DALIT ONLINE – e News Weekly

Spreading the light of humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.14..Issue.35........02/ 09 / 2018

Editorial : Urban Naxalites vs Corrupt Police

Greater threat to India's unity & integrity is from enemy within – Corrupt Police , Corrupt Judges &
Corrupt public servants with their cronies not from naxalites , terrorists or pakistan or china.

Naxalism , separatist movements originated as a result of utterly corrupt public servants who failed
to do their duties. Police lack professionalism , they charge some people and put them behind bars ,
when ruling government changes they file B report to close the same case or doesn't appeal against
lower court order. Truth , Facts of a case must be same irrespective of party in power. Are police
professionals ? If naxalites use violence it is a crime and they are legally prosecuted. Right. However
when police use violence , 3rd degree TORTURE resulting in lock up deaths , fake encounters is it
right ? Why no criminal charges against police & their legal prosecution ? Why right wing cronies
left wing cronies , chamchas , tv anchors become silent at such instances ?

Our Motherland India and Indian Constitution is greater than all , greater than all ideologies, all
religions. Humanity – Vasudeva Kutumbakam / Universal brotherhood , compassion , Non Violence
is greater than all. That is the crux of all religions. By birth we have human rights and constitution
has guaranteed our rights. In exercise of our rights in the course of our fundamental duties we are
mandated to raise our voices against corruption , crimes by public servants. To silence those voices
seeking justice corrupt mafia uses many ways including framing false cases , extracting confessions
by 3rd degree TORTURE, planting evidences , etc. Let there be a supreme court monitored probe
into recent arrests of human rights activists ( Urban Naxals ??? ) if found guilty punish them. If not
punish the guilty police officials and tv anchors , cronies who propagated falsehood.

Nobody not even police are permitted by law to indulge in violence , criminal acts. If crimes are
done by police , public servants and their cronies it is ok , no legal prosecution. If the same crimes
are questioned by commonman , justice sought by commonman it is a crime. What a paradox , it is
not going to the heads Of cronies , chamchas.

Sure naxalism , separatism is a bane ( also grave crime ) in democratic society , but corruption ,
cronism , chamchagiri , religious extremism is cancer in democratic society. All of them must be
weeded out. In our view violence , crimes by police , by naxalites , by salwa judum , by right wing /
left wing are all wrong and punishable offences. The authorities should not be selective but must be
professional and act against wrongdoers. Democracy is the best form of governance resting on
foundation of public servant's honesty. When honesty falters democracy fails. Let us fight against
corruption in a peaceful legal democratic way to build an equitable just society.

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your's

Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi.

•

Naxals Vs Salwa Judum

CHHATTISGARH MASSACRE BY NAXALITES

We at e-voice express our deep condolences to the FAMILIES of slain CRPF jawans at chhattisgarh
, who were massacred by naxalites. We salute the brave soldiers who laid down their lives while
upholding law & order and hereby demand the legal prosecution of the perpetrators.

We don’t have symapthies for death of SALWA JUDUM Founding & Supporting members
because they also inflicted terror , violence on innocent adivasis & dalits just like naxalites.

We at e-voice salute our jawans & police for teaching the external enemies a befitting lesson and
protecting our motherland from the external & internal enemies. We pay our whole hearted
respects to the martyrs , who laid down their lives , in the course of protecting our people & country
from the clutches of terrorists / naxalites .

India equally faces greater threat from internal enemies – corrupt public servants (who are
deadlier than pak terrorists & NAXALITES ). These corrupt public servants sell everything ,
motherland , for money , for bribe.

Mumbai terrorists killed 200 people , where as a fake drugs manufacturer kills thousands of people
by selling fake drugs / fake medicines. Drugs control department officials lets off many such such
fake drugs manufacturers , in turn killing thousands of innocents. The number of end victims are
huge than any terrorist attacks. This is just one instance , in this way corrupt public servants of
various departments compromise with their official duties & murder scores of innocents.

The corrupt public servants network , is oiled far better than italy's mafia. Common man doesn't get
justice , even if he complains to higher officials , vigilance authorities or even court of law. As the
bribe booty reaches higher-ups & political bosses.. thus black money is created.

The huge profits earned / black money created by criminal industrialists / entrepreneurs , finds it's
way to money laundering heavens. Thus our economy is crippled , public exchequer deprived of it's
dues. The money thus laundered feeds terrorist outfits , underworld dons , in their criminal deeds.
Now , underworld / terrorist outfits are involved in huge real estate business , film production /
distribution , film piracy business , etc , to reap more illegal profits out of illegal money. This shakes
upside down our government's fiscal policies.

If a corrupt public servant is apprehended , it is equal to depriving 100 terrorists out of funds ,
putting 100 criminals out of action. Will the common man raise to give a befitting lesson to corrupt
public servants.

Whenever we face crimes by naxalites & terrorists , government only looks at one face of the case.
The other face of the crime is the atrocities of government itself. The public servants are corrupt ,
they are snatching lands , livelihood from tribals , driving them away & gifting those very lands to
industrialists , miners , etc without any rehabilitation for the tribals. Government has failed to
provide basic health care , education to people . it has even failed to provide food to tribals & tribals
are dying due to hunger. All the much hyped government programmes like “Food for Work” &
“National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme” have derailed at the hands of corrupt public
servants. The local Police together with land lords , industrialists , miners are torturing these local
tribals. For these tribals there is no food , no health care , no education , no justice but only
sufferings , physical torture at the hands of police . The Recruiters of terrorist & naxal organizations
are cashing on this frustration of tribals.

O, JIHADIS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS, TERRORISTS & NAXALITES

INTROSPECT YOURSELF

Kashmiri militants claim they are fighting for kashmiris, when the very same kashmiris were
suffering from loses due to earthquake why didn't the so-called jihadis didn't make any relief
efforts? Why didn't their foreign master – Pakistan didn't make any relief efforts? Within the pak
occupied Kashmir ( pok) itself, Pakistan didn't make appropriate

relief efforts. It is government of India & international community who provided proper & timely
relief.

The foreign powers are not at all interested in your well being. They are ready to spend millions of
dollars for aiding terrorism, but not ready to spend a few hundreds for your education , health care
or self employment schemes through NGOs. The fact is they don't want your well being, they don't
want you to prosper, live peacefully. The ultimate objective of these foreign powers is to take you on
the path of self destruction, destruction of your motherland & to finally usurp the power, to
subjugate you into slavery in turn looting the resources of your country.

Ofcourse, in India there is rampant corruption. Still democracy is live & kicking in India, it is the best
form of governance. You have got real examples of countries in Africa, latin America, wherein the
countries have secured independence through separatist / terrorist movements. The terrorist
leaders themselves have become prime minister / president of newly independent countries. Now,
they are more corrupt & barbaric than their predecessors . even after getting independence, the
lives of commonfolk has become bad to worse. By independence , only leaders have benefited. Will
you lead another struggle ? this is endless, as the selfishness , greed of leaders knows no bounds.

In the past, government of India aided tamil separatists, Pakistan terrorists, etc, butchering
innocents. The government of U.S.A aided terrorists in Africa, afghanisthan, latin America ,
murdering innocents. Various countries have aided terrorism while preaching peace. These barbaric
acts were motivated by selfish, corrupt, ego-centric leaders. Now, in the bomeerang effects of their
actions, innocents are dying in bomb blasts, etc.

Violence breds violence. Peace & compassion results in all round harmony, prosperity. Every human
being must struggle against injustices in a peaceful & legal manner. The struggle must be against the
corrupt system, for that peaceful struggle democracy is the best forum. Don't be pawns in the hands
of foreign powers, politicians. They are not at all interested in your welfare, well being. At the end, it
is the leaders who become ministers & amass wealth through corruption. The common folk like you
will remain as fiddlings, minions forever.

Just imagine yourselves in the place of victims of delhi serial bomb blasts (29/10/2005) or
Mumbai blasts of 26/11/08 . just imagine the plight of little child MOSHE who has lost both his
parents , imagine Your mother & wife are crying, your children are dead , your father's hands &
limbs are ripped apart in the blast. How does it feel to be one ? no religion, no god asks it's followers
to cause destruction. All religions, gods are full of eternal love & compassion. Let that god shine his
light, upon you all on the violent path.

Whether it is in india or else where , democratic system is best form of governance. The people in
those countries suffer due to corrupt public servants . in all such cases , the legal , non violent fight
must be against the corrupt people , corrupt police , corrupt judges , CORRUPT public servants but
not against the system itself.

Let us build ram rajya of mahatma's dream through non violent means within the existing
democratic framework . Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s sincerely,

Nagaraj.M.R.

Who are NAXALS ?

