper roads, with no proper medical services, with no proper amenities, and with no proper life-support to these people. It is only when they tried to do something on their own, that the officials retaliated with this repression.


CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AMD RECOMMENDATION The IPT team therefore concludes the following:

1. There was no justification for the shooting or the sustained atrocities meted our on the adivasis of this region prior to the firing. It is not within the terms of reference of this enquiry to go into the legalities of the manner in which the demolitions were tenure but it is sufficient to say that the manner in which the demolitions were carried out were illegal and inhuman. Further the state agents had no right to poison the water sources and the food grain supplies.

2. Prior to both demolition and firing the need to give sufficient notice has been

clearly stated in the law. However, in both the incidents there appears to be no evidence that the Collector or the police have given any notice to the people.

3. Even if the police found it necessary to fire in order to preserve law and order.

The fact that the bullet wounds were above that waist and on the backs of the victims clearly amounts to murder and not self-defense.

4. The IPT team strongly felt after evaluating the evidence brought before the

Tribunal and the Statement of Rahul Banerjee that the main purpose of the firing and earlier demolitions were to crush the movement and struggle for rights. The State’s interests lie in protecting the rich and powerful rather than ensuring the security of the lives and livelihood needs of the adivasis.

5. To this extent the Collector, the Superintendent of police, SDO, and the Divisional

Forest Officer of Dewas and their subordinates are primarily responsible.

6. If the State Agents had been innocent they would not have remained silent and not even sent a written deposition to the Tribunal.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The decision taken by the Chief Secretary of February 19, 2001 should be quashed as it is biased and against human rights.

2. A domestic enquiry conducted by a retired judge must be conducted into the role the Superintendent of Police Dewas, the Divisional Forest Officer Dewas and the Divisional Forest Officer of Barwah played in the firing. In the meantime these officers should be suspended immediately. Notwithstanding the domestic enquiry these officers should be prosecuted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly a domestic enquiry should be conducted with regard to the officials responsible a domestic enquiry should be conducted with regard to have located the things form the demolished houses are also liable for theft. In fact, the demolition of structures also amounts to mischief and criminal trespass under IPC. They should also be prosecuted under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.


3. There is immediate need to conduct a domestic enquiry on Collector of Dewas Shri Ashok Barnwal while the enquiry is going on he should be suspended from duty to prevent him from intimidating the victims. We have observed that all the troubles have started after this new Collector took charge. We also demand that other officers who acted along with him should be transferred or suspended for a period of time pending the enquiry. The Government must consider whether the Collector and other administrative officers also could be liable under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Such atrocities must be dealt with firmly by the State that claims to put the welfare of adivasis as their prime concern.

5. Suitable compensation should be given to all persons who were affected by these incidents, directly and indirectly. It is not enough that compensation is paid only to the near relatives of the persons killed by the firing. Compensation should be given to all persons who have lost their homes and the things form their houses.

6. All false criminal cases file against the activists and members of the Sangathan should be withdrawn and no further arrests with regard to these cases should be made.

7. The Government must take steps to restore the confidence of the people in the exercises of their right to organize, to free speech and expression. The Government should categorically announce that no attempt whatsoever shall be made by the Government an its officials either to compel people to withdraw form the Sangathan or to join the Van-Samiti. They should assure that in future they would not infringe the basic right of adivasis to live in these areas as they have lived for generations, as adivasis.

8. If the Government-appointed Inquiry Commission brings out a report, the same should be made public without any delay, so that the people can judge how impartial and unbiased the report could be and the know how the facts referred to herein have been death with by the commission.

List of false cases against members of Adivasi Morcha Sangathan in connection with the incidents leading up to the Mehendikhera firing. Case No. Police Station Sections No. Accused 1. 35/2001 Udainagar 307, 353, 332, 186, 147, 148, 149 IPC & 25, 27 Arms Act 9 2. 36/2001 “ 341, 323, 294, 506, 34 IPC 2 3. 38/2001 “ 307, 353, 332, 186, 147, 148, 120BIPC 16 4. 39/2001 “ 307, 353, 332, 147, 148, 149, 186IPC 9 5. 47/2001 “ 392 IPC 1 6. 51/2001 “ 341, 294, 506 IPC 1 7. 53/2001 “ 324, 353, 147, 148 IPC 1 8. 92/2001 “ 224 IPC 1 One Jhanjad Bhargava is involved in as many as 5 of these cases and some others have three or more cases against them. There is also a case registered against 14 people of Potala village


the details of which are not et available. Eight people of Katukiya village too have been implicated in a false case allegedly of attacking forest officials in 1999 when the forest officers killed Roop Singh. Apart from this there are two other cases from the year 2000 as follows: 1. 321/2000 Hatpipliya 341, 147 IPC 3 2. 53/2000 Udainagar 137, 148, 324, 353 IPC 1 All these cases are of a false nature with concocted evidence. The charge sheets will not bear scrutiny yet they have been filled just to harass the main workers of the organization. The forest department too has registered over 100 false cases against members of the Sangathan and continue to do so. The forest department too has registered over 100 false cases against members of the Sangathan and continue to do so. The registering of cases and the subsequent arrest and torture in custody alone with the tortuous process of the courts is a time-tested tactic on the part of the Government to harass and so discourage people from organizing to demand their rights.


ANNEXURE 1

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 19, 2001 UNDER THE

CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY Sub: Illegal cutting of forest in Dewas District. A detailed information regarding illegal cutting of forests of Udainagar and Punjapura region of Dewas district and other antisocial activities done by Adivasi Mukti Sangathan (Indigenous Peoples Freedom Organisation) has been given by Divisional Forest Officer, Dewas, Superintendent of police, Dewas, Collector, Dewas and Conservator of Forest, Ujjain. It is stated by the DFO, Dewas that since last 3-4 years in the forest regions of Bagli Tehsil of District Dewas attached with the Barwah Forest Range of District Khargone that the activities of Adivasi Mukti Sangathan have increased a lot and led to the cutting of the forests in a bulk quantity and houses have been constructed by the timber obtained form it. After the incident in the year 1999 of village Katukiya there is a decreased of moral power of forest employees in taking the action against the Morcha. On February 4- 5, 2001 a demonstration against the Government was made by Mukti Sangathan in Udayinagar. In the month of January 2001 a joint group, under the leadership of Sub Divisional Revenue Officer, SDO Police and Deputy DFO, Bagli had to return back form the village without confiscation. It is the strategy of the organization that they put village ladies and children in the forefront and create very difficult circumstances. In order to check the influence of the organisation the local Adivasis are being united with the help of District Administration and on February 13, 2001 a General Congregation of the Forest Committees was held with the active co-operation of the District Administration. It was started by the SP, Dewas that the cases against the chief workers of the organisation like Rahul Banerjee etc., are also recorded in the other district. A case was registered against them u/s 151 of the Indian Penal Code, Which was dismissed. It was stated by the District Collector, Dewas that the Adivasis are being encouraged by the Adivasi Mukti Sangathan who say that the forest land if of the Adivasis. In order to take action against the Mukti Sangathan a suggestion to unite the local tribals and to demonstrate the power of the State Government and remove the leaders of the organisation form this movement was put forth. It was state by the Principal Secretary. General Administration Department the there is not much zeal in the region for the development works of the Tribal Development project and an able and industrious Project Officer should be posted in the region so that the speed may be increased in the development works. It was stated by the Conservator of Forest, Ujjain that just recently the actions taken jointly by three department of Government i.e. Revenue, police and Forest have also failed. Such type of incidents made the position of the Government weak. It was stated by Chief Conservator of Forest giving information about the historical background of the encroachment that first of all this problem stated by the programme of giving encouragement to the local Adivasis for forest land encroachment in Jhabua District


