The struggle of India’s Adivasis, indigenous peoples of central India, has long been overshadowed by narratives of insurgency and national security. Yet beneath the state’s rhetoric lies a systematic campaign of repression against Adivasi human rights defenders who challenge land dispossession, militarisation, and extrajudicial violence. Recent developments in Chhattisgarh highlight how defenders of indigenous rights are criminalised for exercising freedoms of speech, assembly, and association, with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressing deep concern over these violations.
The cases of Raghu Midiyami and Suneeta Pottam, co-founders of the Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM), expose the shrinking civic space for Adivasi voices. Both have faced arbitrary detention, denial of due process, and reprisals for peacefully mobilising their communities against displacement and violence. Their persecution illustrates a broader pattern where the Indian state increasingly conflates peaceful activism with insurgency, eroding democratic protections for its most marginalised citizens.
On 27 February 2025, while receiving treatment for severe injuries sustained in a road accident at Dantewada District Hospital, Midiyami was forcibly taken away by officials of the National Investigation Agency (NIA). His arrest was not coincidental; it came on the very day he was scheduled to sign a petition challenging the state ban on MBM. The High Court ultimately dismissed this petition on 5 May 2025, but the timing underscores the retaliatory intent behind his detention.
What followed revealed not only the criminalisation of activism but also the deliberate neglect of his basic human rights. Despite court orders instructing prison authorities to provide medical treatment for his accident-related injuries, Midiyami was repeatedly denied care. His wounds were left untreated, began to heal incorrectly, and urgent surgical intervention was ignored. This calculated medical neglect amounts to inhuman treatment and violates both Indian constitutional guarantees and international human rights norms.
As a founding member of MBM, Midiyami has been a prominent voice against arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, and state-backed displacement in Bastar. His work, rooted in peaceful mobilisation of Adivasi youth, directly challenged entrenched patterns of impunity. His arrest must therefore be understood as an attempt to silence one of the few remaining defenders willing to confront state excesses in Chhattisgarh.
If India aspires to global leadership and legitimacy, it must begin by protecting its most vulnerable citizens and respecting the rights of those who defend them. Until then, the persecution of Adivasi defenders will remain a stark reminder that in the world’s so-called largest democracy, speaking for the marginalized remains one of the most dangerous acts of all.
Equally troubling is the continued targeting of Suneeta Pottam, a long-time advocate for Adivasi women and girls. Since 2016, she has faced repeated threats, intimidation, and harassment for her activism. The retaliatory nature of these actions became clear in two incidents in 2024.
On 9 April 2024, plainclothes police in Bijapur attempted to drag Pottam into a vehicle without a warrant, claiming she had been “summoned.” She resisted, demanding legal documentation that was never produced. This incident reflected the blatant disregard for due process that has become a hallmark of state behaviour in Bastar.
Less than two months later, on 3 June 2024, her residence in Raipur was raided by police. She was arrested without a warrant, accused of fabricated charges ranging from murder to damaging government property, and of being associated with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). Detained in Jagdalpur prison, her arrest documents explicitly linked her detention to her activism with MBM, opposition to police camps, and resistance to state-led development projects.
Despite her pre-trial detention period expiring on 31 July 2025, she remains incarcerated, a prisoner not of law but of her dissent. The systematic nature of her persecution reveals how gendered repression is used to silence Adivasi women defenders who dare to speak against entrenched structures of power.
The persecution of Midiyami and Pottam is not isolated. It reflects a wider pattern in which Adivasi defenders are branded as “insurgents” for raising concerns about human rights violations. By equating peaceful resistance with armed rebellion, Indian authorities have created a chilling effect across Adivasi communities.
This pattern of fabricated charges, arbitrary detention, and prolonged imprisonment demonstrates a deliberate strategy: to dismantle community movements through attrition, fear, and legal harassment. The consequence is the erosion of democratic space in India’s heartland, where Adivasi voices are either silenced or forced underground.
The OHCHR’s intervention underscores the gravity of the situation, but international condemnation alone is insufficient. India’s persistent framing of indigenous resistance as “national security” allows the state to justify exceptional measures that contravene both domestic constitutional protections and international human rights obligations.
The repression of Adivasi defenders has far-reaching implications. First, it erodes the credibility of India’s democratic institutions. When courts issue orders for medical care or due process, and state agencies ignore them with impunity, constitutional safeguards lose meaning. Second, it exposes the contradictions in India’s global narrative as the “world’s largest democracy.” Systematic persecution of indigenous defenders not only undermines this claim but also damages India’s international reputation, particularly as human rights watchdogs and UN agencies document the violations.
Finally, the persecution of defenders such as Midiyami and Pottam illustrates the broader crisis of governance in conflict-affected regions like Bastar. Development projects imposed without community consent, militarisation of Adivasi areas, and suppression of dissent are deepening alienation and resentment, potentially fueling the very instability the state claims to combat.
The persecution of Adivasi human rights defenders in Chhattisgarh reveals the shrinking space for democratic activism in India. The cases of Raghu Midiyami and Suneeta Pottam highlight how peaceful resistance is systematically criminalised through arbitrary arrests, fabricated charges, and denial of basic rights. By branding community mobilisation as insurgency, the state undermines not only Adivasi rights but the integrity of Indian democracy itself.
If India aspires to global leadership and legitimacy, it must begin by protecting its most vulnerable citizens and respecting the rights of those who defend them. Until then, the persecution of Adivasi defenders will remain a stark reminder that in the world’s so-called largest democracy, speaking for the marginalized remains one of the most dangerous acts of all.
wcvrxy