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/primer-who-are-the-naxals-and-how-
they-function-113052700632_1.html

PRICOL VP MURDER , SATYAM CO FRAUD , SINGUR AGITATION & GRAZIONO CEO MASS MURDER
- An eye opener to irresponsible corporate India & GOI

In last week , in the state of tamilnadu India , some of the sacked laboureres of M/S PRICOL
INDUSTRIES mass lynched & murdered a higher management official , for sacking them from their
jobs. This act of laborers is a heinous crime , illegal & inhuman act. In India , nowadays the labour
movement has been hijacked by lumpen elements , rowdies , criminals. These criminal elements are
there in the posts of union leaders just to further their self interests rather than the welfare of the
workers whom they represent. These lumpen elements , so called leaders thrive on controversies &
creates disturbances , vitiates harmonious relations between the management – workers. The
company as an organization needs team work to survive & thrive in business. These labor leaders
even oppose for example OUTPUT BASED PRODUCTION INCENTIVE SCHEME – which is a win win
situation for both the management & workers. These leaders go to the extent of killing the hen
which lays golden eggs , all for their selfish gains. These rowdy leaders become leaders just to make
money , to make political entry , to shirk-off work , to escape night shift work , etc. In the midst of
these rowdy elements the genuine concerns of ordinary workers are not at all heard. The ordinary
workers who depend on the organization for their livelihood , who work hard to earn more incentive
, are the ultimate sufferers.

In the same manner , the management of companies must be sensible to the genuine concerns of
it's workers , it must properly balance the worker's concern & company's position . some of the
managements enforce harsh rules on workers , o.k , the management personnel of those very same
companies function without discipline , misuse company properties , siphons of company money ,
take commission from vendors , cheat the government of tax dues , violate environmental laws , tax
laws , labor laws by bribing officials , etc. Finally this kills the organization as a whole – the end
losers shareholders , lending banks , government & our economy.

The recent public agitation at singur west Bengal , India against the TATA NANO project , is
nothing but a struggle for survival by the land loosers. The public of singur are living there since
ancestral times , they fully depend for their livelihood on the vegetables & other small crops grown
there by them. The livelihood , their survival is at stake. The irresponsible west Bengal government ,
to favour the corporate lobby , acquired the lands forcibly dirt cheap & gave it away at dirt cheap
price to TATA'S. why such a cheap , long term lease period has been given to TATA'S ? The
government literally has thrown the land loosers on street , it didn't bother about their survival nor
about their proper rehabilitation . Basically , TATA'S is a business house , their only intention is to
make profits , more money , not the welfare of people. Why not TATA'S acquire land in open market
? the acquire of lands by state or central government for public good like for building dams , roads ,
channels are at least justified however the rehabilitation is more important. Other than for the
projects concerning public good , for all the projects of private enterprises like pay & use roads ,
airports , industries , etc , the lands must be acquired in the open market at market prices . For some
industrialists bid to make riches , lives , livelihood of thousands should not be sacrificed. It is not
alround development. In a democracy , the voice of the public , locals should be honoured but not
the diktats of ministers or babus in secretariats. The present corrupt system in India leading to rise
of naxalism , underworld , separatist movements are all due to the government policies since
independence till date according to the wisdom (?) of ministers & babus , totally dishonouring the
public voice.

Now , take the case of Graziono CEO mass murder in noida , it is nothing but fallout of hire & fire
policies. Every human being works for survival , on his meager salary there will be family dependents
, all of a sudden if a person is fired from service , his whole family will be on streets. O.k , all
corporates nowadays preach & breath the mantra of USA , for everything be it infrastructure ,
flexible labour policies , it compares itself with those prevailing in the USA. Now , the corporate
India is getting infrastructure at dirt free prices ( very high in the USA ) , has got hire & fire
mechanism by employing contract labour , very lenient environmental norms , very lenient food &
drugs safety rules , relaxation in Factory Act , ESI & PF acts , etc add to it the rampant corruption in
all govt departments by which you can get any certificate for a price.

In the USA , of course there is hire & fire policy , however the minimum wage levels are also very
high , so that during good times workers can save money for their future. Also , there is social
security net to take care of ousted workers , then why not Indian corporates paying good salary to
workers during good times ? why not corporate India making good contribution to social security net
? in the USA , there are good infrastructure facilities they take pride in paying taxes to the
government , the corporate India always lobbies for tax cuts , subsidies , loan waivers , etc. in the
USA the environment norms are very strict , the companies manufacturing hazardous chemicals
which were ousted by the US government have set up shop in India . Government of USA treats lives
of people as precious , where as Indian government treats lives of it's people as dispensable. In the
USA , the food safety & drugs , medicines safety standards are very high , the drugs , high level
adulteration food products banned by Government of USA are sold in the India , this is the
difference between government of USA & India , the way they treat their people's lives. Loan
recovery , investor safety norms are very high in the USA , where as in India , loan defaulters , share
holder swindling , Non Performing Assets is very high. Inspite of all the strict norms we have seen
enron , Xerox debacles in the USA & recent bank fallouts in the USA. In India with such lax norms ,
only you can guess.

The lesson here for the government of India is , development must be allround , must not be at the
cost of thousands. Listen to the voice of public but not to the commands of greedy selfish corporates
, lobbies . Do stop thinking that only babus , IAS officers & minister are brilliant knowing all and the
public people are fools fit to be herded by IAS officers. Do remember that India is a democracy not a
BANANA REPUBLIC.

The lesson for corporate India , aping the USA intoto is O.k , but not by parts & bits , follow
corporate USA in every aspect of corporate duties & responsibilities , transparency.

Final word , when it comes to the question of survival , life , livelihood , it know no bounds . After all
STRUGGLE FOR SUVIVAL is a basic animal instinct , it is a basic human right of every individual .

Naxalism a result of an oversight of statutes, says SC

Emphasising on validation of rights of tribals and forest-dwellers over the forest lands, the Supreme
Court has said that Naxalism was a result of an oversight of constitutional provisions relating to
administration of schedule areas and tribes of the country.

"Nobody looks at Schedules V and VI of the Constitution and the result is Naxalism. Urbanites are
ruling the nation. Even several union of India counsel are oblivious of these provisions under the
Constitution," said a Bench led by Justice A K Patnaik.

The Bench made a reference to Schedules V and VI as they contain various provisions relating to
administration and control of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes in several parts of the country.
These provisions apply to states like Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Rajasthan and Northeastern states such as
Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Essentially these Constitutional provisions, with the help
of plethora of judgments by the apex court, act as a guarantee to indigenous people on the right
over the land they live in and its produce.

During a recent hearing on fresh guidelines over tiger reserves, the Bench made certain queries from
Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising over the Centre's proposal to relocate indigenous people
who were still living in the core areas of tiger reserves.

The ASG had informed the Bench there were around 43,000 families still residing in core areas of
tiger reserves and that the plan was to gradually move them out after proper consultation with
Gram Sabhas. On being asked about the legal provisions to support the argument, she also read out
from the 2006 Forest Rights Act and the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act.

Asserting that all stakeholders should first ensure the legal rights of the tribals are not violated,
Justice Patnaik said their rights must be settled in accordance with the provisions of the law.

"There is apparently no human-tiger conflict at least as far as these tribals are concerned. Everyone
must remember that forests belong to forest-dwellers. British government considered forests of
immense value and said through laws that all forests belonged to government. These people were
brought down to poverty and they couldn't earn their living. They will be arrested for consuming the
forest produce; such was their law," said Justice Patnaik.

His concerns were echoed by senior advocate Dushyanat Dave, who said forest-dwellers used to get
arrested trying and collect wood or pick fruits from the forests.

The Bench, however, seemed satisfied with the promulgation of the 2006 Forest Rights Act and said
this situation was sought to be reversed by the new legislation as it sought to identify their rights.

"One law can make a big difference. Zamindari abolition law is a good example how a law can
reverse the situation," said Justice Patnaik, adding it was not the state but its forest departments'
officers who did not want to give up their control over the forests.

At this, the ASG said the Centre was conscious of its duty towards protecting the rights of forest-
dwellers and would relocate them after following the legal process.

Supreme Court, Naxalism and Salwa Judam

The Judgment Beyond the ‘Neo-Liberal’ Rhetoric

Ajay K. Mehra

The debate over the PIL filed in 2007 by Nandini Sundar and others challenging the ‘creation’ of
Salwa Judum (SJ), variously translated from the Gondwani dialect as peace march or peace
movement, as an armed tribal ‘vigilante group’, has taken a new turn in several respects since the
Supreme Court of India struck down the use of tribal youths as a supplementary counter-insurgency
force on Tuesday, July 5, 2011. Aside from expectedly mixed reactions both in the media and the
public, three significant reactions need our attention and analysis. First, both the Union and
Chhatisgarh governments expectedly reacted against it by expressing their intent to appeal to a
larger SC Bench. Second, responding to some reactions in the government and the media circles that
the members of the disbanded SJ could be targeted by the Maoists, the Maoists issued a blanket
amnesty for those ‘adivasis’ who had joined the SJ under ‘government pressure’, thus reinforcing
their friends-of-the-tribal image; simultaneously attempting to brush clean their own image as a
ruthless group. Third, the Chhattisgarh Government, not to let go the ‘advantage’ it had gained with
the SJ, declared that the former SJ members would be absorbed into the police as constables, even if
that meant lowering the educational and physical standards laid down for recruitment to the
constabulary. I will return to these issues a little later in my analysis.

