[Reader-list] the dark side of navin patnaik regime

Asit Das asit1917 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 30 05:46:15 CDT 2013


 Gulail.com
  by Shazia Nigar  <http://gulail.com/author/shazia/>

*Anyone who dares to dissent against the Naveen Patnaik government in
Odisha faces the risk of being branded a naxal or seditionist. The list of
those jailed on trumped charges includes legions of protesting tribals,
public-spirited lawyers and human rights activists. In a month long
investigation Gulail lays bare a systematic subversion of civil liberties
and extra-judicial killings by a government that has till now been by and
large successful in avoiding media scrutiny.*

[image: naveen_patnaik_new]<http://gulail.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/naveen_patnaik_new.jpg>

The national narrative today revolves around the resurgence of communalism,
deeply pervasive corruption, the spread of Maoist insurgency and
competitive terrorism by Islamist and Hindutva forces. Narendra Modi, who
is seen by many as the next prime minister, has for years, and rightly so,
faced an intense scrunity by activists and hacks on his malicious failure
in preventing the 2002 riots and presiding over the cold-blooded killings
of innocent Muslim youth in staged police encounters. The State of Odisha
has however remained for the most part unabrased by such debates. Somehow
the image of Naveen Patnaik portrayed by the national media has been of a
benign, clean and efficent administrator. However, a closer look would
reveal a state marauded by a staggering number of human rights violations,
a rural population constantly persecuted for resisting land acquisition and
a civil society with its leading lights being gagged or jailed  for raising
a voice against state repression.

A month long investigation carried out by Gulail revealed that scores of
social activists, journalists, lawyers, students and tribals have been
arrested and jailed on the basis of clearly fabricated cases.

Close to 530 individuals are currently in various jails in Odisha in what
prima facie appear as fabricated cases. Out of these nearly 400 are
tribals. Gulail has documents that show that 32 individuals in Badipada, 75
in Rourkela, 18 in Balangir and neighbouring districts,  27 in
Gajapati/Ganjam, 35 in Kandhamal, 14 in Raigada, 70 in Koraput, 25 in
Malkangiri, 6 in Bhubaneshwar, 42 in Kyonjhar, 2 in Chaudwar, 10 in Jajpur,
30 in Sambalpur/Devgarh/Badagarh are in jail at the moment. Many of these
people have been in jail since 2008.

30 individuals have been killed in police firing in displacement related
protests. In Kalinganagar in Jajpur district, 2006, 14 people were killed
in police firing during a protest against displacement caused by a Tata
steel plant. A judicial enquiry was announced and instated by the State
government but seven years down the line, the report is yet to be
submitted. This is one among many cases that Odisha has witnessed in the
recent years.

75 individuals have been killed in various police encounters and branded as
Maoists over the last 10 years. The most recent of these cases ocurred on
14th November 2012, when 5 individuals were killed during an encounter with
security forces. On the 30th of November when a congregation of activists
and families of the deceased protested outside the Vidhan Sabha Bhavan in
Bhubaneshwar and demanded an inquiry into the killings, Naveen Patnaik
refused to so much as meet them.

*ARATI MAJHI*

Arati Majhi

After spending three years in jail for Maoist related cases Arati Majhi was
acquitted of all charges against her on 17th July 2013. Lack of evidence –
inability of the police to produce seized items in court and contradictions
in statements of key witnesses, made it amply clear that Majhi’s case was
predicated on largely fabricated evidence.

Arati was 20-years-old and a week away from getting married when she was
arrested in Maoist related cases. She was picked up by the Special
Operation Group and the Central Reserve Police Force, from her house in
Jadingi village, Gajapati at 3:00 AM on 13th February 2010. Arati’s
cousins, Shyam and Lazar Majhi, were also arrested. Five men from the SOG
and CRPF then took her to the jungle and forced her to see pornographic
pictures on a mobile phone. Then they blindfolded and gang-raped her after
which she lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness she found
herself in Paralakhemundi. On inquiring about the reason behind her arrest
she was threatened that she would be implicated in fabricated Maoist
related cases.

The law does not permit a woman to be arrested after sunset and before
sunrise. Arati was arrested at 3:00AM. There were no policewomen present
during her arrest. No seizure list was made. Then, she was gang-raped in
custody.