by the Sarvodaya leader Shri Ramchandra Bade and it slowly spread to Khargone and Khandwa districts. The benefit of this has also been taken form time to time by the political parties by provoking the encroachment of forestland by local Adivasis. In the mid-decade of 1980 effective proceedings for stopping and removing the encroachment were done by the then Conservator of Forest Shri Ravi Mishra bur after the decision by the government in the year 1990 to settle and fix the encroachment up to the year 1976, since then there is an increased in the tendency of encroachment. Adivasis have this belief that sooner or later they will get this land. In the year 1993-94 the Mukti Sangathan arrived in this area. In the encroachment chiefly the people of Barela Caste only are found to be drenched in this tendency. Though no special agricultural produce is received form the encroachment land, the greed of the land increased the tendency of the encroachment. At present this problems is not only a social and economic problem but it has become a problems of law and order in administration as well. The suggestion of the Chief Conservator of forest was that in order to remove this problem presence of political will power is necessary and a meeting of all the political parties against the encroachment should be called. Along with this there should be also a constitution of Special Task Force for these areas. In order to make available the means of employment it is necessary to prepare a package of socio-economic development. For disposing of the cases pertaining to encroachment Mobile Courts should be established. At present the crops which are standing in the areas of encroachment are not generally destroyed because many disputes arise out of this. But if the encroaching persons reap one harvest then the chance for sowing the crop for the second time comes hence the crops grown in the encroached areas should be destroyed. Strong action should be taken against those persons who encourage the people for encroachments. The powers to transfer the Forest Employees who are posted in these areas for a long time should be with the concerned Divisional Forest Officers and Conservators of Forest. It was stated by the Chief Secretary of Forest that the planning of Joint Forest Management is successfully being done by the department but there are also complaints in these regions that the constituted societies have not been supported by the whole village. Hence under the concept of Gram Swaraj (village self rule) through the convening of the village assemblies in these regions the constitution of the Joint forest Management committees should be done in consonance with the desire of the village assembly. Thus there will be a feeling of direct partnership spirit in the local public. In these region such types of officers/employees should be posted whose actions may be sensitive, neat and clean. Under any circumstances firing against the villagers should be avoided. It was stated by the Director General of police that whatever action was taken in these areas should be done with careful planning and sufficient force. Problems should not be mixed together. Sufficient force should be taken in the sensitive areas. The participation of SAF should not be in small pickets. Senior officers should themselves conduct the proceeding and they should be present themselves with the force taking all responsibilities. In these areas some matters of personal disputes of Forest department and police department have also come to light which should be avoided and the senior officers of both these departments should rise above the feeling of their department spirits and should dispose of the cases with mutual understanding and impartiality because this also creates an adverse influence on the image of the State Government. The actions against the persons who provoke the public should always be continued and they should be bounded under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.


It was stated by the Chief Secretary that the illegal activities of the Adivasi Mukti Sangathan in the areas should be controlled in an effective manner. It has been decided by the Council of Ministers during the course of review of Village Contact of the year 2001 that the encroachment on the Forest Lands of Khandwa, Khargone and Dewas should be stopped strictly. He further stated that the available force should be used by planning under the direction of the Senior Officers region wise. Any action should be taken after evaluation of the whole position and on the availability of sufficient force. Where there is necessity Women Force in sufficient quantity should also be made and the unnecessary use of force and firing etc., should be avoided. The State Government is firm in its resolve control the illegal activities of the organisation and for this purpose there will be full support of the State Government to the regional officers. The following decisions were taken after discussions as mentioned above:

1. The District Administration (Forest, Police and Revenue Department) by preparing a well-planned scheme should stop the encroachment with sufficient force. In order to make the strategy of Mukti Morcha unsuccessful arrangements with proper organisation should be made. The time and date of proceedings should be determined keeping in view this object. According to the need the women police employees and officers should be taken along.

2. Before starting the action the pre-priorities should be determined that where and when the action is to be taken?

3. Whenever the action is started it should be carried out up to its logical end. 4. Collector, Divisional Forest Officer and Superintendent of Police are responsible

for checking of encroachment, hence they should take the action jointly. No separate interest and conceptions of the department should be considered. There should be no protection for any mistake by a particular employee or officer of any department.

5. For checking the action of encroachment sufficient defense force should be made available.

6. The action should be taken in the presence of sufficient force and senior officers. There should not arise a situation of firing.

7. Prohibitory proceedings should be started against the leaders of Mukti Morcha who provoke the Adivasis for encroachment. Special attention should be paid on their activities, and on the basis of their activities cases under Externment and National Security Act (NSA) should be prepared against them.

8. There should be regular review and prompt action for stopping encroachment at the district level.

9. In the district, especially the regions that are influenced by the Mukti Sangathan, the development works should be done with more dynamism. The financial resources available with the various department should be pooled for the development works in the sensitive regions in a unified manner, so that problems of the local public pertaining to their livelihood may be solved but the operations for the purpose of regulating the law and order situation and the socio-economic aspects of the problem should not be mixed up.


ANNEXURE II

LAWS TO PREVENT ATROCITIES

The SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) Preamble An Act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to provide for Special court for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Sec. 3 Syn. 3 talks about the atrocities against the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes- 1. There is no legal definition of the term ‘atrocity’ and the general understanding of its

meaning has been derived form the various instructions issued by the Government of Indian form time to time. The State has tended to apply their own interpretation and have furnished atrocity statistics on the basis of there own understanding. The resultant discrepancies in making realistic or accurate assessment of the atrocity situation in the country. In view of this the National Police Commission, in its Third Report, made the following observations: “In the recording of crime statistics regarding atrocities of Scheduled Castes, no uniform criteria appear to have been adopted in the States. The Ministry of Home Affairs may issue comprehensive guidelines for classifying crimes as ‘atrocities’ to ensure proper recording and analysis all such offences in a period of time on a country-wide basis.”

2. The Ministry of Home Affairs has since clarified that “crimes which have ingredients

of infliction of suffering in one form or the other should be included for reporting.” This is based on the assumption that “where the victims of crime are members of Scheduled Castes, caste considerations are really the root case of the crime, even though caste consciousness may not be the vivid and immediate motive for crime.”

3. The Government of India, accordingly, suggested to the State the crime against

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes coming under specific section of the IPC be included for reporting to the Central Government. The Commission, at its meeting held on December 11, 1958, examined the matter against the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe by those belonging to these communities should continue to be treated as atrocities. The Government has accepted the Commission’s view.

4. At another meeting held earlier on June 21, 1958 the Commission revived its position

relating to the case of atrocities on SC/ST on the basis of available data and resolved as follows : “The number of cases of atrocities on SC/ST does not appear to give the correct picture when contrasted against the SC/STs form nearly all parts of the country. This would clearly point to defective enumeration of cases. The commission would suggest for the consideration of the Government of India that FIR should invariable carry a column showing the caste of the victims and that offenders. Further, it is important to


take specific and effective preventive measures. In this connection, the commission would recommend installation, both at the Centre and in the State, of a regular system of collecting information for atrocity-prone or untouchability-prone areas. This would call for an energetic intelligence system staffed by efficient personnel. The commission cannot help feeling that investigations and prosecution of cases affecting SCs and STs have hitherto left much to be desired in the face of acquittals which range form 80% to 95% in the various States of the Country. Special Courts have also not so far provided encouraging results possibly because they are neither sufficiently mobile nor adequately staffed.

The commission would urge the Government of India to give urgent thought to the problems that beset policing the vulnerable areas and bringing the offenders to quick and demonstrative justice.”…

5. Madhya Pradesh is one of the States, which has adopted comprehensive measures to

tackle the atrocity situation. The Collectors and the SPs of the districts have been made responsible for the prevention of atrocities and have been asked to visit the spots immediately in the event or incident or atrocity taking places. Other important steps that have been taken include identification of sensitive areas form the point of view of atrocities so that district authorities regularly visit them to assess the discontent and genuine grievances of the aggrieved; collection of advance intelligence by the special Branch; investigation of cases of atrocities by a gazetted officer with at least one member of the SC/ ST; prompt resolution of land dispute; cancellation of arms licenses and forfeiture of arms of those committing atrocities on the members of SC/STs and issue of arms to the members of SC/STs whenever necessary ‘the removal of conditions that exploitation of the SC/STs and ensuring of payment of minimum wages and the setting up of Special Police Stations in sensitive areas. The State Govt. has also decided that a person convicted of an offence under IPC against a member of the SC/ST would be deprived of the benefits under welfare schemes. The State Govt. is implementing what is called Adivasis/Harijan Rahat Yojana under which relief is sanctioned members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes suffering physically and whose property has been damaged as a result of atrocities.