The Media Reactions

THE INDIAN EXPRESS (July 7, 2011) editorialised this ‘Too Judgmental’ verdict rather pithily: ‘Rather
than a granular approach that restricts itself to interpreting cases in the light of particular laws and
statutes, the courts have enlarged their self-image, as populist champion and scold.’ In fact, drawing
from some other recent judgments that it thought made the Court getting carried away, the daily
felt: ‘The troubling thing about these judgments is not what they finally resolve, but their tendency
to draw straight connections between diverse, highly specific cases about Salwa Judum, corruption
in telecom license allocation or imperfect solutions to the land acquisition problem, to a cloudy
abstraction called neo-liberalism.’

In a signed article ‘The Supreme Quote’ on July 9, 2011, Editor-in-Chief of The Indian Express
Shekhar Gupta dubbed this and other recent judgments as having the intellectual depth of a JNU
postgrad: ‘Large parts of these judgments are just lectures on political economy that makes you ask
a legitimate question: what is the job of the judges, to interpret law, or to criticise/make/change
economic policy.’ In a similar vein The Sunday Hindustan Times (July 10, 2011) column by Chanakya
commented against ‘Neo-Judicial Ideologues?’: ‘The judiciary is not an op-ed page contributor or a
JNU post-graduate in post-colonial studies.’ A scathing commentary on what is considered a case of
‘judicial overreach’ influenced by a superfluous academic red bastion of the country! However,
prominent political economy analyst Swaminathan S. Akalesaria Aiyar (‘Neo-Illiberalism is India’s
Bane’, The Times of India, June 17, 2011) argued that neo-liberalism that advocates market economy
sans any governmental control had not yet taken shape anywhere ‘and never will’ as ‘governments
do not come to power in order to abolish all their powers’. He called the Indian political economy as
‘neo-illiberalism’ coming out of the ‘New Delhi Consensus’ (not the Washington Consensus) —‘all
parties are fully agreed on continuing to making money out of a smaller but hugely profitable
license-permit raj’.

In a more sedate tenor The Pioneer editor-in-chief Chandan Mitra commented that ‘It is not my
intention to suggest that their Lordships acted out of ignorance in declaring this mass movement
“unconstitutional” and harangued the State Government for converting innocent tribals into armed
vigilantes, but I do wish the judges had travelled to Bastar to acquaint themselves with the ground
reality before passing this draconian order.’ (‘Flawed Verdict on Salwa Judum’, July 10, 2011) The
Hindu (July 9, 2011) in its editorial, on the other hand, agreed with this ‘landmark verdict’: ‘In
demanding an end to the SPO system, the Supreme Court has acted as much out of concern for the
hapless tribal population of Dantewada as for the tribal youth who were press-ganged by their
individual circumstances into becoming “cannon fodder” for the state.’

The Economic Times (July 11, 2011) agreed with the SJ part of the judgment. However, on its critique
of the neo-liberal policies, it said: ‘…it is unfortunate that the Court chose to pass facile judgment on
economic paradigms and develop-ment strategies…. That the Union Government can today spend
lakh crores to advance popular welfare stems wholly from the success of the policies the Court
dismissed as privatisation leading to emaciated state capacity to finance vital functions. The Court
fails to distinguish between economic reforms and the unreformed, degenerate politics that aborts
much of the emancipatory potential of economic reforms.’ The Times of India (July 10, 2011) report
supported the verdict on SJ, but cautioned: ‘(b)y launching a tirade against neoliberalism, the court
provides unnecessary ammunition to critics who accuse it of judicial overreach.’ Prakash Nanda in
his editorial column in the Uday India (July 23, 2011) felt that ‘(t)he honourable Judges have
effectively provided intellectual legitimacy by citing the factors of poverty and exploitation’. He over-
stretched his argument by suggesting that if empowering the common people to make electoral
choices was alright, how was it wrong to arm them in self-defence.

While the human rights camp of public personalities that spearheaded this PIL and campaign against
the tribal militia is naturally elated in being vindicated, other reactions vary from being cautious in
their optimism to a total dismay at the Apex Court upsetting the entire counter-insurgency
operations by the Chhattis-garh and other concerned State governments organised around
‘cooperation’ with the local communities. Both the final outcome and the tenor of the judgment
have been interpreted as being sympathetic to the Maoists, even anti-tribal, by this section of the
public opinion. There is also a strong criticism of judicial over-reach in terms of criticising the Indian
state on its developmental model at a time when strong arguments have been advanced in favour of
second generation of reforms. Why should the Supreme Court of India indulge in rhetoric on neo-
liberalism and go out of their immediate context to offer an ideological critique, when the reform
process is far from complete. On the security front, disbanding a well-formed voluntary security
structure, in the process jeopardising the Special Police Officer (SPO) system across States and
endangering the lives of the disarmed SJ SPOs of Chhatisgarh. The larger concerns emanating out of
a critique of a JNUsque criticism of ‘neo-liberalism’ by the Judiciary and its tendency to encroach
upon the executive and legislative terrain is also significant.

The Judgment

THERE are two parts of the judgment— ‘analytical’/explanatory and operative. And there are two
dimensions of the judgment—one with political implications and the second with public security
implications.

Let me first look at the operative part of the judgment. The Honourable Court has ordered the
Chhattisgarh Government to cease forthwith continuing with the SPOs, that is, disband the SJ; this
stops the Union of India from funding any such initiative by any State Government, directs the
Chhattisgarh Government to recall firearms from the SJ SPOs and protect their lives from the
Maoists. Additionally, the judgment also declared the sections of the Chhattisgarh Police Act 2007
providing for the appointment of SPOs as unconstitutional. The Honourable Court further
commented on the incident of violence against Swami Agnivesh in Chhattisgarh with concern and
directed the CBI to investigate this matter and report to it in six weeks.

The ‘analytical’/explanatory part of the judgment declared ‘having the depth of a JNU postgrad
writing’ by the press tsars consumes most part of the judgment in which the learned judges have
quoted extensively from literature on related issues—classical and contemporary —to buttress their
arguments. There are two sets of arguments in the judgment. The first set of arguments relate to
poverty and deprivation, particularly of the traditionally dispossessed social groups such as the
adivasis, and the second set of arguments is regarding public security and both eventually get
intertwined in articulating the final judgment.

In the first set of arguments the judgment relates deprivation to rebellion that expresses itself in
violent agitation politics. This is the section of the argument that some commentators have found
both rhetorical as well as ‘dangerous’ rationalisation of the Maoist politics in India. Whether the
learned judges have the luxury of rhetoric drawn from social science and political philosophy
literature in a judicial pronouncement, or they should use only a prosaic legal language in
explanation and verdict, is a separate issue. One among the main issues, as articulated by Aiyar, is
whether the current economic situation in India, in which the politics of the Maoist kind has
sustained and expanded since the 1980s, is due to ‘neo-liberal’ economic policies enforced by
external pressures, or it is India’s own mess wherein the policy regime is still ‘illiberal’ and far away
from market dictated ‘neo-liberalism’. The point indeed is well-taken. From this perspective, it is
only the characterisation that is problematic. Irrespective of the ‘ism’ followed by India’s policy
regime, land acquisition by the ‘eminent domain’ for the public good and displacement without
adequate resettlement,1 policies for which are still being fine-tuned, is still creating huge pockets of
discontent, leaving a large sections of the poverty stricken populace to be recruited for ‘revolution’
by the Maoists. That processes, circumstances and consequences of acquisition of land by the
government(s) in India is turning out to be curious is evident from the recent judgment of the
Allahabad High Court relating to acquisition of land from farmers and sale to private builders in
Noida/Greater Noida. Though neither Maoism, nor resettlement is an issue in these cases, but
circumstantial and consequential anomalies of the land acquisition policies are, whatever ‘ism’ we
use to explain this away.

That the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist politics in India beginning in Telangana in 1946 (then in Hyderabad
state), travelling to Naxalbari in West Bengal a decade-and-a-half since its withdrawal on the advice
of Stalin in 1951, surviving its obliteration in West Bengal in 1972 because of its sprouting in
Srikakulam since the 1960s and gradual spread to the ‘red corridor’ since the founding of the
People’s War Group (PWG) is well-analysed in social science literature, not all of which is supportive
to this movement.2 Obviously, the spread is not merely due to a handful of ideologues and activists,
they have found fertile ground in the areas they are entrenched in to build up a cadre and an armed
militia that has been testing the might of the Indian state for two decades.

The argument that there are areas of more acute poverty without Maoist influence is fallacious, for
the two are compatible but not causally linked. However, a look at the data on gradual spread of the
red corridor shows that the Maoist ‘revolutionaries’ have succeeded in targeting poverty pockets for
their spread. Obviously, in stating this, the SC has not shown any sympathy for the Maoists. In fact,
in stating that the Indian state is ‘adopting the same modes, as done by Maoist/Naxalite extremists’
and ‘The problem, it is apparent to us, and would be so to most reasonable people, cannot be the
people of Chhattisgarh, whose human rights are widely acknowledged to being systematically, and
on a vast scale, being violated by the Maoists/Naxalites on one side, and the State, and some of its
agents, on the other.’ There are more such references in the judgment. Obviously, the honourable
judges are not endorsing the Maoists and criticising them for human rights violations. The point
succinctly made is that the state must not behave as the Maoists.

