MMXI is here .... and we are all watching it with a lot of hopes and expectations, but will anything change... I guess not, for one thing that I have really learned in life is this: the more things change, the more they remain constant ..... and maybe that's the reason why it's stated that those who fail to study their History tend to become History....
I will still continue speaking on Dr. Binayak Sen's curious case .... the last blog was all about why sedition should not be anymore a cause of treason for any person in any of the civilized or should I say, democratized nations of the world... Had it been treason, I would have understood and accepted the conviction - but the very nature of the case makes it difficult for me to suggest any reason why it even was fought - it should have been thrown out of the judicial window, considering the flimsiness of the case....
I took time off to post the second part of the blog because of the many threats and admonitions I received for my last blog.... It was not fear that stopped in my tracks but a feeling that the shriller the voices that condemn, the calmer should be the response....
Prima facie, the entire case is a stack of cards that cannot stand scrutiny even by the worst standards that can be applied .... Here is a guy, a pediatrician of repute from one of the best institutions of India, who has been working selflessly for the downtrodden, going where even the might of the state machinery fails..... a guy who has openly spoken against the Maoists and their tactics, has deplored the methods of warfare and criticized it's leadership.... It's indeed strange that this man has been singled out to be a Maoist....and on grounds that are as shaky as the plains of the Sunderbans after a cyclone.....
If tomorrow, one of my friends asks me to carry a letter to his friend who happens to be in another city, do I by the virtue of having carried a letter become a suspect in the eye of the law? When did an act of genuine humanitarian effort become a barometer of crime by guilt of association? If this be taken as the proof of wrong-doing, I do not know how many of us can avoid falling into this trap at one time or the other?
My critics would point out to the fact that these letters spoke of rebellion and unrest in the country.... that's a plea that's as irrational as it can be.... Going by the attestations of the police manning the jail, there was not a single instance wherein Dr. Binayak met the Maoist leader alone.... they must have been real masters of subterfuge and hypnosis if they were able to carry out such a brilliant piece of planning, all by themselves, in a cell, separated by irons and in presence of officers who kept on looking ... What were the officers discussing while the planning took place - the last Shahrukh Khan movie or the rising price of foodstuffs?
To the best of my knowledge, not a single officer has been accused of dereliction of duty... so it transpires that they were alert and brave soldiers of the motherland - so how could two individuals, who have neither been trained in subterfuge and camouflage carry out such a brilliant operation, not once but many times....
The jailor has also attested that all letters carried the official seal of the prison - in other words was pretty harmless - maybe the good jailor was not trained in the art of cryptology and the Chattisgarh government should make it compulsory on the incumbent and the ones that follow that he should have an advanced knowledge of the subject in the future to save such embarrassments .....
Another major point of contention for the security agencies is that, in one of the letters Dr. Sen was addressed as the Comrade, thus making him a Maoist! I am surprised by the gall of the prosecuting attorney, the stupidity of the defense and the irrationality of the Bench that such an interesting observation was allowed to go unchallenged in the court of Law!
Thank God, the leter did not have such terms as 'Saala' or else, we would have had a more powerful alliance - I mean Dr. Sen and his 'comrade' friend could have been brothers-in-law, we should really thank God, for small mercies..... I am thinking though, going by this particular logic, how many girls have I been married to and how many guys have become my brothers-in-arm.... I hope none of them is a terrorist or else I am on my way to the prison, thanks to this brilliant piece of art.....
Mahatma Gandhi had once, when asked of the keystone of Indian legal system commented that he preferred a system wherein, even if a thousand guilty could be saved from their just punishments, even one single person should not be punished for the crime he did not commit.
Dr. Binayak Sen may or may not be a Maoist... I am no one to hold a brief for him but I do state that as a concerned citizen of this nation, that the charges framed on him should not seem framed and the evidence brought against him should be found lacking and flimsy.... Neither of the above contentions hold water in an intense cross-examination of the facts.... It's high time Judiciary redeems itself from the clutches of 'guilty by prosecution' syndrome....
Its time we thought deeply about the entire issue. And before I start getting threats again, let me reiterate, I am not a Maoist but I am not a Quisling either ....
Democracy is government by the people and is constituted by the elected representatives of the people. So in the case of democracy, people rule over themselves via their chosen representative. In an ideal system, anything and everything that the democratic government does is in coherence with the voices of the people of the state. But in reality this is not the case. A democratic government is controlled and modified by the public opinion. The public opinion can be distorted by any opportunist political party or person and can be used to gain votes. Therefore the founding fathers of democracy and liberty have laid special emphasis on the freedom of expression of an individual. Liberty of the state is not visible in the amount of freedom it gives to the popular opinion but in the amount of protection and space that it provides to the dissenting opinion. This is the reason why minorities have more rights in democracy whether you are in India or America. Because if not than the rights and the concerns of a minority group runs the risk of getting trampled by the group in majority in cases where the opinion of the former clashes with the opinion of the latter. Deducing by a reductionist method, a minority group results in one single individual whose opinion is different from the popular opinion of the people of the state. Does the government need to protect the rights of that dissenting individual too? I will say YES!! If all the mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. The act of suppressing an individual dissent is a crime committed not only on the present generation but also on the succeeding generation who might had otherwise had the fortune to revise that opinion and gain if any wisdom from it. If the opinion was right than they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If that opinion was wrong than they lose (as great a benefit) a chance of gaining a clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
ReplyDeleteBut why should the popular opinion listen to a single dissenting voice? Because human beings are apt to committing errors. Not only small ones but even bigger ones which could have serious influences on the eons of time to come. The popular opinion was responsible for the death of Socrates. The monarch and senators at that time, who were but a speck of dirt in the universe of the ideas of Socrates and who would had been more justified in bowing before him than poisoning him committed not an error but an evil by murdering him on the altar of the misconception of the justification of truth of the popular opinion. This should not be repeated. Not in our time when we are at a crucial position of losing every ideal that our democracy is based on. Every time an opinion clashes against another than the conflict should be resolved by a through and fair discussion.