The weaker sections, specially the Scheduled Tribes, are often subjected to exploitation due to land alienation and debt bondage. The Govt. of Madhya Pradesh has taken steps in this regards also. In connection with land alienation, suitable provisions have been made in the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Section 165 of the Code imposes a ban on transfer of land by a tribal to a non-tribal in the Scheduled Area, transfer of land of a tribal to non-tribal can be effected only with the permission of the Collector, Sections 170A and 170B have been added in the M.P. Land Revenue Code, which provide for restoration to the tribal owner of land alienated by Fraud. Amendments have been made in the M.P. Money Lenders Act in order to safeguard the interest of debtors. Similarly, the State Govt. has enacted the M.P. Gramin Rin Virmukhi Adhiniyam, 1982 to marginal farmers, rural artisans, landless agricultural labourers, and small farmers to be deemed to have been cleared. Since most of the tribals fall in these categories, this has given considered relief. Under the rules of this Act, the collectors are empowered to have the pledged property restored to its owners. Arrangements have been made for the sanction of loans to the tribals through State financing Agencies. Section from the Indian Penal Code


Sec. 302 – Punishment for Murder Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Sec. 307 – Attempt to Murder Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempt by life convicts – [When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] Sec. 341 – Punishment for Wrongful Restraint Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extent to five hundred rupees, or with both. Evidence - The prosecution must prove: i) That the accused obstructed a person. ii) That such obstruction prevented the person form proceeding in the direction in which

he had a right to proceed. iii) That the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructer must intend or

know or have reason to believe it to be likely that the means adopted would cause the obstruction of the complainant.


ANNEXURE III

MACABRE DANCE OF STATE ATROCITIES AGAINST ADIVASIS IN DEWAS, MP BHOPAL, April 2001 On April 7, 2001, a term form the Jan Sangharsh Morcha visited the adivasi villages and met with the people in Udayanagar area of Bagli tehsil in Dewas district. This team met and talked to the women, men, and children of Chainpura, Semli, Kanad, Jamasindh, Bisali, Mehendikheda, Katukiya, Shampura, and other villages. Form these discussions a nightmarish story of atrocities and barbarism has clearly emerged. Jan Sangharsh Morcha will present a detailed report very soon. But certain serious facts are clear and it is essential the people of this area and the company are made aware of them. 1. The incident of firing on 2, April 2001 is not a sudden, isolated one. For many days

prior to this, scores of forest officials, police, and armed terms of the Special Armed Force (SAF) have been attacking the adivasi village, demolishing the huts, looting and assaulting the people, and misbehaving with women. The latest available information on the sequence of events is as follows:

Wednesday 28 March 2001 village Kadudiya Thursday 29 March 2001 village Potla Friday 30 March 2001 village Patpadi Saturday 31 March 2001 village Jamasindh Sunday 01 April 2001 village Katukiya Monday 02 April 2001 village Mehendikheda Tuesday 03 April 2001 village Jamasindh

Prior to this, atrocities were committed in the village Katkut of the adjacent district of Khargone. About Rang Panchami (March 14, 2001) day, armed forces of the Forest Department arrived in Katkut and proceeded to demolish the huts, looted and scattered the foodgrains and also beat up the people. Mithubaba received head injuries and Gumand and Naru sustained bullet wounds in their legs.

For quite some time now, the Forest Department and the district administration has been repressing and committing atrocities against adivasis of the area. One and a half years ago, on September 23, 1999 forest officials fired bullets in village Kadudiya. Roopsingh Bhilala, an adivasi, was killed in the firing. Consequently, on May 28, 2000 the adivasis held a large, peaceful and disciplined demonstration at the district headquarter of Dewas. But the administration turned a blind eye towards this and the atrocities continued. Moreover many false cases have been registered against adivasis.

2. Prior to the current events, in the past two months the District Collector of Dewas,

Shri Ashok Barnwal has on at least two occasions (in Pipri and Udainagar) publicity declared on a loudspeaker that he would crush the Sangathan of adivasis within 6


months. On March 5, 2001 at Udainagar he swore that he would wipe out the Sangathan without a trace within a month. It is obvious that the entire operation was conducted in a cold, calculation manner.

3. The entire operation of the raids since March 28, 2001 has been conducted under the

personal direction and in the presence of the Collector of Dewas, Superintendent of Police, and the DFO. With convoys numbering 25-35 vehicles and with 309-400 armed policemen, the villages have been surrounded at close proximity and bullet fired in the air. This scared the adivasis and compelled them to run off and hide in the forests. The empty houses would be looted and demolished and them the police feasted on the chickens of the village. The administration of Dewas district has taken to a dacoits style of terror, loot, and pillage.

4. Considering this situation and the continual atrocities since March 28, 2001 the

adivasi had possible decide to gather and oppose further destruction. When the Govt. unit arrived on the April 2, 2001 at Mehendikheda people stared to gather at same distance form the village. The police tear-gassed them to which the people responded with stone throwing. Then suddenly they were fired upon. Police fired blindly and targeted whoever they could see.

That Nemichand Jaiswal, a shopkeeper of village Bisali was killed shown that the police has fired indiscriminately. Balaran was shot in the neck and all those who were killed and shot dead at least a kilometer form the village. These facts indicate that the police had fired indiscriminately. It is also clear that there was no warning whatsoever before the police started firing.

Deaths i) Balaram s/o Shri Jherma, village Semli ii) Bhimsingh s/o Shri Idasingh, village Jamasindh (his body was taken away by the

police) iii) Pathaniya, village Kanad iv) Nemichand Jaiswal, village Bisali Wounded The complete information of the dead injured is not available. The terrorized people in 16 villages have ran away form their homes and are hiding in the forest. The information on the injured that we have able to obtain is as follows: i) Ramesh, village Sabalgadh (gunshot) ii) Bhimsingh, village Sitapuri iii) Karan Singh, village Aakiya 5. It is an utter lie that the adivasis had fired and that they were heavily armed with

weapons and ammunition. The district administration has not been able to provide any evidence on this claim. The whole story of landmines is also entirely bogus. Only near Jamasindh we observed that the road was dug up, possibly an attempt by villagers to stop the relentless attacks on them. This did not have an L-shape.


More than 50 huts have been destroyed in at least 5-6 villages. In Janasindh, Mansingh Borla’s house being constructed under the Indira Awas Yojana was completely destroyed. In Katukiya 22 houses were destroyed. All of these were] old houses. The tiles of these houses have been totally shattered and the belongings in the houses have been looted.

6. The most inhuman and despicable act has been the poisoning of the foodgrains aata

(flour) and water of the villages (with Gamexane). Perhaps even under the British, the people of this country have not been treated with such hatred and contempt. In Jamasindh and Katukiya, the villages themselves showed the team the poisoned foodgrains and water. The villagers have also told us that similar acts of poisoning have taken place in Semli and Sabalgadh.

7. In the past 12 days the district administration have converted the area into a terror-

zone to break any resistance to these atrocities. Many activities have been arrested. In villages Potla, 3 girls were picked up by the police on March 29, 2001 and they have not returned till date. Another adivasi Woman from Katudiya is missing Since March 28, 2001.

8. This government which trumpets its commitment to Panchayati Raj and village

governance has arrested many sarpanches without any cause. Prominent amongst them are:

Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Udainagar, Shri Jamasingh Raway Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Fantdutalb, Shri Gajanan Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bisali, Shri Bhim Singh Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Parpadi Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Agra

Many Sarpanches have been forced to go into hiding. Zilla Panchayat Member Shri Nandu Singh Rawat, a supporter of the Sangathan was also help in Dewas under threats and duress. Activist Rahul Banerjee who works with the adivasis of the area has been arrested in Indore on March 3,2001 and moves and being made to declare him a Naxalite. It must be recalled that a decade ago, while strongly criticizing the oppression of the police and the administration in Alirajpur, the Supreme Court of India has commended this young engineering graduate form IIT-Kharagpur.

9. In this entire series of atrocities, the Van Suraksha Samities (Forest Protection

committees) have been utilised by the administration for looking and ransacking the villages. These Samities would be brought in by trucks form villages like Puthar, Shrirampura, Magardeh, Dhoopghata, Lakshmipura, Pathanipala, etc. which can the villages far the affected ones. Villagers told us that for some time now the Samities and the forest administration have indulged in rampant tree cutting and the villages would be blamed for this. This sequence of events unravels the story of the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh’s Joint Forestry Management programme. In the name of Van Suraksha Samities, middlemen goons, and lumpen elements are being utilised to fell trees and for committing atrocities against adivasis. For example, 6-7 months ago, tractor of the Ranger of Pipri carrying teak wood was intercepted by a Flying Squad itself. A year ago, head of the Golanpati Van Suraksha Samiti in Khargone District, Kalu was carrying wood on a tractor and was apprehended at a barrier on the


Nachanbor Ghat. According to the villagers, the Van Samities were involved in a lot of illegal selling of wood planks. It seems the work of the forest mafia of the area was being carried out by the Forest Department and the Van Suraksha Samiti.

