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
Trump Pick to Replace Lina Khan Vowed to End 'War on Mergers'
"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said one antitrust attorney.
Dec 11, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Trade Commission vowed in his job pitch to end current chair Lina Khan's "war on mergers," a signal to an eager corporate America that the incoming administration intends to be far more lax on antitrust enforcement.
Andrew Ferguson was initially nominated by President Joe Biden to serve as a Republican commissioner on the bipartisan FTC, and his elevation to chair of the commission will not require Senate confirmation.
In a one-page document obtained by Punchbowl, Ferguson—who previously worked as chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—pitched himself to Trump's team as the "pro-innovation choice" with "impeccable legal credentials" and "proven loyalty" to the president-elect.
Ferguson's top agenda priority, according to the document, is to "reverse Lina Khan's anti-business agenda" by rolling back "burdensome regulations," stopping her "war on mergers," halting the agency's "attempt to become an AI regulator," and ditching "novel and legally dubious consumer protection cases."
Trump announced Ferguson as the incoming administration's FTC chair as judges in Oregon and Washington state
blocked the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons, decisions that one antitrust advocate called a "fantastic culmination of the FTC's work to protect consumers and workers."
According to a recent
report by the American Economic Liberties Project, the Biden administration "brought to trial four times as many billion-dollar merger challenges as Trump-Pence or Obama-Biden enforcers did," thanks to "strong leaders at the FTC" and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.
In a letter to Ferguson following Trump's announcement on Tuesday, FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter wrote that the document obtained and published by Punchbowl "raises questions" about his priorities at the agency mainly "because of what is not in it."
"Americans pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the developed world, yet they die younger," they wrote. "Medical bills bankrupt people. In fact, this is the main reason Americans go bankrupt. But the document does not mention the cost of healthcare or prescription medicine."
"If there was one takeaway from the election, it was that groceries are too expensive. So is gas," the commissioners continued. "Yet the document does not mention groceries, gas, or the cost of living. While you have said we're entering the 'most pro-worker administration in history,' the document does not mention labor, either. Americans are losing billions of dollars to fraud. Fraudsters are so brazen that they impersonate sitting FTC commissioners to steal money from retirees. The word 'fraud' does not appear in the document."
"The document does propose allowing more mergers, firing civil servants, and fighting something called 'the trans agenda,'" they added. "Is all of that more important than the cost of healthcare and groceries and gasoline? Or fighting fraud?"
As an FTC commissioner, Ferguson voted against rules banning anti-worker noncompete agreements and making it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions. Ferguson was also the only FTC member to oppose an expansion of a rule to protect consumers from tech support scams that disproportionately impact older Americans.
"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel. "Appointing him to chair the FTC is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Once Again, Tom Cotton Blocks Bill to Shield Journalists From Betraying Sources
Responding to the GOP senator's latest thwarting of the PRESS Act, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden vowed to "keep trying to get this bill across the finish line" before Republicans take control of the Senate next month.
Dec 10, 2024
Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas on Tuesday again blocked the passage of House-approved bipartisan legislation meant to shield journalists and telecommunications companies from being compelled to disclose sources and other information to federal authorities.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) brought the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act—which would prohibit the federal government from forcing journalists and telecom companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for terroristic or violent threats—for a unanimous consent vote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued Tuesday that passing the PRESS Act is "more important now than ever before when we've heard some in the previous administration talk about going after the press in one way or another," a reference to Republican President-elect Donald Trump's threats to jail journalists who refuse to reveal the sources of leaks. Trump, who has referred to the press as the "enemy of the people," repeatedly urged Senate Republicans to "kill this bill."
Cotton, who blocked a vote on the legislation in December 2022, again objected to the bill, a move that thwarted its speedy passage. The Republican called the legislation a "threat to national security" and "the biggest giveaway to the liberal press in American history."
The advocacy group Defending Rights and Dissent lamented that "Congress has abdicated their responsibility to take substantive steps to protect the constitutional right to a free press."
However, Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted ways in which Senate Democrats can still pass the PRESS Act before Republicans gain control of the upper chamber next month:
Senate Democrats had all year to move this bipartisan bill and now time is running out. Leader Schumer needs to get the PRESS Act into law—whether by attaching it to a year-end legislative package or bringing it to the floor on its own—even if it means shortening lawmakers' holiday break. Hopefully, today was a preview of more meaningful action to come.
