FOCUS AUGUST 2021

WHEN FR. STAN SWAMY ‘DIED’, WAS SUPREME COURT SLEEPING! On 8th October, 2020 reportedly 4 National Investigation Agency (NIA) officers came to Bagaicha, a hamlet in Jharkhand without summons or warrant, and arrested Fr. Stan Swamy on charges of instigating violence in Bhima Koregoan. They took him to Mumbai and presented him to the court the following day. Fr. Stan Swamy respectfully stated in the court “I neither had any connection with Bhima Koregoan incident nor any links with Maoists. All along I dedicated my life for the development of my poor Aadivasi sisters and brothers. I wanted justice to be done to them as per the constitutional provisions and Supreme Court judgements”. He was sent to judicial custody in Taloja outside Mumbai. He was 84 years old, frail and in indifferent health. Suddenly a little known Jesuit Fr. Stanislaus Lourduswamy became known to the news reading Indians across the country, as the oldest person accused of terrorism and was jailed for his alleged role in Bhima Koregaon violence at Pune. His crime is still unknown, but he died in custody on 5th July 2021, after less than 9 months incarceration for still unproved accusations, in Bandra’s Holy Family Hospital, a Mumbai suburb. Now that this 84 year old is no more, died under questionable circumstances, most of the world is asking WHY FATHER STAN SWAMY HAD TO DIE!? Has the system failed him? Has India’s judiciary let him down? Although he was on the wrong side of his age, was his eventual departure could have been delayed or made more pleasant by some positive intervention by both the system and the judiciary? These are disturbing questions that India, wanting to become a leader on the world stage, could have lived without. Born on 26th April, 1937, to Lourduswamy and Kitheriyammal, in Virahalur, near Trichy or Tiruchirappalli in Tamil Nadu. A Roman catholic, he grew up to become a member of the Jesuit order and was attached to Jamshedpur Jesuit province. Joined Indian Social Institute (ISI) in Bengalooru. In 1975, he took over as the Director of the institute. The institute is involved in bringing social transformation aimed at integrated development of marginalized communities, especially Aadivasis, tribals, women and unorganized sections of Indian society. After 11 years at the helm of ISI, he returned to Jesuit Social Centre in Chaibasa where he worked for 12 years and then to Bagaicha, both in Ranchi, Jharkhand. Reportedly he was greatly disturbed by the hard realities of the ‘Ho’ tribe. Aadivasis became his family of brothers and sisters. He learned ‘Ho’ language and spent his time educating and strengthening the hopes of poor Aadivasis. He toiled for the emancipation of tribals of Jharkhand until his last days at the Jesuit run social centre at the Bagaicha campus, from where NIA picked him up. Thus, all his life he spent for the marginalized unorganized section of tribals and oppressed of Jharkhand. Post liberalisation of 1990s, when the Indian economy was opened-up, number of corporate houses had made a beeline looking for mineral rich lands of Jharkhand’s forests. In the name of development, villagers were displaced from their habitats. Contracts for mining were made between corporates and the government, without taking the Gram Sabhas into confidence as mandated by Panchayat (Extension in Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA Act). According to sources in public space, PESA Act- 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas to take responsibility for the development of villages, so also makes provision for establishment of the Tribal Advisory Council, headed by the governor of the state, which will monitor the implementation of the PESA Act and Tribal Sub-Plan then report back to the central government every year. Under the circumstances Fr. Stan, emerged as the spokesman for Tribals of Jharkhand. He attempted to pressurise governments to act, while articulating that Jal, Jungle aur Jameen-Water, Forest and Land- belonged to Aadivasis. He also opposed the Koel Karo dam project, which was to displace many Aadivasi families. Due to protest by Aadivasis, there were indiscriminate arrests during 2014-15. Fr. Stan organized meeting of public figures, who could offer help in addressing the detention of Tribal youth by the police. Sudha Bharadwaj, was one of the participant. Persecuted Prisoners Solidarity Committee (PPSC) was formed to intervene on behalf of the Under-Trial Prisoners (UTPs) seeking immediate bail and speedy trial. Under Fr. Stan’s leadership a PIL was filed in Jharkhand High Court. Court ordered the government to furnish all information on UTPs. But the government is yet to submit the information asked by the