Maoist violence victims write letters opposing Congress and opposition support to VP candidate BS Reddy, blaming his Salwa Judum verdict for renewed insurgency and suffering in Chhattisgarh.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Victims of Maoist violence in Chhattisgarh have written to Members of Parliament, urging them to reconsider their support for opposition-backed candidate Justice (Retd.) B Sudershan Reddy. The letters, addressed to MPs from the Congress and other opposition parties, allege that Justice Reddy’s 2011 judgment on Salwa Judum paved the way for renewed Maoist attacks in Bastar and surrounding regions.
In their letters, survivors and families of victims claim that the disbandment of Salwa Judum emboldened Maoists, leading to devastating consequences for local communities.
- Siyaram Ramteke (56), a former deputy sarpanch of Chargaon in Kanker, wrote that Maoists shot him multiple times after Salwa Judum was dissolved. “They left me for dead,” he said, recalling his permanent disability. Ramteke argued that “if Salwa Judum had not been disbanded, Maoism would have ended long ago.”
- Ashok Gandami, another resident, recounted how his niece lost her foot in an IED blast and was orphaned after Maoists killed her father. He alleged that the judgment was influenced by “Naxal sympathisers” and ignored the suffering of tribals who were left unprotected.
Both Ramteke and Gandami appealed to opposition MPs not to support Justice Reddy, insisting that his verdict exposed thousands of villagers to Maoist violence.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah sharpened the BJP’s criticism, declaring that,
“if the Salwa Judum judgment had not been given, Naxal terrorism would have ended by 2020.”
He accused Justice Reddy of being influenced by an ideology sympathetic to Naxals.
Shah accused Justice Reddy of being a “left-wing sympathiser” and held his 2011 Supreme Court judgment on Salwa Judum responsible for prolonging the survival of Left Wing Extremism (LWE) in India.
In his interview with ANI, Shah alleged that Justice Reddy’s decision gave Naxalism a new lease of life at a time when it was “gasping for breath.”
- Shah claimed that before 2011, Naxalism was on the verge of eradication, but the judgment helped insurgents regroup.
- He accused the Congress and Rahul Gandhi of “rewarding” left-wing ideology by backing Justice Reddy as their Vice Presidential nominee.
“He (Reddy) ended the right to self-defence for Adivasis. This is the reason Naxalism has sustained for two more decades.”
Shah asserted.
Shah further argued that Salwa Judum was created by Adivasis themselves, who wanted roads, schools, and healthcare, and disbanding it deprived them of self-protection.
Justice Reddy, however, has refused to engage in a political back-and-forth. He clarified that the verdict was not his alone but that of the Supreme Court as an institution, adding that the Home Minister’s remarks would have been different had he read the judgment in its entirety.
The Controversial Salwa Judum Verdict
In July 2011, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B Sudershan Reddy and Justice S S Nijjar ordered the disbanding of Salwa Judum, a state-backed tribal militia created to counter Maoist insurgency in Chhattisgarh. The bench ruled that recruiting tribal youth as Special Police Officers was unconstitutional and illegal, citing human rights concerns.
Salwa Judum, meaning “peace march” in the local Gondi language, was an armed civilian vigilante movement launched in 2005, supported by the Chhattisgarh government under then BJP Chief Minister Raman Singh. It mobilised tribal villagers to resist Maoist influence and assist security forces.
The Supreme Court ruling, however, observed that:
“Salwa Judum was an abdication of constitutional responsibilities of the State to provide appropriate security to citizens by having an appropriately trained professional police force of sufficient numbers and properly equipped on a permanent basis.”
This judgment effectively disbanded the movement.
While the judgment was hailed in many quarters for protecting tribal rights, it was also sharply criticized by those who believed Salwa Judum provided a security shield for villagers against Maoist brutality.
Amidst the controversy, a group of 18 former judges, including ex-Supreme Court justices, stated in defense of Reddy. They emphasized that the 2011 verdict in no way supported Maoism or its ideology, either directly or indirectly. Instead, they argued, it upheld the rule of law and constitutional values by rejecting the use of civilians in armed conflict.
“The statement of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, publicly misinterpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Salwa Judum case, is unfortunate. The judgment nowhere supports, either expressly or by compelling implication of its text, Naxalism or its ideology.”
the statement signed by the 18 former judges said.
Case Title:
Nandini Sundar and Ors. Versus State of Chattisgarh
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 250 OF 2007
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Vice President
Click Here to Read More Reports On Jagdeep Dhankhar