Violación de los derechos civiles y políticos de los pueblos indígenas en la India
Publicamos aquí el informe completo, sin sus apéndices sus fuentes, «Violación de los Derechos Civiles y Políticos de los Pueblos Indígenas en la India», Una presentación al Comité de Derechos Humanos de la ONU para el próximo examen del PIDCP de la India (2024) por el Foro contra la Militarización y la Corporatización, India, la Fundación The London Story, Países Bajos, Solidaridad Internacional por la Libertad Académica en la India, India Proyecto de justicia, Alemania, y London Mining Network, Reino Unido.
El informe destaca la violencia genocida que se está desatando contra los campesinos adivasi en Bastar, que se ha intensificado en 2024. Hasta el momento, cerca de 200 personas han sido asesinadas en Bastar este año. El Estado indio está perpetrando esta violencia genocida contra su propio pueblo para asegurarse el saqueo corporativo a punta de pistola. El Estado intenta apoderarse de las tierras de los campesinos y desplazarlos mediante esta guerra contra el pueblo.
El informe presenta información general sobre la región y su militarización. Además, habla explícitamente de las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, las detenciones arbitrarias, los bombardeos indiscriminados, las amenazas a los abogados y la supresión de la asistencia jurídica, la intimidación y el silenciamiento de los periodistas, la violencia sexual y la violación del derecho de recurso como medidas aplicadas por el viejo Estado indio como parte de la guerra contra los pueblos de la India.
Violation of Civil and Political Rights
of Indigenous Peoples in India
A submission to the UN Human Rights Committee for
India’s forthcoming ICCPR review (2024)
Submission made by:
Forum Against Militarization and Corporatization, India
Foundation The London Story, The Netherlands
International Solidarity for Academic Freedom in India (Worldwide)
India Justice Project, Germany
London Mining Network, UK
THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY THREE INDIAN DIASPORA-LED ORGANISATIONS – INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY WITH ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN INDIA (INSAF INDIA), FOUNDATION THE LONDON STORY, AND INDIA JUSTICE PROJECT, IN COLLABORATION WITH LONDON MINING NETWORK, AND FACAM.
FORUM AGAINST CORPORATIZATION AND MILITARIZATION (FACAM) IS A DELHI- BASED PLATFORM OF MULTIPLE CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS IN INDIA WITH GROUND PRESENCE IN THE REGION. FACAM GATHERED FIRSTHAND INFORMATION, CORROBORATED VIA EXPERT TESTIMONIES, ON-GROUND REPORTS AND IMAGES SHARED BY HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS (HRDS).
FOUNDATION THE LONDON STORY IS AN INDIAN-DIASPORA LED NOT FOR PROFIT REGISTERED CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATION BASED IN THE HAGUE. FOUNDATION TLS FOCUSES ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA.
INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN INDIA (INSAF) IS AN INDIAN DIASPORA LED COLLECTIVE OF ANTI-CASTE ACADEMICS AND SCHOLARS FOCUSING ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN INDIA.
INDIA JUSTICE PROJECT IS A DIASPORA LED COLLECTIVE BASED OUT OF GERMANY. IJP FOCUSES ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN INDIA.
LONDON MINNING NETWORK, UK IS AN ALLIANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, DEVELOPMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, FOCUSED ON RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.
FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS REPORT PLEASE CONTACT
VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN INDIA
A SUBMISSION TO THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE FOR INDIA’S FORTHCOMING ICCPR REVIEW (2024)
Chapter 1: Introduction
India’s Constitution recognises 705 groups as “Scheduled Tribes” (Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples). Although the list does not include all Adivasis within the country, by official estimates from the 2011 Census (the latest country-level survey available), Adivasis – at 104.3 million – make up 8.6% of India’s total population. Nearly 90% reside in rural and forest areas. Articles 15(4) and 46 of the Constitution provide special protections for Scheduled Tribes and India also supports Indigenous rights through legal frameworks such as the Fifth Schedule for central-eastern India and the Sixth Schedule for parts of northeast India, and through endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Fifth Schedule provides for the administration and control of tribal areas in ten States including Chhattisgarh. India legally recognises the rights of customary self-governance of Adivasis over their ancestral lands and resources through traditional institutions such as the Gram Sabhas. Additionally, there are several legislations to aid tribal self-governance such as the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 and Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. However, despite these legal guarantees, India continues to expand militarised mining operations in tribal regions, particularly in the Bastar Division of Chhattisgarh, which stands out as one of the most militarised regions in India.
