“Being Neutral is Our Biggest Crime” - Global Coalition to Protect ...

University who is an expert on tribal-related issues explained: “It’s very difficult to
get clear estimates because displaced people are very scared—they live under
assumed names and don’t want to tell us who they are.” 263
Despite being aware of the circumstances under which displaced persons from
Chhattisgarh settled in reserved forest areas, the Andhra Pradesh government has
repeatedly evicted displaced persons unlawfully and by force, and failed to assist
them. A senior forest department official candidly summed up the plight of displaced
persons settled in Andhra Pradesh:
They are refugees in their own country…. No one will support them.
Police also fear them [IDPs]—if they come and settle here it will
become another Chhattisgarh. Police department will not support
them, forest department will not support them, revenue department
will not support them…. From a human rights angle their life is very
pathetic. 264
An eviction is unlawful when it is carried out in violation of domestic law or
international human rights law. 265 While interpreting the right to adequate housing
and right against forced evictions under the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
has stated that:
Investigate Status of Health and Education of Children affected by Civil Unrest, December 17-19, 2007” report, March 2008, p.
37. The Commission and senior police official S4 estimate that 30,000 people relocated to Andhra Pradesh while Rao
estimates that around 50,000 relocated to Andhra Pradesh.
263 Human Rights Watch interview with J. P. Rao, first interview, November 28, 2007.
264 Human Rights Watch interviews with B. Shafiullah, divisional forest officer of Bhadrachalam, Bhadrachalam, December 7,
2007.
Other officials expressed similar views. Human Rights Watch interviews with K. Bhaskar, sub-collector of Khammam district,
Bhadrachalam, December 7, 2007; senior police official S4 (who requested anonymity), December 5, 2007.
These government officials cited several reasons for their current approach to the IDP influx. Their primary reason for not
providing protection and assistance was security-related. A senior law enforcement official reasoned that the influx of IDPs
created a security alarm in the state: “Many of them [IDPs] are pumped in by the Maoists so that they can form a cover in the
forests to increase their operations and attacks.” The sub-collector of Khammam district admitted that the IDP issue was a
“social problem” but stated that “till now, for us [Andhra Pradesh government] it has been more a security issue than a social
issue.” Another oft-cited reason for not providing assistance to IDPs was resistance from local tribal communities.
265 See below. There is an ongoing legal dispute in the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding the legality of the evictions
under domestic law.
83
Human Rights Watch July 2008