10. It has been admitted by the administration that the adivasis cut trees for building their

houses and not for selling them. But there’s nothing new about this since for millennia adivasis have been using forest wood for house construction and other minor needs. This does not destroy the forests. Even the houses of the Deputy Chief Minister Smt. Jamuna Devi and other Adivasi ministers and made of wood.

The Adivasi Morcha Sangathan had for some time had taken measures against the destruction of the forests. Two months ago, the heads of the Van Suraksha Samities of Tatuhedi, Birjakhal, and Patakhat were carrying wood on a tractor. They were stopped by the head of Bagli Krishi Upaj Mandi, Shri Isaram Mandloi who turned them over to the Udainagar Range Officer. About 6-7 months ago, a flying squad was caught in Punjapura when it was taking the wood it had seized in an attempt to sell it in Dewas! This had 200 planks. Sangathan members had made phone calls and helped in intercepting them in Hatpipla. The Sangathan had also opposed commercial felling. The Forest Department had coup cutting in the forests between Jamasindh and Anandnagar and also between Devtaliya and Dadh. On March 12, 2001 a truck was stopped by Sangathan activists at Sabalgarh crossing. The District Forest Officer (Production) (DFO) of Dewas arrived and held discussions with the activists. The villagers questioned the official why they were not allowed to cut trees for building their houses while the Forest Department was cutting lots of trees. While he could not give an answer to the question, the DFO assured the villagers that he would discuss this with Collector. After obtaining the signature of the DFO on a receipt for a memorandum the truck was allowed to proceed. However, instead of answering question raised in the letter, in a fortnight the administration started the atrocities against the villagers.

It is indeed amazing that a Forest Department worried about saving the forests of Dewas had not stopped coup cutting although neighboring districts of Khargone, Jhabua, etc. had banned commercial felling. Thousand of trees have been cut and trucks have been loaded overnight. This team saw 4 fully loaded trucks on the night of April 7, 2001. It is clear that the Adivasi Morcha Sangathan is not cutting the forests, rather its opposition to tree felling has become a matter of frustration for the administrative machinery.

11. Some other activities of the Adivasi Morcha Sangathan has earned it the ire of the

administrative machinery. In 1998, it opposed illegal brewing of liquor in Panutalab and had destroyed a still. This still belonged to Shri Shyam Gujar of Bagli, a Congress leader.

It has also stopped many extortions of the of the Forest Department officials. For example:

• Rs. 1000 per span for house construction • Rs. 10 per head of cattle for allowing grazing • Rs. 50 per truck of manure (There was a Public Interest Litigation in the

Indore High Court on this issue).


There has also been substantial opposition of the corruption of the local police, Patwari, etc. This caused the administration machinery to oppose the Sangathan.

12. In this entire matter, the Collector of Dewas and Superintendent of the Police have

played the role of dacoits and murderers. But the state administration is a bigger criminal. The Govt. of MP had itself issued order in February to crush the Sangathan in Dewas district. The Chief Minister, Shri Digvijay Singh cannot now hide behind the fig leaf that he had only ordered the seizure of wood form new houses. Samaj Pragati Sahyog, and NGO in Bagli has shown of wood form Minister video footage of old houses that were destroyed (the scene reminiscent Of earthquake ravaged Kutch), looting and the poisoning of aata, etc. on the evening of April 4, 2001 in Bhopal. The Deputy Chief Minister, Jamuna Devi, Home Minister Shri Mahendra Boudh, Chief Secretary, Commissioner of Police, Chief Forest Conservator, etc. were present. But till date (April 8, 2001) there has been no action against even a single official.

It is obvious that the district administration cannot carry out atrocities on such a large scale without a green single form above. In the Multal incident 24 people were killed. The current incidents of firing is the next largest one in Madhya Pradesh. The Forest Department had fired ammunition on 8 occasions in the Last 6 years. These incidents are as follows:

No District Location of Firing Date 1. Shivpuri Village Hansli 03.02.95 2. Shahdol Jaitpur Area 25.05.96 3. Khandwa Village Mandva, Nepa Range 27.08.97 4. Hoshangabad Village Nandarwada 31.08.97 5. Khandwa Village Titagarh 27.02.99 6. Dewas Village Katukiya 23.02.99 7. Sihar Jeebhton Forest, Budhni Tehsil 27.08.00 8. Dewas Village Mehendikheda, Bagli Tehsil 02.04.01

13. It is clear that since the World Bank has stated funding the Madhya Pradesh Forestry

program in 1995, the floodgates of oppression of the forest-dwellers have been opened. The connection of these atrocities with the process of globalisation is also very clear. The adivasi of Kashipur in Orissa who were opposing an American aluminum company were fired upon December 16, 2000 in which 3 were killed and 56 injured. Adivasis in the area of the Koel-Karo dam in Jharkhand were fired upon in February 2001.

The Jan Sangharsh Morcha demands that 1) The Govt. of Madhya Pradesh accept moral responsibility for these atrocities and

reexamine the entire structure of forest laws and the bureaucracy associated with it. 2) The District Collector of Dewas, the Superintendent of Police, and the District Forest

Officer be arrested and tried under provision of the Atrocities Against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and for murder and dacoity.

3) The entire issue should be examined by an impartial judicial inquiry.


4) The villages of the area be compensated for the losses and an atmosphere be created

immediately whereby the terrorized people can return home.

Bhopal Date: 08 April 2001

Member of the investigative team

1. Sunil, Kisan Adivasi Sangathan, Kesla and Samajvadi Jan Parishad 2. Vijay Panda and Gajanand, Adivasi Mukti Sangathan, Sendhwa 3. Shamim Meghani, Shramik Adivasi Sangathan, Betul and Harda 4. Jacob Nellithanam, Indore 5. Rajendra Bajode and Baba Mayaram, Jhuggi-Basti Manch, Indore 6. Vasant Shintre, Trade Union Council 7. Arun Chauhan, Kisan Sabha, Indore 8. Vineet Tiwari, Sandarbh Documentation Centre, Indore 9. Venu Govindu, Friends of Narmada


ANNEXURE IV

PEOPLE UNION FOR DEMOCRATICE RIGHTS Press Release

The Mehendikheda police Firing and Related State Action in Bagli Tehsil, Dewas

A four member term for PUDR visited Dewas form April 13-15,2001 to investigate reports of a police firing at Mehendikheda village in which four people were killed. The team visited the following villages: Potla, Katukiya, Mehendikheda, Jamasindh, Sabalgarh, Chandupura, Pathar in Dewas and Katkut in Khargone district. We also met a number of people form civil society and Rahul Banerjee who is currently in Bagli jail. The team also met the Ranger officers of Udaynagar and Punjapura, the police in charge at Udaynagar and the DFO, M.S. Dhakad, at Dewas. The team came to the following conclusions. A detailed report is the follow. Decision to use force taken at Highest Level

1. The decision to crackdown that led to the death of four adivasis in the Mehendikheda firing as well as beating, looting, and demolition of houses in the villages of the area was taken at the highest political level. The minutes of the meeting convened by the Chief Secretary on February 19, 2001 attended, among others, by the DG Police, PCCF, Principal Secretary, Forest, Collector, SP and DFO and Dewas, the Conservator of Forest, Ujjain, handed over to us by the DFO, clearly state the Cabinet in its evaluation of the Gram Sampark 2000 took a decision that strict action should be taken in the districts of Khandwa, Khargone, and Dewas. After singling cut the villages associated with the Adivasi Sanghatan(s) the course of action is clearly stated in conclusion 3 of the minutes: “Any action initiated should be taken to its logical end.” The logical end is presumable the firing, demolition, and looting.

2. The meeting discussed the issue of encroachment and how it had been encouraged by mainstream political parties in the past. One person also advocated the destruction of standing crops in encroached fields. The IG Police advocated the use of force, in the presence of the senior officials of the district, burying internal departmental differences.

Denying the Right of the people to Organise 3. The Collector, Dewas complained that the Adivasi Mukti Sangathan was leading

villagers to believe that the forest was their, and discussed how to organise the adivasi against the Adivasi Morcha Sangathan, and separate the leaders of the Organisation from the movement. (Page 1 of minutes). The fact that the real issue was not encroachments or felling was confirmed to us by the DFO, who said: “Let us be very clear on this. The real issue was not to demolish houses or kill people but to finish extremism…. The demolitions were merely symbolic and were meant to create fear among people.” He admitted that the timber was used only for house construction and the members of the organisation had used timber solely for house construction; that wherever any houses had been constructed by non-Sanghatan members it was with the connivance of forest staff, and that there was also other mafia smuggling in


Dewas. One of the major problems, according to the DFO, was that “poor adivasis were now organised enough even to fight with the Collector and the SP.”