A nation must not prosecute its intellectuals as Dr. Binayak Sen is. Even if some charges can be passed on him than still the term of life imprisonment is unjustified. He is 61 and we are at the risk of losing all the wisdom and ideas that he could had brought in front of our generation. He deserves a fair trial. The sedition law of India must be repealed because it leaves enough room for a corrupt government to unfairly charge its dissenting citizen for its own selfish gain. Freedom of expression is not only a right but also a tool in the hands of the media and individuals of a state to fight against a corrupt government, thereby bringing their true face in the front of public. All efforts should be made to protect it from being suppressed in the name of any existing law whether they made in the name of the protection of civil morality or national sovereignty.
I myself do not condone the violent methods of naxalite, even though I am sympathetic towards their demands and rights. Indian constitution provides for a person to be duly judged in a court of law and to present his case with the best of his means. One of the documents under the police seizure memo after house search of Dr. Sen is a postcard which was written by Narayan sanyal relating his health and legal issues to him. This does not constitute any moral or legal evidence against Dr Sen but only provides inkling towards the trust that Narayan sanyal has on the social activist and the Indian judiciary as a whole. That Dr. Binayak Sen used to meet Narayan sanyal in jail is not in itself any sign of his agreement with the convict. The main charge against him is that he has couriered letter from in and out of the jail. Even if one such letter is found than it could suggest any large number of such letters which Dr. Sen passed between Narayan sanyal and Maoist party workers or their sympathizers? But are there any such letters which provide irrefutable evidence that it was passed by Dr. Binayak Sen. This is one of the chief evidence that was brought by the police- ‘Three letters (two in English, and one in Bengali) recovered from Mr. Piyush Guha, purportedly written by Mr. Narayan Sanyal. According to the statement of Piyush Guha, these letters were passed on to him by Dr. Binayak Sen, who has been meeting Mr. Narayan Sanyal in Jail’. But the letters found by Piyush guha have no dates or signatures whatsoever. Also the meetings of Dr. Sen with sanyal were done in front of the jailer and were done as per jail manual. He was checked every time he entered and exited the jail. Than how was he able to smuggle those letters? It is beyond my reason to think that the government had any strong case against Dr. Sen.
ReplyDeleteBut if the case against him is quashed and there were only charges of sedition against him. Would it be right to prosecute a person if he goes against his government?
Dr. Binayak Sen is not any ordinary person who has been convicted on any simple charges for a life term in jail. He is an acclaimed human rights activist, a medical doctor who has been awarded with distinguished merits and now has been put in jail for raising his voice against the malpractices of his own government. But everything is not that straight forward and we will have to discuss some points before coming to any conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDr. Binayak Sen was first arrested in 2007 for acting as a courier between Narayan Sanyal and a businessman named Piyush guha. Narayan sanyal is a naxalite leader and has been jailed for his activities of violence and waging war against the Indian government. So any kind of involvement that a third person keeps with him has to be taken into deep consideration. Why a person of the merit and intelligence of Binayak Sen did visited Narayan sanyal in jail. Didn’t he see the implications of it? Yes, he was the general secretary of People's Union for Civil Liberties and thus could use his influence to meet the convicted naxalite leader but why? Because he was a social activist and was against the violent and demeaning methods used by the Indian government to suppress naxalite movement. He raised his voice as a dissent against the government to bring a new initiative.
The charge of sedition against Dr. Sen can perhaps be true to the meaning of the word ‘sedition’ itself. Sedition could mean an act whether in speech or actions which can be considered as rebellion against the government. Sedition is prosecuted in Indian law but is this prosecution fair enough. Does it hinder the right to free expression of an individual? First of all, I would like to question if the charges of sedition in India encompass the actions done by Dr. Binayak Sen. India's sedition law, section 124A of the Penal Code, prohibits any words either spoken or written, or any signs or visible representation that can cause "hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection," toward the government. In a landmark ruling in 1962, Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled that unless the accused incited violence by their speech or action, it would no longer constitute sedition, as it would otherwise violate the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. So did Dr. Binayak Sen incite any kind of violence by his actions? Did he misuse the freedom of expression bestowed to him by our constitution.