She was forwarded to Berhampur jail on Judicial remand where she spent
three years of her young life. Altogether she had 6 cases registered
against her. Four cases were related to the burning of four OSRTC buses and
one of a Reliance tower by Maoists in Raipanka, Gajapati on the night of
27th December 2009. The other case involved damaging a forest beat house
with explosions. Arati was charged with Sedition, waging war against the
state, rioting, being a member of an unlawful association, the Arms Act and
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, amongst others.

Four cases were made out of one incident of the burning of four buses. No
Test Identification parade was conducted during investigation. None of the
witnesses, the only evidence the prosecution had claimed, recognised any of
the accused as the ones who had burnt the buses. Not the drivers and the
conductors who had registered the case. Neither the independent eye
witnesses. They all said, one by one, that the ‘miscreants’ had their faces
covered.  How then could they recognize them by face? The suggestion made
by the Public Prosecutors to one of the witnesses that he had heard the
attackers calling each other by name was also denied.
*How we know these cases are fabricated:*

   - Most witnesses didn’t recognise Arati or any of the other co-accused.
   If they recognised her, like the leader of the gram panchayat she belongs
   to, they testified that she had no links with the Maosists.
   - The eye witnesses declared that the attackers had covered their faces
   with cloth and hence could not be recognised contradicting police claims.
   Were the witnesses coerced into making the written statements implicating
   Arati?
   - Why were none of the items, such as guns,that the police claimed to
   have seized presented in court?

In all the four cases, with separate and over lapping witnesses, the
judgement of acquittal follows the same tone and points out similar flaws
in the case of the prosecution. The Judgement in one of the case goes onto
note “The witnesses have not implicated any one of the accused persons.
Rather evidence of Public Witnesses goes to show that the culprits had
covered their faces with clothes making it difficult for the witness to
know their identity”. On cross examination of one of the witnesses the
judgement noted “He has stated that he does not know the accused persons
and anything about the case.” So not only were witnesses unable to
recognise the accused as culprits, but they were also completely unaware of
the case itself. At another point one of the judgements states “ The very
prosecution of the accused persons does not seem to be according to law.”
Arati and her co-accused were acquitted in all four cases in relation to
the burning of OSRTC buses. The last of the acquittals in this incident
came on 27th November 2012.

 The sixth case was related to an incident that occurred at Paniganda
forest beat house on 9-10th July 2009 between 12:00-1:00AM. It is alleged
that a group of 40-50 people dressed in black tied up the

guard at the beat house, inquired about the fire arms of the forest
department and left him near the Panchayat office. They then went onto
damage the beat house with explosives. Arati was charged under sections of
the Indian Penal Code, PDPP Act, Explosive Substance Act, Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

In this instance too no Test Identification Parade was conducted. The
sanction order required to prosecute the accused under UAPA and the
Explosive Substance Act was not procured. Once again, the 15 witnesses in
this case failed to support the story of the prosecution. The Sarpanch of
Katama Gram Panchayat denied the police version that the accused persons
had blasted the beat house under the influence of a Maoist leader Ajad.
While he knew Arati and several others accused in this case he had
absolutely no knowledge of any of them being involved in Naxal activities.
The police version of the story was denied by the very people who the
police claimed would support it!

The Forest Guard who had lodged the FIR did not corroborate his evidence
with the FIR story. In fact he said there was no way he could recognise the
attackers as they had all covered their faces with cloth! The judgement
read “ Basing on the above untrustworthy testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, no such case is made out against the accused persons.”  The
complete lack of proof against Arati goes to show that there was an attempt
to frame her. There were no valid grounds on which she was picked up.
Rather, there was a strategic effort to build a case against her.

Arati was acquitted and finally released on 17th July 2013.  Her struggle
is far from over. Arati has now been embroiled in fresh controversy. The
prosecution, after her acquittal, acquired sanction

in the cases to try her under UAPA. The future is uncertain. Her father
Dakasa Majhi petitioned the courts on her behalf, when she was in jail, for
an enquiry into the gang-rape of Arati in custody. Filed on 20th August
2010, three years later Arati still awaits justice.

*PRATIMA DAS*

Pratima Das

Pratima Das an accused in Maoist related cases was also found to be
innocent, but a little too late. The judgement came after she had wasted
two and half years of her life in prison, with no criminal

record or evidence against her.