The DFO said that he told villagers that if they left the AMS and joined Van Samities, the cases against them under Section 26 of the Forest Act would be compounded with a token fine. In Samalpani Village Sanghatan members have been told that they will be given employment in forestry works only if they leave the Sanghatan.

People have a constitutional fundamental right to organise and form morchas and Sanghatans. If any illegal acts are committed, the persons responsible are to be prosecuted under the law. It is nor lawful for a Government department to organize people against any one organization. Neither is it lawful to target villages associated with a particular organization to demolish and loot, and deny them the right to equal employment opportunities provided by the administration and equal treatment under the law.

Not only is the Government violating people’s fundamental rights to organize but also violating the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1996), which gives adivasis in the 5th Schedule Areas control over the natural resources in their area, the right to dispute resolution, etc. A state version of this Act has also been passed by the MP Government.

Creating Non-Accountable Counter-Organisations to Divide the Public: Role of Van Suraksha Samitis The decision to finish the AMS is a accompanied by a conscious decision to promote Joint Forest management. However form visits to the VSS at Pathar and Chandupur, and other VSS in this area, it is evident that the VSS are not broadbased and consist of a few people who help the forest department. We did not come across any houses belonging to a VSS member which had been demolished. The VSS leaders were taken by the Forest Department as labour to demolish the houses in villages, which are not part of their own protected area, and were responsible for much of the looting. The amounts to creating a non-accountable force to conduct criminal activity and thereby to divide the villages. The fact that VSS members are seem by the Forest Department merely as labour also suggests that there is no attempt to promote any real Joint Forest Management. Ignoring National Forest Policy Resolution, 1988 NFPR 1988 says that people’s needs are the first charge on forest. By the DFO’s accounts, 450 cu m were confiscated from the villages. Every year Dewas divisions cut down 25,000 cu m under so-called scientific forestry, with Udainagar and Punjapura ranges alone accounting for 5000 cu m. It is clear that adivasi cutting wood for their houses are not responsible for most of the loss of forests in the area. Destruction of Life and Property


Evidence collected from the Villages: We examined 6 out of 11 demolished houses in Potla, all 22 demolished houses in Katukiya, 3 demolished houses in Mehendikheda and 2 in Jamasindh, one of which was built under the Indira Awas Yojana. All the houses show clear sings of being lived in. Some of the houses had no new construction most other were built on old house sits using wood from the old houses. All the demolished were done without giving notice, and in the absence of the owners as almost everyone had run into the forest out of fear. The DFO agreed that the villages were deserted because people were scared. There was a deliberate attempt to break the roof tiles and other household belongings. Grain bins have been broken, which ahs resulted in the grain being mixed with mud, and being eaten by cattle. Several houses, which were not demolished, were looted, including the anganwadi in Katukiya. Grain, silver, cooking and eating vessels, and clothes were also stolen. Sickles and other agricultural implements were prominent in the items looted and make it difficult for the people to carry on agricultural activity or obtain employment in the employment generation programmes. One woman came back from the forest to find that though her house was not demolished, all the edible items an grain in the house had been cooked and consumed. Some women from Katukiya and Mehendikheda complained that pesticide had been mixed with their water and grain. The average landholding in this area is 1-2 acres per family and everyone was spoke to relies on daily labour, either solely or in large part. Since there has been drought this year, there is very little agricultural employment available and the loss of grain and household belongings become even more serious. 3 women were picked up form Potla and charged under Sec 151 (preventive custody not exceeding 24 hours), and were detained for 11 days. Following the attack on neighboring Katukiya on the 1st, 30 year old Sadu, s/o Pema of Patakhal, Nimanpur Panchayat, was terrified when he saw a truck the next day. He tired to flee in a bullock cart, but the wheel got stuck. While trying to take it out, he stated vomiting blood and died a couple of days later. This incident provides and indication of the kind of fear the operation has induced. The Firing and after: In protect against the destruction and looting of the houses, the AMS organised a dharna and blocked the road near Jamasindh village on March 29, 2001. Despite information of the same, the administration turned a blind eye and rejected any opportunity for talks while continuing raids on the villages on the flimsy ground that the road was not much traveled. On the April 2, 2002 a large police party raided Mehendikheda village, barely 3 Km. form the dharna site. On hearing of the raid, villagers from the dharna site rushed to Mehendikheda village. The STF had by then divided itself over the four settlements of the village. Stone pelting started from both sides using catapults. The villagers and the STF were at least 200 mts. apart throughout according to the DFO. The villagers informed us that the distance was such that arrows could not cover it. The DFO claimed that the Collector gave the order for ‘effective firing-aim to shoot’ only when they were surrounded and the SAF started panicking. Given the vastness of the Mehendikheda plain the official account that the police were cornered and opened fire in self-defense is untenable. The STF party was large and had sufficient avenues of retreat. The firing was ordered to forcefully convey the authority of the Government. Of the four people killed the dead body of Bhal Singh, aka Bhulu, was not handed over to the family. The minutes of the high level meeting on February 19, 2001 do not note possession or use of arms by the AMS. The state version that


a mine was planted and those villages were trained in armed combat are lame excuse and a post-facto justification for the unnecessary and criminal use of force. The police came again a day later, this time to Jamasindh village. The party chased villagers out of their houses in a number of villages neighboring Jamasindh and Mehendikheda. People fled to the surrounding hills. An old man, Narshigh, unable to run, was badly beaten and is still recovering. At least 5 pump sets were thrown into wells. The terror generated by this action kept villagers, including small children, in hiding in the forest for the next three days with little water and food. Meanwhile cattle destroyed whatever crops, such as vegetables, which had been planted in the fields. In several villages, people said that they were told by the Forest Department staff that they would be back and demolish more houses. According to the Range Officer, Punjapura, 500-600 houses have been identified in 30 villages. Rahul Banerjee: As per the February 19, 2001 minutes, the only case which had been instituted against Mr. Banerjee was under Section 151 Criminal Procedure Code. This too was quashed. There is no mention of any other case pending against him. It is admitted by the administration that he was not present in Dewas district during this entire operation. The sequence of events make it clear that there was no question of criminal conspiracy to attempt to murder (under Sec 120B IPC, read along with Sec 307 IPC) is concocted and false. PURD demands: - Immediate suspension of those responsible for conducting the operation, including the

Collector, SP and DFO. - Registration of criminal offences concerning the killing of four people, illegal

destruction of houses and goods and looting. - Compensation is paid to the families of four persons killed in the firing. - Immediate compensation is paid to people whose houses have been destroyed to

enable them to rebuild the houses. - A judicial committee be instituted to assess the damage to household and agricultural

goods, and to ensure compensation for the same. - The false charge against Rahul Banerjee is dropped forthwith.


ANNEXURE V

THE APPLICATION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF MADHYA PRADESH

GIVING DETAILS OF THE MATERIAL LOST DURING THE DEMOLITION IN DEWAS DISTRICT

Shri Digvijay Singh Honorable Chief Minister Government of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal

Re: Unbearable repression by the administration and the government on adivasis of Bagli Tehsil of Dewas district

Respected Sir, We are Bhil and Bhilala adivasi residents of Jamasingh, Bisali, Katukia, Pandutalav, Potala, Shyampura, Sitapuri, Tivria, Mehendikheda, Kanad, Semli, Hirapur, Jhuladhar, Sivanpani and a few other village of Dewas district. We have been living in this area and its forest for quite a few generations. We are dependent of the forest and the land for our livelihoods. The forest department has been ruling over us for the past fifty years since Independence. Their policy has been to extort money form us, exploit our women, steal our chicken and ghee and ever prevent us from going to the forests for defection, We never got the felling that we were residing in an independent country. When our woes reached mountainous proportions we formed an organization to redress them. This organisation broke the chains of fear the shackled us and we stopped giving bribes to the forest guards. After all they were public servants and not kings. The forest department officials got angry at this and began trying to break our organisation. The administration and the forest department, disconcerted by our growing awareness, potted to smash our organization. Indeed we have heard that a ministerial level meeting was held to give sanction to this unholy plan. We are left wondering as to what great crime we had committed to attract such retribution. Thus began an endless night of repression and darkness in this area. We had neither seen such repression nor imagined that it could be possible. 28th March, 2001 Wednesday Village Katukia 29th March, 2001 Thursday Village Potala 30th March, 2001 Friday Village Patpadi 31st March, 2001 Saturday Village Jamasingh 1st April, 2001 Sunday Village Katukai 2nd April, 2001 Monday Village Mehendikheda 3rd April, 2001 Tuesday Village Jamasingh A “Task Force” of 400 to 500 armed police and forest official led by the Collector, Superintendent of Police and the Divisional Forest Officer used to raid these villages. They