India has ratified the ICCPR, which obliges it not only to respect civil and political rights, but also to ensure they are not violated in practice. India has not undergone an ICCPR review since 1997. In this submission, we provide evidence of violations of the ICCPR in Chhattisgarh state, which is rich in natural resources. This report focuses on ICCPR violations taking place in the southern region of Chhattisgarh commonly known as Bastar Division, comprising the seven districts of Bastar, Dantewada, Bijapur, Narayanpur, Sukma, Kondagaon and Kanker, between 2021 and 2024. These violations range from extrajudicial killings to torture and arbitrary arrests under sedition and anti-terrorism laws.
These human rights violations have been extensively documented by national and international civil society organisations. There have been at least two previous submissions on Bastar to the United Nations by Human Rights Defenders Alert, and India Justice Project, London Mining Network and seven other organisations. Additionally, in 2016, several stakeholders submitted a communication to UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights in Bastar.6 Since then, violations of civil and political rights have further worsened, with five reported episodes of aerial warfare in the Bijapur and Sukma districts between 2021 and 2024. This report provides a narrative description of potential ICCPR violations and additional information of select cases in tabular format.
There is evidence that India has violated the following civil and political rights under the ICCPR:
Chapter 2: Demographic and Geographic
Information of Chhattisgarh
As per the 2011 Census of India, there are 42 Scheduled Tribes in the state of Chhattisgarh comprising a population of 7.8 million and constituting 26.5% of the total state population (29.4 million) (Figure 1). This population includes various Indigenous groups such as the Gonds, Khonds, Koyas, Madias, Bhils, some of whom are categorised as “particularly vulnerable tribal groups” by the Government of India.
Fig. 1 District-wise Distribution of Scheduled Tribes in Chhattisgarh
The map shows 28 districts as per 2012 district redesignation. Kondagaon was carved out of Narayanpur, and Sukma out of Dantewada districts in 2012. See Table 1 below for the Bastar-division district-wise ST population.
Despite the presence of Indigenous populations in several districts, only seven districts in Chhattisgarh are recognised as full Fifth Schedule Area (FSA) districts, and six are partially recognised. Hence, large parts of the areas with Adivasi populations are still excluded from the special Constitutional safeguards and protections. Moreover, the literacy rate and socio-economic and human development indicators in all seven districts that comprise Bastar are among the lowest in the country (table 1)
Table 1: Demographic information about Bastar, Chhattisgarh (2011)
This is despite Chhattisgarh being ranked second highest in terms of its estimated potential value for mineral production. The State contains over 28 known varieties of minerals including precious stones, iron, coal, bauxite and rare-earth minerals such as niobium, cerium, yttrium, lithium and tantalum, with wide applications in electronics, superconductors, aerospace industry and batteries. Chhattisgarh is therefore of interest to both public and private sector mining and industrial/production companies. India’s sole tin-ore deposits and high-quality iron-ore are in the Bastar Division. The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MMSE) predicts Chhattisgarh as the future “Energy State” of India.
The Government of India (GoI) has allowed and facilitated mining by numerous private and public sector corporations in this region, leading to forcible acquisition of Adivasi lands and proliferation of extractive industries. The Adivasis have been subjected to massive dispossession and displacement from their farms, forests and commons lands.
Chapter 3: Militarisation in Context of Mining and Forcible Land Alienation in Bastar
Bastar has been a site of ongoing armed conflict stretching over decades, and it is well-recognised within official State documents and reports as an area with heavy militarisation. The below section provides a brief overview of State-facilitated and -led operations against Adivasis and their resistance against acquisition of their land and resources.