It is in this connection that the honourable judges have ‘dared to’ give their critique of ‘neo-
liberalism’ inviting a strong wrath of the Fourth Estate—‘Predatory forms of capitalism, supported
and promoted by the State in direct contravention of constitutional norms and values, often take
deep roots around the extractive industries…. The argument that such a development paradigm is
necessary, and its consequences inevitable, is untenable.’ They have linked the consequences of
these developments to be violative of the norms stated in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution:
‘Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual’. In their opinion, the spread of Maoism is part of
this holistic scenario. They have not said anything new. In the past one decade, commentators on
developments in Orissa, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have stressed the need to protect
the interests of the adivasis and peasants in the face of increased activities of industrial expansion
and mining. The entire policy debate on land acquisition, forest dwellers’ rights and some coherence
in rehabilitation of the displaced arises out of the development dichotomy inherent in the economic
policies that have been pursued lately, howsoever we describe them. I would be surprised if the
honourable judges believe that this is reversible; but to point out that the Indian state must take
care of the anomalies is not out of context.

The second set of arguments on public security is an extension of the first set of arguments. First,
they have stressed that ‘(t)he primary task of the state is the provision of security to all its citizens,
without violating human dignity.’ In this context they have questioned the pursuing of ‘policies
whereby guns are distributed amongst barely literate youth amongst the poor to control the
dissatisfaction in such segments of the population would tantamount to sowing of suicide pills that
could divide and destroy society’. The section of the judgment on SJ is comprehensive, despite a
strong criticism for its disbanding; the analysis based on complaints, questions raised against the
initiative, the affidavits filed by the Union and State governments is comprehensive.

The Chhattisgarh Government has simultaneously claimed that the SJ is a people’s movement and
that the SPOs have statutory sanction in the Chhattisgarh Police Act of 2007, which draws from the
Indian Police Act 1861. This is a contradiction. In any case, the beginnings of SJ are unclear.
According to one report, Salwa Judum began in June 2005 when the tribals of nearly 25 villages in
Bijapur police district held a spontaneous anti-Naxal rally at Mathwada weekly market, declining the
Naxal diktat to pay to them more rent and enhanced wages to labour for Tendu leaf picking, This is
when Mahendra Karma, the then Congress MLA from Dantewada, took over as the leader and
subsequently the State Government, and from behind-the-scenes the Union Government, stepped
in to organise them further into an armed militia, if not a vigilante army. This was later mixed up
with the shifting of the tribals from villages in the areas of Maoist influence into special camps and
the youths from these camps, both boys and girls, were enrolled into it.3

It is in this process that at some stage the provisions for SPO in the Indian Police Act 1861 (Sections
17-19) were brought in. The Chhattisgarh Government has claimed application of not the Indian
Police Act, but of the Chhattisgarh Police Act (CPA), 2007, enacted two years after the SJ came into
existence. Sections 9 (1), (2), read together with Sections 23-25 and other such relevant sections
govern the powers, responsibilities and functioning of the SPOs. The idea of SPOs in the Indian Police
Act 1861 is interesting. If we ascend from Section 19 of the Act to 18 and 17, it is clear that the
colonial government could compel anyone, in the manner of conscription, to act as an SPO,
obviously when a situation of 1857 kind arose. In any case, it was designed as neighbourhood
policing, not an armed militia. The CPA in comparison is vague about circumstances and functions.
It is not surprising that the SC has come down hard on the Chhattisgarh Government for
endangering the lives of the SJ members or SPOs, as also on the Union Government for not
preventing this using Article 355 of the Constitution.4 The SC has pricked large holes in the affidavits
and arguments and these must be read carefully before handing out a blanket criticism of the
judgment. The casualties of the SJ cited in the judgment, if they are real, are large enough for us to
be cautioned. One of the arguments cited by the State Government is that these people know the
terrain and area well and with arms training they can thwart the Maoist offensive. If we take only
one case in point, the butchering of 77 CRPF personnel last year, who had not followed the standard
operating procedure according to the E.N. Rammohan Committee, two stark points emerge. First,
the SJ was not to be seen there to guide them. Second, if such a well-trained and seasoned force
falters, how could we look at at the SJ as a counter-offensive against well-strategised Maoists.
Further, if we look at the media reports of the past five years, there were several instances of the SJ
members or SPOs misusing their new-found weapon, power and status against their own
community. Some instances of their being used by the police as cannon fodders were also reported.

Before we damn the judgment, we should also consider the lapse on the part of the States in India in
not only in filling up the sanctioned vacancies, but also in not reviewing it periodically. Chhattisgarh
indeed had fewer sanctioned vacancies at all levels in December 2009—over 1000 at all levels, but
special circumstances and the terrain of the State demands larger strength. It is a new State and still
has a Police Academy coming up. The Jungle Warfare School, set up by the Union Government, has
apparently not made a major dent in security so far.

Interrogating Public Security

BEYOND the sharp disagreements with it, the judgment should make us think hard on issues of
public security in India. In the 64th year of independence an SC judgment questioning the raising and
use (and dismantling) of a vigilante militia to tackle an extremist challenge, described by Prime
Minister Dr Manmohan Singh from the ramparts of the Red Fort in his address to the nation on
independence day only five years back as the most serious internal security threat to the country, is
being described in public discourse as a disastrous step that would irreparably compromise the
Indian state’s mission against the Maoist challenge. Looking at the phenomenon and situation purely
from a statist perspective and leaving aside the socio-economic and other circumstances that have
led to its rise and spread, several questions arise.

First, any public security challenge within the national boundaries has to be first and continually
taken care of by the police. That the police in State after State have been put into a sitting-duck
situation against serious organised crime, terrorism and various kinds of extremist politics, including
Maoism, for the past three decades raises serious questions on the efficacy of the policy-makers in
India—both political and bureaucratic. Even if we forget all the exercises Police Commissions in
different States did during the 1960s and early 1970s, the situation since the submission of the
Dharam Vira Commission report in 1980 is comical, to say the least. The political class, so worried
and exercised about judicial overreach since the two judgments lately, has made a mockery of the SC
judgment on a PIL by Prakash Singh and others in 2006. The ‘tragedy of errors’ could not have
starker than the recent terrorist attack in Mumbai. Following 26/11 only three years back, a draft of
a counter-terrorism mechanism was presented to the government under the auspices of the Centre-
State Relations Commission at work at that time.5 The recommendations on public security have not
been discussed in the public domain at all. The press tsars who have slammed the judgment on this
count have neither undertaken a sustained campaign for police reforms, nor have they spared their
valuable time to review, discuss and make suggestions on the valuable exercise carried out by the
Commission on internal security and Centre-State relations.
One significant point being totally missed in this alarmist debate is that we are talking about the use
of police powers of the state, which in a democracy is significant for a discreet use of legitimised
violence under the umbrella of the rule of law. In this case we are linking the right to ‘self-defence’ in
a situation in which the state agencies designated for the purpose have proved unequal to challenge
with the police powers of the state. The resulting anomalies and distortions have been discussed
from time to time and the judgment too highlights this. The honourable judges have stressed that
the SJ was not equipped to use legitimate, controlled, coercive violence that the Indian state is
supposed to use in this situation. Another significant point is whether this militia was constituted
with consent or coercion. This is extremely significant to determine whether the Indian state had
judiciously passed on its responsibility to a ‘citizens’ militia’. Since the truth is somewhere in the
middle, the apprehensions expressed in the judgment were not misplaced.

Summing Up

SHARP disappointments, dissenting voices and criticism notwithstanding, it is a significant judgment.

Both in the areas of dichotomies arising out of the policies of a remiss state and public security, it
makes bold statements. Indeed, the boldness of the statement, illustrated with a ‘graduate-student’
like thesis on neo-liberal policies, appears to have ruffled many feathers. But many of us have
argued that in order to tackle the Maoist challenge, the Indian state has to seriously undertake to
bridge decades of development deficit, be careful with regard to development dichotomies arising
out of new developmental paradigm and carefully remove the displacement-rehabilitation hiatus
that has existed since the 1950s and has found a new context in India’s globalised economy. Several
studies have shown that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are the most affected by
displacement.

