Conversation with Anuradha SenGupta in "The Big Picture'

 

Conversation with Anuradha SenGupta in "The Big Picture' on what Amit Shah's 'deadline' to finish Maoism means for villagers. 

There may be relief at an end to the operations, but they are worried about mining, displacement, and also the little things that the Maoists managed which were important in their lives - settling village disputes, helping women escape patriarchy, land levelling and village communal farming..

The Maoists may go, but if the camps remain, thats a new battle to fight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GVKB05pWzo

Post-mortem of a PIL

I am writing this blog for my own satisfaction, after the Supreme Court disposed of our public interest litigation without proper hearing, on May 15 2025. We had filed the cases in 2007. This post must be read in conjunction with my chapters on litigating against counterinsurgency in my book, The Burning Forest, which deal in more detail with the 2011 judgement. 

Our Written Submissions

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 250/2007 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

NANDINI SUNDAR 

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. 

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 119/2007 

AND IN THE MATTER OF: 

KARTAM JOGA 

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 140/2012

AND IN THE MATTER OF: 

NANDINI SUNDAR 

VERSUS

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR 

                     

COMPREHENSIVE NOTE ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND A RESPONSE WHICH THE STATE’S AFFIDAVIT 30.08.2024  SIMPLY DOES NOT ADDRESS 

The writ petitions were filed against the state policy of arming civilians and militarizing the districts of Bastar, Sukma, Bijapur and Dantewada in the state of Chhattisgarh, which resulted in an exponentially rising spiral of devastation. This case may broadly be divided into five sections: 

I. This Court’s indictment of a counter insurgency policy of using state sponsored vigilantes and SPOs, in its judgment reported as Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) 7 SCC 547, and the brazen violation of the same by the State of Chhattisgarh thereafter.

This is reiterated in the State’s Affidavit dated 30.08.2024 filed following this Hon’ble Court’s directions of 16.7.2024 for a status update, purportedly showing compliance of order dated 05.07.2011 

II. The extent of human rights violations in Chhattisgarh and the State’s failure/inability to redress the same.

III. This Court’s directions to the CBI to investigate the incidents of violence (arson, rape and murder) in three villages of Chhattisgarh, namely Timmapuram, Morpalli and Tadmetla by the SPOs as well as the violent attack on Swami Agnivesh, and subsequent developments. 

IV. Role of the National Human Rights Commission.

V. Proposed Rehabilitative measures - Survey and Independent Monitoring.

Will Modi Sarkar listen to the adivasis of Bastar now that the Maoist insurgency is nearing its end?

 Shalini Gera, advocate, and I had a conversation with Ajoy Ashirwad of The Wire 30 May 2025

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIWfCGXCMpE

Peace talks between Government and Maoists must include Affected Citizens

My article in The Wire Hindi on need for peace talks

https://thewirehindi.com/301638/peace-talks-between-government-and-maoists-must-include-affected-citizens/

And a slightly updated version in the English Wire.in

https://thewire.in/rights/chhattisgarh-union-govt-must-declare-ceasefire-with-maoists-affected-citizens-must-get-a-voice

Interview by CG Khabar, 20 April 2025

 Raghavendra Singh of CG Khabar interviewed me on the sidelines of a meeting in Dalli Rajhara on the need for peace talks. He asked about how I came to Bastar, the murder charges against me, and about the situation in Bastar. I argued that whatever the outcome of the peace talks between govt and Maoists - and its extremely important that there be peace talks - we need justice. All those killed, raped and displaced during this conflict should get some justice.  There is a third party to the talks - which is the most important - and that is the people of Bastar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvE7IuV-7s0

On Supersessions – Academic and Non-Academic

The principle of seniority in appointments – whether it be of chief justices, army chiefs or heads of a university department – is not some quaint relic of a colonial bureaucracy that can be dispensed with at the pleasure of the current ruler. It is an indispensable mechanism to ensure institutional autonomy and the long-term survival of any institution. Once the seniority principle is violated, it becomes a free for all – with allegiance to the ruling ideology or personal favoritism overtaking merit and duty in all spheres of activity. Members of an institution become more concerned with whether their speech and actions please those in power, than with what their duties and obligations actually are.