Oct 31: The dark side of Naveen Patnaik regime

October 31, 2013

http://gulail.com/the-dark-side-of-the-patnaik-regime/

The dark side of Naveen Patnaik regime

Shazia Nigar

Anyone who dares to dissent against the Naveen Patnaik government in
Odisha faces the risk of being branded a naxal or seditionist. The
list of those jailed on trumped charges includes legions of protesting
tribals, public-spirited lawyers and human rights activists. In a
month long investigation Gulail lays bare a systematic subversion of
civil liberties and extra-judicial killings by a government that has
till now been by and large successful in avoiding media scrutiny.

The national narrative today revolves around the resurgence of
communalism, deeply pervasive corruption, the spread of Maoist
insurgency and competitive terrorism by Islamist and Hindutva forces.
Narendra Modi, who is seen by many as the next prime minister, has for
years, and rightly so, faced an intense scrunity by activists and
hacks on his malicious failure in preventing the 2002 riots and
presiding over the cold-blooded killings of innocent Muslim youth in
staged police encounters. The State of Odisha has however remained for
the most part unabrased by such debates. Somehow the image of Naveen
Patnaik portrayed by the national media has been of a benign, clean
and efficent administrator. However, a closer look would reveal a
state marauded by a staggering number of human rights violations, a
rural population constantly persecuted for resisting land acquisition
and a civil society with its leading lights being gagged or jailed for
raising a voice against state repression.

A month long investigation carried out by Gulail revealed that scores
of social activists, journalists, lawyers, students and tribals have
been arrested and jailed on the basis of clearly fabricated cases.

Close to 530 individuals are currently in various jails in Odisha in
what prima facie appear as fabricated cases. Out of these nearly 400
are tribals. Gulail has documents that show that 32 individuals in
Badipada, 75 in Rourkela, 18 in Balangir and neighbouring districts,
27 in Gajapati/Ganjam, 35 in Kandhamal, 14 in Raigada, 70 in Koraput,
25 in Malkangiri, 6 in Bhubaneshwar, 42 in Kyonjhar, 2 in Chaudwar, 10
in Jajpur, 30 in Sambalpur/Devgarh/Badagarh are in jail at the moment.
Many of these people have been in jail since 2008.

30 individuals have been killed in police firing in displacement
related protests. In Kalinganagar in Jajpur district, 2006, 14 people
were killed in police firing during a protest against displacement
caused by a Tata steel plant. A judicial enquiry was announced and
instated by the State government but seven years down the line, the
report is yet to be submitted. This is one among many cases that
Odisha has witnessed in the recent years.

75 individuals have been killed in various police encounters and
branded as Maoists over the last 10 years. The most recent of these
cases ocurred on 14th November 2012, when 5 individuals were killed
during an encounter with security forces. On the 30th of November when
a congregation of activists and families of the deceased protested
outside the Vidhan Sabha Bhavan in Bhubaneshwar and demanded an
inquiry into the killings, Naveen Patnaik refused to so much as meet
them.

Arati Majhi

After spending three years in jail for Maoist related cases Arati
Majhi was acquitted of all charges against her on 17th July 2013. Lack
of evidence – inability of the police to produce seized items in court
and contradictions in statements of key witnesses, made it amply clear
that Majhi’s case was predicated on largely fabricated evidence.

Arati was 20-years-old and a week away from getting married when she
was arrested in Maoist related cases. She was picked up by the Special
Operation Group and the Central Reserve Police Force, from her house
in Jadingi village, Gajapati at 3:00 AM on 13th February 2010. Arati’s
cousins, Shyam and Lazar Majhi, were also arrested. Five men from the
SOG and CRPF then took her to the jungle and forced her to see
pornographic pictures on a mobile phone. Then they blindfolded and
gang-raped her after which she lost consciousness. When she regained
consciousness she found herself in Paralakhemundi. On inquiring about
the reason behind her arrest she was threatened that she would be
implicated in fabricated Maoist related cases.

The law does not permit a woman to be arrested after sunset and before
sunrise. Arati was arrested at 3:00AM. There were no policewomen
present during her arrest. No seizure list was made. Then, she was
gang-raped in custody.

She was forwarded to Berhampur jail on Judicial remand where she spent
three years of her young life. Altogether she had 6 cases registered
against her. Four cases were related to the burning of four OSRTC
buses and one of a Reliance tower by Maoists in Raipanka, Gajapati on
the night of 27th December 2009. The other case involved damaging a
forest beat house with explosions. Arati was charged with Sedition,
waging war against the state, rioting, being a member of an unlawful
association, the Arms Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,
amongst others.

Four cases were made out of one incident of the burning of four buses.
No Test Identification parade was conducted during investigation. None
of the witnesses, the only evidence the prosecution had claimed,
recognised any of the accused as the ones who had burnt the buses. Not
the drivers and the conductors who had registered the case. Neither
the independent eye witnesses. They all said, one by one, that the
‘miscreants’ had their faces covered. How then could they recognize
them by face? The suggestion made by the Public Prosecutors to one of
the witnesses that he had heard the attackers calling each other by
name was also denied.

How we know these cases are fabricated:

– Most witnesses didn’t recognise Arati or any of the other
co-accused. If they recognised her, like the leader of the gram
panchayat she belongs to, they testified that she had no links with
the Maosists.

– The eye witnesses declared that the attackers had covered their
faces with cloth and hence could not be recognised contradicting
police claims. Were the witnesses coerced into making the written
statements implicating Arati?

– Why were none of the items, such as guns,that the police claimed to
have seized presented in court?

In all the four cases, with separate and over lapping witnesses, the
judgement of acquittal follows the same tone and points out similar
flaws in the case of the prosecution. The Judgement in one of the case
goes onto note “The witnesses have not implicated any one of the
accused persons. Rather evidence of Public Witnesses goes to show that
the culprits had covered their faces with clothes making it difficult
for the witness to know their identity”. On cross examination of one
of the witnesses the judgement noted “He has stated that he does not
know the accused persons and anything about the case.” So not only
were witnesses unable to recognise the accused as culprits, but they
were also completely unaware of the case itself. At another point one
of the judgements states “ The very prosecution of the accused persons
does not seem to be according to law.” Arati and her co-accused were
acquitted in all four cases in relation to the burning of OSRTC buses.
The last of the acquittals in this incident came on 27th November
2012.

The sixth case was related to an incident that occurred at Paniganda
forest beat house on 9-10th July 2009 between 12:00-1:00AM. It is
alleged that a group of 40-50 people dressed in black tied up the
guard at the beat house, inquired about the fire arms of the forest
department and left him near the Panchayat office. They then went onto
damage the beat house with explosives. Arati was charged under
sections of the Indian Penal Code, PDPP Act, Explosive Substance Act,
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

In this instance too no Test Identification Parade was conducted. The
sanction order required to prosecute the accused under UAPA and the
Explosive Substance Act was not procured. Once again, the 15 witnesses
in this case failed to support the story of the prosecution. The
Sarpanch of Katama Gram Panchayat denied the police version that the
accused persons had blasted the beat house under the influence of a
Maoist leader Ajad. While he knew Arati and several others accused in
this case he had absolutely no knowledge of any of them being involved
in Naxal activities. The police version of the story was denied by the
very people who the police claimed would support it!

The Forest Guard who had lodged the FIR did not corroborate his
evidence with the FIR story. In fact he said there was no way he could
recognise the attackers as they had all covered their faces with
cloth! The judgement read “ Basing on the above untrustworthy
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, no such case is made out
against the accused persons.” The complete lack of proof against Arati
goes to show that there was an attempt to frame her. There were no
valid grounds on which she was picked up. Rather, there was a
strategic effort to build a case against her.

Arati was acquitted and finally released on 17th July 2013. Her
struggle is far from over. Arati has now been embroiled in fresh
controversy. The prosecution, after her acquittal, acquired sanction
in the cases to try her under UAPA. The future is uncertain. Her
father Dakasa Majhi petitioned the courts on her behalf, when she was
in jail, for an enquiry into the gang-rape of Arati in custody. Filed
on 20th August 2010, three years later Arati still awaits justice.

Pratima Das

Pratima Das an accused in Maoist related cases was also found to be
innocent, but a little too late. The judgement came after she had
wasted two and half years of her life in prison, with no criminal
record or evidence against her.

A lawyer by profession she had paid for her law degree by taking
tuition classes for school students. At the time of her arrest in 2008
Das was working as an assistant to lawyer Prashant Kumar Jena who
practices in the Cuttack High Court. Jena focuses on human rights
cases. Pratima was also active as a political activist. She used to
organise and participate in rallies, protests and talks. Given her
sensibility, it would not be a stretch to call her a politically
conscious lawyer. During one such event, a people’s tribunal on 11th
August 2008, Pratima came in contact with environmentalist and scholar
David Pugh. He expressed his wish to visit

Kalinga nagar, the site of an ongoing struggle between TATA steel and
the tribals who own the land, in Odisha’s Jajpur district. Having
written an article on Soni Soi, who is the mother of one of the
martyrs to the struggle and is herself an accused in Maoist related
cases, Das was familiar with the place. She was also to act as his
translator. Pugh and her visited Kalinga nagar the next day, 12th
August 2008.

They met people, heard their stories and left for Bhubaneswar on the
same day. As they were passing a village called Gobarghati a police
van tried stopping the vehicle Pratima and David were traveling in.
Apart from David, Pratima, and the driver, a local from Jajpur who was
showing them around was also in the vehicle. The driver, fearing that
he will be caught without a license, sped on rather than stopping to
let the policemen inquire. This piqued the curiosity of the policemen.
At a little distance they were met by about 30-40 policemen armed with
lathis and guns. The police told them that they had intelligence that
a wanted Maoist, Gopi Mishra was traveling in the vehicle. He wasn’t.
But all four traveling in the ambassador were taken to Jajpur town.
There were several violations in the manner Pratima was arrested. She
was detained after sunset and before sunrise, when the law says that a
woman cannot be arrested after dark. She was also not allowed to
inform her family of her whereabouts. She claims that there were also
irregularities in the arrest memo and the seizure list prepared by the
police.

The four arrested were taken to Badchan police station, Chandikhol.
Police Superintendent D.S.Kutte and Sarangi interrogated Pratima uptil
4:00 AM. She was asked if she was a maoist cadre named ‘Mala’ . Then
she was told that she is ‘Mala’. Pratima denied.

She was then driven to Jagatsinghpur, the place of her ‘official’
arrest. Meanwhile David was taken to a guest house for the night and
his seats were booked in the next flight back to the United States.

Despite his protests that he wouldn’t leave until Pratima was
released. The local from Jajpur who was showing them around was also
released when he dropped names of his political connections. The
driver was also let go.

The police records show that she was arrested on her way to
Jagatsinghpur on 13th August 2008 at 5:00 PM. A full day after her
arrest. Interestingly, a quick google search reveals that by 11:40 AM
of 13th August a press release had already been sent out by human
rights groups on the detention of Pratima. How then can she have been
arrested only at 5:00PM on her way to Jagatsinghpur? Pratima says “We
reached Jagatsinghpur at 6:30 AM on 13th August. By 7:00 local
channels were

braodcasting that four naxals, including one foreigner, had been
arrested.” After reaching Jagatsinghpur her interrogation continued.
Without any sleep and barely any food she answered questions directed
at her. Many of which were irrelevant. Such as “ Do you love someone?”
The police than told herabout which Maoist leader was in love with
which Maoist cadre. She answered questions about her family, academics
to the extent of having to recall her marks and participation in extra
curricular activities with special reference to sports. They then
showed her pictures of acts of violence alleged to have been committed
by Maoists. All this while repeating “ We know you are not involved in
action, but why did you go to Jajpur?” She recalls another inspector,
Bhawani Shanker who threatened to torture her. Little did she know
that this was just the beginning.

Two cases were lodged against Pratima. She was charged with Sedition,
waging war against the state, dacoity with murder, attempt to murder
and under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, amongst others.
Alleged of mobilising people for the cause of Maoism Pratima was
lodged in the Alipingala jail in Jagatsinghpur. A police witness who
was a constable admitted in court that he didn’t recognise Pratima. He
said “I signed on the instructions of the Inspector without being
aware of the contents of the documents.” On this note the judge
intervened saying “ Think about your job before you speak.” She was
acquitted in this case on 31st July 2010.

There was no other way it could have ended considering that not one of
the 13 witnesses brought up by the prosecution recognised Pratima.

The witnesses:

– A constable who was a witness in one case said “I signed on the
instructions of the Inspector without being aware of the contents of
the documents.”