would open fire on the villages on entering the villages, demolish the houses and extract the timber in them, destroy the grain bins and poison them with pesticides, look the personal belongings and valuables and decamp with the chicken. It seemed as if they wanted to wipe out our very existence. What crime did we commit to deserve such treatment? These people were not representatives the Government but a band a dacoits. We staged a peaceful dharma but the repression continued unabated. Finally we all assembled in Mehendikheda village to mediate with the district administration and deemed explanations form it. A whole week of unabated repression had already taken place. People had fled form their homes. All the men and women had begun living in the forest. Finally we decided that it would not do to be afraid but instead the madness of the administration would have to be countered through peaceful democratic dialogue. We all gathered together in Mehendikheda. But we did not get any opportunity to explain our point of view to the administration. The administration sprayed us with bullets even before we could open a dialogue with it. Four people were killed in police firing – Balram s/o Jerma (village Kanad, aged 25 years), Pathansingh s/o Chhotusingh (village Kanad, aged 25 years), Bholu s/o Ida (village Jamasingh, aged 30-35 years) and Nemichand Jaiswal (village Bisali, aged 40-45 years) and many other injured. The administration even abducted some of our women of whom three women form Potala village were in jail for ten days. After these murders the repression increased ever further. The task force entered villages after village and created mayhem. Today we want to tell you that you cant’s break our organisation through repression so why are you needlessly wasting your bullets. We are not afraid of your bullets. You cannot deprive us of our right to live with dignity through bullets, murder and looting. Our houses have become a thorn in the flesh for the administration but for generations we have used timber from the forest for this purpose. So what new crime did we commit to cause the administration to kill our youth. We want to plead with you not to forget your responsibilities and desist form treating our deaths as your victory. Your Government has been elected by us to do not betray our confidence in you. Democratic norms of behaviour demand that you stop this repression and adopt peaceful means. The Divisional Forest Officer in Barwah tehsil of Khargone district too had initiated a Programme of destruction of houses in the villages of Katkut, Okhla, Pipliyakheda, Akia, and Chainpura form March 18, 2001 onwards. Two men and one women have been wounded in firing by forest and police stag in Katkut village. Men and women were severely beaten up in Pipliyakheda and Okhla. Houses have been destroyed and looted. The member of the Adivasi Shakti Sangathan has been implicated in many false cases with the intention of breaking the organization. Notice and threats are being served of demolishing our houses. We have the following demands to make of the Government:

1. The Collector of Dewas Shri Ashok Barnwal, the Superintendent of Police Dewas Shri Sanjeev Shami, the Divisional Forest Officer Dewas Shri M.S. Dhakar and the Divisional Forest Official of Barwah should be dismissed for service.

2. The repression on the people should be stopped immediately. The police force should be removed from the villages. The programme of demolition of houses should be stopped immediately.


3. An enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation should be instituted, as we have no faith in a magisterial enquiry.

4. Those officers guilty of committing murder should be given appropriate punishment.

5. Demolished houses should be rebuilt and the loss due to looting should be compensated.

6. Those killed in police firing should be given five lakh rupees as compensation and the injured should also be property compensated.

LIST OF DAMAGES Villages Kaduriya

1. Manglasingh s/o Bhavsingh – demolished and took away a twenty year old houses which had the following material in it - i) 18 pillars ii) 6 cross beams iii) 6 long beams iv) wall poles v) 80 roof poles vi) stones vii) 1 silver waist band viii) 2 sickles ix) I iron digger x) iron farming utensils xi) a tape recorded and ten cassettes xii) a cloth towel xiii) destroyed two iron grain bins xiv) dispersed two guintals of grains in the dust xv) utensils xvi) damaged three thousand roof tiles.

2. Ballusingh s/o Bhavsingh – demolished and took away a house of four cubicles having the following materials – i) 18 pillars ii) 70 roof poles iii) 5 crossbeams iv) 5 longbeams v) 35 wooden supports vi) 100 bamboos vii) damaged 600 rooftiles viii) 3 axes ix) iron farming utensils x) 2 sickles xi) 1 Heavy hammer xii) destroyed 12 papaya trees.

3. Poonamsingh s/o Bhuvansingh – demolished and took away a house of four cubicles having the following materials – i) 5 crossbeams ii) 15 pillars iii) 70 roof poles iv) 10 longbeams v) damaged 8000 roof tiles vi) destroyed a briefcase vii) Rs 200 cash viii) 1 iron digger ix) 2 sickles x) iron farming utensils xi) 2 chicken xii) 500 gms of ghee.

4. Amarsingh s/o Bhavsingh – demolished and took away a house of four cubicles having the following other materials apart form timber – i) silver bracelet worn on the foot ii) silver bracelet worn on the arm iii) silver ornament worn on the foot iv) silver waist band v) Rs 35000 cash vi) 3 axes vii) 1 adze his wife Radhabai was illegally detained in Dewas for thirteen days.

5. Nattu s/o Devisingh – demolished and took away a house of two cubicles having the following materials – i) 3 crossbeams ii) 30 roof poles iii) 9 pillars iv) 5 longbeams v) 50 bamboos vi) damaged 3000 roof tiles and brick walls vii) 2 sickles viii) farming utensils ix) Rs 2500 cash

6. Karansingh s/o Bhavsingh – took away the following materials – i) 1 quintal barbed wire ii) Rs 100 cash iii) two bullock cart wheels v) 1 axe vi) 2 sickles vii) 1 adze viii) 1 iron digging implement

7. Roopsingh s/o Bandu – took away 1 quintal of barbed wire. 8. Gopalsingh s/o Devisingh – took away 50 kilos of barbed wire.

Village Katukiya

1. Bhuru s/o Ditia – took away the following materials - i) 50 kilos of gram ii) 5 chicken iii) 10 kilos of saunf iv)_2 pairs of pants and shirts v) 1 quintal wheat vi) 125 kilos of red gram


2. Dhyansingh s/o Ditia – took away the following materials – i) Rs 4500 cash ii) 1 quintal wheat iii) 7 chicken iv) 1 water retaining utensil v) things worth Rs 1500 form this grocery shop.

3. Nook s/o Ditia – took away the following materials – i) 1 quintal maize ii) 4 plates iii) 1 brass utensil iv) iron farming utensils v) 3 chicken

4. Jamsingh s/o Paharsingh - took away the following materials – i) iron farming utensils ii) 4 chicken iii) demolished and took away a house of 6 cubicles iv) damaged 8000 roof tiles.

5. Kalu s/o Chainsingh – took away the following materials - i) 3 quintal wheat ii) 1 quintal gram iii) 1 quintal red gram iv) 2 chicken v) iron farming utensils vi) damaged 3000 roof tiles.

6. Gopal s/o Chainsingh – took away the following materials – i) demolished and took away a house of three cubicles ii) damaged 1200 roof tiles iii) 3 quintals of wheat iv) 4 plates v) 3 tumblers vi) 2 brass water retaining utensils vii) 2 chicken

7. Shivran s/o Gopal - took away the following materials – i) demolished and took away a houses of three cubicles ii) damaged 1300 roof tiles iii) a pant and a shirt iv) 4 sets of saris, blouses and petticoats v) 2 plates vi) 3 tumblers vii) a brass utensil viii) 2 chicken

8. Dhansingh s/o Gopal – took away the following materials – i) demolished and took away a house of 3 cubicles ii) damaged 1100 roof tiles iii) a pant and shirt iv) 2 saris v) 5 plates vi) 6 tumblers vii) 1 chicken viii) two brass water retaining utensils

9. Thansingh s/o Suklal – took away the following materials - i) 750 gms of silver ii) 2 brass water retaining utensils iii) 4 spanners iv) 2 chicken v) 1 quintal wheat vi) 4 plates vii) 1 steel utensil

10. Motisingh s/o Chainsingh – took away the following material - i) 2 steel water lotas ii) 1 big trunk iii) 6 chicken iv) iron farming implements v) 2 big ropes vi) 50 kilos of gram vii) 50 kilos of red gram viii) 1 pant and shirt

11. Bherusingh s/o Motisingh – took away the following materials - i) 4 plates ii) 1 water lota iii) 1 steel tea pot iv) 20 kilos of wheat flour contaminated with pesticides v) 3 tumblers vi) 2 chicken vii) 1 big brass utensil viii) 50 kilos of wheat