A lawyer by profession she had paid for her law degree by taking tuition
classes for school students. At the time of her arrest in 2008 Das was
working as an assistant to lawyer Prashant Kumar Jena who practices in the
Cuttack High Court. Jena focuses on human rights cases. Pratima was also
active as a political activist. She used to organise and participate in
rallies, protests and talks. Given her sensibility, it would not be a
stretch to call her a politically conscious lawyer. During one such event,
a people’s tribunal on 11th August 2008, Pratima came in contact with
environmentalist and scholar David Pugh. He expressed his wish to visit
Kalinga nagar, the site of an ongoing struggle between TATA steel and the
tribals who own the land, in Odisha’s Jajpur district. Having written an
article on Soni Soi, who is the mother of one of the martyrs to the
struggle and is herself an accused in Maoist related cases, Das was
familiar with the place. She was also to act as his translator. Pugh and
her visited Kalinga nagar the next day, 12th August 2008.

They met people, heard their stories and left for Bhubaneswar on the same
day. As they were passing a village called Gobarghati a police van tried
stopping the vehicle Pratima and David were traveling in. Apart from David,
Pratima, and the driver, a local from Jajpur who was showing them around
was also in the vehicle. The driver, fearing that he will be caught without
a license, sped on rather than stopping to let the policemen inquire. This
piqued the curiosity of the policemen. At a little distance they were met
by about 30-40 policemen armed with lathis and guns. The police told them
that they had intelligence that a wanted Maoist, Gopi Mishra was traveling
in the vehicle. He wasn’t. But all four traveling in the ambassador were
taken to Jajpur town. There were several violations in the manner Pratima
was arrested. She was detained after sunset and before sunrise, when the
law says that a woman cannot be arrested after dark. She was also not
allowed to inform her family of her whereabouts. She claims that there were
also irregularities in the arrest memo and the seizure list prepared by the
police.

The four arrested were taken to Badchan police station, Chandikhol. Police
Superintendent D.S.Kutte and Sarangi interrogated Pratima uptil 4:00 AM.
She was asked if she was a maoist cadre named ‘Mala’ . Then she was told
that she is ‘Mala’. Pratima denied.

She was then driven to Jagatsinghpur, the place of her ‘official’ arrest.
Meanwhile David was taken to a guest house for the night and his seats were
booked in the next flight back to the United States.

Despite his protests that he wouldn’t leave until Pratima was released. The
local from Jajpur who was showing them around was also released when he
dropped names of his political connections. The driver was also let go.

The police records show that she was arrested on her way to Jagatsinghpur
on 13th August 2008 at 5:00 PM. A full day after her arrest. Interestingly,
a quick google search reveals that by 11:40 AM

of 13th August a press release had already been sent out by human rights
groups on the detention of Pratima. How then can she have been arrested
only at 5:00PM on her way to Jagatsinghpur? Pratima says “We reached
Jagatsinghpur at 6:30 AM on 13th August. By 7:00 local channels were
braodcasting that four naxals, including one foreigner, had been arrested.”
After reaching Jagatsinghpur her interrogation continued. Without any sleep
and barely any food she answered questions directed at her. Many of which
were irrelevant. Such as “ Do you love someone?”. The police than told her
about which Maoist leader was in love with which Maoist cadre. She answered

questions about her family, academics to the extent of having to recall her
marks and participation in extra curricular activities with special
reference to sports. They then showed her pictures of acts of violence
alleged to have been committed by Maoists. All this while repeating “ We
know you are not involved in action, but why did you go to Jajpur?” She
recalls another inspector, Bhawani Shanker who threatened to torture her.
Little did she know that this was just the beginning.

Two cases were lodged against Pratima. She was charged with Sedition,
waging war against the state, dacoity with murder, attempt to murder and
under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, amongst others. Alleged of
mobilising people for the cause of Maoism Pratima was lodged in the
Alipingala jail in Jagatsinghpur. A police witness who was a constable
admitted in court that he didn’t recognise Pratima. He said “I signed on
the instructions of the Inspector without being aware of the contents of
the documents.” On this note the judge intervened saying “ Think about your
job before you speak.” She was acquitted in this case on 31st July 2010.
There was no other way it could have ended considering that not one of the
13 witnesses brought up by the prosecution recognised Pratima.
*The witnesses:*

   - A constable who was a witness in one case said “I signed on the
   instructions of the Inspector without being aware of the contents of the
   documents.”
   - In one of the two cases the written statement said two witnesses
   ‘heard’ one of the attackers being addressed as Pratima. The witnesses
   contradicted themselves in court when they said they ‘saw’ Pratima. That is
   implausible not just because it contradicts their written statement but
   also because Maoists are known to cover their faces during an operation.
   How could anyone have seen Pratima then?

*More contradictions:*

   -  At the time of the Sambalpur operation in which Maoists killed a
   policeman and seized 4 weapons, Pratima was a final year law student in
   Cuttack. She was actively organizing political talks and protests with
   various democratic forums in the city. How then could she havebeen an
   underground Maoist cadre?

*The irreparable loss:*

   - Pratima spent more than two years in prison for a crime she didn’t
   commit. She is yet to receive any compensation.

She was then shifted to Kuchinda jail in Sambalpur as per the second case
against her. On 16th October 2005 around 40 Maoists had attacked a police
party in Budarma, Sambalpur. They killed one policeman and seized four
rifles. Pratima was made a co-accused in this case. She was charged with
Arms Act, robbery, murder, attempt to murder and sedition. At the time of
Pratima’s arrest the charge sheet in this case had already been filed on
18th June 2008 by Investigative Officer Niranjan Mishra. It had absolutely
no mention of Pratima. Five months after Pratima’s arrest a supplementary
charge sheet was filed in the case by Mishra on 24 January 2009. This one
had her name on it. Was this an attempt to ensure that Pratima remained in
jail if she was acquitted in the first case?

As evidence the police brought in two witnesses who in their statements
said that they ‘heard’ the name Pratima being called out to address one of
the Maoists during the incident. By the time the case reached trial the
witness claimed they ‘saw’ Pratima at the site instead of hearing her.
These were not the only witnesses who contradicted themselves. One by one,
none of the 36 witnesses put up by the prosecution associated Pratima with
any Maoist activity and nor did they recognise her. As she herself says “
At the time the said incident occurred I was a law student in Cuttack. How
could I have been a Maoist cadre involved in action when I was busy
attending classes in town?” After her bail plea was rejected for the third
time, the Cuttack High Court directed the district court to pass the
judgement in two months. The judgement came much later. She was acquitted
on 17th November 2010. Even today, as she narrates her story of struggle
and strength, her face lights up and breaks into a smile as she says “ I
had to be acquitted. At the start of the trail the judge asked me if I
wanted to plead guilty. I refused because I had not done anything wrong. I
had to be proven right.”

Through the 2 years, 3 months and 5 days that Pratima spent in jail she was
not given the status of a political prisoner. The Kuchinda jail did not
even have a phone that the prisoners could use to contact their lawyers or
family. Food was cooked once a day. That same cold food was served later
again. Pratima recalls this one time she had written a postcard to her
family. The jailer tore it to pieces. Pratima found out later when the
warden told her.

 Pratima is currently working with a lawyer in Bolangir where she lives
with her husband. But she misses the High Court. She wants to go back and
practice there someday again. For now she is working on cases that don’t
interest her much. The lawyer she is working under doesn’t know of her past
yet. She says “ I have thought a lot about it and I want to be open about
my past with him. But I am afraid of the consequences.”

*DANDAPANI MOHANTY*

Dandapani Mohanty

There were two instances in 2011-12 when the Odisha state government used
Dandapani Mohanty  a local human rights activist as an interlocutor in a
hostage crisis. Mohanty was hosted as a state guest and it was primarily
through his mediation that the government could secure the release of
Italian tourists and Malkangiri district collector held hostage by the
Maoists.  Two years down the line, the same government arrested him in 2013
for Maoist related charges dating back to 2009-10. What is more shocking is
that the cases he has been implicated in date back to the 2009-10 when he
was being used as an official interlocutor by the State. Arrested on
5-February-2013, Dandapani is now facing charges in 19 Maoists related
cases. Gulail’s investigation shows that all cases have been based on
fabricated evidence. Mohanty is presently lodged 345 KM south of state
capital Bhubaneswar at the Parlakhemundi jail in Gajapati district.

Mohanty has been charged with sedition, waging war against the state,
rioting, being a member of an unlawful association, the Arms Act and
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, amongt other charges. At the time of
his arrest there were six non-bailable warrants issued against him. The
incidents he is alleged to have been involved in include the blasting of a
police patrolling vehicle in Gajapati, setting ablaze of four OSRTC buses
at Raipanka, blasting of a forest beat house at Paniganda and burning of
Reliance and BSNL mobile towers at Raipanka in 2009. The other allegations
involve setting on fire BSNL and Airtel towers at Birikote in March 2010, a
murder in May 2010, police-Maoist encounter at Gopinathpur in Novemeber
2010, distribution of Maoists literature and guns at Sapalaguda, in October
2010, collecting funds and organising shelter for the Maoists, amongst
others.

In all of these cases, there is no direct link between Dandapani and the
incident- be it burning of buses or murders. None of the police witnesses
have given any direct evidence against him.  He is accused of  exhorting
Maoists to use wage war  against the state. The police version is that even
though he was not present at the scene of any of these crimes, he was part
of the larger conspiracy by attending Maoist meetings and delivering
exhorting speeches in maoist gatherings.

Arati Majhi was the main accused in the cases relating to the burning of
OSRTC buses, a Reliance and an Airtel tower at Raipanka. Shockingly, while
Arati has been acquitted in all charges relating to the case, Dandapani, a
co-accused, continues to lament in jail.

There are five other cases in which Arati Majhi was a co-accused with
Dandapani. She has been acquitted in all five of them. While Arati Majhi
was arrested on 13th February 2010, Dandapani was picked up only in
February this year in the same cases. What was the police waiting for three
years for? In fact during the period of 2011-2012 when Dandapani was acting
as an interlocutor between the state and the government he was in constant
touch with the Director General of Police, Home

Secretary and even the Chief Minister himself. Was the state then
completely unaware of Dandapani being the threat they are making him out to
be now? Or was it a case of convenience?

What is malicious is that in most of these cases Dandpani’s name as an
accused was added as an after-thought. It was much after the first charge
sheet in these cases had been filed that Dandapani’s name had been added as
an accused. The state police, reopened investigations and filed additional
charge sheets with Mohanty’s name listed as a co-accused. As per the law
under the UAPA once an FIR has been lodged against an accused the
investigation should be carried out within 120 days. If not, then the
accused can be granted bail on a surety amount.

In some of the cases against Mohanty the police filed charge sheets after
180 days, without asking for an extension from the court. By the time, a
second person willing to stand as surety was arranged, the police filed the
charge sheet. It can be anybody’s guess that the timing could not have been
coincidence.

Mohanty’s arrest on 5th February 2013, what was projected as a joint
operation of Ganjam, Gajapati and Berhampur police, is  in blatant
violation of the law of the land. Though as per law it is a right of an
arrested person to inform his family of his arrest, Mohanty was not
permitted to do so. He was arrested by plainclothes policemen when the law
stipulates that at the time of arrest a policeman has to be in uniform with
a name badge displayed prominently. His arrest Memo did not have
two witnesses as required by law.
*2012: Dandapani Mohanty acts as interlocutor for the government in two
instances- once when Maoists abduct two Italian tourists and another time
when the Collector of Malkangiri is abducted*

*2013: On 8th February Dandapani is arrested in Maoists related cases and
is declared absconding. 19 cases are slapped on him, some dating back to
2009 and 2010.*

*The question it begs:*

   - If Dandapani was involved in the cases dating back to 2009 and 2010
   why was he made an interlocutor?
   - If he was acting as an interlocutor in 2012 how could he have been
   declared absconding?

 All of these violations point towards a malicious frame-up. While
rejecting his bail plea, the courts have not mentioned evidence as a ground
for rejection. It is always ‘the number of Maoist related cases and the
serious charges’ that have served as the basis for not granting him bail.

Lawyer Prashant Kumar Jena has been handling Dandapani’s bail application
in the Cuttack High Court. He says Dandapani’s arrest is a strategic
attempt to silence dissent in the state. When Dandapani was acting as an
interlocutor the government had agreed to release around 600 tribals
arrested in fabricated cases, grant tribals land rights and to stop
suppressing people’s movements. When the government failed to follow up on
its promises Dandapani started a campaign on the issue. He had also played
a very central role in exposing a fake encounter in Kandhamal that had led
to the death of five tribals. This opinion is further echoed by lawyer
S.K.Pal who is fighting Dandapani’s case at the District court in
Parlakhemundi. He was the convenor of Jan Adhikar Manch and Secretary of
Orissa Forest Mazdoor Union at the time of his arrest.

His son Sangram Mohanty too had faced dubious Naxal cases.Everbody in the
state knows that Sangram was being mentored by Pyarimohan Mohapatra to
stand for elections for the Odisha Jan Morcha(OJM). Pyarimohan launched the
Odisha Jan Morcha earlier last year on being expelled from the BJD
following a failed coup against Naveen Patnaik. It is believed that
Sangram’s arrest had a two-fold purpose. Apart from a sentimental attack on
Mohanty, Sangram’s arrest, assert friends of the father-son duo, was also
an attempt by Naveen Patnaik to show Mohapatra his place. He joined OJM on
30th November 2012. He was arrested on 5th December 2012. Such is the muddy
nature of politics in Odisha. A sentimental attack meant to break an
alleged Maoist is alsoa ‘political’ move that could advance a hidden
agenda. It is difficult to tell one from the other.

Several sources have confirmed that Mohanty has a checkered past. Having
completed matriculation he had enrolled himself in Christ college, Cuttack,
when serious politics happened to him. He never went back to the classroom.
His comrades at CPI(Marxist) credit him with having set up the party in
Ganjam district. That was before 1991 when the state unit of CPI(Marxist)
split due to internal factionalism. It was at this time that Ajeya Rout
(presently leading the Odisha

Communist Party), Sabyasachi Panda (CPI(MAOSIST)) and Dandapani Mohanty
exited the CPI(Marxist) along with a few others. Thereafter, Panda and
Mohanty joined the CPI(ML) Party Unity which in 1998 merged with CPI(ML)
People’s War. CPI(ML)PW later merged with the Maoist Communist Centre(MCC)
to form the CPI(Maoist). While it is clear that today Panda being expelled
from the CPI(Maoist) formed the Odisha Maovadi Party(OMP), Mohanty’s
political journey since his days with CPI(ML) Party Unity is shrouded in
mystery. Some say he saw one merger

after another ending up with the CPI(Maoist). Others claim Mohanty
abandoned the Maoist trail long before the formation of the CPI(Maoist) in
2004.

Janardhan Pati, state general secretary of the CPI(M) has known Dandapani
through his political transformations. He says “ Dandapani is a Maoist
sympathizer and also provides support. But he has not killed anyone. Nor
has he been directly involved in any criminal activity. There are no
grounds for him to be arrested on.” Pati believes that Mohanty’s arrest was
carefully planned and conspired. Ajeya Rout is clear that Mohanty has had
Maoist links. The exact extent of which Rout cannot say. It could be more
than that of a sympathizer but is definitely less than that of a foot
soldier. None of Mohanty’s old comrades have evidence for their assertion.
They say they believe what they believe because they have known Mohanty in
the capacity of a friend, colleague and a comrade. They also insist that

his involvement in Maoists activities has never been enough to merit
charges under the draconian UAPA.

GULAIL met him at the Parlakhemundi jail and later at the court. As we
spoke to Mohanty from across the iron bars through the window in the
jailers room, he didn’t come across as a man who would compromise on his
convictions. The little conversation we could have under the gaze of the
jailer or police escorts was interspersed with “I respect Sabyasachi as a
revolutionary” or “I think Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the ultimate
political thought”. He is careful to add “I do think

Maoists need to re-analyse their political stand”.There is no denying that
Mohanty is a Maoist sympathiser. There is also no denying that being a
Maoist sympathiser is not a crime. It is one of those freedoms our
constitution guarantees us.

The picture that emerges out of this investigation is that of a state out
to silence dissent by implicating innocent people in fabricated cases.
Several activists who have been involved in people’s movements such as the
POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti in Paradip or the Visthapan Virodhi Manch
against forcible land acquisition by the TATA’s in Kalinganagar, are facing
similar charges. While some continue to languish in jail, others wasted a
few years only to be acquitted. However, it is rare that someone has
received compensation for being falsely implicated. If you are a tribal,
with no connections amongst the activists, politicians or the media, you
are doomed to spend years in jail. If and when acquitted, you might add to
the long list of names entangled in fabricated Maoist related cases. There
is no hope for compensation. Not without some trouble at least.There are
no mechanisms for accountability, those that are available are too long
drawn a process- like a court case. Meanwhile, the Naveen Patnaik
government continues to bend rules to continue being in power,for the
fourteenth consecutive year.


More information about the reader-list mailing list