By Bagaicha Research Team
Summary
This is a research study undertaken to
document and highlight the problems of impoverished Adivasis and
Moolvasis of Jharkhand, who are being accused as Maoists. Maoists
are simplistically referred to as Naxalites in the commercial media.
This is on account of Maoists’ historical roots in the armed
struggles of the mid-sixties against feudal landlordism that sprang
forth in the wake of the peasants struggle at Naxalbari in northern
West Bengal. Armed struggle of Maoists differs from the supposedly
peaceful legislative and administrative process preferred by the
parliamentary left. Maoists might believe that the state and the
system may have to be demolished and transformed through forcible
means in order to bring about equity and justice for the
underprivileged majority. The ruling elites, however, prefer to
denigrate this radical category of Indian communists by referring to
them as “left wing extremists,” and hence often considering them
punishable by law even as terrorists and/or conspirators against
“the state”.
This study discloses several
undisclosed, striking realities about alleged “Naxalite”
undertrials in Jharkhand. Disproportionately large numbers of
Adivasis, Dalit and other backward castes (generically referred to
as Adivasi-Moolvasis) have been trapped in several false cases
especially when they try to assert their constitutional and human
rights that are often violated by those who consider themselves
“upper” castes/ classes and the state system that serves the
interests of those who follow the highly manipulated and prejudiced
logic of “uppers” versus “lowers” in Indian society. This
argument is corroborated by discussing the very poor responses from
Jharkhand’s jails to petitions served under the Right to
Information Act 2005, presenting relevant data gathered from 102
alleged Naxalite under-trials from eighteen districts of Jharkhand
and by sharing personal experiences of several alleged Naxalite
under-trial detainees in Jharkhand’s jails. Fieldwork for this
study was undertaken from early March to the end of June 2015 by
paying personal visits to families and villages of arrested persons
presently out on bail and those incarcerated for long. These persons
have been alleged as Naxalites and foisted cases mostly under
section 17 of the Criminal Law and Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act 2004. A summary of the significant findings of the study in
quantitative terms is as follows.
About 46 per cent of under-trials
under study belongs to the age-group 29-40 years and 22 per cent
belongs to 18-28 years. Adivasis or Scheduled Tribes constitute 69
per cent of the respondents. About 42 per cent of respondents
belongs to Sarna Adivasis; 31 per cent Hindu, 25 per cent Christian
and two per cent are Muslims. 78 per cent of the respondents is
married and 17 per cent unmarried. Agriculture is the main
occupation of about 63 per cent and about 17 per cent are casual
labours. 22 per cent of the total respondents owns 3-5 acres of
cultivable land; 14 per cent two acres and 23 per cent one acre.
However, respondents’ monthly income shows that 59 per cent earns
up to or less than Rs. 3000only and 38 per cent earns up to Rs. 5000
or less, showing a very low productivity of their landholdings.
Arrest of about 93 per cent of all
respondents has taken place during the last 15 years i.e., between
2001 and 2015. The highest number of arrests occurred between the
year 2010 and 2013.Regarding the location of arrests, the data shows
that about 57 per cent was arrested from their homes; 30 per cent
was arrested from nearby towns or on journey; 8 per cent had
surrendered at the court after being informed by the police about
their being charge sheeted. Five per cent of the respondents was
summoned to the police station to be arrested. At the time of
interview, 84 per cent of all respondents was under trial. They
continue to attend courts on a regular basis. About five per cent of
them has stopped attending the court after being bailed out due to
fear of being harassed by the police again although their cases have
not yet been disposed of. About six per cent of them is still in
prison.
One of the most significant findings
of the this study is that 97 per cent of all 102 respondents, who
were accused as being Maoists or ‘helpers of Maoists’ reiterate
that the allegations by the police is wrong and their arrests and
imprisonment were based on misinformation.Other significant findings
of the study is that a large number of fake cases under the
draconian 17 CLA Act, UAPA and the anti-state sections of the IPC
have been foisted upon the Adivasis, Dalits and the other backward
classes in various parts of Jharkhand, particularly within the last
decade. All this is part of the gross misuse of the criminal justice
system by the state which favours only the rich and powerful to the
detriment of the poor and downtrodden, and is now more and more
unscrupulously in favour of the take-over of the economically
poorest people’s land and the nation’s resources by both
multinational and domestic corporates (corporatization). At the
local level there are certain vested interests that act
hand-in-glove with the police to foist such fake cases against
innocent people with whom they might have some scores to settle. It
is also evident that in the current system, justice remains very
much beyond the means of most of those who have been falsely
accused. Moreover, once implicated in such cases, the threat of
further persecution in the form of various forms of harassment,
intimidation, re-arrests, etc. persist even after the accused are
released on bail. Even after being released on bail, their cases,
mostly false and often fabricated, have been prolonged unnecessarily
causing major financial difficulties.
Another dimension of this study
exposes the deliberate misuse of criminal justice procedures to
repress alleged Naxalite undertrial detainees inside Jharkhand’s
jails. This section of the report presents a range of very
significant findings: (1) instance of blatant torture while in
custody, in gross violation of the rights of prisoners, (2)
administrative procedures that amount to blocking and inhibiting
pre-trial and trial proceedings while under detention, (3) serial
foisting of cases/re-arrests, (4) exceedingly faked-up cases that do
not deserve cognizance of even arrest, not to speak of case
committal, (5) prejudiced denial of bails, (6) under-trial detention
amounting to unwarranted conviction, (7) large proportion of
acquittals indicates gross misuse of the criminal justice system,
and (8) convictions by the lower courts (whether dismissed by the
higher courts or not) that reflect upon the sordid state of
adjudication.
The prolonged detention and the
exceedingly slow pace of progress of cases, especially retarded due
to the serial foisting of multiple case, jail transfers on
administrative grounds, non-production from jails to all the courts
on the respective dates of hearing, production through
video-conferencing also hindered for months and years on end due to
technical failures of the machinery, communication failures and
administrative lacunae – all these together result in accused
persons being punished for offences which they may not have
committed.
This state of affairs might also
suggest that a large number of people have also been so punished on
political grounds of their oppositions to the policies of the
reigning state. Some of the policies of the state might have been
perceived as anti-people, exploitative, and leading to the rapacious
plunder of the natural resources that belong not to the state and
the corporate houses, but to the peasants and other sincere and
toiling masses who have been their care-takers and possessors for
centuries together and who are the real owners of our national
wealth.
These findings in the context of
Maoist or “extremist” activities and the history of Adivasis’
sustained struggles to maintain their constitutional and human
rights have prompted the authors of this report to delve into
certain analytical depth. Accordingly, the authors draw a genealogy
of the ideological and schismatic differences that exist between
Adivasis and the so-called “mainstreams” which underlies at the
root of on-going conflict between the two. This analytical
discussion provides a better understanding of who Adivasis are and
why and how a vast majority of Adivasis continue to remain
impoverished and marginalized.
This report also argues and explicates
that left wing extremism is an important symptom, like many others,
aggravated by some of the perennial issues engendered by cultural
and structural violence which produce endemic poverty, massive
illiteracy, hunger and mal-nourishment, rampant corruption,
continued oppression and exploitation of the less privileged by the
powerful. All of these point to deeper and often neglected
structural and systemic problems that call for a more realistic and
in-depth analysis and reform of Indian society with its specific
socio cultural ideologies and practices that embody several
unexamined unequal, oppressive, and exploitative relationships. The
analytical chapter of this report suggests that a realistic and
closer look at who the deprived and marginalised Adivasis are, and
why they remain the way they do, as opposed to mainstream, might
generate several innovative insights. Such innovative insights might
prove useful for a more sustainable, democratic and egalitarian
structure as opposed to the prevalent, extremely violent system that
produces and reproduces endemic poverty, undernourishment,
humiliation, and silent slow hunger deaths of millions.
Download (PDF, 1.23MB)
- See more at:
http://sanhati.com/excerpted/16044/#sthash.H4ftCggE.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment