Between tides and turmoil: West Bengal’s largest fishing communities are struggling to stay afloat

Fishing bans meant to protect marine life are colliding with climate stress, debt and policy gaps, leaving small-scale fish workers in the state struggling to survive.Midnapur, West Bengal: “So many of our brothers have left the sea,” said Srikant Das, 69, a small-scale fishworker from Contai in East Midnapore district. “They now work as daily wage labourers. Our fishermen’s organisation used to have 5,000 members. Today, only around 3,700 remain. Some who once owned their boats are now working on the very trawlers they once opposed. That’s what desperation does…it breaks your pride.”On a hot May morning in Contai, many fishworkers could be found idling in their homes. Most had no work, while some had taken up daily-wage labour in construction or agriculture. Contai—also known as Kanthi—is a coastal subdivision in Purba Medinipur district along the Bay of Bengal, where fishing has been passed down through generations. Today, the community is struggling to survive amid fishing bans, shrinking catches, climate stress and rising debt.Srikant, who is also the chairman of the Maa Kali Fishermen Association, affiliated to the Dadan Patrabah Matsya Khati, said the bans have left small-scale fishworkers without a steady source of income, forcing many to migrate out of the district.The fish workers community is struggling to survive amid fishing bans, shrinking catches, climate stress and rising debt (Photo - Sagnik Majumder, 101Reporters)Why fishing bans existsIndia enforces a uniform fishing ban every year to protect breeding fish stocks. On the east coast, including the Bay of Bengal, the ban lasts 61 days from April 15 to June 14 within India’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Coastal states also impose bans within their territorial waters during this period, according to orders issued by the Union government.While mechanised boats are banned across India during the spawning season, traditional and non-mechanised boats are typically exempted because of their relatively minimal ecological impact. West Bengal is the only coastal state that extends the ban to include small-scale traditional fishers operating within 12 nautical miles. Fishworkers allege that this decision benefits large trawling interests, though the state government has not publicly explained the rationale.Pradip Kumar Chatterjee, president of the National Federation of Small Scale Fish Workers, said the distinction between mechanised and traditional boats is crucial. “While the central government enforces a blanket ban within its jurisdiction, it allows states to frame rules for territorial waters,” he said. “Across the country, mechanised boats are prohibited during spawning season, but traditional fishers are allowed to operate. West Bengal is the only state that has shut out small-scale fishers as well.”According to Chatterjee, nearshore waters, between zero and 100 metres from the coast, are witnessing rapid depletion of fish populations. “Ironically, this is also the zone that yields the maximum catch,” he said. “Small-scale fishers depend on it, but they now compete with mechanised boats that haul in nearly 82% of the total catch.”India imposes seasonal fishing bans to protect fish breeding cycles, though policies differ by state, sometimes sparking concerns about fairness for small-scale fishers (Photo - Sagnik Majumder, 101Reporters)Two sides of the coinDespite the hardship it causes, Srikant says he does not oppose the ban itself.“Fishing bans have to be there,” he said. “If fish populations are to bounce back, trawling must be brought under control. These trawlers don’t just fish—they claw through the seabed, destroying the very ecosystem the bans are meant to protect.”Srikant has been fishing since he was 16. He began as a labourer on his father’s boat and now owns his own vessel. Over more than five decades, he has witnessed multiple iterations of the ban and believes it is ecologically necessary.“Everyone you see here…every calloused hand, every sun-darkened face…is a fisherman who inherited this life from his father, and his father before him,” he said. “Fishing is all we’ve ever known. It’s our craft, our culture, and our only means of survival. We don’t have land or shops, or salaries. We have boats and nets.”Yet even those who support the ban are deeply anxious about its economic impact.Kalpana Mondal, a fishworker from Contai, said declining catches have pushed families into unsustainable debt. “There are not as many fish in the sea as there used to be,” she said. “Without ample catch, we can’t repay loans. The two-month ban forces us to work as labourers. There are five people in my family, and it costs us around Rs 15,000 a month just to survive.”She added that the promised compensation of Rs 5,000 during the ban has not reached fishworkers. “Even that amount feels like a myth now,” she said. “And why is only the man promised this money? Don’t my efforts matter because I’m a woman?”Mamoni Pradhan shared a similar story. Her husband, Khokhon Pradhan, once known locally for his skill as a fisherman, now works as a daily labourer. “We don’t own any land,” she said. “Fishing was all we had. We even tried