court. Clearly Fr. Stan was becoming an irritant to the then government of Jharkhand. The government, reportedly implicated Fr. Stan in what was known as Pathalgadi movement, which had become popular among Aadivasis, since it gave an identity, a platform for the Aadivasi issues & concerns. Government and corporate houses were not amused. Reportedly in 2018, Government in Ranchi filed an FIR against Fr. Stan and 19 others for supporting Pathalgadi movement. In 2019, the court in Khunti, former part of Ranchi district, declared Fr. Stan a ‘proclaimed absconder’ for alleged non-appearance in the court when warranted and issued orders for the attachment of his property. In October 2019, Khunti police took away two tables, a steel shelf, three plastic chairs, a mattress and a pillow from Fr. Stan’s room. Reportedly Fr. Stan contested the allegation in Jharkhand High Court, where while hearing, the State Advocate General called Fr. Stan a ‘dreaded criminal’. It appeared as if the authorities were building up a case to remove Fr. Stan from the scene of Aadivasi protests. Thus, has the Bhima Koregoan case become handy for the government to implicate Fr. Stan!? But Fr. Stan, it is reliably learnt, had never visited Bhima Koregoan anytime in his life. We all know, there was violence in Bhima Koregoan reportedly orchestrated by some upper caste groups, who didn’t want oppressed to have a voice to represent them. FIR by the oppressed was not properly acted upon. But another FIR by the opposing elements was acted upon and many activists were arrested and are under police detention since over 2 years and were denied bail. Fr. Stan was inexplicably a late entry into the scene. Was it an afterthought!? According to sources in the public space Fr. Stan came to know of the Bhima Koregoan incident only through the media. His name did not appear in the original FIR. Even Public Prosecutor had argued, sources inform, that Fr. Stan was only a suspect and not an accused. NIA officials while arresting Fr. Stan did not consider his old age and indifferent health. Strangely even the Bombay High Court, where he knocked its door repeatedly for bail appears to have not taken seriously his physical infirmities. We are all aware through the media that NIA special court adjourned for three weeks an application of the Jesuit priest seeking his sipper when it could have been granted it forthwith. Doesn’t this imply Fr. Stan Swamy’s rudimentary fundamental right to life in judicial custody was ignored? Olav Albuquerque writes from Mumbai “It is well-settled law that even in heinous crimes such as waging war against the state, if a man is too old to threaten witnesses or flee abroad to avoid facing trial, he should be granted bail. But the special NIA court declared “the collective interest of society overrode the fundamental rights of Fr. Stan Swamy," though this priest was too weak and frail to walk or even drink a glass of water on his own. So, isn’t there credence in the question-Has India’s judiciary let Fr. Stan Swamy down? An editorial of a Mumbai based print media had this to say, “Despite all its faults, the judiciary enjoys special status in India, especially the Supreme Court. Institutions, as well as, individuals, look up to the Apex Court to protect them from the vagaries of the system and the excesses of the government. The media too gives it deferential treatment, even though at times, justices prevail instead of justice prevailing. However, a series of events in recent years raises the suspicion in the minds of many that apex court is more conscious about its privileges rather than its duties, that it is insensitive to the underdogs. The SC, which recites the mantra of ‘collective conscience’ every now and then was a mute spectator to the systemic murder of Fr. Stan Swamy, who had spent a lifetime fighting for the rights of Jharkhand tribals. Where was the judicial conscience when the man suffering from Parkinson’s had to beg for a sipper glass? Where were the high priests of justice when the oldest man accused of being a terrorist was mocked by the jailers for complaining too much?” Instead of seeing him as torch bearer, judiciary opted to see him as a terrorist and let the 84 years old rot in jail. Indeed what happened to Fr. Stan Swamy has shaken the conscience of thinking Indians. Its time there is some internal mechanism developed by the Apex Court to ensure the continued public confidence in the judicial system. Some kind of a Performance Commission! The continued incarceration of honorable citizens under anti-terror laws, and death of Fr. Stan Swamy, should certainly weigh on the conscience of the highest adjudicator of the land. It's time Apex Court takes the call.