The Maoists (Naxalites) claim their violent struggle in India is driven by the predation and disenfranchisement of the under classes by the Indian government. As such they attract those they purport to fight for, the Adivasis, who make a large part of the Maoist armies. They are the impoverished indigenous Indian population whose wellbeing has often taken a back seat. For those of us unaffected by these “bad” government policies the destruction of property and life seem incomprehensible. Violence cannot be justified by the defense of other’s necessity. But what makes it harder to sympathize with the organization is their intractable ideology that includes not participating in elections and supposedly attempting to create a large independent “red revolutionary zone” through India. Separating the sympathizers from the non-sympathizers would be easy except for what the resistance and retaliation has become. The harshness and brutality with which both sides; the Maoists and the Indian Government, have tried to overcome each other have created crossover sympathizers. There are Adivasis who aren’t actively supporting the Maoists but are still targeted by the government forces and a vigilante group “Salwa Judum”. There are a number of “fake encounters” under investigation where the anti-Maoist forces have brutally killed innocent Adivasis labeling them as terrorists and proclaiming the deaths as incidental to an ambush. The Maoists on the other hand have orchestrated the frequent killing of several security personnel and gruesome murders of businessmen.
So on which side of the struggle would a human rights activist pledging his efforts towards the Adivasis find himself? The complexity of that answer would be lost with a quick response. It also becomes necessary to separate the Naxal’s cause from their means when tackling the question.
Dr. Binayak Sen’s training as a pediatrician might be the least impressive part of his resume. He is also a noted civil rights defender and the general secretary of the Chattisgarh unit of Peoples’ Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL). He has worked tirelessly to create health care programs for the needy and poor in the area. Chattisgarh where he lives is also the hotbed of Naxal activity besides having a large Adivasi population. The anti-Maoist forces have been especially vicious in their retaliation considering more security personnel have been killed by attacks in this state than in other Naxal affected states together (Bihar and Jharkand). Some claim the disproportionate response is aimed to rid the area of the Naxals and Adivasis quickly so as to redeem the mineral rich lands of Chattisgarh for industrial development. Under Sen’s leadership several fact finding campaigns have been launched dealing with human rights violations perpetrated by the state government, deaths of prisoners while in police custody and the “fake encounters”. Understandably neither the Government nor Dr. Sen find themselves in each other’s favor.
With all of the Government’s questionable tactics and ignorance towards the plight of the Adivasis, Sen must find himself aligned with the Maoist cause even if he strongly disagrees with their violent means. This is no way would make him a terrorist or one who abets terrorism and there is no intent to suggest that either.
Through his work and association with PUCL, Sen has come in contact with numerous detainees and criminals, offering them legal advice and medical treatment. But when he asked the Government and met 33 times with Narayan Sanyal, a imprisoned senior Maoist leader accused of 302 murders, the Government saw red.
Sen was arrested under the Chattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He has been accused of passing letters from the Maoist leader to operatives outside the jail, possession of materials that show allegiance to the outlawed group and helping rent an apartment for some of its members. If all this were true Sen has crossed the line of an innocent sympathizer to that of a guilty co-conspirator. The arguments that his being a model citizen thus far makes him incapable of such overt support are weak. But the fact that evidence has been circumstantial and not provable beyond a doubt makes the case for him strong. Sen being a letter courier does not mean much without the contents of the letter. He needs to be released on bail until the prosecution has concrete evidence and contents of the letters are shown to be incriminating.
Did Sen become so enraged by the government’s action and inaction that he began to provide active support to the Maoists or was his sympathy for their cause unfairly tied to his public service towards just another inmate? Until the courts can declare him innocent or guilty, Sen has no place in jail.
So on which side of the struggle would a human rights activist pledging his efforts towards the Adivasis find himself? The complexity of that answer would be lost with a quick response. It also becomes necessary to separate the Naxal’s cause from their means when tackling the question.
Dr. Binayak Sen’s training as a pediatrician might be the least impressive part of his resume. He is also a noted civil rights defender and the general secretary of the Chattisgarh unit of Peoples’ Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL). He has worked tirelessly to create health care programs for the needy and poor in the area. Chattisgarh where he lives is also the hotbed of Naxal activity besides having a large Adivasi population. The anti-Maoist forces have been especially vicious in their retaliation considering more security personnel have been killed by attacks in this state than in other Naxal affected states together (Bihar and Jharkand). Some claim the disproportionate response is aimed to rid the area of the Naxals and Adivasis quickly so as to redeem the mineral rich lands of Chattisgarh for industrial development. Under Sen’s leadership several fact finding campaigns have been launched dealing with human rights violations perpetrated by the state government, deaths of prisoners while in police custody and the “fake encounters”. Understandably neither the Government nor Dr. Sen find themselves in each other’s favor.
With all of the Government’s questionable tactics and ignorance towards the plight of the Adivasis, Sen must find himself aligned with the Maoist cause even if he strongly disagrees with their violent means. This is no way would make him a terrorist or one who abets terrorism and there is no intent to suggest that either.
Through his work and association with PUCL, Sen has come in contact with numerous detainees and criminals, offering them legal advice and medical treatment. But when he asked the Government and met 33 times with Narayan Sanyal, a imprisoned senior Maoist leader accused of 302 murders, the Government saw red.
Sen was arrested under the Chattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He has been accused of passing letters from the Maoist leader to operatives outside the jail, possession of materials that show allegiance to the outlawed group and helping rent an apartment for some of its members. If all this were true Sen has crossed the line of an innocent sympathizer to that of a guilty co-conspirator. The arguments that his being a model citizen thus far makes him incapable of such overt support are weak. But the fact that evidence has been circumstantial and not provable beyond a doubt makes the case for him strong. Sen being a letter courier does not mean much without the contents of the letter. He needs to be released on bail until the prosecution has concrete evidence and contents of the letters are shown to be incriminating.
Did Sen become so enraged by the government’s action and inaction that he began to provide active support to the Maoists or was his sympathy for their cause unfairly tied to his public service towards just another inmate? Until the courts can declare him innocent or guilty, Sen has no place in jail.
2 comments:
I read your comment over at my blog. Your article presents a well-balanced view, but I would just like to say, that since my family has had personal links to his over the years, I do know for certain that his work has been only to highlight the human rights abuses and create medical facilities for the adivasis, and in no way was he actively collaborating with Maoists at any point of time. This is, of course personal knowledge, but as you put it any evidence till now has been weak and purely circumstantial at best and leaves no justification for his imprisonment as a criminal.
I have a peripheral but memorable connection to Dr. Binayak Sen. I was his brother's- Gautam Sen's- student at Rishi Valley and have been following the story for a few weeks. I also share in his career as a medical professional. But I only aspire to share in his vast humanitarianism. Will Dr. Sen simply become another example of thwarted altruism? I've signed the petition but what else can we do? How can we lend our voices to him and to those he leaves in his wake?
Post a Comment