September, 05 2008, 03:17pm EDT

India: All Sides Using Children in Chhattisgarh Conflict
Rehabilitate Children in Armed Groups
NEW YORK
Indian security forces and Naxalite rebels should immediately end the
use of children in the conflict in Chhattisgarh state in central India,
Human Rights Watch said today. Using children under age 18 in armed
operations places them at risk of injury and death and violates
international law.
All parties to the Chhattisgarh conflict have used children in armed
operations. The Naxalites, a Maoist armed group, admit that it is their
official practice to recruit children above age 16 in their forces, and
have used children as young as 12 in armed operations.
Government-backed Salwa Judum vigilantes have used children in violent
attacks against villages as part of their anti-Naxalite campaign. The
Chhattisgarh state police admit that they had recruited children under
age 18 as special police officers (SPOs) due to the absence of age
documentation, but claim that all children have been removed from the
ranks. However, Human Rights Watch investigators in Chhattisgarh found
that underage SPOs continue to serve with the police and are used in
counter-Naxalite combing operations.
"A particular horror of the Chhattisgarh conflict is that
children are participating in the violence," said Jo Becker, children's
rights advocate for Human Rights Watch and member of the research team.
"It's shameful that both India's government and the Naxalites are
exploiting children in such a dangerous fashion."
Human Rights Watch urged the Indian central and
Chhattisgarh state governments to develop a scheme to identify,
demobilize, and rehabilitate both underage SPOs and children among
Naxalite ranks.
The 58-page Human Rights Watch report, "Dangerous Duty: Children and the Chhattisgarh Conflict,"
updates information on the use of children by all parties to the
conflict, the harm they have suffered, and the adverse impact of the
conflict on children's education. The report is based on information
gathered from more than 160 interviews with villagers, Salwa Judum camp
residents, police, SPOs, and former child Naxalites in Chhattisgarh
state.
Human Rights Watch found that since mid-2005 the
Chhattisgarh police have recruited and used an unknown number of
children among the more than 3,500 in Dantewada and Bijapur districts
of southern Chhattisgarh. Most SPOs are recruited from indigenous
tribal communities that have been displaced to Salwa Judum camps. They
assist government security forces in counter-Naxalite paramilitary
operations in the region. Many eyewitnesses of joint raids by
government security forces and Salwa Judum members described seeing
dozens of children dressed in police uniforms armed with rifles.
Several camp residents recounted how police and Salwa Judum members
urged them and other children to enroll as SPOs, and they recounted
recognizing children who were school dropouts serving as SPOs.
In late 2007, the Chhattisgarh police admitted to Human
Rights Watch that they had accidentally recruited underage SPOs, but
claimed that they had since removed around 150 officers from the ranks,
including children. While there is no evidence of new SPO recruitment
since March 2006, both SPOs and community members confirmed that SPOs
under age 18 continue to serve with the police. Several SPOs
interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that the police had recruited
them when they were underage, and boasted that they continue to serve
at the forefront of dangerous armed operations. They were also unaware
of any initiative of the Chhattisgarh police to identify and
rehabilitate SPOs that were underage. None of them reported being asked
to produce age-related documentation or having undergone age
verification tests in the recent past.
In July 2008, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs denied
as "absolutely false" Human Rights Watch's finding that underage SPOs
were recruited by the Chhattisgarh police. This denial contradicts the
Chhattisgarh police's admissions both to Human Rights Watch and to
government bodies such as the National Commission for Protection of
Child Rights, that they had recruited underage SPOs.
"Police recruitment of children as SPOs has made these
children prime targets for Naxalite reprisals," said Becker. "Instead
of vacillating between admissions and denial regarding their use of
children, India should act to immediately conduct age verification
tests for all SPOs, remove those under age 18, and provide them with
education and alternative employment."
Even after three years of their initial recruitment, the
Indian central and Chhattisgarh state governments have yet to develop a
rehabilitation scheme for those underage SPOs they have allegedly
removed.
Naxalites in this region have recruited and used children
for more than a decade. They deploy children to gather intelligence,
for sentry duty, to make and plant landmines and bombs, and to engage
in hostilities against government forces. They organize children
between ages 6 and 12 into bal sangams (children's
associations), indoctrinating, training, and using them as informers.
Typically, children above the age of 12 are recruited into other
Naxalite ranks and trained in the use of rifles, landmines, and
improvised explosive devices. Children in Naxalite dalams
(armed guerrilla squads) are involved in armed exchanges with
government security forces. Even those children who are not part of dalams
are at high risk, as evidenced by an SPO who said he was instructed to
open fire on a group of children, believing them to be a Naxalite
street theater troupe.
"Naxalite use of children in the name of a 'people's war'
is completely unacceptable," said Becker. "Naxalite commanders should
release all children from their ranks, and take strict measures to
prevent further recruitment, training, and use of children in any
capacity."
Children who desert Naxalite ranks and surrender to the
police seeking protection find themselves in a vicious cycle. Not only
are they subject to brutal reprisals by Naxalites, but they may be
re-recruited as informers or SPOs by the Chhattisgarh police, under the
garb of "rehabilitation for surrendered Naxalites."
Human Rights Watch also found that the Chhattisgarh police
have arbitrarily detained and beaten suspected child Naxalites. Child
Naxalites who are arrested by the police should be treated in
accordance with established international and national juvenile justice
standards, and a separate rehabilitation program should be devised for
them, Human Rights Watch said.
India is party to the optional protocol to the Convention
on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed
conflict. The protocol sets 18 as the minimum age for participation in
hostilities, for both government forces and non-state armed groups. It
also obliges the Indian government to assist in the rehabilitation of
children who have been recruited and used in violation of international
law.
The conflict in Chhattisgarh has also severely impaired
children's access to education. Once Salwa Judum began its operations
in mid-2005, many children stopped attending school for fear of
abduction. The Naxalites have destroyed many schools, ostensibly to
prevent their use for military or Salwa Judum operations. Schools have
been relocated to camps, where displaced children study in crowded
conditions, many of them separated from their families. Those camp
residents who want to return to their home villages do not have access
to schooling facilities. Children who fled across the state boundary to
Andhra Pradesh state seeking refuge from the violence in Chhattisgarh
have been forced to drop out of school due to the language barrier in
the Telugu medium public schools. Despite repeated requests to initiate
bridge courses or a Hindi medium school for such children, the
Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh state governments have yet to take any
action.
Extracts from accounts:
"I joined the military dalam
when I was 13 or 14 years old. I was studying in an ashram school
[government-run residential school] - eighth standard - when Naxalites
came to my hostel. I didn't want to go. They said I could study until
the 10th [standard], but I should go with them. ... We got weapons
training, learnt about landmines, and a little karate. ... [Finally] I
had an opportunity to run away. ... One year after I ran away, both my
younger brothers (age 8 and 12) were killed [by the Naxalites in
retaliation]. They beat my mother and broke her arm. They burned our
house and took all our things."
- Former child dalam (armed Naxalite guerrilla squad) member, December 2007.
"The
police asked me also to become an SPO [special police officer] but I
refused because I did not want to become an SPO and commit heinous
crimes. I did not want to shoot and kill people. ... They do not ask
anyone how old they are. Even 14-year-olds can become SPOs if the
police want them to become SPOs."
- Poosam Kanya (pseudonym), former resident of Errabore camp, December 2007.
"In
Bhairamgarh, about 15 to 20 children dropped out of high school [after
class 8 in 2005] to become SPOs - both boys and girls. I live in
Bhairamgarh and many of these children also stay there. Now they are
all SPOs. Their entire schooling has been ruined - they can never go
back to school because they have discontinued education for over two
years."
- Government teacher in Bijapur district, December 2007.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
230+ Environmental Groups Call On Congress to Impose Moratorium on New AI Data Centers
“The rapid, largely unregulated rise of data centers to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate, and water security.”
