annual report print final.qxd - Asian Centre for Human Rights
annual report print final.qxd - Asian Centre for Human Rights
annual report print final.qxd - Asian Centre for Human Rights
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
INDIA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2005 Madhya Pradesh<br />
<strong>for</strong> the Narmada, the Sardar Sarovar dam<br />
(proposed height is 136.5 m) is the largest<br />
and is likely to displace more than 320,000<br />
tribal people and affect the livelihood of<br />
thousands of others. 54<br />
On 8 October 2000, the Supreme Court<br />
authorised construction upto the originally<br />
planned height of 138m in 5-meter<br />
increments subject to receiving approval<br />
from the Relief and Rehabilitation<br />
Subgroup of the Narmada Control<br />
Authority. The Narmada Water Disputes<br />
Tribunal Award stated that land should be<br />
made available to the oustees at least a year<br />
in advance be<strong>for</strong>e submergence. 55 However,<br />
the state government failed to implement<br />
the directions of the Supreme Court and the<br />
Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award.<br />
Yet, on 13 March 2004, the Narmada<br />
Control Authority (NCA) allowed the<br />
raising of the Sardar Sarovar dam height<br />
to 110 metres. At least 10,000 families in<br />
Madhya Pradesh and at least 1500 tribal<br />
families in Maharashtra were under<br />
threats of submergence and displacement<br />
without any resettlement. On 8 May<br />
2004, over 200 tribal families from nine<br />
villages on the banks of Narmada,<br />
affected by the 110 meters of the Sardar<br />
Sarovar dam, launched the Bhoomi Hakk<br />
Satyagraha (land right Satyagraha) by<br />
occupying the denuded <strong>for</strong>est land in<br />
Nandurbar district in Maharashtra. The<br />
state government failed to provide them<br />
with land-based resettlement, despite<br />
repeated assurances, recommendations by<br />
government appointed committees and<br />
written declarations. 56<br />
140<br />
VII. Status of Madhya Pradesh<br />
State <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> Commission<br />
Madhya Pradesh State <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong><br />
Commission <strong>report</strong>edly registered a total<br />
of 13,438 cases from 1 April 2003 to 25<br />
February 2004. Of these 7,452 were<br />
resolved and 3,205 pending cases were<br />
settled. 57 Maximum number of complaints<br />
relate to police atrocities. 58<br />
There are <strong>report</strong>s of non-compliance of<br />
the Commission’s recommendations by the<br />
state government. During the period of<br />
1999-2004, the Commission recommended<br />
324 cases to the state government <strong>for</strong><br />
paying compensation, out of which 94 were<br />
fully complied by the state government and<br />
41 were partially followed, thus leaving 230<br />
cases still pending compliance. The State<br />
<strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> Commission had 4497<br />
pending complaints in 2000-01, 8760<br />
complaints in 2001-02, 10,389 complaints<br />
in 2002-03, and 13,170 complaints in 2003-<br />
04. 59 In February 2004, Justice R D Shukla<br />
after his retirement as chairman of the<br />
MPSHRC <strong>report</strong>edly admitted that the state<br />
government had been non-cooperative and<br />
there was lack of coordination among the<br />
fellow members of the Commission. 60<br />
In April 2004, Madhya Pradesh State<br />
<strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> Commission<br />
recommended payment of Rs 5,000 as<br />
compensation to an aged blacksmith,<br />
Hiralal Lohapita, <strong>for</strong> willful harassment<br />
and beating by Bairagarh police two-and<br />
a-half year ago. In his complaint to the<br />
Commission, Ramprasad Lohapita, the<br />
victim’s son, alleged that policemen<br />
headed by the Bairagarh station in-charge