Salwa Judum (2007) to Operation Kagar (2024)
The Salwa Judum was a militia constituted of a section of the local population, mobilised and deployed by the State as to counter the growing Indigenous resistance in southern Chhattisgarh in 2007. The inception of Salwa Judum coincided with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with Indian multinational corporation Tata Steel, sanctioning large tracts of land for a steel plant and an agreement with another Indian multinational, Essar Group, for the construction of a 267-km pipeline. It has been reported that the villages in Dantewada district were forcibly removed by way of looting and burning, driving Adivasis occupying these villages into roadside settlements and relief camps. In just about two years, Salwa Judum reportedly burnt or cleared out 644 of the 1,354 villages in Dantewada district, with hundreds of disappearances, extrajudicial killings (see section 4.a) and sexual violence (see section 4.f). Several Civil Society and Democratic Rights organisations (CSDR) have estimated the number of displaced Adivasis to be around 350,000. The militia members were provided State support through their appointment as Special Police Officers (SPOs) under the Chhattisgarh Police Act 2007. In 2011, the Indian Supreme Court declared Salwa Judum unconstitutional. To circumvent this decision, the Chhattisgarh government passed the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which regularised all SPOs effective from 5 July 2011. As per Section 11(1), “notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court”, every SPO shall be absorbed into the new auxiliary force for six months. Large-scale anti-insurgency operations similar to Salwa Judum continue to inflict atrocities against locals, with special recruitment drives from among the Adivasis for some regiments such as the District Reserve Guards (DRGs) and the Bastar Fighters, in which about 2,100 otherwise unemployed Adivasi youth have been recruited to work alongside the Special Task Force (STF) and the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF). The continued recruitment and use of members of Adivasi communities as government auxiliary forces in attacks on the Adivasis in Bastar, has given rise to a longstanding civil war-like situation. Operation Green Hunt was a full-blown military operation where the Indian Army was used alongside Salwa Judum SPOs to repress Adivasis. In March 2011, SPOs and security forces burned down 300 homes in Tadmetla and neighbouring villages in Sukma District. The night of 28 June 2012 witnessed brutal attacks by security personnel on an unarmed civilian gathering in the common ground between Sarkeguda, Kottaguda and Rajpenta villages in Bijapur District to discuss the forthcoming seed festival. The security forces surrounded them and open fired without warning or provocation. Seventeen villagers were reportedly killed and six grievously injured. A judicial commission report was published in 2019, but no investigation or action has been taken against the named perpetrators yet. Similarly, in 2013, in Edesmeta in Bijapur District, security forces fired without provocation, killing eight villagers, declared insurgents’ post-death by the State. Nine years later, a judicial commission found the State’s accusation baseless, and the killing as extrajudicial with disproportionate use of force. Operation Green Hunt was never openly acknowledged by the State agencies, and it continues to exist in many forms and shapes in different parts. A fact-finding conducted in 2015 found that approximately 60,000 to 100,000 armed forces were stationed in southern Chhattisgarh. Operation SAMADHAN-Prahar was presented in 2017 as a “final solution” by GoI to the “Maoist problem” in Bastar, using military technologies to counter and eliminate. Under the operation, GoI aims to build 400 paramilitary camps. It is estimated that over 200 such camps are already in place in the Bastar division (see Annexure A). Operation Kagar was initiated in January 2024 with a similar agenda of crushing Adivasi’s movement for protection of their land and resources.
We now provide details of the violations to civil and political rights of Adivasis in Bastar that have happened as part of these operations.
Chapter 4: Potential Violations of ICCPR Obligations
4.a Extrajudicial killings (also see Table 2)
Extrajudicial killings and/or ‘encounter killings’i by the State forces are rampant in Bastar. Between December 2023 and May 2024 alone, Bastar experienced a spike in the incidents of extrajudicial killings of alleged Naxalites, civilians, women and children. ICCPR Article 6 states that every person has an inherent right to life, protected by the law and no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their life. ICCPR Article 4 states that this right cannot be waived even in times of public emergency threatening the life of the nation. No derogation is permitted from this right, even in situations of armed conflict. Extrajudicial killings of civilians and even alleged Naxalites by the Indian security forces in Chhattisgarh, and their excessive and disproportionate use of force, violate the right to life as outlined in Article 6.
The lack of adequate independent investigation into the role of the State in extrajudicial killings and no prosecution of the persons responsible violates the victims right to remedy under ICCPR Article 2(3). Article 2(3) mandates that every person whose rights under the ICCPR have been violated will have the right to an effective remedy, even if the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. The rights of the person must be determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities. The incidents outlined below show that the Indian State has persistently violated Article 2(3) and Article 6 of the ICCPR. India is a signatory to the ICCPR and cannot abdicate its responsibility to protect the right to life and investigate the excessive and disproportionate use of force by the Indian security forces.
