By Albert Thyrniang
The custodial death of the 84-year old Adivasi rights crusader, Stan Swamy sparked off fury and grief in the country. The central government and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) came under heavy criticism for the alleged ‘false charges’ implicating the activist in the Elgar Parishad or Bhima-Koregaon violence and slapping him with sedition under the ‘draconian’ Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1963 for having ‘Maoist’ links. The Special NIA Court and the Bombay High Court were also slighted for refusing to grant bail to the ‘oldest prisoner’ several times. The undertrial, a Parkinson’s patient besides other ailments was allegedly treated inhumanly in jail. He ultimately passed away on 5 July 2021in hospital in police custody.
Father Stan Swamy’s real name was Stanislaus Lourduswamy. He is hailed as the champion of the indigenous tribes who worked heart and soul to protect their land and forests from corporates and mining companies that are out to grab the resources for their selfish ends. He also questioned the ‘powers that be for caring little for human dignity and instead exploiting the Adivasis with hard labour and minimum wages.
Swamy saw that the Fifth Schedule was blatantly violated. The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution deals with the administration and control of the tribal areas mainly in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. One of the special provisions of this Schedule states that land belonging to the Scheduled Tribes (STs) were acquired for large scale mining, building of dams and setting up of industries without consulting the land owners. The Fifth Schedule stipulates the setting up of Tribes Advisory Councils. However, the provisions were being bypassed. Swamy’s activism challenged this violation.
Partly due to his works the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) was passed by parliament in 1996 ensuring that the Government of India entrusts the governance of Scheduled Areas, with the traditional Gram Sabhas or village councils and grants them power to administer their lands and forests. With this law in effect the central, state governments and private players could no longer take advantage of the “disempowered” tribals. This obviously upset the influential industrialists and powerful mining lobbies.
Another crusading work that got on the nerves of vested interests was the passage by Parliament of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition that lays down the procedures and rules for granting compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons. Swamy campaigned for the Act and was enthusiastically involved in spreading awareness among the affected people to claim their rightful dues even if they lose their land to the government or private companies.
Swamy’s effort got a boost with the Supreme Court’s verdict of July 2013 that states that the ‘owner of the land is also owner of the sub-soil/mineral wealth’ and that ownership of such resources under the ground are not with the government. This is a rejection of the argument that individual owners cannot claim any proprietary right on the sub-soil resources under Section 425 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Swamy organised the tribals to assert themselves citing the favourable Apex Court’s judgement.
A third action that might have threatened governments, the police and the administration was the filing of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Jharkhand High Court detailing it that the 3000 Adivasi youths languishing in jails for years together deserve a speedy trial. Prior to the PIL Swamy had conducted a detailed and credible study of the conditions of branded ‘Naxalites’ in jails. His decision to found the Persecuted Prisoners Solidarity Committee (PPSC), a conglomerate rights organisation put Swamy under surveillance which ultimately led to his arrest and hastened his demise.
Stan Swamy is hailed for holding a mirror to the powerful. The mirror reflected injustice and exploitation. Since Swamy was a Catholic Priest it is perhaps an opportune time to relate to the Church as well. The tragic death of a member of the Society of Jesus (SJ) challenges the Church. The undertrial held a mirror to the Church as well. The image from the mirror is the silence of the Church on social, political and economic issues affecting the less privileged. In a story someone grimly observed, “The Jesuit priest battled for the underprivileged as a lonesome rider on a lonesome road.” Persons of the calibre of Swamy are on the decline.
Outspoken individuals are becoming a rare commodity. The Church does not encourage daring speakers. The Church prefers ‘prudence’ rather than being a martyr. Stan Swamy asks us today: How many current Church leaders have been vocal on constitutional rights of the Dalits, Adivasis, tribals, minorities and the under privileged? Why is the Church leadership been silent against hate, intolerance, communalism, religious bigotry and the dangers from right wing ideology? Has the Church made known its defence of the constitutional principles and values like secularism, pluralism and tolerance whenever they come under attack? Is it too evident that the Church has been found wanting particularly during the present regime? Will the church raise another Stan Swamy? Will he/she get the backing if someone was to follow the footsteps of Stan Swamy?
Though Swamy was born in Tamil Nadu he spent most of his adult life in Jharkhand and in united Bihar state. He completely identified with the Adivasis. He sacrificed his life for them. He is even hailed as their ‘martyr’. This shows that others can also empathise with us. They can work for our welfare. They may even do a better job than us. Therefore, exclusive attitude is unwise. We only stand to lose. I personally know officers from outside Meghalaya who are more hardworking and committed than many of their local counterparts. Before retiring an officer told me that he took only three casual leaves (CL) throughout his career. How many indigenous officers can say so?
My repeated mention of the parochial clergy is an irritation to the concerned. The clergy in Jowai diocese for example won’t accept any ‘outsider’ to be their bishop. They seem to claim they have capable candidates. But if there are able candidates why have the authorities not found one after so long? Their closed-mindedness is a loss to the people of the diocese who are eager to have a leader. It is very much possible that a non-local can perform his duties selflessly like Stan Swamy.
Prior to his eventful three decade sojourn in Bihar/Jharkhand Swamy worked in Bangalore and Tamil Nadu in the 1970s. In the ‘Silicon Valley’, while the director of the Jesuit-led ‘Indian Social Institute,’ Swamy was in the thick of the struggle on behalf of the bonded agricultural labourers. In Villupuram and Tanjore he organised Dalits to demand for their right to be treated as human. His decision brought displeasure among a section in the Church.
Obviously Swamy was moved by the injustice and inequality in the society and in the Church particularly in the Southern states. Caste system discriminates a great deal. It is too harsh to call the Church ‘casteist’ but caste discrimination exists visibly in the Church. A Google search yields the following results: Is the Church finally acting against India’s caste system?
‘Stop caste discrimination in the Church’ – New Internationalist;
Caste system and Christianity- Kerala bishops;
Church & caste- The Indian Express;
Discrimination within the Church – The Hindu;
Not even the Church escapes India’s caste system – UCA News.
The other day a friend of mine narrated that to date different castes occupy only the allotted space in many Churches. Members of his society were working in a particular local Church. The highest castes sit in the middle of the Church, the next highest castes in the right and the lowest castes in the left. Holy Communion must be distributed first to the middle occupants then to the right and finally to the left. The order can’t be reversed. His society did try to do away with this practice but surprisingly the first to oppose were the priests and religious from that Church. Another religious society took up the challenge to reform this blatant inequality but again the fiercest opponents were the clergy and Church leaders.
Is the Church serious to end this unchristian practice? There’s need for serious soul searching as to what is the Church doing to eradicate untouchability, and casteism? Why did the Church not fully support Stan Swamy to rid this evil in the Church?
In seminars and updating courses, resource persons openly say that caste plays a crucial factor in the appointment of Bishops and other leaders. Even choosing candidates for higher studies is done on caste considerations. My four years in Bangalore were an eye opener. Priests publicly protest against appointments of bishops from another caste or region. It was a shock that in a cosmopolitan city like Bangalore, in certain Churches, except the local language, mass in any other language is forbidden. Church leaders themselves campaigned for the ‘ban’. An introspection could reveal that the ideals and values of Stan Swamy are not welcome.
Email: [email protected]