P.T. Mathew, SJ

As a fellow Jesuit, how do you look at the life of Fr Stan Swamy?

I had many occasions to meet Fr Stan and discuss with him various topics. He was a man of clear vision and a critical mind, with ability to make sense of the confusing processes of societal functioning. I have been influenced by his sharp social analytical skills and sense of commitment. In contrast, his lifestyle was simple and ascetic. He never cared for name or fame or money or position. He was committed to the cause of the poor, especially the Adivasis, as demanded by his faith convictions as a Jesuit priest.

Attempts are going on to portray Fr Stan as a deviant priest engaged in ‘antisocial’ activities, and so disowned by the Church. Let me state this clearly. Fr Stan was a respected member of the Jesuit Society, and whatever he was engaged in was with the knowledge and approval of his Superiors. Two reasons are at the core of this approval. One, his activities were in line with the teachings of Jesus and the Social teaching of the Catholic Church. Two, his actions were in conformity with the Universal Apostolic Preferences that the global Jesuit Society had formulated in recent times. Fr Stan valued his priesthood. Even during his final days in the hospital, he was keen to receive Holy Communion daily. The malicious propaganda must be condemned.

He was accused of a crime against the State. Why?

Fr Stan was falsely implicated in the Bhima-Koregaon case despite his denial of any connection with the case or the place. According to recent reports, it is likely that his laptop was tampered with using spyware to generate ‘proof’, as was done in the case of some other accused also. This is very disturbing. This corroborates what Fr Stan had been saying all along that such materials found in his laptop were not his. If this is true, the allegation of crime against the State is fabricated. The State, instead of acting on dubious data, must initiate steps to find the truth behind it and punish the guilty. Or else, more law-abiding citizens will face the same fate.

Crime against the State? An action is ‘a crime against the State’ if it goes against its Constitution. In fact, Fr Stan’s actions were all within the provisions of the constitution – whether to implement the laws or amend the laws. The last case that he filed in the Bombay High Court just before his death was to question the constitutionality of denying bail under UAPA. How will such actions become a crime against the State? Fr Stan was not given a chance to disprove the accusation. So he died as an accused, or rather, penalized without trial.

He was arrested for alleged links with the Maoists. What is the truth in the allegation?

Fr Stan was arrested by the NIA alleging that he was one of the instigators of the violence at Bhima-Koregaon and that he had links with the Maoists. From the very beginning, Fr Stan denied any links with both. I have already referred to the reports that the ‘proof’ was planted in his laptop. Bases on that he was labeled a Maoist and arrested under the anti-terrorist law.

“An action is ‘a crime against the State’ if it goes against its Constitution. In fact, Fr Stan’s actions were all within the provisions of the constitution – whether to implement the laws or amend the laws.”

Labeling, as we all know, is a political strategy widely used to silence dissenting voices. Urban Naxal and Maoist are two such labels. Let us look at the contradiction here. Maoists refuse to accept the Indian constitution and advocate armed struggle. Fr Stan, on the other hand, was consistently committed to non-violent means and functioned within the Constitution. He used only legal means to demand justice for the Adivasis. He only demanded the implementation of existing land laws and forest laws. His work as a human rights defender inevitably puts him in contact with all categories of people. That is true of people in any helping profession – health workers, social workers, journalists and lawyers. Does this link become a ‘crime’? If so, people in all helping professions could be ‘criminals’.

What was the type of work he was doing among the Adivasis of Jharkhand where more than 35% are under the poverty line and where 40% of India’s minerals are?

You are right in saying that Jharkhand is one of the richest mineral zones in the world with 40% of India’s mineral wealth and 29% of the coal reserves. This stands in contrast to the level of poverty in the State. Recent data show that 39% of the population of Jharkhand live below the poverty line. That explains why Jharkhand is suffering from ‘resource curse’. The area remains attractive to the mining lobby and the corporates. The result is widespread exploitation of Adivasis and their forced displacement. Studies have documented the extent of forced displacement in the name of ‘development’. The Indian Forest (Amendment) Act 2019 and Land Acquisition Act 2013 became handy tools for the mining lobby. Voices of protest were suppressed. The number of under trials thus imprisoned is alarming. Fr Stan couldn’t be a silent spectator in such a situation. He intervened legally and through peaceful means to ensure justice and dignity to the Adivasis. His activities were no secret, and so are widely known.

Do you see this case of NIA as a strike against the Christian missionaries in India and their social activism?

Fr Stan is indeed a Christian and a Jesuit priest. But I prefer not to look at the case through a religious prism. What he had to go through must be seen in terms of his citizenship as an Indian. The questions he raised were hardly religious; these concerned human rights and legal entitlements. His actions emerged from his right as a citizen of India. He had his Christian convictions and Jesuit inspiration. But these do not make him any less a citizen. The action of the NIA, to me, is primarily a strike against all those working for social justice and human rights.

Does the Church authority realize what is at stake in the case of Fr Stan Swami and respond to it?

Voices of protest and call for justice were heard from church groups in all parts of the country especially after Fr Stan’s death. At the same time, the response of the Church authority in India appeared quite feeble. I suspect that the Church failed to see the political significance of Fr Stan’s arrest. It failed to see it as a warning sign. Two reasons could be behind it. One is fear, a fear that an open stand may antagonize those in power. The other is the absence of a proper socio-political analysis to guide the Church authority to take a stand. The second reason is vital. Fr Stan made his option on behalf of the Adivasis and made a commitment to their cause on the firm foundation of his socio-political analysis of the Indian reality, particularly the Adivasi reality. No one will be able to grasp the depth of Fr Stan’s vision without such an analysis. The Jesuit Society is determined to pursue the court case with due seriousness. His death is not the end of the struggle. He has charged many more people, not only Jesuits, to a deeper justice consciousness. His martyrdom will not go futile.

Christian witnessing would indeed involve suffering. But injustice is not to be silently suffered but resisted. Christianity does not glorify unjust suffering either. The Christian Community, and the Church leadership in particular, can no more be silent spectators. Deeper political awareness and analytical skills are called for. Charity work is no substitute for action demanding justice and dignity. Five decades ago Pope Paul VI, in his Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, had stressed the need to pass from economics (and social) to the political. The Church community is yet to grasp the full meaning of this call of the Pope.

NIA took 20 days to respond to his plea in court for a straw to drink water because of his Parkinson’s disease. How do you interpret it?

I wouldn’t look at it as an issue of personal ill-treatment of an elderly priest with infirmities. It is more than a personal issue. Fr Stan, with his waiting for a straw for weeks, is only a sign of the subhuman prison conditions and the inhuman way prisoners are being treated. Those who are accused and imprisoned also have human rights and legal rights. What is at stake is the right to be treated with dignity. It is the same fate that awaits the thousands of under trials languishing in Indian jails. They are treated as ‘culprits’ while they are only ‘accused’. Legality seems to rule over humanity! So it is more than a question of straw for Stan to drink water. Why are our human rights commissions silent, I wonder.

matpampa@gmail.com