Direct evidence from the ground, the testimonies of villagers and witnesses to the killings, CSDR fact-finding teams and our ground investigations, have repeatedly found patterns of killings which violate the Article 2(3) and Article 6 of the ICCPR. HRD and journalist Malini Subramaniam, former head of the Chhattisgarh chapter of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and recipient of the International Press Freedom Award (2016), told the authors of this report (see Annexure B):
“The fear is not so much of the persons ‘rounded up’ and produced as Maoists and sent to jail, but of ‘being killed in staged encounter’ as has been seen in the last couple of months. … Since the ‘anti-Naxal operations have been completely handed over to the special police force created called the District Reserve Guard (DRG), instances of ‘staged encounters’, wanton arrests, beating up of villagers, … have gone up.”
Bela Bhatia, an HRD, researcher and academic also stated that:
“My investigations of these incidents have shown that unarmed civilians were shot at and killed on suspicion of being Maoists, other civilians were killed in alleged encounters, and there were also killings of unarmed Maoist cadre as well as ex-Maoist cadre who had returned to their villages after the movement. Many of those who have lost their lives in these incidents are youth, women and even children, the youngest being only six months old.” (see Annexure C)
The Indian State justifies these killings by invoking the threat of alleged “Left-Wing Extremists”, to internal security and stability of the country. However, the first UN Principle on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary, and Summary Executions specifically states that government actions to maintain internal political stability may not be invoked as a justification of extrajudicial executions. Similarly, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials also state that security forces must prioritise non-violent methods and only resort to force as a last resort when there is a threat to life. If force is unavoidable to address a threat to life, it must be proportionate, minimise injury, and respect human life. Any use of lethal force by law enforcement must be thoroughly investigated, with those responsible for unlawful actions prosecuted. The UN Basic Principles seek to set and define the human rights standards enshrined in the ICCPR, which is binding on India.
4.b Arbitrary arrests of villagers and human rights defenders (also see Table 3)
Article 9(1) ICCPR enshrines that every person has the right to liberty and security and against arbitrary arrest or detention. Article 9(3) states that any person deprived of their liberty is entitled to legal recourse and a trial within a reasonable time. Undue delays in trial by the Indian State for the extended incarceration of Adivasis and HRDs violate these rights. Article 10(1) states that all persons deprived of their liberty should be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity and mistreatment of detainees in the duration of their arrest and detention by the State violates this right. Article 14(1) lays down the right to a fair trial which includes the right to a trial without undue delay in Article 14(3)(c) and the right to presumption of innocence in Article 14(2). The denial of care to detainees and excessive delays in trial without justification are violations of these rights.36 Ordinary laws, such as Indian Penal Code sections 147, 148 and 149 (participating in “unlawful” public assemblies) and sections 302 (punishment for murder) and/or section 307 (attempt to murder); the Arms Act, 1959; and the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 are employed in an extraordinary fashion. Despite there being no provision prohibiting bail in cases brought under these ordinary laws, bail is rarely granted. Many of the accused spend several years in custody as undertrials in overcrowded prisons and are denied the benefits of bail – though eventually acquitted of alleged crimes (see Annexure D).
In 2013, 11 villagers were arrested and two killed by security forces in the village of Chimlipenta, Bijapur District.37 The list of “deadly” weapons recovered from them were four sets of a bow with one arrow, four knives, one knife shaped like a sickle, one trowel and one large utensil. Yet, the district collector gave sanction to prosecute them under the Arms Act. After more than half a decade, all 11 were acquitted.
In April 2017, 121 villagers, mostly young men, were arrested after a violent encounter between security forces and Maoists. The accused were tried under special terror laws despite a lack of evidence connecting those arrested to the killing. Bail was denied both at the District and High Court levels. On 15 July 2022, all accused were acquitted after wrongfully serving five years in jail. One of them had died in jail, awaiting trial.
Since 2008, the police have also invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1960 (UAPA) and the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA). These special counter-terrorism laws have expanded the scope of executive competences, enabling the State executive body to use excessive forces, and providing such executive actions impunity from review. For instance, the CSPSA allows for detention for up to three years upon “unlawful activity” which is broadly defined as “any activity that might have a tendency to pose an obstacle to maintenance of public order or administration of law.” These laws have been criticised by academics, HRDs and UN Special Rapporteurs for being excessively oppressive, and removing the essential right to due process and fair trial. Over 23,000 cases have been filed against Adivasis under India’s sedition and anti-terror laws until 2019.
Adivasi leaders, trade union activists, lawyers, journalists, and researchers, are continuously targeted by the State. In the past, HRDs like Soni Sori, Lingaram Kodopi, Dr. Binayak Sen, and Ajay TG, have been arrested in terror charges for allegedly being Maoist/Maoist sympathisers. Badri Gawde was one of the leaders of a local villagers-led movement against the upcoming Rowghat Mines and Railway Lines, Rowghat Bachao Sangharsh Samiti. He was arrested on 24 January 2014 for allegedly being a Maoist conduit. Similarly, Sudha Bharadwaj, a lawyer and activist in the State of Chhattisgarh, working on land and labour rights, was arrested on 28 August 2018 under UAPA. Activists from Chhattisgarh working on Adivasi rights and land rights have been strategically targeted by the State through spyware like Pegasus and NetWire.
In the year 2021, villagers, mainly youth, came together under the banner of “Moolvasi Bachao Manch” (Save the Natives Movement; MBM) to raise voice against fake encounters, drone attacks, laying of wide roads, felling of huge quantities of trees, illegal setting up of security camps and sexual violence. The police regularly accuse MBM to be a frontal organisation of Maoists and has been trying to violently suppress the protest and movement. HRD and journalist Malini Subramaniam told the authors of this report (see Annexure B):
“Unable to get to Maoists involved in the act, the police runs amok arresting villagers closer to the site of incident.”
In May 2021, Chhattisgarh Police fired in broad daylight at an assembly of villagers protesting the establishment of a police camp in Silger, Sukma district. Four people died due to injuries and one pregnant woman died because of ensuing chaos. A team of lawyers and journalists were later prevented from visiting the affected communities on a fact-finding mission.
Tribal leader Sarju Tekam was arrested after a raid on his house in Kalwar village, Bastar on 2 April 2024. Tekam is an HRD seeking accountability for extrajudicial “encounter” killings as mentor of Bastar Jan Sangharsh Samanvay Samiti and Vice-President of Sarva Adivasi Samaj (see also Table 3). Such arbitrary preventive detentions are contrary to Article 9(1) of the ICCPR, as an impermissible deprivation of personal liberty. Additionally, Hidme Markam, a 28-year-old Adivasi woman HRD, was dragged by police personnel from an International Women’s Day event gathering and arrested under the UAPA (see table 3).
Fake Surrenders
Since 2014, there have been an unprecedented number of ‘surrenders’ of alleged Maoists. According to an investigative article, from 1 June – 28 November 2014, 377 alleged Maoists ‘surrendered’ in Bastar division, 155 in November alone. According to the investigation, at least 270 of the 377 are ordinary villagers not eligible to be termed “surrendered Maoists”. Of the 377, none surrendered with a weapon or received post-surrender relief or rehabilitation. In contrast, in the two and a half years from January 2012 to May 2014, the seven districts of Bastar saw only 29 Maoist surrenders. This pattern of showing ordinary villagers as surrendered Naxalites has continued since then. The police and CRPF pick up men and women from villages and threaten them with arrest or extrajudicial killing if they do not agree to be presented as surrendered Naxalites. Confirming the suspicion of the fake surrenders taking place in the region, a screening committee of the government suggested that 90% of the surrenders are fake and not genuine. As per reports, only 3% of those presented as Naxalite surrenders in 2016 and between 2018 and 2021 (1,462) from the affected districts in the State adhered to the definition of “Naxalite cadre” and were eligible for benefits under the Centre or State government’s rehabilitation policy. These incidents are telling of the complete erasure of the due process of law guaranteed under Article 9.
4.c Indiscriminate Aerial Bombings (see also Table 4)
Between April 2021 and April 2024, five drone bombing attacks have been reported in the Bijapur and Sukma districts (on 19 April 2021, 14-15 April 2022, 11 January 2023, 7 April 2023, and 7 April 2024). The aerial attacks have been documented by testimonies of the local population, fact-finding reports by CSDR organisations, and media which have been able to access the area.59 Parts of these munitions have been recovered by the local people and recorded by fact-finding teams and media personnel, suggesting them to be “high explosive mortar bombs” which can be fitted to and launched from drones. Most of the attacks have been timed around the month of April, which is the traditional month of the collection of “mahua” flowers from the forest, a minor forest product of immense economic and traditional importance to the Adivasis and have resulted in injuries to villagers. For instance, on 7 April 2023, Kalmu, a villager from Jabbagatta Village was collecting mahua in the field when the bombing started (see Table 4).