The bold and comprehensive statement made on public security also deserves serious
considerations. An SPO initiative of the Salwa Judum kind is only a fire-fighting a

The debate over the PIL filed in 2007 by Nandini Sundar and others challenging the ‘creation’ of
Salwa Judum (SJ), variously translated from the Gondwani dialect as peace march or peace
movement, as an armed tribal ‘vigilante group’, has taken a new turn in several respects since the
Supreme Court of India struck down the use of tribal youths as a supplementary counter-insurgency
force on Tuesday, July 5, 2011. Aside from expectedly mixed reactions both in the media and the
public, three significant reactions need our attention and analysis. First, both the Union and
Chhatisgarh governments expectedly reacted against it by expressing their intent to appeal to a
larger SC Bench. Second, responding to some reactions in the government and the media circles that
the members of the disbanded SJ could be targeted by the Maoists, the Maoists issued a blanket
amnesty for those ‘adivasis’ who had joined the SJ under ‘government pressure’, thus reinforcing
their friends-of-the-tribal image; simultaneously attempting to brush clean their own image as a
ruthless group. Third, the Chhattisgarh Government, not to let go the ‘advantage’ it had gained with
the SJ, declared that the former SJ members would be absorbed into the police as constables, even if
that meant lowering the educational and physical standards laid down for recruitment to the
constabulary. I will return to these issues a little later in my analysis.

The Media Reactions

THE INDIAN EXPRESS (July 7, 2011) editorialised this ‘Too Judgmental’ verdict rather pithily: ‘Rather
than a granular approach that restricts itself to interpreting cases in the light of particular laws and
statutes, the courts have enlarged their self-image, as populist champion and scold.’ In fact, drawing
from some other recent judgments that it thought made the Court getting carried away, the daily
felt: ‘The troubling thing about these judgments is not what they finally resolve, but their tendency
to draw straight connections between diverse, highly specific cases about Salwa Judum, corruption
in telecom license allocation or imperfect solutions to the land acquisition problem, to a cloudy
abstraction called neo-liberalism.’

In a signed article ‘The Supreme Quote’ on July 9, 2011, Editor-in-Chief of The Indian Express
Shekhar Gupta dubbed this and other recent judgments as having the intellectual depth of a JNU
postgrad: ‘Large parts of these judgments are just lectures on political economy that makes you ask
a legitimate question: what is the job of the judges, to interpret law, or to criticise/make/change
economic policy.’ In a similar vein The Sunday Hindustan Times (July 10, 2011) column by Chanakya
commented against ‘Neo-Judicial Ideologues?’: ‘The judiciary is not an op-ed page contributor or a
JNU post-graduate in post-colonial studies.’ A scathing commentary on what is considered a case of
‘judicial overreach’ influenced by a superfluous academic red bastion of the country! However,
prominent political economy analyst Swaminathan S. Akalesaria Aiyar (‘Neo-Illiberalism is India’s
Bane’, The Times of India, June 17, 2011) argued that neo-liberalism that advocates market economy
sans any governmental control had not yet taken shape anywhere ‘and never will’ as ‘governments
do not come to power in order to abolish all their powers’. He called the Indian political economy as
‘neo-illiberalism’ coming out of the ‘New Delhi Consensus’ (not the Washington Consensus) —‘all
parties are fully agreed on continuing to making money out of a smaller but hugely profitable
license-permit raj’.

In a more sedate tenor The Pioneer editor-in-chief Chandan Mitra commented that ‘It is not my
intention to suggest that their Lordships acted out of ignorance in declaring this mass movement
“unconstitutional” and harangued the State Government for converting innocent tribals into armed
vigilantes, but I do wish the judges had travelled to Bastar to acquaint themselves with the ground
reality before passing this draconian order.’ (‘Flawed Verdict on Salwa Judum’, July 10, 2011) The
Hindu (July 9, 2011) in its editorial, on the other hand, agreed with this ‘landmark verdict’: ‘In
demanding an end to the SPO system, the Supreme Court has acted as much out of concern for the
hapless tribal population of Dantewada as for the tribal youth who were press-ganged by their
individual circumstances into becoming “cannon fodder” for the state.’

The Economic Times (July 11, 2011) agreed with the SJ part of the judgment. However, on its critique
of the neo-liberal policies, it said: ‘…it is unfortunate that the Court chose to pass facile judgment on
economic paradigms and develop-ment strategies…. That the Union Government can today spend
lakh crores to advance popular welfare stems wholly from the success of the policies the Court
dismissed as privatisation leading to emaciated state capacity to finance vital functions. The Court
fails to distinguish between economic reforms and the unreformed, degenerate politics that aborts
much of the emancipatory potential of economic reforms.’ The Times of India (July 10, 2011) report
supported the verdict on SJ, but cautioned: ‘(b)y launching a tirade against neoliberalism, the court
provides unnecessary ammunition to critics who accuse it of judicial overreach.’ Prakash Nanda in
his editorial column in the Uday India (July 23, 2011) felt that ‘(t)he honourable Judges have
effectively provided intellectual legitimacy by citing the factors of poverty and exploitation’. He over-
stretched his argument by suggesting that if empowering the common people to make electoral
choices was alright, how was it wrong to arm them in self-defence.

While the human rights camp of public personalities that spearheaded this PIL and campaign against
the tribal militia is naturally elated in being vindicated, other reactions vary from being cautious in
their optimism to a total dismay at the Apex Court upsetting the entire counter-insurgency
operations by the Chhattis-garh and other concerned State governments organised around
‘cooperation’ with the local communities. Both the final outcome and the tenor of the judgment
have been interpreted as being sympathetic to the Maoists, even anti-tribal, by this section of the
public opinion. There is also a strong criticism of judicial over-reach in terms of criticising the Indian
state on its developmental model at a time when strong arguments have been advanced in favour of
second generation of reforms. Why should the Supreme Court of India indulge in rhetoric on neo-
liberalism and go out of their immediate context to offer an ideological critique, when the reform
process is far from complete. On the security front, disbanding a well-formed voluntary security
structure, in the process jeopardising the Special Police Officer (SPO) system across States and
endangering the lives of the disarmed SJ SPOs of Chhatisgarh. The larger concerns emanating out of
a critique of a JNUsque criticism of ‘neo-liberalism’ by the Judiciary and its tendency to encroach
upon the executive and legislative terrain is also significant.

The Judgment

THERE are two parts of the judgment— ‘analytical’/explanatory and operative. And there are two
dimensions of the judgment—one with political implications and the second with public security
implications.

Let me first look at the operative part of the judgment. The Honourable Court has ordered the
Chhattisgarh Government to cease forthwith continuing with the SPOs, that is, disband the SJ; this
stops the Union of India from funding any such initiative by any State Government, directs the
Chhattisgarh Government to recall firearms from the SJ SPOs and protect their lives from the
Maoists. Additionally, the judgment also declared the sections of the Chhattisgarh Police Act 2007
providing for the appointment of SPOs as unconstitutional. The Honourable Court further
commented on the incident of violence against Swami Agnivesh in Chhattisgarh with concern and
directed the CBI to investigate this matter and report to it in six weeks.

The ‘analytical’/explanatory part of the judgment declared ‘having the depth of a JNU postgrad
writing’ by the press tsars consumes most part of the judgment in which the learned judges have
quoted extensively from literature on related issues—classical and contemporary —to buttress their
arguments. There are two sets of arguments in the judgment. The first set of arguments relate to
poverty and deprivation, particularly of the traditionally dispossessed social groups such as the
adivasis, and the second set of arguments is regarding public security and both eventually get
intertwined in articulating the final judgment.

In the first set of arguments the judgment relates deprivation to rebellion that expresses itself in
violent agitation politics. This is the section of the argument that some commentators have found
both rhetorical as well as ‘dangerous’ rationalisation of the Maoist politics in India. Whether the
learned judges have the luxury of rhetoric drawn from social science and political philosophy
literature in a judicial pronouncement, or they should use only a prosaic legal language in
explanation and verdict, is a separate issue. One among the main issues, as articulated by Aiyar, is
whether the current economic situation in India, in which the politics of the Maoist kind has
sustained and expanded since the 1980s, is due to ‘neo-liberal’ economic policies enforced by
external pressures, or it is India’s own mess wherein the policy regime is still ‘illiberal’ and far away
from market dictated ‘neo-liberalism’. The point indeed is well-taken. From this perspective, it is
only the characterisation that is problematic. Irrespective of the ‘ism’ followed by India’s policy
regime, land acquisition by the ‘eminent domain’ for the public good and displacement without
adequate resettlement,1 policies for which are still being fine-tuned, is still creating huge pockets of
discontent, leaving a large sections of the poverty stricken populace to be recruited for ‘revolution’
by the Maoists. That processes, circumstances and consequences of acquisition of land by the
government(s) in India is turning out to be curious is evident from the recent judgment of the
Allahabad High Court relating to acquisition of land from farmers and sale to private builders in
Noida/Greater Noida. Though neither Maoism, nor resettlement is an issue in these cases, but
circumstantial and consequential anomalies of the land acquisition policies are, whatever ‘ism’ we
use to explain this away.

That the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist politics in India beginning in Telangana in 1946 (then in Hyderabad
state), travelling to Naxalbari in West Bengal a decade-and-a-half since its withdrawal on the advice
of Stalin in 1951, surviving its obliteration in West Bengal in 1972 because of its sprouting in
Srikakulam since the 1960s and gradual spread to the ‘red corridor’ since the founding of the
People’s War Group (PWG) is well-analysed in social science literature, not all of which is supportive
to this movement.2 Obviously, the spread is not merely due to a handful of ideologues and activists,
they have found fertile ground in the areas they are entrenched in to build up a cadre and an armed
militia that has been testing the might of the Indian state for two decades.