Dec 08, 2025
Environmental and economic justice advocates alike have been sounding the alarm for months regarding the Trump administration's push to built massive data centers to support artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency in communities across the United States—regardless of local opposition—and on Monday Congress heard from a coalition of more than 200 groups demanding action to stop what they called "one of the biggest environmental and social threats of our generation."
Led by Food and Water Watch (FWW), which originally demanded a moratorium on new AI data centers in October, more than 230 organizations have signed a letter warning that thus far, Congress has failed to take action to stop the rapid expansion despite the fact that "the harms of data center growth are increasingly well-established, and they are massive."
The national and state groups, including Greenpeace USA, Oil Change International, and the Nebraska-based Save Rural America, pointed to a number of harms associated with the expansion of data centers in places including rural Michigan, Wisconsin, and northern Virginia.
They warned that pushing the build-out onto communities—many of which have protested the approval of the centers to no avail—will lead to:
- Enormous electricity consumption, with a tripling of data centers in the next five years projected to result in the facilities consuming as much electricity as about 30 million households;
- Unsustainable water consumption, with those data centers requiring the amount of water normally used by 18.5 million households, just for cooling the computer servers;
- The worsening of the climate emergency, with 56% of the energy used to power data centers sourced from planet-heating fossil fuels;
- Surging electricity costs for people living in the vicinity of energy-sucking data centers; and
- Skyrocketing job losses as half of all entry-level white-collar jobs are projected to become obsolete due to the growth of AI and companies' investments in the technology, even as corporations report they're not seeing a significant positive impact on their bottom lines.
"The rapid, largely unregulated rise of data centers to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate, and water security," the groups told Congress. "We urge you to join our call for a national moratorium on new data centers until adequate regulations can be enacted to fully protect our communities, our families, our environment, and our health from the runaway damage this industry is already inflicting."
The groups noted that electricity costs have risen 21.3% since 2021, a rate that "drastically" outpaces inflation, driven by the "rapid build-out of data centers."
As CNBC reported last month, residential utility bills rose 6% in August compared with last summer, and though price increases can be due to a host of reasons, electricity prices rose "much faster than the national average" this year in states with high concentrations of data centers. Consumers in Virginia paid 13% more, while those in Illinois paid 16% more and people in Ohio saw their costs go up 12%.
Emily Wurth, managing director of organizing at FWW, told the Guardian that rising utility costs are driving much of the grassroots action against data centers in places like Wisconsin—where a woman was violently dragged out of a community meeting by police last week after speaking out against plans for a new facility in her town—and Tucson, Arizona, where residents successfully pushed the City Council this year to block a data center project linked to Amazon.
“I’ve been amazed by the groundswell of grassroots, bipartisan opposition to this, in all types of communities across the US,” Wurth told the Guardian. “Everyone is affected by this, the opposition has been across the political spectrum. A lot of people don’t see the benefits coming from AI and feel they will be paying for it with their energy bills and water... We’ve seen outrageous utility price rises across the country and we are going to lean into this. Prices are going up across the board and this is something Americans really do care about.”
Data center projects worth a total of $64 billion have been blocked or delayed in states including Texas, Oregon, and Tennessee, and Reuters reported last week that a sizable portion of the opposition is coming from parts of the country that heavily supported President Donald Trump in last year's election.
Hundreds of people attended a recent meeting in Montour County, Pennsylvania, where Trump won by 20 points last year, raising alarm over plans to rezone 1,300 acres for Talen Energy to build a data center.
While raising prices for households that are already coping with high grocery and healthcare bills, the unregulated growth in AI data centers is also expected to add up to 44 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in just the next five years—the equivalent of putting 10 million new fossil fuel-powered cars on the road at a time when planetary heating has already been linked to recent US weather disasters like Hurricane Helene and deadly heatwaves.
The groups appealed to Congress as Trump said he plans to sign an executive order preempting state-level AI regulations, saying that states, "many of them bad actors," should not be "involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS.”