12. Naharsingh s/o Motisingh – took away the following materials – i) 20 kilos of gram ii) 2 chicken iii) 50 kilo red gram iv) 2 trucks v) 2 big plates vi) 5 tumblers vii) 2 brass water retaining utensils

13. Kesarsingh s/o Kalu - took away the following material – i) 4 chicken ii) 5 kilo garlic iii) 50 kilos of wheat iv) 4 plates v) 1 brass utensil

14. Nihalsingh s/o Ditia – took away the following materials – i) 50 kilos of wheat ii) 50 kilos of maize iii) 50 kilos of gram iv) 10 kilos of gram dal v) 4 kilos of moong dal vi) 4 steel plates vii) 5 tumblers viii) 1 brass plate ix) 4 saris x) 1 blouse piece xi) iron farming implements xii) 2 chicken

15. Mangibai s/o Nihalsingh – took away the following materials – i) 23 tumblers ii) 23 small dishes iii) 10 bags of wheat meal to be used for feeding children coming to the anganwadi run by her iv) 4 plates v) 4 saris vi) 50 kilos of gram

16. Jalal s/o Bhachria – took away the following materials – i) 6 chicken ii) 4 thalis iii) 2 tumblers

17. Banesingh s/o Hira – i) 2 quintals of wheat 18. Balu s/o Paharsingh - i) 2 quintal of wheat ii) 2 chicken 19. Sardarsingh s/o Kishan – i) 1 kilo ghee ii) 5 chicken


20. Apsingh s/o Ramsingh – i) 1 adze ii) 1 axe iii) 3 chicken iv) silver waist band and ring

21. Ballu s/o Phahtia - i) demolished and took away a house of 5 cubicles ii) damaged 5000 roof tiles iii) iron farming implements iv) 5 steel thalis v) 2 big ropes vi) 25 feet of water pump suction pipe vii) 4 blankets viii) 4 sickles

22. Kansingh s/o Ballu – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles 11) 3000 2500 roof tiles iii) 2 brass water retaining utensils iv) 2 bags of plates v) 2 tumblers vi) 50 kg wheat

23. Gopal s/o Ballu – I) demolished and took away a house of 3 cubicles ii) 3000 roof tiles iii) 2 brass water retaining utensils iv) 2 bags of plates v) 2 tumblers vi) 50 kg wheat

24. Bisan s/o Ramsingh – i) iron farming implements ii) a pair of dancing bangles iii) 1 chicken iv) demolished and took away a houses of 5 cubicles

25. Amarsingh s/o Semrav – i) 10 kilos of sesame seed ii) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles iii) damaged 7000 country roof tiles

26. Ratan s/o Budda – i) 1 Torch ii) demolished and took away a house of four cubicles

27. Ramesh s/o Chamra – i) demolished and took away a house of 3 cubicles ii) 2 brass utensils iii) 2 steel utensils iv) iron farming implements v) 50 kilos of wheat

28. Chamaria s/o Dalla – i) 2 quintal mahua ii) 50 kilos wheat iii) 2 plates 29. Makun s/o Bhilu – i) a pair of dancing bangles ii) 1 chicken 30. Kishore s/o Jamsingh – i) 10 kilos of wheat 31. Monsingh s/o Ballu – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii)

damaged 5000 country roof tiles iii) 1 brass utensils iv) iron farming implements 32. Bhangra s/o Vakla – i) demolished and took away a house of five cubicles ii)

damaged 7000 country roof tiles. 33. Shobharam s/o Sukin – i) demolished and took away a house of three cubicles 34. Mansaram s/o Sitaram – i) demolished and took away a house of three cubicles 35. Dipsingh s/o Ramsingh – i) demolished and took away a house of five cubicles 36. Naharsingh s/o Munsia – i) 7 chicken ii) 1 quintal fodder 37. Galia s/o Munsia – i) 3 chicken ii) 50 kilos of maize 38. Suklal s/o Bhurla – i) 3 chicken ii) 1 tape recorder 39. Valsingh s/o Motesingh – i) 1 truck ii) 3 pants iii) 4 saris iv) 500 gms of silver 40. Devisingh s/o Juvansingh – i) demolished and took away a house of 10 cubicles 41. Tersingh s/o Maliya – i) demolished and took away a house 5 cubicles 42. Apsingh s/o Raisingh – i) demolished and took away a house 4 cubicles 43. Kishore s/o Galia – i) demolished and took away house 4 cubicles 44. Kallu s/o Juvansingh – i) demolished and took away house 4 cubicles

Village Mehendikheda

1. Hajari s/o Jiria – i) demolished and took away a houses of 2 cubicles ii) damaged 2000 roof tiles iii) clothes iv) farming implements

2. Richu s/o Punu – i) 5 quintal wheat ii) 1 quintal onions iii) Rs 5000 cash iv) 3 chicken v) 20 kilo red gram vi) 1 quintal maize vii) 1 quintal sorghum vii) 50 kg soya bean ix) blacksmith implements

3. Phulsingh s/o Budia – i) demolished and took away a house of 2 cubicles ii) flour contaminated with gamaxine iii) 500 gm silver foot bracelet iv) farming implements


4. Phulsinghs s/o Budia – i) quintal red gram ii) 5 quintal wheat iii) 4 chicken iv) 50 kilo onions v) 1 kilo silver vi) farming implements vii) 1 pickaxe vii) 10 gm gold earrings ix) flour contaminated with gamaxine

5. Munsingh s/o Nathu – i) ropes ii) utensils iii) clothes iv) 4 chicken 6. Juvansingh s/o Budia – i) demolished and took away a house of 2 cubicles ii)

damaged 2000 roof tiles iii) grazed 500 bundles of fodder iv) 250 gms of silver 7. Bathu s./o Budia – i) demolished and took away a house 5 cubicles ii) damaged

3200 roof tiles iii) 2 kilos of silver iv) 250 gm silver foot bracelet 8. Bansingh s/o Magtia – i) demolished and took away his house ii) 2 quintal wheat 9. Dedu s/o Magtia – i) demolished and took away a house of 3 cubicles ii) Rs 5000

cash 10. Lalsingh s/o Galsingh – i) demolished and took away the structure for retaining

fodder. Village Potla

1. Cheda s/o Nanuram – i) demolished and took away a house of five cubicles ii) damaged 2000 roof tiles iii) 4 quintal maize and 4 quintal wheat dispersed in the dust iv) Rs 3000 cash v) 2 silver bangles vi) eggs vii) pickaxe viii) pickaxe viii) farming implements ix) 500 gm silver: ornament x) 1 adze xi) 1 axe xii) bows and arrows

2. Redu s/o Nanuram – i) demolished and took away a house of five cubicles ii) 10 kg sesame iii) Rs 5000 cash iv) 3 saris v) 2 pants vi) 1 petticoat vii) water contaminates with pesticides viii) crockery ix) water retaining utensils x) farming implements

3. Kedar s/o Nanuram – i) demolished and took away a house of 5 cubicles ii) damaged 2000 roof tiles iii) Rs 4000 worth of silver ornaments iv) farming implements v) drinking water contaminated with pesticides

4. Saisingh s/o Nahla – i) demolished and took away a house of five cubicles ii) damaged 3200 roof tiles iii) farming implements iv) beat up children

5. Bathu s/o Nagdia – i) demolished and took away a house of one cubicle ii) damaged 2000 roof tiles iii) utensils and crockery iv) farming implements

6. Devisingh s/o Richa – i) demolished and took away a house of three cubicles ii) crockery and utensils iii) farming implements

7. Abhesingh s/o Versia – i) demolished and took away a house of four cubicles ii) farming implements iii) crockery iv) tow pairs of ornaments for bullocks

8. Sursingh s/o Nahla – i) demolished and took away his house ii) 50 kg maize iii) farming implements iv) crockery

9. Balu s/o Versingh – i) demolished and took away a house of four cubicles ii) drinking water contaminated with pesticides iii) farming implements

10. Harsingh s/o Ringnia – i) demolished and took away a house of four cubicles ii) farming implements iii) two pairs of ornaments for bullocks

11. Nathu s/o Gavli – i) demolished and took away a house of five cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) farming implements iv) drinking water contaminated with pesticides v) crockery vi) wife Sairabai was dragged away by the hair by the police and kept in custody for eleven days.