The argument that there are areas of more acute poverty without Maoist influence is fallacious, for
the two are compatible but not causally linked. However, a look at the data on gradual spread of the
red corridor shows that the Maoist ‘revolutionaries’ have succeeded in targeting poverty pockets for
their spread. Obviously, in stating this, the SC has not shown any sympathy for the Maoists. In fact,
in stating that the Indian state is ‘adopting the same modes, as done by Maoist/Naxalite extremists’
and ‘The problem, it is apparent to us, and would be so to most reasonable people, cannot be the
people of Chhattisgarh, whose human rights are widely acknowledged to being systematically, and
on a vast scale, being violated by the Maoists/Naxalites on one side, and the State, and some of its
agents, on the other.’ There are more such references in the judgment. Obviously, the honourable
judges are not endorsing the Maoists and criticising them for human rights violations. The point
succinctly made is that the state must not behave as the Maoists.

It is in this connection that the honourable judges have ‘dared to’ give their critique of ‘neo-
liberalism’ inviting a strong wrath of the Fourth Estate—‘Predatory forms of capitalism, supported
and promoted by the State in direct contravention of constitutional norms and values, often take
deep roots around the extractive industries…. The argument that such a development paradigm is
necessary, and its consequences inevitable, is untenable.’ They have linked the consequences of
these developments to be violative of the norms stated in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution:
‘Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual’. In their opinion, the spread of Maoism is part of
this holistic scenario. They have not said anything new. In the past one decade, commentators on
developments in Orissa, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have stressed the need to protect
the interests of the adivasis and peasants in the face of increased activities of industrial expansion
and mining. The entire policy debate on land acquisition, forest dwellers’ rights and some coherence
in rehabilitation of the displaced arises out of the development dichotomy inherent in the economic
policies that have been pursued lately, howsoever we describe them. I would be surprised if the
honourable judges believe that this is reversible; but to point out that the Indian state must take
care of the anomalies is not out of context.

The second set of arguments on public security is an extension of the first set of arguments. First,
they have stressed that ‘(t)he primary task of the state is the provision of security to all its citizens,
without violating human dignity.’ In this context they have questioned the pursuing of ‘policies
whereby guns are distributed amongst barely literate youth amongst the poor to control the
dissatisfaction in such segments of the population would tantamount to sowing of suicide pills that
could divide and destroy society’. The section of the judgment on SJ is comprehensive, despite a
strong criticism for its disbanding; the analysis based on complaints, questions raised against the
initiative, the affidavits filed by the Union and State governments is comprehensive.
The Chhattisgarh Government has simultaneously claimed that the SJ is a people’s movement and
that the SPOs have statutory sanction in the Chhattisgarh Police Act of 2007, which draws from the
Indian Police Act 1861. This is a contradiction. In any case, the beginnings of SJ are unclear.
According to one report, Salwa Judum began in June 2005 when the tribals of nearly 25 villages in
Bijapur police district held a spontaneous anti-Naxal rally at Mathwada weekly market, declining the
Naxal diktat to pay to them more rent and enhanced wages to labour for Tendu leaf picking, This is
when Mahendra Karma, the then Congress MLA from Dantewada, took over as the leader and
subsequently the State Government, and from behind-the-scenes the Union Government, stepped
in to organise them further into an armed militia, if not a vigilante army. This was later mixed up
with the shifting of the tribals from villages in the areas of Maoist influence into special camps and
the youths from these camps, both boys and girls, were enrolled into it.3

It is in this process that at some stage the provisions for SPO in the Indian Police Act 1861 (Sections
17-19) were brought in. The Chhattisgarh Government has claimed application of not the Indian
Police Act, but of the Chhattisgarh Police Act (CPA), 2007, enacted two years after the SJ came into
existence. Sections 9 (1), (2), read together with Sections 23-25 and other such relevant sections
govern the powers, responsibilities and functioning of the SPOs. The idea of SPOs in the Indian Police
Act 1861 is interesting. If we ascend from Section 19 of the Act to 18 and 17, it is clear that the
colonial government could compel anyone, in the manner of conscription, to act as an SPO,
obviously when a situation of 1857 kind arose. In any case, it was designed as neighbourhood
policing, not an armed militia. The CPA in comparison is vague about circumstances and functions.

It is not surprising that the SC has come down hard on the Chhattisgarh Government for
endangering the lives of the SJ members or SPOs, as also on the Union Government for not
preventing this using Article 355 of the Constitution.4 The SC has pricked large holes in the affidavits
and arguments and these must be read carefully before handing out a blanket criticism of the
judgment. The casualties of the SJ cited in the judgment, if they are real, are large enough for us to
be cautioned. One of the arguments cited by the State Government is that these people know the
terrain and area well and with arms training they can thwart the Maoist offensive. If we take only
one case in point, the butchering of 77 CRPF personnel last year, who had not followed the standard
operating procedure according to the E.N. Rammohan Committee, two stark points emerge. First,
the SJ was not to be seen there to guide them. Second, if such a well-trained and seasoned force
falters, how could we look at at the SJ as a counter-offensive against well-strategised Maoists.
Further, if we look at the media reports of the past five years, there were several instances of the SJ
members or SPOs misusing their new-found weapon, power and status against their own
community. Some instances of their being used by the police as cannon fodders were also reported.

Before we damn the judgment, we should also consider the lapse on the part of the States in India in
not only in filling up the sanctioned vacancies, but also in not reviewing it periodically. Chhattisgarh
indeed had fewer sanctioned vacancies at all levels in December 2009—over 1000 at all levels, but
special circumstances and the terrain of the State demands larger strength. It is a new State and still
has a Police Academy coming up. The Jungle Warfare School, set up by the Union Government, has
apparently not made a major dent in security so far.

Interrogating Public Security

BEYOND the sharp disagreements with it, the judgment should make us think hard on issues of
public security in India. In the 64th year of independence an SC judgment questioning the raising and
use (and dismantling) of a vigilante militia to tackle an extremist challenge, described by Prime
Minister Dr Manmohan Singh from the ramparts of the Red Fort in his address to the nation on
independence day only five years back as the most serious internal security threat to the country, is
being described in public discourse as a disastrous step that would irreparably compromise the
Indian state’s mission against the Maoist challenge. Looking at the phenomenon and situation purely
from a statist perspective and leaving aside the socio-economic and other circumstances that have
led to its rise and spread, several questions arise.

First, any public security challenge within the national boundaries has to be first and continually
taken care of by the police. That the police in State after State have been put into a sitting-duck
situation against serious organised crime, terrorism and various kinds of extremist politics, including
Maoism, for the past three decades raises serious questions on the efficacy of the policy-makers in
India—both political and bureaucratic. Even if we forget all the exercises Police Commissions in
different States did during the 1960s and early 1970s, the situation since the submission of the
Dharam Vira Commission report in 1980 is comical, to say the least. The political class, so worried
and exercised about judicial overreach since the two judgments lately, has made a mockery of the SC
judgment on a PIL by Prakash Singh and others in 2006. The ‘tragedy of errors’ could not have
starker than the recent terrorist attack in Mumbai. Following 26/11 only three years back, a draft of
a counter-terrorism mechanism was presented to the government under the auspices of the Centre-
State Relations Commission at work at that time.5 The recommendations on public security have not
been discussed in the public domain at all. The press tsars who have slammed the judgment on this
count have neither undertaken a sustained campaign for police reforms, nor have they spared their
valuable time to review, discuss and make suggestions on the valuable exercise carried out by the
Commission on internal security and Centre-State relations.

One significant point being totally missed in this alarmist debate is that we are talking about the use
of police powers of the state, which in a democracy is significant for a discreet use of legitimised
violence under the umbrella of the rule of law. In this case we are linking the right to ‘self-defence’ in
a situation in which the state agencies designated for the purpose have proved unequal to challenge
with the police powers of the state. The resulting anomalies and distortions have been discussed
from time to time and the judgment too highlights this. The honourable judges have stressed that
the SJ was not equipped to use legitimate, controlled, coercive violence that the Indian state is
supposed to use in this situation. Another significant point is whether this militia was constituted
with consent or coercion. This is extremely significant to determine whether the Indian state had
judiciously passed on its responsibility to a ‘citizens’ militia’. Since the truth is somewhere in the
middle, the apprehensions expressed in the judgment were not misplaced.

Summing Up

SHARP disappointments, dissenting voices and criticism notwithstanding, it is a significant judgment.

Both in the areas of dichotomies arising out of the policies of a remiss state and public security, it
makes bold statements. Indeed, the boldness of the statement, illustrated with a ‘graduate-student’
like thesis on neo-liberal policies, appears to have ruffled many feathers. But many of us have
argued that in order to tackle the Maoist challenge, the Indian state has to seriously undertake to
bridge decades of development deficit, be careful with regard to development dichotomies arising
out of new developmental paradigm and carefully remove the displacement-rehabilitation hiatus
that has existed since the 1950s and has found a new context in India’s globalised economy. Several
studies have shown that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are the most affected by
displacement.