Republicans in Congress have also recently suggested they could try to ban state-level AI regulations in the National Defense Authorization Act.
The Trump administration and its allies in the industry have issued warnings to communities that oppose the construction of AI data centers, with the White House's AI Action Plan demanding the fast-tracking of permits for building the facilities and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) lobbying for the industry and recently telling local officials in Chandler, Arizona that "federal preemption is coming" and they must approve plans for a 20,000-square foot data center in the city.
A Morning Consult poll taken last month found that public support for the centers is falling as rapidly as companies try to take over rural and suburban communities with new data centers. More than 40% said they supported a ban on the construction of new facilities, up from 37% just a month prior.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Retired General Says Hegseth Boat Strike on Shipwrecked Sailors Was a 'War Crime'
"Secretary Hegseth is basically convening everyone to think... this is the kind of thing that happens in war," said retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling. "It's not."
Dec 08, 2025
A retired general suggested Monday that the Trump administration’s strike on shipwrecked survivors on September 2 may have been a war crime.
In the face of mounting scrutiny, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has continued to defend what has been described as a "double-tap" strike off the coast of Trinidad, alleging that the two survivors were drug traffickers bound for America who could have still theoretically harmed it in some way despite clinging to the wreckage for their lives following the first strike.
NBC reported this weekend that Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, who oversaw the strikes, told lawmakers that Hegseth had given direct orders for all 11 men aboard the vessel to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted.”
Last week, when reports first emerged of a second strike, Hegseth denied that it had taken place, calling it “fake news” before the White House later confirmed and defended the killing of the survivors.
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who served as the commanding general of the US Army Europe from 2011 to 2012, discussed the strikes on Monday in an appearance on MS NOW's (formerly MSNBC's) "Morning Joe."
"It is, in fact, in my view, a war crime," Hertling said.
"Imagine yourself falling off a cruise ship and being asked to hang on to a piece of wood after you've just been struck with a large kinetic round that has killed nine of your 11 copilots on this boat," Hertling said. "It doesn't matter what they're doing at that point."
Hertling suggested that the frequent use of the term "double-tap" to refer to the strike was a misnomer, as was Hegseth's invocation of the phrase "fog of war" to defend the military's actions.
“That’s a term that special operators use when there are two successive rounds at a target to eliminate it, and to get rid of someone who is attacking them,” the general explained regarding the claims of a "double-tap" strike. “This was a restrike, with time between the first strike and the second. That gives you time to figure out what you’re going to do and clear that so-called ‘fog of war.'”
He cited the definition from Carl von Clausewitz, the 18th-century Prussian general and military theorist who coined the term to describe the “uncertainty” of battle.
"Secretary Hegseth is basically convening everyone to think he has been in war for 20 years, and this is the kind of thing that happens in war. It's not," Hertling continued. "What I'll tell you, having been involved in strikes like this on the ground, the only time you consider a restrike is when the enemy continues to fight, and you're continuing to either strike them with artillery or some type of faraway missile. So a restrike like this occurs when you realize the individuals on the ground or in the water are trying to fight back."
Hegseth and Bradley’s defense of the strikes has centered around the idea that even as they floated helplessly on a piece of debris, the victims still posed a “continuing threat” as they could have theoretically called in other traffickers as backup to retrieve them and their cargo.
As of yet, the administration has presented no evidence that the men were calling for backup, and videos of the incident viewed by members of Congress during a closed-door hearing reportedly suggest they lacked any means of communication. Bradley, meanwhile, acknowledged in his Senate testimony that the survivors did not appear to have any radio or communication devices.
Further undermining the Trump administration's argument that the boat posed an immediate threat, Bradley also reportedly told Congress that the ship was not even bound for the US, but for the South American nation of Suriname.
Hertling emphasized that the two men were shipwrecked on "a piece of debris floating in the middle of the Caribbean," adding that "these individuals are not going to go anywhere, which will become clear with the film," though Hertling acknowledged that he had not personally seen it.