growing watermelons, but the chemicals alone cost Rs 800 to Rs 1,000. Nothing works.”Khokhon said borrowing money from mahajans, or informal moneylenders, has become unavoidable. “If I borrow Rs 6 lakh, I have to sell my entire catch to him at a price he decides,” he said. “There’s no interest, but there’s no freedom either.”Many fishers support seasonal bans to protect marine ecosystems, but the loss of income, rising debt, and lack of fair compensation leave their survival hanging in the balance (Photo - Sagnik Majumder, 101Reporters)Collapsing ecosystemsMarine scientists say fishing bans alone cannot address the crisis facing coastal fisheries.Dr R Venkatesan, former head of Ocean Observation Systems at the National Institute of Ocean Technology, said climate change has significantly accelerated marine degradation. “In addition to trawlers destroying seabeds, ocean warming and acidification are major factors,” he said. “They severely affect marine organisms with exoskeletons, such as crabs, lobsters and corals.”Cyclones, he added, worsen the situation by churning fish into deeper waters and disrupting ocean currents. “Brooder fish, those carrying eggs, are especially vulnerable to temperature changes,” he said. “When they die during spawning, the entire food web is affected.”Ranjit Bar, a small-scale fishworker from the Jele community, believes marine protection measures need to be stronger—but also fairer. “The baby fish are being killed before they mature,” he said. “That’s why we can’t survive.”His wife, Jyotsna Bar, described how families cope during the ban. “Fishing is never a one-person job,” she said. “During the ban, men work as masons or labourers. Women clean houses or work in fields. After a full day, a woman earns barely Rs 200.”She added that mechanised boats cause far greater damage than traditional fishing. “If the ban on trawlers were extended, maybe the sea could recover,” she said.Ranjit also pointed to industrial pollution. “When venomous prawns are processed for export, waste water is dumped into canals,” he said. “The next day, dead fish float on the surface. We are dying alongside the sea.”Forced migrationTo offset income loss during the ban, fishworkers were earlier covered under the savings-cum-relief scheme, which provided Rs 3,000 per worker, jointly funded by the Centre and states. West Bengal discontinued the scheme in 2015 without introducing an alternative.After years of protests, the state government announced the Samudra Sathi scheme in its 2024–25 budget, promising Rs 5,000 per month for two months to registered fishermen and allocating Rs 200 crore for the programme.The scheme was never implemented.An RTI filed by Debasis Shyamal, president of the Dakshinbanga Matsyajibi Forum, revealed that no funds had been released for Samudra Sathi. Fishworkers say the delay has forced many to migrate.Dr Shilpa Nandy, associate professor at Khudiram Bose Central College, said migration has intensified since Covid-19. “Fishworkers from East Midnapore and South 24 Parganas are migrating to Kerala for work,” she said. “Women and children are often left behind, increasing vulnerability to debt and exploitation.”A March 2024 notification from the state fisheries department stated that only one ‘fisherman’ per family would be eligible for compensation.“That word matters,” Kalpana said. “Fishing is shared labour. Excluding women erases our work.”Even the men, she added, have not received the promised money.Fishworkers say repeated attempts to engage the West Bengal fisheries department have failed. The department did not respond to requests for comment for this story.As another ban season approaches, communities along the coast brace for another year of uncertainty.“We protect the sea because it is our life,” Srikant said. “But if we are not protected in return, how long can we survive?”Cover photo - Srikant Das tells the reporter about the fishermen of Midnapur (Photo - Sagnik Majumder, 101Reporters)

Multiple FIRs, UAPA charges keep this Jharkhand journalist in jail

Press freedom observers note that at least 16 journalists currently face charges under UAPA, whose strict bail provisions keep journalists in prolonged detention, effectively silencing investigative reporting.Ramgarh, Jharkhand: “As of now, I cannot predict when — or if — Rupesh will be released. After his arrest, more cases have been charged... There is no justification for keeping a journalist in jail," said Ipsa Shatakshi, whose husband and independent journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh (39) was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in Jharkhand on July 17, 2022, alleging Maoist links. Rupesh extensively covered the tribal community and the injustices they faced, focusing on the critical issues of jal, jungle, zameen. His articles appeared on digital media platforms such as Dhanchowk, Media Vigil and The Wire. His arrest raised suspicions of foul play among many free speech advocates and journalists. More so, as he was allegedly targeted with Pegasus spyware, with his phone numbers figuring in the snooping list. The final report before his arrest highlighted an industrial plant in Giridih and its environmental pollution. Among the victims was a girl aged eight with a tumour on her face. “When Rupesh reported on this girl, a minister responded on Twitter [now X] claiming that the child had been taken to a hospital. Rupesh followed up and discovered that she had not received any help. Undeterred, he reported the truth again. Rupesh was not just a reporter — he was relentless with his follow-ups.”