The bold and comprehensive statement made on public security also deserves serious
considerations. An SPO initiative of the Salwa Judum kind is only a fire-fighting arrangement. It must
not be confused with a permanent answer to India’s widening public security gap. The honourable
judges have widely quoted Philip Bobbitt, ‘if we act lawlessly, we throw away the gains of effective
action.”

Doctors Aiding Police to inflict 3rd degree Torture on detainees

By Stephen Lendman

In April 2009, a confidential February 2007 ICRC torture report was publicly released. Titled, "ICRC
Report on the Treatment of Fourteen 'High Value Detainees' in CIA Custody," it detailed harsh and
abusive treatment from their time of arrest, detention, transfer, and incarceration at Guantanamo
where ICRC professionals interviewed them.

Besides detailed information on torture and abusive treatment, they obtained damning, consistent
detainee accounts of medical personnel involvement, including:

-- their monitoring of and direct participation in torture procedures;

-- instructing interrogators to continue, adjust, or stop certain ones;

-- informing detainees that medical treatment depended on their cooperation;

-- performing medical checks before and after each transfer; and

-- treating the effects of torture as well as ailments and injuries during incarceration.

Condoning or participating in torture grievously breaches medical ethics and the 1975 World
Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Tokyo "Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and
Imprisonment." It states:

-- in all cases at all times, "physician(s) shall not countenance, condone or participate in" torture or
any other form of abuse;

-- they "shall not use nor allow to be used (their) medical knowledge or skills, or health information"
to aid interrogation in any way;

-- they "shall not be present during any procedure during which torture or any other forms of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment is used or threatened;"

-- they "must have complete clinical independence" in treating persons for whom they're medically
responsible; and

-- WMA encourages the international community and fellow physicians to support medical
professionals who face "threats or reprisals resulting from a refusal to condone" all forms of torture
and abuse.

Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions states:

"Persons engaged in medical activities shall neither be compelled to perform acts or to carry out
work contrary to, nor be compelled to refrain from acts required by, the rules of medical ethics or
other rules designed for the benefit of the wounded and sick, or this Protocol."
On July 7, 2005 in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan Marks
published an article titled, "Doctors and Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay" in which they cited
evidence that "Health information (was) routinely available to behavioral science consultants and
others" engaged in interrogations, in violation of strict medical ethics.

In early 2003, detainee medical records were readily available, and since late 2002, psychiatrists and
psychologists were involved in crafting extreme stress techniques "combined with behavior-shaping
rewards to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives."

"Wholesale disregard for clinical confidentiality" seriously breaches medical ethics "since it makes
every caregiver into an accessory to intelligence gathering." It also "puts prisoners at greater risk for
serious abuse."

In July 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) published a report titled, "Report on Torture
and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" that included
evidence of medical personnel involvement in torture.

Detainee Othman Abdulraheem Mohammad was told that medical treatment would depend on his
cooperation. Lakhdar Boumediene said every time he requested care he was told to ask permission
from his interrogators. They "controlled his access, (and it) was granted or denied based on the
interrogator's assessment of his level of cooperation."

Bosnian prisoner medical records confirmed that medical staff were present during their
interrogations "and authorized (them) to proceed."

Medical personnel monitored Mohammed al Qahtani's interrogation during nearly two months of
"severe sleep deprivation and physical stress." At one point, they rushed him to the base hospital
when his heart rate dropped dangerously low. After stabilization, they returned him the next day for
more interrogation.

Other prisoners described doctors performing unnecessary and abusive procedures, including forced
amputations, after which they were denied proper treatment.

Psychiatrists and psychologists designed "extreme interrogation techniques as part of the Behavioral
Science Consultation Team (BSCT)." In late 2002, it was tasked "to torment detainees in
interrogations...."

International and US Laws Prohibiting Torture

Numerous international and US laws unequivocally ban torture under all conditions at all times with
no allowed exceptions ever, for any reasons, including in times of war.

The Third Geneva Convention covers war prisoners and detainees. It prohibits torture and protects
their right to be treated humanely against "violence to life and person (and) humiliating and
degrading treatment" as well as to judicial fairness and proper medical treatment. The Fourth
Geneva Convention affords the same rights to civilians in times of war.

The federal anti-torture statute (18 USC, 2340A) prohibits its use outside the US and defines it as "an
act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe
physical or mental pain or suffering....upon another person within his custody or physical control."

The 1991 Torture Victims Protection Act authorizes civil suits in America against individuals, acting in
an official capacity for a foreign state, who committed torture and/or extrajudicial killing.
The 1984 UN Convention Against Torture bans all forms of torture, cruel and degrading treatment in
all circumstances at all times with no exceptions ever allowed.

The US Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment.

The US Army's Field Manual 27-10 states that military or civilian persons may be punished for
committing war crimes (that include abusive interrogations) under international law. Army Field
Manual 34-52 outlines interrogation procedures and specifically prohibits force, mental torture,
threats, and inhumane treatment.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) bans cruelty, oppression, actions intended to degrade
or humiliate, and physical, menacing, and threatening assaults. Army Regulation (AR) 190-8 protects
detainees from violence, assaults, and insults, and directs that they be treated humanely with
respect.

The 1996 US War Crimes Act prohibits grave Geneva Convention breaches, including (as stipulated
under Common Article III) "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture (as well as) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment."

Other binding international laws also prohibit torture, including the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the 1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with no exceptions or
justifications allowed, such as orders by field commanders, Pentagon officials, or the President of the
United States.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR)

Founded in 1986, PHR "mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity, and justice and
promotes the right to health for all." It also "investigates human rights abuses and works to stop
them" in conflict zones, US prisons, and offshore detention facilities where torture is routinely
practiced.

In 2005, it published a report titled, "Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by
US Forces," which it called the first comprehensive examination of "the use of psychological torture
by US personnel in the so-called 'war on terror,' " including sensory deprivation, prolonged isolation,
sleep deprivation, forced nudity, using fierce dogs to instill fear, cultural and sexual humiliation,
mock executions, and threatened violence against loved ones.

It called the effects devastating and longer-lasting than physical torture, and said psychological
abuse is morally reprehensible and illegal under international and US law.

In August 2009, PHR published a new report titled, "Aiding Torture: Health Professionals' Ethics and
Human Rights Violations Revealed in the May 2004 CIA Inspector General's Report," including ethical
misconduct not previously known. It revealed the role of health professionals involved "at every
stage in the development, implementation and legitimization of this torture program."

It explained that doctors and psychologists actively participated in abusive interrogations and
contributed to the physical and mental suffering of detainees. It called their actions "an
unconscionable affront to the profession of medicine," made worse by experimenting on inmates,
then "aggregat(ing) data on (their) reaction to interrogation methods."
PHR's Steven Reisner said "They were experimenting and keeping records of the results," a war
crime under Geneva and the Nuremberg Code that requires "voluntary consent" of human subjects
and prohibits experiments:

-- that inflict "unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury;"

-- if there's "an a priori reason to believe death or disabling injury will occur;" and

-- from being implemented if there's reason to believe they'll cause "injury, disability, or death to the
experimental subject."

PHR's report detailed the psychological and medical effects:

-- forced shaving inflicts psychological harm "by means of humiliation, both personal and religious;"

-- hooding disorients and causes acute anxiety depression, depersonalization, and abnormal
behavior;

-- dietary manipulation inflicts discomfort and psychological stress;

-- prolonged diapering causes physical and psychological stress and harm;

-- walling inflicts physical injuries as well as psychological stress, rage, and helplessness;

-- confinement in a box in extreme stress positions causes extreme physical and psychological pain
and trauma; and

-- other abuses, including waterboarding that simulates drowning and the feeling of helplessness to
prevent it.

Involvement of Medical Professionals

They help develop, implement, provide cover for, and justify torture and abusive practices. They're
actively involved in designing harmful interrogation techniques in clear violation of the law and
medical ethics. They're "complicit in selecting and then rationalizing (methods) whose safety and
efficacy in eliciting accurate information have no valid basis in science." Their actions constitute "a
practice that approaches unlawful experimentation."

CIA guidelines require health professionals, including a doctor and psychologist, to be present during
enhanced interrogations, "thereby placing (them) in the untenable position of calibrating harm
rather than serving as protectors and healers as" their ethical code demands.

They also participate in initial physical and psychological assessments, then monitor all subsequent
interrogations. They know their actions are harmful, unethical, and illegal, yet they serve willingly.

