01-29-2008, 08:23 AM
<b>Salva Judum legality test in SC today </b>
28 Jan 2008, 0001 hrs IST,Manoj Mitta,TNN
NEW DELHI: The legality of Salva Judum, a controversial strategy adopted by Chhattisgarh to combat Naxalites, is due to be tested before SC on Monday following the state government's reply to a PIL filed <b>by three eminent persons â sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha and ex-bureaucrat E A S Sarma</b>.
Responding to SC's notice issued eight months ago, the government said on January 22 that Salva Judum, which started in 2005 was "not a state-sponsored strategy but a unique spontaneous people's movement."
Denying that it provided any funds to this "peace mission," the government claimed that its role was limited to setting up road-side relief camps as Naxalites ratcheted up violence in remote villages to prevent tribals from joining the Salva Judum campaign.
It also denied the allegation made in the PIL that villagers were compelled to move into those camps because of violent raids carried out jointly by Salva Judum activists and security forces.
On the contrary, the relief camps, were a state response to rehabilitate and provide safety to tribals who were already victims of Naxalism, the state government said.
While defending the relief camps, the government questioned the bona fides of the PIL saying it was of "the firm view that this petition is directed so as to disrupt the relief camps and thereby ensure a free rein to Naxalite activities."
This is despite a clarification in the PIL that it did not dispute the authority of the government in employing measures to counter the Naxalites. The grievance raised by the PIL is that the methods adopted by Chhattisgarh in the name of Salva Judum violated the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Dantewada.
The petitioners also alleged that "Salva Judum activists have become vigilantes who assert the right to control, intimidate and punish anyone they consider to be a suspected Naxalite."
In its January 22 response, the state, affirming that it was very much in control of the administration, said: "The Salva Judum activists cannot breach the law and appropriate action would be taken if they try to violate the law."
One crucial component of this professed attempt to support people's resistance is the arming of around 4,000 Salva Judum activists under the legal provision of "special police officers" (SPOs). The PIL said that "far from being a peaceful campaign, Salva Judum activists are armed with guns, lathis, bows and arrows."
It also annexed photographs to substantiate its allegation that some of the villagers appointed as SPOs were minors.
However, the state clarified that though the constitution of SPOs, as such, was within the framework of law, "the petition seeks to eliminate SPOs so that the Naxalites can pester and even prosper."
<b>If the Salva Judum approach to law and order is upheld by SC, it may catch on in other Naxalite affected areas. </b>This is especially so because the Centre has consistently supported the Salva Judum movement in the face of objections <b>raised by human rights defenders</b>.
Recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has raised eyebrows by suggesting that Maoists were a bigger threat to internal security than even jihadis
28 Jan 2008, 0001 hrs IST,Manoj Mitta,TNN
NEW DELHI: The legality of Salva Judum, a controversial strategy adopted by Chhattisgarh to combat Naxalites, is due to be tested before SC on Monday following the state government's reply to a PIL filed <b>by three eminent persons â sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha and ex-bureaucrat E A S Sarma</b>.
Responding to SC's notice issued eight months ago, the government said on January 22 that Salva Judum, which started in 2005 was "not a state-sponsored strategy but a unique spontaneous people's movement."
Denying that it provided any funds to this "peace mission," the government claimed that its role was limited to setting up road-side relief camps as Naxalites ratcheted up violence in remote villages to prevent tribals from joining the Salva Judum campaign.
It also denied the allegation made in the PIL that villagers were compelled to move into those camps because of violent raids carried out jointly by Salva Judum activists and security forces.
On the contrary, the relief camps, were a state response to rehabilitate and provide safety to tribals who were already victims of Naxalism, the state government said.
While defending the relief camps, the government questioned the bona fides of the PIL saying it was of "the firm view that this petition is directed so as to disrupt the relief camps and thereby ensure a free rein to Naxalite activities."
This is despite a clarification in the PIL that it did not dispute the authority of the government in employing measures to counter the Naxalites. The grievance raised by the PIL is that the methods adopted by Chhattisgarh in the name of Salva Judum violated the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Dantewada.
The petitioners also alleged that "Salva Judum activists have become vigilantes who assert the right to control, intimidate and punish anyone they consider to be a suspected Naxalite."
In its January 22 response, the state, affirming that it was very much in control of the administration, said: "The Salva Judum activists cannot breach the law and appropriate action would be taken if they try to violate the law."
One crucial component of this professed attempt to support people's resistance is the arming of around 4,000 Salva Judum activists under the legal provision of "special police officers" (SPOs). The PIL said that "far from being a peaceful campaign, Salva Judum activists are armed with guns, lathis, bows and arrows."
It also annexed photographs to substantiate its allegation that some of the villagers appointed as SPOs were minors.
However, the state clarified that though the constitution of SPOs, as such, was within the framework of law, "the petition seeks to eliminate SPOs so that the Naxalites can pester and even prosper."
<b>If the Salva Judum approach to law and order is upheld by SC, it may catch on in other Naxalite affected areas. </b>This is especially so because the Centre has consistently supported the Salva Judum movement in the face of objections <b>raised by human rights defenders</b>.
Recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has raised eyebrows by suggesting that Maoists were a bigger threat to internal security than even jihadis