Sixteen human rights activists from Bastar and other parts of the country have alleged that they had to abort a fact-finding mission “on human rights violations in Sukma and Bijapur districts” of south Chhattisgarh after security forces harassed them.
The activists had left Sukma on February 1 to visit the interior villages of the district, including the areas where an alleged aerial strike (Maoist claim, denied by police) was carried out last month, and a couple of sites where there has been stiff resistance to setting up of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camps.
The issue of protests against security camps has a long history in the region which has plenty of those camps. People have alleged atrocities by security personnel and in 2021, police firing led to death of three protesters in Sukma’s Silger village.
Bela Bhatia, one of the 16 members of the group that unsuccessfully tried to reach these locations, said that another camp is coming up close to Silger, without consultation with villagers as mandated by the recently notified PESA law for Fifth Schedule areas.
The term “aerial attack”, on the other hand, was used for the first time on January 12, when the Maoists issued a statement that security personnel had carried out such attacks on villages in Sukma and Bijapur district. The Chhattisgarh Police refuted the claim and said the Maoists were losing their hold in the areas and were trying to mislead the people.
According to Ms. Bhatia, they not only had to face intense and prolonged checks at three CRPF camps along their way, but also logistical hurdles, with villagers or guest house owners denying accommodation and food to them “due to pressure from the security personnel”.
“We had informed the administration beforehand and though the Sukma Collector told us about the security threat, we insisted that as human rights activists, we were ready to take the risk. However, during the 36-km journey from Sukma to Dornapal, we were stopped at three CRPF camps. This caused major delays and when we told the CRPF officers that we had informed the district authorities, they said it did not matter since a central force did not operate under State authorities,” said Ms. Bhatia.
As the team proceeded further and reached Dornapal, a block headquarter village, the members were told that they would not be allowed any further towards the villages without an ROP (Road Opening Party that only operates till 6 p.m.) ascertaining that there was no danger ahead.
The team, said Ms. Bhatia, then decided to camp at Dornapal but was unable to find vacant rooms. Ms. Bhatia alleged that police had a role to play in the rooms getting “suddenly occupied” and the eateries “running out of food”.
She added that some local tribal villagers offered them stay at the gram panchayat bhawan in nearby Dubbatota village but police did not let them go there either.
“The drivers we hired had also left by then with the vehicles as the intense checks scared them. We had no choice but to spend the night sitting on chairs or lying on a rug spread out on the floor of a shed amid heavy police presence. The weather was cold and we were not carrying clothes to keep us sufficiently warm in an open structure,” added Ms. Bhatia.
The members of the team – who had come from Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and West Bengal and were members of the affiliated organisations of the Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisations (CRDO) – then headed to their respective locations on Thursday (February 2).
The group had plans to visit other areas too, such as Nagarnar in Jagdalpur, where there has been opposition to an upcoming steel plant and Narayanpur that faced violence over conversions recently, but returned due to the vigorous police intervention, said Ms. Bhatia.
Denying the claims, Inspector-General of Police (Bastar Range) P. Sundarraj said the team was stopped because of threat perception.
“When they reached security checkposts along Dornapal-Jagargunda road, as per the security protocol they were informed about threat perception in the naxal-affected areas due to IEDs planted by Maoists. We told them, given the threat, that going to those areas without security cover would have posed risks for their own security. It was after that they decided to return,” Mr. Sundarraj told The Hindu, adding that none were harassed or detained.
Ms. Bhatia questioned the police claims and said what the fact-finding team faced amounted to harassment.
“When we do not have the freedom to go where we want, despite the hosts wanting us there and are forced to stay at a shelter surrounded by police, is it not detainment?” she asked.
