why the adivasis of Orissa State opposed the setting up of the iron and steel industry there
Answers
Explanation:
ணவதழூயக்ஷைதொதலதஸண அக்ஷய பளதணக்ஷயவத
Answer:
On January 2, people in Kalinganagar gathered once again at Beerbhumi – the memorial that commemorates the anniversary of the 2006 incident when the Odisha police opened fire on a gathering of villagers who had come to protest the construction of the boundary wall of a Tata Steel plant. Thirteen adivasis and a policeman were killed, sending shock waves across Odisha.
In the immediate aftermath of the 2006 police firing, the Bisthapan Birodhi Jan Manch had organised a road blockade on the national highway connecting Paradeep to Daitari and demanded immediate punitive action against the police and administration officials responsible for killings. The Manch decried the setting up of a judicial commission of inquiry as it suspected from the very beginning that it would simply go through the motions and rule in favour of the government. Predictably, the commission did precisely that.
On December 14, 2017, the Odisha government tabled the report of the P.K. Mohanty Commission of Inquiry set up to probe the police firing. The report has exonerated the police and administration involved in the crackdown.
First instituted on February 2, 2006, the manner in which this commission of inquiry has been handled and the long delays involved show the complete lack of political will.
The state government first appointed the Justice S.N. Naidu Commission, despite a Supreme Court order barring any sitting judge of a high court from heading a judicial inquiry [The government’s plea to the apex court to allow Justice Naidu to continue was turned down on April 6, 2007]. Hence, it was dissolved the following month.
Then another commission was constituted in January 2008 with Justice R.K. Patra as its head, which also had to be dissolved after he was appointed lokpal.
Finally, the Justice P.K. Mohanty Commission came into being, which formally submitted its report to the state government on July 3, 2015. The state government then took another two and a half years to table the report in the assembly.
In all, 11 years were needed for the state to conclude that the ‘quantum of force’ used during the agitation was justified in the face of a situation where about a thousand adivasis had assembled to thwart the construction of the boundary wall with lathis, axes, bows and arrows, which, in the commission’s learned opinion, were ‘deadly weapons. And that the 12 platoons of police deployed with modern arms and ammunitions had to resort to ‘self-defence’ as the protestors became aggressive.
The commission acknowledges the ‘discontent’ that was brewing among local people about compensation rates. However, nobody from the authorities – district or state level – had deemed it fit to enter into any negotiations with the protestors.