A stinging indictment: on the acquittal of Chhattisgarh’s tribals in 2017 ambush case

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) court acquitted 121 tribals, who were wrongly held responsible for the deaths of 25 Central Reserve Police Force personnel in an ambush led by Maoists at Burkapal in Chhattisgarh’s Sukma district in 2017. A big relief for them. The tribals were placed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the fact that the court held that there was little evidence that the tribals had any links with the banned Maoists, amounted to an utter failure of the law enforcement agencies. There should be a pointer. response to the massacre. While justice has certainly been done to the innocent villagers, their long imprisonment must have clearly affected the lives of them and their dependents. The tribals who were arrested and jailed for five years were earlier denied bail by the NIA court and the Chhattisgarh High Court. Clearly, there appears to be a suspicious trend in such cases in conflict-torn Chhattisgarh and beyond, a situation that has arisen as a result of the stringent UAPA being enforced without sufficient evidence. A defense lawyer also claimed that the police investigation was poorly conducted, with injured Central Reserve Police Force commandos not being witnesses prior to the arrest of the tribal people, lending to the fact that those caught was made a scapegoat.

As a takeaway from the outcome of this case, the state should consider whether this strategy of cornering suspects among helpless tribals in the name of swift action following a military setback does any good for law enforcement. The most obvious way to defeat a Maoist insurgency – or any political movement based on violence and motivated by disenchantment with the state – is to uphold the rule of law and gain support among those for whom the rebels claim to fight. Without popular support, the rebellion is bound to fail, in particular, the Maoist movement which is based on winning over those disillusioned with the Indian state. The Maoists, in addition to emphasizing factors related to poverty, distressed livelihoods and economic inequality, also used strategic violence that invites state repression and serves their purpose of questioning the legitimacy of the Indian state. By typecasting tribal people, countering dissent and dissatisfaction with the insurgency, and taking the dubious route of mass imprisonment after any setback to the security forces, law enforcement agencies only add to the Maoist propaganda that insists. that these are merely characteristics of an oppressive state that is beyond reform. In addition to purposeful socio-economic action, law enforcement must strengthen procedural legislation to reject Maoist criticism of the Indian state and maintain legitimacy among tribal citizens.