“Labelling anyone who speaks out — be it a journalist, lawyer or academic — as a Maoist has become an all-too-common strategy to stifle dissent,” she continued.Case diaryAs of now, Rupesh has five cases against him in Bihar and Jharkhand. The first case was registered in Bihar's Gaya in 2019. Rupesh firmly believes that his articles on the alleged killing of a tribal worker, Motilal Baske, were the reason why he was framed in the case. He spent six months in jail and eventually got bail in December 2019, as the Bihar Police failed to file a chargesheet within the stipulated six months. A few days later, the police filed an eight-page chargesheet, which contained no details of evidence. The case has not been opened since then. "Charges have not been framed yet in the case," Rupesh’s lawyer, Shyam Kumar Sinha, told 101Reporters. Rupesh's second arrest occurred in 2022 at Ramgarh village in Jharkhand's Saraikela Kharsawan district. Kandra Police, under whose limits Ramgarh falls, charged him with recruiting people and arranging funds for CPI-Maoist activities in the region. There was no fresh First Information Report (FIR) against him, and his case was clubbed with the FIR registered on November 13, 2021, in connection with the arrest of seven CPI-Maoist activists. The chargesheet included Sections 10 and 13 of the UAPA, Section 17 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."His name did not even appear in that FIR," Advocate Sinha said.Later, three additional cases were filed — all of which were dated before his arrest in the Saraikela case. Prominent among them was the Rohtas case, being handled by the National Investigation Agency. The FIR registered on April 26, 2022, included Rupesh's name and involved Sections 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 38 of the UAPA and Sections 124, 121(A), 122A, 120 (B) and 34 of the IPC. The other two unnamed FIRs were from Chaibasa (dated November 16, 2018) and Bokaro (June 30, 2022).   In the Chaibasa case, the district sessions court first rejected the bail application, but the bail was approved upon approaching the additional sessions court. However, in the Bokaro case, they had to approach the Ranchi High Court for bail as the sessions court and the additional sessions court denied the bail application. Highlighting that it is near impossible to secure bail in UAPA cases as the courts operate on the presumption of guilt, Advocate Sinha said, “By charging multiple cases, the authorities create an impression that the accused has a criminal history, effectively stalling any chance of release... So far, Rupesh has been granted bail in the Bokaro and Chaibasa cases, while Ranchi High Court rejected his bail in the Saraikela case on December 6, 2023."On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court denied Rupesh's bail in the Saraikela case. "Our lawyers told me that the reason for denial was the presence of too many cases, all with serious allegations," Shatakshi said.Asked if Rupesh is hopeful of a fair trial, Advocate Sinha said, “Lower courts often mirror the higher courts. If the higher courts display a lack of sympathy toward journalists charged with sedition or similar offences, the lower courts follow suit, applying equally harsh judgments. Occasionally, courageous judges may recognise the gravity of such cases, but they too are bound by precedent. Even in states where tribal communities have endured extensive marginalisation, finding a judiciary sympathetic to activists and journalists remains rare.”A picture of Rupesh with his family (Photo - Sagnik Majumder, 101Reporters)Lodged in a faraway jail For over a year now, Rupesh has been lodged in Bhagalpur's Shahid Jubba Sahni Central Jail. Prior to this, he was in Patna's Adarsh Central Jail, Beur. “On January 23, 2024, under fabricated allegations of intimidating people within the jail as well as others outside the jail, he was administratively transferred to Bhagalpur for six months… Recently, it came to light that the authorities have once again extended his transfer period under false pretexts, without filing any paperwork in court or notifying the judiciary. This decision does not make sense to us,” Shatakshi said.“His case is being tried in Patna’s civil court. Keeping him at Bhagalpur seems baseless… He would often speak out against the corruption in Patna jail, and I think that was why he was transferred,” she added.  The Bhagalpur jail is 350 km from Ramgarh, where Shatakshi currently lives. “I can communicate with him only through video conferencing or by prison visit. With both methods, there has to be a gap of eight days,” she said.