– In one of the two cases the written statement said two witnesses
‘heard’ one of the attackers being addressed as Pratima. The witnesses
contradicted themselves in court when they said they ‘saw’ Pratima.
That is implausible not just because it contradicts their written
statement but also because Maoists are known to cover their faces
during an operation. How could anyone have seen Pratima then?

More contradictions:

– At the time of the Sambalpur operation in which Maoists killed a
policeman and seized 4 weapons, Pratima was a final year law student
in Cuttack. She was actively organizing political talks and protests
with various democratic forums in the city. How then could she have
been an underground Maoist cadre?

The irreparable loss:

– Pratima spent more than two years in prison for a crime she didn’t
commit. She is yet to receive any compensation.

She was then shifted to Kuchinda jail in Sambalpur as per the second
case against her. On 16th October 2005 around 40 Maoists had attacked
a police party in Budarma, Sambalpur. They killed one policeman and
seized four rifles. Pratima was made a co-accused in this case. She
was charged with Arms Act, robbery, murder, attempt to murder and
sedition. At the time of Pratima’s arrest the charge sheet in this
case had already been filed on 18th June 2008 by Investigative Officer
Niranjan Mishra. It had absolutely no mention of Pratima. Five months
after Pratima’s arrest a supplementary charge sheet was filed in the
case by Mishra on 24 January 2009. This one had her name on it. Was
this an attempt to ensure that Pratima remained in jail if she was
acquitted in the first case?

As evidence the police brought in two witnesses who in their
statements said that they ‘heard’ the name Pratima being called out to
address one of the Maoists during the incident. By the time the case
reached trial the witness claimed they ‘saw’ Pratima at the site
instead of hearing her. These were not the only witnesses who
contradicted themselves. One by one, none of the 36 witnesses put up
by the prosecution associated Pratima with any Maoist activity and nor
did they recognise her. As she herself says “ At the time the said
incident occurred I was a law student in Cuttack. How could I have
been a Maoist cadre involved in action when I was busy attending
classes in town?” After her bail plea was rejected for the third time,
the Cuttack High Court directed the district court to pass the
judgement in two months. The judgement came much later. She was
acquitted on 17th November 2010. Even today, as she narrates her story
of struggle and strength, her face lights up and breaks into a smile
as she says “ I had to be acquitted. At the start of the trail the
judge asked me if I wanted to plead guilty. I refused because I had
not done anything wrong. I had to be proven right.”

Through the 2 years, 3 months and 5 days that Pratima spent in jail
she was not given the status of a political prisoner. The Kuchinda
jail did not even have a phone that the prisoners could use to contact
their lawyers or family. Food was cooked once a day. That same cold
food was served later again. Pratima recalls this one time she had
written a postcard to her family. The jailer tore it to pieces.
Pratima found out later when the warden told her.

Pratima is currently working with a lawyer in Bolangir where she lives
with her husband. But she misses the High Court. She wants to go back
and practice there someday again. For now she is working on cases that
don’t interest her much. The lawyer she is working under doesn’t know
of her past yet. She says “ I have thought a lot about it and I want
to be open about my past with him. But I am afraid of the
consequences.”

Dandapani Mohanty

There were two instances in 2011-12 when the Odisha state government
used Dandapani Mohanty a local human rights activist as an
interlocutor in a hostage crisis. Mohanty was hosted as a state guest
and it was primarily through his mediation that the government could
secure the release of Italian tourists and Malkangiri district
collector held hostage by the Maoists. Two years down the line, the
same government arrested him in 2013 for Maoist related charges dating
back to 2009-10. What is more shocking is that the cases he has been
implicated in date back to the 2009-10 when he was being used as an
official interlocutor by the State. Arrested on 5-February-2013,
Dandapani is now facing charges in 19 Maoists related cases. Gulail’s
investigation shows that all cases have been based on fabricated
evidence. Mohanty is presently lodged 345 KM south of state capital
Bhubaneswar at the Parlakhemundi jail in Gajapati district.

Mohanty has been charged with sedition, waging war against the state,
rioting, being a member of an unlawful association, the Arms Act and
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, amongt other charges. At the time
of his arrest there were six non-bailable warrants issued against him.
The incidents he is alleged to have been involved in include the
blasting of a police patrolling vehicle in Gajapati, setting ablaze of
four OSRTC buses at Raipanka, blasting of a forest beat house at
Paniganda and burning of Reliance and BSNL mobile towers at Raipanka
in 2009. The other allegations involve setting on fire BSNL and Airtel
towers at Birikote in March 2010, a murder in May 2010, police-Maoist
encounter at Gopinathpur in Novemeber 2010, distribution of Maoists
literature and guns at Sapalaguda, in October 2010, collecting funds
and organising shelter for the Maoists, amongst others.

In all of these cases, there is no direct link between Dandapani and
the incident- be it burning of buses or murders. None of the police
witnesses have given any direct evidence against him. He is accused of
exhorting Maoists to use wage war against the state. The police
version is that even though he was not present at the scene of any of
these crimes, he was part of the larger conspiracy by attending Maoist
meetings and delivering exhorting speeches in maoist gatherings.

Arati Majhi was the main accused in the cases relating to the burning
of OSRTC buses, a Reliance and an Airtel tower at Raipanka.
Shockingly, while Arati has been acquitted in all charges relating to
the case, Dandapani, a co-accused, continues to lament in jail.

There are five other cases in which Arati Majhi was a co-accused with
Dandapani. She has been acquitted in all five of them. While Arati
Majhi was arrested on 13th February 2010, Dandapani was picked up only
in February this year in the same cases. What was the police waiting
for three years for? In fact during the period of 2011-2012 when
Dandapani was acting as an interlocutor between the state and the
government he was in constant touch with the Director General of
Police, Home

Secretary and even the Chief Minister himself. Was the state then
completely unaware of Dandapani being the threat they are making him
out to be now? Or was it a case of convenience?

What is malicious is that in most of these cases Dandpani’s name as an
accused was added as an after-thought. It was much after the first
charge sheet in these cases had been filed that Dandapani’s name had
been added as an accused. The state police, reopened investigations
and filed additional charge sheets with Mohanty’s name listed as a
co-accused. As per the law under the UAPA once an FIR has been lodged
against an accused the investigation should be carried out within 120
days. If not, then the accused can be granted bail on a surety amount.

In some of the cases against Mohanty the police filed charge sheets
after 180 days, without asking for an extension from the court. By the
time, a second person willing to stand as surety was arranged, the
police filed the charge sheet. It can be anybody’s guess that the
timing could not have been coincidence.

Mohanty’s arrest on 5th February 2013, what was projected as a joint
operation of Ganjam, Gajapati and Berhampur police, is in blatant
violation of the law of the land. Though as per law it is a right of
an arrested person to inform his family of his arrest, Mohanty was not
permitted to do so. He was arrested by plainclothes policemen when the
law stipulates that at the time of arrest a policeman has to be in
uniform with a name badge displayed prominently. His arrest Memo did
not have two witnesses as required by law.

2012: Dandapani Mohanty acts as interlocutor for the government in two
instances- once when Maoists abduct two Italian tourists and another
time when the Collector of Malkangiri is abducted

2013: On 8th February Dandapani is arrested in Maoists related cases
and is declared absconding. 19 cases are slapped on him, some dating
back to 2009 and 2010.

The question it begs:

– If Dandapani was involved in the cases dating back to 2009 and 2010
why was he made an interlocutor?

– If he was acting as an interlocutor in 2012 how could he have been
declared absconding?

All of these violations point towards a malicious frame-up. While
rejecting his bail plea, the courts have not mentioned evidence as a
ground for rejection. It is always ‘the number of Maoist related cases
and the serious charges’ that have served as the basis for not
granting him bail.

Lawyer Prashant Kumar Jena has been handling Dandapani’s bail
application in the Cuttack High Court. He says Dandapani’s arrest is a
strategic attempt to silence dissent in the state. When Dandapani was
acting as an interlocutor the government had agreed to release around
600 tribals arrested in fabricated cases, grant tribals land rights
and to stop suppressing people’s movements. When the government failed
to follow up on its promises Dandapani started a campaign on the
issue. He had also played a very central role in exposing a fake
encounter in Kandhamal that had led to the death of five tribals. This
opinion is further echoed by lawyer S.K.Pal who is fighting
Dandapani’s case at the District court in Parlakhemundi. He was the
convenor of Jan Adhikar Manch and Secretary of Orissa Forest Mazdoor
Union at the time of his arrest.

His son Sangram Mohanty too had faced dubious Naxal cases.Everbody in
the state knows that Sangram was being mentored by Pyarimohan
Mohapatra to stand for elections for the Odisha Jan Morcha(OJM).
Pyarimohan launched the Odisha Jan Morcha earlier last year on being
expelled from the BJD following a failed coup against Naveen Patnaik.
It is believed that Sangram’s arrest had a two-fold purpose. Apart
from a sentimental attack on Mohanty, Sangram’s arrest, assert friends
of the father-son duo, was also an attempt by Naveen Patnaik to show
Mohapatra his place. He joined OJM on 30th November 2012. He was
arrested on 5th December 2012. Such is the muddy nature of politics in
Odisha. A sentimental attack meant to break an alleged Maoist is alsoa
‘political’ move that could advance a hidden agenda. It is difficult
to tell one from the other.

Several sources have confirmed that Mohanty has a checkered past.
Having completed matriculation he had enrolled himself in Christ
college, Cuttack, when serious politics happened to him. He never went
back to the classroom. His comrades at CPI(Marxist) credit him with
having set up the party in Ganjam district. That was before 1991 when
the state unit of CPI(Marxist) split due to internal factionalism. It
was at this time that Ajeya Rout (presently leading the Odisha

Communist Party), Sabyasachi Panda (CPI(MAOSIST)) and Dandapani
Mohanty exited the CPI(Marxist) along with a few others. Thereafter,
Panda and

Mohanty joined the CPI(ML) Party Unity which in 1998 merged with
CPI(ML) People’s War. CPI(ML)PW later merged with the Maoist Communist
Centre(MCC) to form the CPI(Maoist). While it is clear that today
Panda being expelled from the CPI(Maoist) formed the Odisha Maovadi
Party(OMP), Mohanty’s political journey since his days with CPI(ML)
Party Unity is shrouded in mystery. Some say he saw one merger after
another ending up with the CPI(Maoist). Others claim Mohanty abandoned
the Maoist trail long before the formation of the CPI(Maoist) in 2004.

Janardhan Pati, state general secretary of the CPI(M) has known
Dandapani through his political transformations. He says “ Dandapani
is a Maoist sympathizer and also provides support. But he has not
killed anyone. Nor has he been directly involved in any criminal
activity. There are no grounds for him to be arrested on.” Pati
believes that Mohanty’s arrest was carefully planned and conspired.
Ajeya Rout is clear that Mohanty has had Maoist links. The exact
extent of which Rout cannot say. It could be more than that of a
sympathizer but is definitely less than that of a foot soldier. None
of Mohanty’s old comrades have evidence for their assertion. They say
they believe what they believe because they have known Mohanty in the
capacity of a friend, colleague and a comrade. They also insist that
his involvement in Maoists activities has never been enough to merit
charges under the draconian UAPA.

GULAIL met him at the Parlakhemundi jail and later at the court. As we
spoke to Mohanty from across the iron bars through the window in the
jailers room, he didn’t come across as a man who would compromise on
his convictions. The little conversation we could have under the gaze
of the jailer or police escorts was interspersed with “I respect
Sabyasachi as a revolutionary” or “I think Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is
the ultimate political thought”. He is careful to add “I do think
Maoists need to re-analyse their political stand”.There is no denying
that Mohanty is a Maoist sympathiser. There is also no denying that
being a Maoist sympathiser is not a crime. It is one of those freedoms
our constitution guarantees us.

The picture that emerges out of this investigation is that of a state
out to silence dissent by implicating innocent people in fabricated
cases. Several activists who have been involved in people’s movements
such as the POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti in Paradip or the Visthapan
Virodhi Manch against forcible land acquisition by the TATA’s in
Kalinganagar, are facing similar charges. While some continue to
languish in jail, others wasted a few years only to be acquitted.
However, it is rare that someone has received compensation for being
falsely implicated. If you are a tribal, with no connections amongst
the activists, politicians or the media, you are doomed to spend years
in jail. If and when acquitted, you might add to the long list of
names entangled in fabricated Maoist related cases. There is no hope
for compensation. Not without some trouble at least.There are no
mechanisms for accountability, those that are available are too long
drawn a process- like a court case. Meanwhile, the Naveen Patnaik
government continues to bend rules to continue being in power,for the
fourteenth consecutive year.