The indiscriminate aerial attacks violate several rights under the ICCPR, including the right to life under Article 6; right against torture, cruel and degrading treatment under Article 7; right to security of a person under Article 9. Per the general comment no. 35, the State has a responsibility to protect individuals from foreseeable threats to life or bodily integrity proceeding from any governmental or private actors.
4.d Threatening lawyers and suppressing legal aid and research (see also Table 5)
Legal aid groups and HRDs providing legal redress have also faced threats, intimidation and harassment by the State. The Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group (JagLAG), a women-led legal and paralegal collective which worked in Bastar between 2013 and 2020, was forcibly evicted from their office in 2016 and threatened with false cases. Bela Bhatia, lawyer and HRD, who has been instrumental in advocacy with the police to register FIRs, particularly in cases of sexual violence (see section 4.f), has faced harassment by both State and non-state actors. In 2017, Bhatia was attacked at her home by a mob, her landlord also received threats, after which she was evicted. In February 2023, Bhatia was harassed and stopped from visiting villages where aerial bombing had reportedly occurred in January 2023 (see table 5).
Acts of threatening, harassment, and prosecution of HRDs and civil society activists are in violation of rights under Article 19(1) & (2), Article 22 and Article 21 as guaranteed in the ICCPR. These threats, intimidation and harassment by the State and non-State actors as reprisal for their activities to aid Adivasi communities directly violate their rights under the ICCPR, along with the right against arbitrary detention under Article 9 in cases of arbitrary arrest.
4.e Intimidation and silencing of journalists (see also Table 5)
Article 19 ICCPR requires that states guarantee the right to freedom of expression to everyone, including the freedom to seek, receive, or impart information or ideas of any kind, through any media of a person’s choice, including online media. Any restriction from this right is allowed only under Article 19(3), which states that it must be provided based on a precisely drafted law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim. Other rights relevant to the safety of journalists is their right to life under Article 6 and freedom from torture under Article 7. Article 17(1) ICCPR requires States to guarantee to freedom from arbitrary interference with a person’s privacy, family, home or correspondence, and to protect individuals against such attacks. The intimidation and silencing of journalists in Chhattisgarh by the State through the police violates the ICCPR.
The Human Rights Committee has also noted that attacks against individuals for their opinions are not compatible with the ICCPR. As journalists are the frequent targets of such attacks, the State is responsible for conducting investigations and prosecuting perpetrators. The misuse of excessive national security laws to prosecute journalists who share information in the public interest or critique the government, politicians and their policies also violates Article 19 ICCPR. The State also has the responsibility of taking urgent and effective measures to protect the rights of persons at particular risk of threats to their lives, including journalists, due to specific threats or known patterns of violence.
Reporting from Bastar has been steadily declining following the increase of threats, attacks and jailing of journalists in the area. On 16 July 2015, plain clothed police arrested journalist Somaru Nag on the allegation of being a Maoist on the outskirts of Darbha town. Nag frequently covered rural issues including development and access to water and electricity in the region (see table 3). On 29 September 2015, Santosh Yadav, a freelance journalist, was arrested in Darbha, Bastar District, under UAPA, when he was reporting on alleged false arrests of five Adivasi men.67 In February 2016, Malini Subramaniam, former head of the Chhattisgarh chapter of the International Committee of the Red Cross and recipient of the International Press Freedom Award (2016) and Oxfam Novib/PEN International Freedom of Speech Award (2017), was attacked in her car and home and evicted after her landlord was threatened by the police.
Indian CSDRs have been at the forefront of maintaining the necessary vigilance to safeguard civil liberties. For the past decade, their fact-finding missions have also been systematically repressed (see e.g. Annexure E). Entry of international humanitarian organisations in the (undeclared) war-torn areas in Chhattisgarh is restricted. Local independent investigative journalists have been blatantly threatened with violence and prevented entry into the areas by the security forces. Seven members of a Telangana Democratic Front fact-finding team were also arrested by Telangana police on 24 December 2016, on their way to Sukma to investigate allegations of violation of the human rights of local Adivasis. The activists were handed over to Bastar Police, jailed under CSPSA and finally released on bail after 6 months of illegal detention.
4.f Sexual violence
Widespread sexual violence in Chhattisgarh by the security forces, in violation of Article 7 ICCPR, is well documented, with a comprehensive review published in 2022 by Survival International. Sexual violence is a form of extreme gender-based violence that amounts to torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of women. The State has a responsibility to ensure that no one is subjected to torture or ill-treatment, even in the event of a crisis, such as war and armed conflict. Conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) in the form of gang rapes and rapes in detention are recognised forms of torture and inhumane practices. CRSV committed by State agents is also an arbitrary interference with privacy and sexual autonomy and violative of the right to privacy and family life under Article 17. The State must also promptly and effectively investigate allegations of CRSV against women and prosecute those responsible. A failure to do so violates the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment under Article 7 and the right to an effective remedy under Article 2(3).
As per various reports, more than 50 women were sexually assaulted – including around 20 gang rapes in Bastar region by the security forces – between October 2015 and February 2016. All these incidents occurred as part of search and combing operations by the police and security forces (see also Annexure F).
Between 19 and 24 October 2015, women survivors describe that security and police forces arrived in their villages of Peddapalli, Peddagellur, Chinnagellur, Bugdicheru and Gundam, where they committed gang rape and mass physical and sexual assault of Adivasi women (see Annexure F). Since the incident, at least three survivors of gangrapes committed by security forces have come forward, including a 14-year-old minor who was assaulted while she had been grazing cattle. A pregnant young woman was repeatedly submerged in a river by security forces while being sexually assaulted.
Between 11 and 14 January 2016, security forces raided Nendra village and reportedly gangraped 13 women (Annexure F). Despite registration of an FIR by 16 villagers including eight rape survivors in Bijapur Police Station, no proper investigation or arrests have occurred. Also in January 2016, security forces entered Korcholi village and gangraped at least one young mother, and sexually and physically assaulted other women, including a minor (Annexure F). In May 2016, the police refused to register an FIR by the victims, and representatives of Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression (WSS), stating that they would conduct a preliminary inquiry on the allegations. This in contravention to Indian criminal procedural law that mandates the police to register FIRs first in cases of sexual violence. The lack of legal recourse for the women for sexual violence and no prosecution of the persons responsible also violates the victims right to remedy under ICCPR Article 2(3).
Representatives of the victims approached the National Commission on Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Independent inquiries by both Commissions concluded that there is prima facie evidence of mass sexualised violence against Adivasi women. On 18 February 2021, Pande Kawasi, a 20-year-old Adivasi woman was picked up by DRGs, along with her friend Jogi Kawasi from Kharkapara hamlet, Katekalyan forest in Dantewada District. They were taken to a detention centre and shown as “surrendered Naxalites”. On 23 February 2021, Pande Kawasi was found hanging in a small bathroom in the detention centre. Her family and HRD Soni Sori have stated that the bruises on Pande Kawasi’s body suggest that she was sexually and physically brutalised and then killed, only to be passed off as a suicide.
More recently, in March 2024, in a fake encounter with Adivasi peasants, a fact-finding team led by Soni Sori alleged that the violent rape of Lakhe Mandavi, an Adivasi woman, at Gampur in District Dantewada was the work of the police. Knife wounds were found on her private parts (see table 2). On 2 April 2024, a deaf Adivasi teenage girl, Kamli Kunjam, was killed. Her family reported that she had been ill and was dragged from her home, her clothes were torn, along with injury marks near her lower abdomen, suggesting rape. This pervasive use of sexualised violence against women violates Articles 3 and 7 of the ICCPR.
4.g Violations of the right to remedy
In addition to failure to respect human rights under the ICCPR, India has also failed to provide the right to remedy in violation of the right to effective remedy under Article 2(3) of the ICCPR. The domestic legal framework in India claims to be formally committed to the Rule of Law and the “due process of law” under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, but these constitutional guarantees are being subverted as can be seen through evidence presented in this report.
There is a systematic, consistent and persistent violation of the ICCPR, including the subversion and denial of the right to remedy. In the last three decades of the conflict, not a single security officer or Salwa Judum member has been prosecuted for the crimes committed by them on the indigenous community in the region. In July 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking independent investigation into extrajudicial killings by security forces which were conducted in 2009. The Supreme Court disregarded the case and testimonies of co-petitioners, instead imposing a fine on one of the HRDs, the petitioner in the case.
iThe term ’fake encounter’ or ‘encounter killing’ describes incidents where police and security forces kill a person and later present the deceased as an insurgent and the killing as an act of self-defence.