“Our lawyers communicate with Rupesh only during court proceedings when he is present. They do not really want to visit the jail premises,” she added.The last time Shatakshi visited Rupesh in jail was on September 3, 2024, on his birthday. Even then, it is very difficult to communicate as the telephone receivers rarely work properly. There is a seven-foot separation, and one can only talk using receivers. Even with them, one can barely understand what is being said. “Jail visits are very difficult, firstly due to the distance and secondly, because I have a seven-year-old who needs me.”Shatakshi could meet Rupesh in person on November 29, when the Patna High Court ordered the police to physically present him. “That was the last time our son could interact physically with his father after two years.”The family is facing financial hurdles as Rupesh was the sole breadwinner. Shatakshi confirmed that Rupesh’s transfer to a distant jail, coupled with the mounting legal expenses, has made the journey even more arduous. “Some kind-hearted lawyer friends are working for reduced or no fees, yet the sheer number of cases demands more resources. The trial court proceedings are one thing, and bail hearings follow an entirely separate course, often traversing multiple courts. From obtaining certified copies of legal documents to paying fees for the lawyers and covering travel costs for meetings with them requires continuous financial juggling. Visiting Rupesh itself is a strain, as he has been placed approximately 350 km away from our current residence, making each visit an expensive affair,” she said. “Following his transfer to Bhagalpur, he was kept in a room with almost no lighting. He was pursuing his MA in History at the time and needed to study, but was denied reading material as well as pen and paper. He was also denied a hot water bottle during the chilling temperatures of January,” Shatakshi alleged. Rupesh had even threatened to launch a hunger strike in protest. She said they complained to the jail authorities as well as the chief minister about this. The situation improved only after they moved the NIA Special Court in Patna.A pressing issueAdvocate Sinha felt that the focus should be on press freedom as a whole. “Even the mere filing of an FIR can create immense mental pressure on journalists. Once an FIR is registered, they are compelled to navigate the courts, often just to apply for bail. This tactic effectively disrupts their work and silences critical voices.”“There is an undeniable and deliberate attempt to suppress dissent, silence the media, and stifle press freedom. The focus must shift to safeguarding these voices and ensuring that the media, as the fourth pillar of democracy, is not silenced,” he said.Many have documented the suppression of press freedom in India. Geeta Seshu, the founder of Free Speech Collective, has been tracking media trends since 2010. “Back then, there were frequent cases of journalists being killed, attacked or threatened on the job. While the number of such physical attacks may seem to have reduced — no longer reaching double digits — the impunity remains. Justice for these crimes is almost non-existent,” she said.“What we are witnessing now is lawfare, where the law is weaponised against press freedom, citizens’ freedom and journalists' right to report without fear or intimidation. This is happening systematically, across the board,” she added.Citing that the government's approach has shifted over time, she said they have introduced a slew of laws and regulations that actively work against journalists. “For instance, we now see journalists being arrested under UAPA, something unheard of a decade ago. Back then, perhaps one or two cases existed. Today, at least 16 journalists face charges under UAPA. While a few have been released from jails, many remain behind bars.”“The UAPA is a draconian law, originally designed to combat terrorism, but now being wielded against journalists, academics, human rights activists and Adivasi workers. Bail is nearly impossible under this law. Additionally, various states have their public security acts, enabling preventive detention,” she detailed.A report published by the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, detailing the abuse of UAPA in India between 2009 and 2022, shows that only about a quarter of those arrested under the law got bail, and less than 3% were convicted. “The indisputable fact today is that thousands of persons arrested under UAPA are languishing in jail without bail, before eventually getting acquitted. The legal, moral and democratic question before us is whether such a law as the UAPA be permitted to exist in our law books. An equally important question that has to be addressed is about the accountability of police officials who wilfully bend and break the law and the need to prosecute them for abuse of the law,” the report said. Seshu strongly advocated the abolishment of UAPA in its current form, as it has been hopelessly distorted and serves no purpose in a democracy. “This is similar to the misuse of sedition laws, a colonial relic that has been wielded absurdly. The Supreme Court eventually stayed it, but the government responded by embedding similar provisions into the new criminal laws. Also, the vagueness in these criminal laws is deliberate, allowing the law to be applied arbitrarily.”This story was originally published as a part of Crime and Punishment project in collaboration with Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Cover Photo - Representative image/ AI-generated using Canva