In recent days, leading Democrats, as well as some Republicans in Congress, have called for the release of the video, which House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) described last week as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.” Himes said that while the video showed the men were carrying drugs, “they were not in a position to continue their mission in any way.”
The strike was the first in a months-long campaign of extrajudicial bombings by the Trump administration on boats that they have claimed without evidence have contained drug traffickers bound for the US. At least 87 people have been killed in the two dozen strikes since September. Some of those killed in the strikes were later reported to have been ordinary fishermen, and others who had nothing to do with the drug trade.
While focus has been centered on the details of the September 2 strike in recent days and Hegseth's role, experts have emphasized that the entire boat-bombing campaign is illegal.
"The initial attack was illegal too,” said Kenneth Roth, the former longtime director of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, on social media last week. "Whether Hegseth ordered survivors killed after a US attack on a supposed drug boat is not the heart of the matter. It is blatantly illegal to order criminal suspects to be murdered rather than detained. There is no 'armed conflict' despite Trump's claim."
While the "Morning Joe" segment focused on the question of whether the second September 2 strike was a war crime, some legal experts have said those involved in ordering and carrying out that attack and the other bombings could actually be liable for murder under US law, since Congress has not authorized an armed conflict in the Caribbean.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Trump Vow to Intervene, Kushner Linked to Paramount's Hostile Bid for Warner Bros.
"The correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner," said one antitrust advocate.
Dec 08, 2025
Paramount Skydance on Monday launched a hostile bid to take over Warner Bros. Discovery shortly after US President Donald Trump publicly expressed skepticism of Netflix's proposed deal to acquire parts of the media company—and pledged to intervene in the federal review process.
"It is a big market share, there’s no question about it," Trump said late Sunday of Netflix's proposed $83 billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) film studio and streaming business.
"I’ll be involved in that decision," the president added.
Hours after Trump's comments, Paramount CEO David Ellison—the son of billionaire GOP megadonor and close Trump ally Larry Ellison—announced the hostile bid to buy WBD, attempting to subvert the Netflix deal by taking an all-cash, $30-per-share offer directly to Warner Bros. shareholders.
Observers expressed alarm over the seeming coordination between the president and Paramount's chief executive as the fight over Warner Bros. escalates. Trump reportedly favored Paramount to win the bidding war for WBD, which owns CNN, HBO Max, and other major assets.
Axios reported Monday that "Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of Paramount's hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros Discovery, according to a regulatory filing."
"Affinity Partners was not mentioned in Paramount's press release on Monday morning about its $108 billion bid," Axios noted, "nor were participating sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar."
Ellison was reportedly at the White House last week urging the Trump administration to block Netflix's bid for WBD.
Speaking to CNBC on Monday, Ellison said that "we've had great conversations with the president about" Paramount—which controls CBS News thanks to a merger that the Trump administration approved—potentially becoming the owner of CNN, a frequent target of Trump's vitriol.
CNBC: Do you think the president embraces the idea of you being the owner of CNN given his criticism for that network?
DAVID ELLISON: Ah -- we've had great conversations with the president about this but I don't want to speak for him in any way, shape, or form pic.twitter.com/FdwBzfP3eO
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 8, 2025
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, said in response to Ellison's remarks that "the correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner."
"The president inserting himself in the deal is obviously problematic, regardless of the parties involved," said Hegde. "If Netflix’s Ted Sarandos, who Trump called a great person, finds a way to appease him, that is also not good!"
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed similar concerns about Trump's potential corruption of the regulatory process. The proposed Netflix deal is expected to face a review by the US Justice Department's Antitrust Division, where top officials were recently ousted for "insubordination" amid criticism of agency leaders' corporate-friendly approach to merger enforcement.
"Is that an open invite for CEOs to curry favor with Trump in exchange for merger approvals?" Warren asked after Trump pledged to insert himself into the Netflix-WBD review process.
"It should be an independent decision by the Department of Justice based on the law and facts," added Warren, who called the Netflix-WBD deal "an anti-monopoly nightmare."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