Responding to Tuesday's setback, Wyden vowed, "I'm not taking my foot off the gas."
"I'll keep trying to get this bill across the finish line to write much-needed protections for journalists and their sources into black letter law," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judges Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger in 'Win for Farmers, Workers, and Consumers'
"We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement," said one advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
Antitrust advocates on Tuesday welcomed a pair of court rulings against the proposed merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, which was challenged by Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and multiple state attorneys general.
"The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons," said Henry Liu, director of the commission's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets."
"This victory has a direct, tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans who shop at Kroger or Albertsons-owned grocery stores for their everyday needs, whether that's a Fry's in Arizona, a Vons in Southern California, or a Jewel-Osco in Illinois," he added. "This is also a victory for thousands of hardworking union employees, protecting their hard-earned paychecks by ensuring Kroger and Albertsons continue to compete for workers through higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions."
While Liu was celebrating the preliminary injunction from Oregon-based U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson, later Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson released a ruling that blocked the merger in Washington state.
"We're standing up to mega-monopolies to keep prices down," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "We went to court to block this illegal merger to protect Washingtonians' struggling with high grocery prices and the workers whose jobs were at stake. This is an important victory for affordability, worker protections, and the rule of law."
Advocacy groups applauding the decisions also pointed to the high cost of groceries and the anticipated impact of Kroger buying Albertsons—a $24.6 billion deal first announced in October 2022.
"American families are the big winner today, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission. The only people who stood to gain from the potential merger between Albertsons and Kroger were their wealthy executives and investors," asserted Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US. "The rest of us are letting out a huge sigh of relief knowing today's victory is good news for competitive prices and consumer access."
Describing the federal decision as "a victory for commonsense antitrust enforcement that puts people ahead of corporations," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf also pointed out that "persistently high food prices are hitting Americans hard, and a Kroger-Albertsons mega-merger would have only made it worse."
"Already, a handful of huge corporations' stranglehold on our food system means that consumers are paying too much for too little choice in supermarkets, workers are earning too little, and farmers and ranchers cannot get fair prices for their crops and livestock," she noted. "Today's decision and strengthened FTC merger guidelines help change the calculus."
Like Wolf, Farm Action president and co-founder Angela Huffman similarly highlighted that "while industry consolidation increases prices for consumers and harms workers, grocery mergers also have a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers."
"When grocery stores consolidate, farmers have even fewer options for where to sell their products, and the chances of them receiving a fair price for their goods are diminished further," Huffman explained. "Today's ruling is a win for farmers, workers, and consumers alike."
Some advocates specifically praised Khan—a progressive FTC chair whom President-elect Donald Trumpplans to replace with Andrew Ferguson, a current commissioner who previously worked as chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and as Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Today's decision is a major win for shoppers and grocery workers. Families have been paying the price of unchecked corporate power in the food and grocery sector, and further consolidation would only worsen this crisis," declared Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens in a statement.
"FTC Chair Lina Khan's approach is the blueprint to deliver lower prices, higher wages, and an economy that works for everyone," Owens argued. "The rebirth of antitrust enforcement has protected consumers against the worst of corporate power in our economy and it would be wise to continue this approach."
Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the federal ruling "a resounding victory for workers, consumers, independent retailers, and local communities nationwide—and a powerful validation of Chair Khan and the FTC's rigorous enforcement of the law."
"The FTC presented a strong case that Kroger and Albertsons fiercely compete head-to-head on price, quality, and service. The ruling is a capstone on the FTC's work over the past four years and includes favorable citations to the FTC's recent victories against the Tapestry-Capri, IQVIA-Propel, and Illumina-Grail mergers," Kilgour continued.
"The court also cites long-standing Supreme Court law which recognizes that Congress was also concerned with the impacts of mergers on smaller competitors," she added. "We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement and for successfully protecting the public interest from harmful consolidation."
Despite the celebrations, the legal battle isn't necessarily over.
The Associated Pressreported that "the case may now move to the FTC, although Kroger and Albertsons have asked a different federal judge to block the in-house proceedings," and Colorado is also trying to halt the merger in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular