Muthanga: What Happened on the Day of the Firing

Was there later any evidence proving the government’s intention to send armed police at all costs to drive out the Adivasis?

Yes. We have a letter dated February 18 that clearly instructed that arms were to be carried by the police team deputed from Kannur.

Did Chief Minister A.K. Antony have any knowledge of what was going on?

He must have known. He may not have personally given a forceful eviction order, but within the police force, there was clearly a secret clique that devised the eviction strategy. We later learned that Northern Region DGP Shankar Reddy had opposed the firing. There was a conspiracy between Forest Minister K. Sudhakaran and Kerala Armed Police (KAP) Chief Suresh Raj Purohit. The firing and grenade attacks occurred on February 19 itself.

The police first appeared on Thakarappadi Road, announcing via megaphones that everyone should vacate the area. They were accompanied by forest guards and some local residents. Altogether, the group that entered Muthanga numbered under one thousand.

We had already blocked the road at Thakarappadi overnight. But the authorities cleared it using JCB machines. They tried to drive us out. All of us were gathered at Thakarappadi. We had already instructed people not to leave the settlement. Our daily routines continued- agriculture, anganwadis (childcare centers), etc. Then they came and started setting fire to huts. They even cut the hut pillars with axes. When they approached the Thakarappadi pond, Adivasis resisted. It was the arson that enraged the Adivasis. As tensions escalated, the police forced back the local residents, perhaps because they could no longer distinguish between Adivasis, officials, and others. Locals had come shouting slogans.

Was there any provocation that triggered the firing?

There were two or three instances of firing at Thakarappadi. No proper legal procedure was followed. By around 11 a.m., all the huts in that area had been burned down. Adivasis had also been badly beaten. A police team that moved eastward eventually got lost in the forest after taking a wrong turn.

There were Adivasis gathered near Ponkuzhi, many of them came from other places. Around 26 policemen got stranded in the forest. Some were exhausted. Among them was Vinod, the officer who was later killed.

The Adivasis approached in a procession toward where the police had taken position not to attack, but likely to communicate. Fearing violence, the police and forest officials fled eastward. In their panic, they scattered. While fleeing, they fired at the Adivasis. I witnessed this from a hill about 300 meters away. It happened between 9:30 and 10 a.m.

Three Adivasis were injured, one due to a grenade, one with a leg injury, and another with an arm injury. Several police officers were separated in the forest. Among them were Vinod and forest officer Shashidharan. Others escaped to different areas.

We later learned that Vinod had fired the first shot. This infuriated the Adivasis, who retaliated by assaulting some police officers. By then, I had reached the area and tried to prevent further violence. I was the one who rescued Vinod and his injuries at that point were not serious.

The media portrayed the Adivasis’ use of bows and arrows as if it were a violent uprising, turning it into a war-like narrative. Injured police officers and wounded Adivasis lay scattered around the area. All of them were taken to a shed near the Ponkuzhi paddy fields. The Adivasis were on one side of the shed, the police on the other.

After 11 a.m., it became clear that some police personnel were missing. We were the ones who informed the media that they were inside the shed. By that time, the eviction operation had been halted. The police were in a state of confusion. One officer with serious injuries was carried on a bamboo stretcher, ironically, he later testified against us in court.

But the Adivasis had sustained far more serious injuries. Our demand then was simple: Stop the firing, provide medical aid to all the wounded, and conduct a CBI inquiry into the firing and the arson.

None of this was done. The authorities deliberately delayed taking the injured to the hospital. This delay appeared intentional, possibly to fabricate a story that the Adivasis had kidnapped and assaulted the police. That is how the present case alleging Vinod was abducted and murdered came to be filed.

When did the second round of police action take place?

At around 5:30 p.m., a larger force arrived, claiming they were coming to “rescue” the missing police officers. But they had done nothing until then. Journalists had already reported that doctors were ready to enter. Medical vans were parked just half a kilometer away. If the doctors had walked, they could have reached the injured. But political leaders warned the doctors that they might be taken hostage too, which deterred them from going.

The first two huts to be burned were at Thakarappadi. Later, we learned that two Congress workers from Kannur were injured in the fire and were treated at Thalassery Cooperative Hospital. They were said to be aides of Sudhakaran, the Forest Minister at the time.

Was there any attempt at dialogue between the state and the agitators when the eviction was halted at 11 a.m.?

Yes, a dialogue was initiated by DYSP Unni and another officer after 11 a.m. They said they would discuss the matter and return, but when they came back, they had adopted a completely new approach. Suresh Raj Purohit, the Chief of the Kerala Armed Police battalion, was summoned from Kannur. It was reportedly under his orders that the firing took place, although it is said that Northern Region DGP Shankar Reddy opposed the use of force. By that time, media personnel had already been removed from the scene. What followed was a manhunt in every sense of the word.

It is believed that during the second wave of the attack, police officer Vinod sustained the injuries that eventually led to his death. Vinod and others who were injured were lying on the ground inside a shed while Adivasis gathered around, shouting slogans. No one expected the police to fire into the crowd. Rumors had already spread that a heavily armed force was approaching at 5:30 p.m. When they arrived, the force split into two groups, about 50 meters apart. They encircled the Adivasis and opened fire, causing panic. People scattered, and some were injured. Vinod was among those hurt, though no one knows exactly who attacked him. If someone from the police force had witnessed the attack, wouldn’t they have shot the assailant then and there?

Jogi, who was farther away, became central to the narrative that followed. There are also claims that Jogi was killed in a grenade blast, though this was never brought to court. The post-mortem report confirms that he did not die from a bullet.

The official version now claims that Vinod was abducted and murdered. The only witnesses to this claim are police personnel who were actively firing at the time. Journalist Shaji Pattnam of Kairali TV was filming during the incident. His camera, mounted on a tree 50–100 meters away, should have recorded what happened. The police also had their own footage. Why wasn’t any of this used to clarify the sequence of events?

What is the current status of the Jogi case?

The case related to Jogi will only proceed after the present case is concluded. I am the first accused in the case concerning the murder of the policeman, and Ashokan, who later passed away is the second accused. C.K. Janu was not named in the prosecution. Those who were shot or fainted at the scene were arrested as suspects, including several women. Velayudhan, Maran, and Anil, all of whom sustained gunshot wounds were also named as accused. I wasn’t even present at the location, but a letter I wrote to the state was used as evidence to link me to the scene.

Could you describe the human rights violations that occurred on the day of the firing?

Between 700 and 800 people were subjected to grave violations of human rights. Among them, 208 were brutally beaten. They were later charged in six forest cases and six criminal cases. Some victims even died. Mothers and young women were among those charged with murder under Section 302. Those present at the scene, those fired upon, and those who were injured were all declared accused. Even Jogi, who died, was listed as an accused. Around 16 people sustained gunshot wounds. Eighteen bullets were fired that evening alone. I recall that a total of 57 bullets were fired. Stun-lac grenades, which are not to be used within 50 meters of a crowd, were used in the morning, and again in the evening under the orders of KAP Chief Suresh Raj Purohit.

Two individuals died during interrogation by the Crime Branch, one after vomiting blood and the other by suicide following severe mental torture. Despite numerous complaints of custodial torture, no investigation was conducted. The CBI’s inaction sparked widespread protests. The CPI(M) and other groups even organized a hartal in response.

Did any government institutions investigate these violations?

Yes. The National Human Rights Commission, the SC/ST Commission, and the National Women’s Commission which was then led by Poornima Advani—all inquired into the matter. Only Poornima Advani submitted a detailed report. The State Human Rights Commission’s inquiry, led by Jacob Punnoose, noted that arresting children was unjust. Although 161 children were arrested, the report confirmed records for only 48. Eventually, the High Court ordered compensation, following arguments presented by Advocate Nandini in Justice Basant’s court.

What happened to the cases against the protesters?

Initially, there were twelve cases—six police cases and six forest offense reports. These were later consolidated into three main cases. Two forest cases were dismissed by the court. Under the UDF government led by Oommen Chandy, the remaining forest cases were withdrawn. By around 2004–2006, all forest cases had been dropped. The criminal cases were transferred to the CBI, which consolidated them into three chargesheets, naming nearly 180 accused, some of whom have since passed away. In total, around 780 people were charged, including for forest-related offenses.

C.K. Janu was not included in the current murder case. The trial was held in Kochi from 2004 to 2016. Later, the court ordered the case shifted to Wayanad. When Janu joined the BJP, a request was made to withdraw the case. But since it involved a death, I chose not to support that withdrawal, believing justice should be delivered to the deceased’s family. The court agreed that the trial should continue. Justice Kamal Pasha’s brother, Sahal Pasha, who was then serving as a judge, felt that it was unnecessary to bring all the Adivasi accused to Kochi and ordered the case be heard at the Kalpetta Sessions Court in Wayanad. Since 2016, that is where the trial has continued. The CBI did not object to the shift. One case is still pending in Kochi, and two are ongoing in Kalpetta. About 30 of the accused have died during the lengthy trial process.

Why were the forest department’s cases dismissed?

Of the six forest cases, two were dismissed by the court. One was a false case related to deer hunting. Other charges included encroachment into a wildlife sanctuary, illegal tree felling, and unauthorized entry. The “unauthorized entry” charge could not be substantiated by the forest department. There were no visible notifications marking the area as a designated wildlife sanctuary. Even the claim that the land was reserved forest could not be proven. Official records identified the area as “plantation land.”

The Muthanga range included four forest sections where plantations had been established through clear-felling in 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979. It was only in 1985 that the land was declared a wildlife sanctuary. We argued that, until then, the land was freely accessed by locals, including Adivasis.

It was based on our petition that the Oommen Chandy government withdrew the remaining forest cases. With no valid records to back their claim of protected forest status, the forest department could not proceed against us.

If the land was plantation land with recognized transit rights for Adivasis, how did the charge of ‘unauthorized entry’ stand? And why did the police arrive and open fire?

Once the forest department’s argument collapsed, they shifted the narrative to “law and order.” The National Human Rights Commission had directed that an independent agency investigate such matters. But that directive, too, was sabotaged. We now face the burden of a separate legal battle to address the human rights violations.

Did the CBI discover anything new or expose police misconduct?

The CBI was brought in following a decision by then-Chief Minister A.K. Antony. At the time, the BJP held power at the Centre. Human rights activist Nirmala Deshpande had submitted a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission, led then by Justice Anand. In March, the NHRC ordered a detailed investigation into the Muthanga events and the police firing, instructing the state to ensure an independent and impartial probe.

However, while the Crime Branch was investigating the charges against us, I was barred from even entering Wayanad. Jogi’s death was recorded only as an FIR and was never treated as a separate, serious case.

Then, on May 23, Antony unilaterally handed the case to the CBI undermining the NHRC’s direction for an independent probe. Ideally, the CBI should have focused on investigating the human rights violations. But instead, only the criminal charges against us were transferred and pursued by the CBI. They filed chargesheets without touching the rights violations. We challenged this in the High Court, seeking adherence to the NHRC’s mandate. Our lawyer was Kaleeswaram Raj, but the plea was rejected.

The CBI submitted a report stating that no human rights violations had occurred. Thus, the matter was buried. What transpired was a deliberate cover-up orchestrated by Antony, likely in coordination with the central government. Advocate Nandini had pursued the case concerning the unlawful detention of children. K.K. Surendran, a school at DIET, had independently filed a case regarding his illegal detention and torture.

Poornima Advani, then chairperson of the National Women’s Commission, supported our cause. But Antony had allies within the SC/ST Commission. He also enjoyed strong political backing in Delhi and had close ties with Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee. In 2004, the CBI submitted its chargesheet. The only favorable judgment we received was regarding the unlawful detention of children. That remains the only part of the case allowed to proceed.

Eight judges were involved in the trials. Justice Basant was notably unsympathetic. Only Justice Padmanabhan gave the case a fair hearing. To this day, Jogi’s death remains merely an FIR—never properly investigated or prosecuted.

(to be continued)