13.01.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

[forest department] wanted <strong>to</strong> shift them [IDPs] <strong>to</strong> a place in Nalgonda<br />

where there are no forests and it would have been very difficult for<br />

them <strong>to</strong> survive. We negotiated with them [officials] and finally<br />

convinced them <strong>to</strong> take them [IDPs] <strong>to</strong> Bhadrachalam instead of<br />

Nalgonda. 292<br />

A senior police official from Andhra Pradesh confirmed that the police do not reg<strong>is</strong>ter<br />

complaints against the forest department because they are performing their duties<br />

under the law:<br />

IDPs make complaints against the forest department. Strictly speaking<br />

these are not complaints and we do not reg<strong>is</strong>ter them. We can’t<br />

reg<strong>is</strong>ter complaints against the forest department because they are<br />

authorized <strong>to</strong> evict encroachers. We try <strong>to</strong> find via media [middle<br />

ground] and tell the forest department that they cannot be very harsh<br />

on the IDPs. 293<br />

After enduring repeated forced relocation for over two years, in mid-2007 local NGOs<br />

ass<strong>is</strong>ted d<strong>is</strong>placed persons in petitioning the Andhra Pradesh High Court for its<br />

intervention. 294 The court passed interim orders in September 2007: “the<br />

respondents [forest department officials] are directed not <strong>to</strong> demol<strong>is</strong>h or set fire the<br />

huts, if any, of the Petitioners.” 295 Local NGOs and the petitioners’ counsel informed<br />

Human Rights Watch that the court-granted relief was merely temporary—they feared<br />

that forest department officials would recommence their punitive actions if the High<br />

Court’s interim orders were vacated. 296<br />

292 Human Rights Watch group interview with local villagers (who chose <strong>to</strong> remain anonymous), Warangal d<strong>is</strong>trict, November<br />

29, 2007.<br />

293 Human Rights Watch interview with a senior police official S4 (who requested anonymity), location withheld, December 5,<br />

2007.<br />

294 Madkam Nandaiah and others v. Forest Range Officer, Konnavaram, Khammam d<strong>is</strong>trict and others, Writ Petition No. 19594<br />

of 2007, Vanjam Kannaiah and others v. Forest Range Officer, V.R.Puram, Khammam d<strong>is</strong>trict and others, Writ Petition No.<br />

19571 of 2007, Thurram Muthaiah and another v. Forest Range Officer, Chin<strong>to</strong>or, Khammam and others, Writ Petition No.<br />

19599 of 2007. In these petitions, the evictions have been challenged as being violative of the tribal communities’ rights<br />

under Indian forestry laws.<br />

295 Ibid, interim orders, September 27, 2007.<br />

296 Human Rights Watch interviews with K. Balagopal, Human Rights Forum, Hyderabad, November 27, 2007 (first interview);<br />

Dr. Haneef, Sitara Organization, Chinturu, December 4, 2007 (first interview).<br />

91<br />

Human Rights Watch July 2008

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!