Village Patpadi


1. Ramsingh s/o Bharat – i) demolished and took away a house of five cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) burnt 5000 bundles of grass iv) 250 gm silver foot bracelet v) 1 sword vi) a small bullock cart vii) 1 radio viii) 12 chicken ix) farming implements

2. Gangaram sarpanch – i) demolished and took away a house of four cubicles and he was arrested and kept in custody for twenty odd days.

3. Premsingh s/o Dungarsingh – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 2000 roof tiles iii) 8 quintal wheat iv) 1 quintal gram v) Rs 50000 worth of clothes for marriage vi) Rs 4000 cash viii) 5 chicken viii) 2 goats ix) farming implements

4. Dungar s/o Kalu – i) demolished and took away a house of 3 cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) 2 quintal wheat iv) 1 goat v) Rs 1000 cash vi) clothes

5. Bondar s/o Kalu – i) demolished and took away a house of four cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) 2 quintal wheat iv) clothes v) crockery

6. Sigdar s/o Jagsingh – i) demolished and took away a house of four cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) 1 quintal wheat iv) farming implements

7. Dedu s/o Bhuvan – i) demolished and took away a house of 5 cubicles ii) damaged 4000 roof tiles iii) 2 quintal wheat iv) 1 sword v) farming implements

8. Sardar s/o Bondar – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) 1 quintal sorghum iv) farming implements

9. Ramesh s/o Jamsingh – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) 1 quintal groundnuts iv) farming implements v) 5 quintal wheat

10. Bhavsingh s/o Thavria – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) crockery iv) farming implements

11. Roopsingh s/o Thavria – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) crockery iv) farming implements

12. Gildar s/o Vesta – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 3000 roof tiles iii) 3 silver coins

13. Remsingh s/o Keria – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 3500 roof tiles iii) 1 quintal wheat iv farming implements

14. Sitaram bhai – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 2800 roof tiles iii) 3 goats iv) clothes v) farming implements

15. Vilson bhai – i) demolished and took away a house of 4 cubicles ii) damaged 2900 roof tiles.

Village Jamasingh

1. Jhendli w/o Mansingh – House build under the Government’s Indira Awaas Yojana Scheme with a grant of Rs 17000 was demolished and the timber taken away – i) 15 pillars ii) 5 crossbeams iii) 10 longbeams iv) 70 poles v) damaged 1000 roof tiles, 2 doors, 1 cot, 4 window jails vi) 1 quintal gram vii) 50 kilo groundnuts viii) 25 kilo sesame ix) 1 axe x) 2 sickles xi) 2 steel plates xii) 1 water lota xiii) 2 chicken xiv) 1 clock xv) 5 ropes

2. Jhinia s/o Vesa – i) 20 kilo gram ii) kilo dal iii) 2 quintal rice iv) 10 kilo black gram v) 15 kilo sesame vi) 4 pillars vii) 1 adze viii) 4 chisels ix) 1 axe x) 1 planer xi) 4 water retaining utensils xii) earthen utensils xiii) 1 aluminum vessel

3. Bhaya s/o Vechan – i) 2 earthen water retaining vessels ii) 1 brass vessel iii) 1 aluminum vessel iv) 10 poles v) 4 wooden supports


4. Rukhdia s/o Khandia – i) 15 chicken ii) 1 pickaxe iii) agricultural implements iv) 2 bullock cart wheels v) 2 axes vi) 12 ropes vii) 2 pairs of ornaments for bullocks viii) 8000 Tantia Bhil posters ix) 5000 Tantia Bhil booklets x) agricultural implements xi) crockery xii) damaged one grain bin xiii) Rs 600 cash

5. Khandu s/o Vechan – i) wooden rice pounder ii) 1 stone chutney grinder iii) 2000 roof tiles damaged iv) 12 wooden supports v) 18 pillars vi) 6 crossbeams vii) 2 doors viii) 2 doors damaged ix) 2 grain bins x) 10 quintals of sorphum and wheat dispersed in the dust xi) 150 kilo groundnuts xii) 150 kilo red gram xiii) 1 TV xiv) 1 radio xv) 1 tape recorder xvi) 1 wheat flour grinding machine damaged xvii) 1 tube light xviii) Rs 45000 cash xix) agricultural implements xx) 9 ropes xxi) 2 aluminum vessels xxii crockery xxiii) wrist watch xxiv) clock xxv) 4 quilts xxvi) 2 saris xxvii) 8 dhotis xxviii) 3 motor starters xxix) 30 spanners xxx) 1 pesticide sprayer xxxi) carpenter’s vise.

6. Renju s/o Vangria – i) 2 steel plates ii) 2 sickles iii) 2 ropes iv) 1000 roof tiles damaged v) crockery vi) 1 chicken vii) 1 sword

7. Jemal s/o Khandu – i) 6 crossbeams ii) 10 longbeams iii) pillars iv) 20 poles v) damaged the walls of the house vi) agricultural implements vii) 15 kilo groundnuts viii) 1 pail ix) crockery x) 400 grams ghee xi) 3 quintal sorghum xii) 50 kilos of maize

8. Chatarsingh s/o Sankia – i) 50 kilo redgram ii) 15 kilo groundnut iii) 1 quintal maize iv) 2 quintal wheat v) 10 pillars vi) 10 longbeams

9. Rumal s/o Bhadia – i) Bullock injured by bullets Village Sabalgarh

1. Ratan s/o Jamsingh – i) dropped a 3 hp water pump into a well ii) cut and damaged 1000 feet of irrigation pipes iii) destroyed sown plots of cotton and bhindi.

2. Shankar s/o Nathu – i) dropped a water pump into a well ii) cut and damaged 500 feet of irrigation pipes

3. Bathu s/o Suban – i) dropped a 2 hp water pump into a well ii) cut and damaged pipes 4. Jagat s/o Kalu – i) dropped a water pump into a well ii) damaged pipes iii) 2 chicken 5. Sonsingh s/o Manglia – i) 2 bullocks dead ii) 10 brass plats iii) 1 big brass plate iv) 1

goat v) 10 chicken 6. Madan s/o Gania – i) 1 cow and its calf dead ii) 5 goats iii) 3 quintal wheat 7. Gangaram s/o Ditiya – i) 3.2 acres of cotton crop destroyed ii) damaged a drum iii) 10

quintals of wheat fed to cattle iv) broke water vessels v) 3 quintals of soyabean fed to cattle vi) 5 quintals of maize

Village Mirzapur

1. Champalal s/o Balu – i) demolished and took away a house ii) 1 goat iii) 2 chicken iv) contaminated grain with pesticides v) destroyed sown plots of green gram, cotton and vegetables vi) contaminated wheat with fertilisers

Village Bisali

1. Remsingh s/o Jamsingh – i) 1.3 acre plot of maize destroyed ii) vegetable plots destroyed

2. Rakesh s/o Haresingh – i) 1 quintal wheat


Village Kakadpura

1. Dipsingh s/o Chita – i) 1.5 hectare plot of sown cotton destroyed ii) a cow and bullock dead

Those injured in Mehendikheda police firing

i) Bhimsingh s/o Raisingh – shot in the right leg and in the stomach ii) Ramesh s/o Naharsingh – shot in the let iii) Sunil s/o Magan – shot in the right arm

Events in Khargone district

1. Injured in police firing in village Katkut – i) Guman s/o Fulsingh ii) Naru s/o Kutria iii) Janubai d/o Mitthu

2. Those implicated in false cases – i) Chotu s/o Gulsingh ii) Gulsingh s/o Kutria iii) Bisan s/o Varju iv) Mojiram s/o Badri v) Sojiram s/o Gulsingh vi) Karchan s/o Rulia vii) Sarjan s/o Gumsingh Viii) Ashram s/o Gulsingh ix) Bhagirath mistri

Village Okhla Jawansingh s/o Amarsingh – demolished and took away a house and damaged roof tiles. Three women beaten up – i) Resli w/o Bhalsingh ii) Champabai d/o Khilal iii) Mulabai w/o Jawansingh. A false case registered against 13 people from the village. People beaten up and a house of three cubicles belonging to Mitthu s/o Mohan demolished and taken away in Village Pipliyakheda.


ANNEXURE VI

LIST OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO WHOM INVITES WERE SENT

1. Chief Minister Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 2. Chief Secretary Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 3. Mr. Ashok Banarwal The Collector Dewas District M.P. 4 Mr. Pravin Jain S.D.M. Dewas District M.P. 5. Mr. S.S. Dhakad DFO Dewas District M.P. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Samnir S.P. Dewas District M.P.

terrorism sans terrorists - independent … sans...indian people’s tribunal on environment &...

Documents