PHR believes they should be investigated on charges of "alleged criminal conduct." Those proved
guilty should be prosecuted, lose their license, professional society memberships, and any standing
RTI Information Request to Honourable Chief Justice of India

And Honourable Union Home Minister GOI New Delhi

Ref RTI Application Nos :

MHOME/R/2018/52451

JUSTC/R/2018/51763

MOLAW/R/2018/50595

Answer Honourable CJI SCI

Since 1990 , I as a citizen of India have brought to notice of SCI various crimes hoping for justice to
the suffering public. Supreme court of India has enough time to judge trivial issues concerning
movies , cricket , etc but it doesn’t have time to judge public issues concerning national security ,
accountability of judges , police , public servants in all these 28 years. After repeatedly appealing
for justice , powers that be have meted out injustices to me personally to silence me. SCI has failed
in it’s duties since 28 years , but judges are taking hefty pay , perks from our money , public money
without feeling of shame or guilt.

Hereby , I request Honourable CJI , SCI to provide information by answering following questions :

1. Since 1990 how many applications of PIL , RTI are received by SCI from me NAGARAJA M R ?

2. How many show cause notices are served to CJI , SCI by Nagaraja M R , since 1990 ?

3. Details of action taken in each case. If not why ?

4. Why compensation amount is not yet paid by CJI , SCI to NAGARAJA M R , till date ?

5. How CJI , SCI is going to protect the lives , civil rights of NAGARAJA M R & his family
members ? If anything untoward happens to NAGARAJA M R & his family members CJI , SCI is
responsible together with jurisdiction police & district magistrate.

6. Why no criminal legal prosecution of CJI , police , public servants for their failure of duties ?

7. Honourable CJI , SCI read full case details at following web sites & honestly

ANSWER :
 https://sites.google.com/site/dalitoonline/answer-cji---loya-murder ,
https://sites.google.com/site/dalitoonline/interrogate-chief-justice

Legal Notice to Honourable Chief Justice of India

To,

Honourable Chief Justice of India,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,

New Delhi.

Honourable Sir ,

Subject : Legal Notice to Chief Justice of India

Are Judges , Police PERFECT ? Satya Harishchandra ?

Hereby , I challenge Chief Justice of India in the exercise of my FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES as a citizen
of india , that subject to conditions I will legally prove the crimes of few judges , police , public
servants within the government service and other criminals. Is the CJI ready to book those
criminals , traitors , anti nationals ?

Since 25 years I am appealing to apex court for justice concerning various public issues , no justice in
sight but injustices meted out one after another. But the same judges are SHAMELESSLY taking
huge pay perks for years now are also poised

to get almost triple fold salary increase. Parasites feeding on Indian Public. Whenever questions
of accountability are asked judges level contempt charges against the questioner or police fix
him in fake cases or he is silenced by threats , murders , denial of jobs , etc. Since 25 years in many
ways they are trying to silence me. Just take the recent example of Justice Karnan who leveled

corruption charges against specific judges with CJI. Instead of conducting a fair investigation into
the matter , CJI tried to silence him by serving him contempt notice.

Our Judges , Police are NOT Perfect Not Satya Harischandras . There are criminals as well as
honest people side by side in judiciary & police. We whole heartedly respect honest few in
judiciary , police & public service. But we detest corrupt judges , corrupt police. Honest Judges &
Police are not coming into open to prosecute their corrupt colleagues, why ? silenced ?

Criminalization of all wings of government has taken place , unfit people are in the positions of
power. Corruption in judiciary , police , CBI , CVC , Public service is rampant. Now MAFIA is at work.
Only few scandals , scams become public , many are buried. If one criminal public servant is caught
other public servant who is also a criminal conducts name sake investigation , gives report , clean
chit. Law courts rely on the government reports as evidences , courts are not bothered about
credibility of reports or investigations. It is quid pro quo. Therefore technically criminal public
servants are never proved for their crimes & convicted , as investigation itself is not fair.
A Crime may happen without the knowledge of police but cann’t continue for years without the
connivance of police. A Crime reported to court cann’t continue for years without connivance of
judges.

At the bottom of the paper , I have given web sites about few ACB raids on government officials
and unearthing of crores worth property. How they have earned it , by misusing their official
positions. Therefore government reports , records prepared by these officials , investigations
conducted by corrupt police are suspect. But Law courts in various cases , considers government
reports , records , statements of government officials as sacrosanct . Therefore in many cases
injustice is meted out by court , as they depend on reports of corrupt government officials , corrupt
police.

The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to
emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if
the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he
can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go
scot-free under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally
prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved. just think , if a judge himself that too of apex
court of the land himself commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights
of public and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what
happens ? "Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will
be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight
among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even
air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before
the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been
proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt people’s representatives , police , public servants &
Judges.

I don’t know whether secretariat staff of CJI office & DARPG / DPG officials are forwarding my
appeals for justice , e-mails to you or not. They will be held accountable for their lapses if any. This
notice is against the repeated failure of constitutional duties & indirect collusion with criminals by
previous CHIEF JUSTICEs OF INDIA. Notice is served against them , to the office of CJI , NOT
personally against you.

Please refer my appeal for justice through DARPG ;

DLGLA/E/2013/00292

DEPOJ/E/2013/00679

In india democracy is a farce , freedom a mirage. the most basic freedom RIGHT TO INFORMATION &
EXPRESSION , is not honoured by the government,as the information opens up the crimes of V.V.I.Ps
& leads to their ill-gotten wealth. The public servants are least bothered about the lives of people or
justice to them. these type of fat cats , parasites are a drain on the public exchequer . these people
want ,wish me to see dead , wish to see HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH closed . so that, a voice against
injustices is silenced forever , the crimes of V.V.I.Ps closed , buried forever.

To my numerous appeals , HRW’s appeals to you ,you have not yet replied. It clearly shows that you
are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them .it proves that you are hell bent to
protect the criminals at any cost. you are just pressurising the police to enquire me ,to take my
statement, to repeatedly call me to police station all with a view to silence me.all of you enjoy “legal
immunity privileges” ,why don’t you have given powers to the police / investigating officer to
summon all of you for enquiry ?or else why don’t all of you are not appearing before the police
voluntarily for enquiry ?at the least why don’t all of you are not sending your statement about the
case to the police either through legal counsel or through post? you are aiding criminals ,by denying
me job oppurtunities in R.B.I CURRENCY NOTE PRESS mysore , city civil court ,bangalore , distict
court , mysore ,etc & by illegally closing my newspaper. Even Press accreditation to me as a web
journalist is denied till date. there is a gross, total mismatch between your actions and your oath of
office. this amounts to public cheating & moral turpitude on your part.

1.you are making contempt of the very august office you hold.

2.you are making contempt of the constitution of india.

3.you are making contempt of citizens of india.

4.you are sponsoring & aiding terorrism & organized crime.

5.you are violating the fundamental & human rights of the citizens of india and of neighbouring
countries.

6.you are violating & making contempt of the U.N HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER to which india is a
signatory.

7.you are obstructing me from performing my fundamental duties as a citizen of india. 8. As a result
of your gross negligence of constitutional duties you have caused me damages / losses to the tune of
RUPEES TWO CRORE ONLY.

9. You are responsible for crime cover ups mentioned in my RTI Appeals , PILs and
continuation of those crimes unabated.

10. You are responsible for denial of information, which vindicates the crimes of powers that
be.

11. You are responsible for physical assaults , murder attempts on me.

12. You are responsible for job denials to me at NIE , PES Engineering college , RBI Press ,
Mysore , Bangalore Courts.

13. You are responsible for my illegal retrenchment from RPG Cables , denial of medical care
to me towards occupational health problems.

14. You are responsible for denying me legal aid.

15. You are responsible for illegal closure of my news paper.

16. You are responsible for denial of press accreditation to me as a web journalist till date.

17. You are responsible for repeatedly passing on my appeals to police. So that they can take
statements , close the file under the threat of police power.

18. You have violated my Human Rights & Fundamental Rights.

19. In terms of Integrity , Honesty You & other public servants are nowhere near Baba Saheb
B R Ambedkar , Mahatma Gandhi & Satya Harishchandra . Many Public servants are UNFIT to be in
their posts.

You are hereby called upon to Pay damages to me and SHOW-CAUSE within 30 days , why you cann’t
be legally prosecuted for the above mentioned crimes . If you don’t answer it will be admission of
the charges by you. It will amount to confession of crimes on your own.

If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do
incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government.
prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to
police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to police station for
questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done
by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members
like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , etc , the jurisdictional police together
with above mentioned accussed public servants , Chief Justice of India & Jurisdictional District
Magistrate will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases
against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.

if anything untoward happens to me or my dependents , the government of india is liable to pay Rs.
TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the
criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund.
afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension ,
property , etc of guilty judges , police officials , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries.

Thanking you. Jai Hind , Vande Mataram.

Send reply to :
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi

Editor , SOS e Voice for Justice & SOS e Clarion of Dalit,

LIG 2 , NO 761 , HUDCO First Stage,

Laxmikantanagar , Hebbal ,

Mysuru – 570017.

Date : 05.03.2017……………………………………………..your’s sincerely,

Place : Mysore , India………………………………………….Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761,

HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017
KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202

WhatsApp 91 8970318202

Home page :

http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/ https://dalit31.wordpress.com/ http://dalitsonline.blogspot.in/

https://sites.google.com/site/dalitoonline/

Contact : editor@dalitonline.in