Binayak Sen: Guilty as charged?

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.

Is India being a responsible neighbor?

Myanmar (Burma) has been in the news lately for the recent iron hand crack down by the military junta on the saffron clad monk's pro-democracy demonstrations . Myanmar's most prominent allies and trade partners India and China have come under some strong criticism for their low key and muted response. India and China can play a key role in restoring democracy but will the burgeoning trade relations and Burma's strategic geographic situation be a strong deterrent for either country to come down heavily on the military regime.

Burma a former British colony gained its independence in 1947. But in 1962, Ne Win; an army general, and his military men him overthrew the then elected government. He set up an authoritarian government to smother democracy and realize his vision of a socialist state. He isolated the country from the rest of the world, created a one-party system and cracked down on any expression that detracted from this vision. The once most prosperous part of the British Empire transformed into one of the world's poorest nations.

Ne Win's rule finally ended in 1988 finally after nationwide student demonstrations calling for democracy that were forcibly and brutally crushed.

India was the first neighboring country to criticise the Burmese military government's actions during people’s uprising. The Indian Embassy in Rangoon is said to have actively supported the pro-democracy student activists.

Yet later that year came the formation of a new and even more repressive military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council. The military junta renamed the country Myanmar in 1989.

India followed a policy committed to open support of the forces of democracy and “complete disengagement” with the ruling military junta in Burma. Most of the rest of the world also participated in isolating the country. China was one that did not.

In 1990 Burma held its first general elections and Aung San Suu Kyi's party; the National League for Democracy, won. However the military junta never allowed her to take power and instead put severe restrictions on her movements and access to the Burmese people as well as the outside world. The military junta has been accused of grave human rights abuse including curtailing the freedoms of its citizens.

Until around 1994 India continued its anti-junta policy but then after intense internal debate it reversed its course and resumed relations with Burma.

Why India changed its policy: Strategic, security and financial concerns

China used Burmese isolation to its advantage and aspired to create a strategic alliance with the country's regime. It pumped in economic, military and development assistance. India's ideological stand on the other hand failed to produce any tangible changes in the Burma, instead it saw the strengthening Burma-China alliance as a possible threat to its eastern flank and maritime borders.

India also suffered increasing attacks along the border it shares with Burma from insurgent groups such as the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and the United National Liberation Front (UNLF). It assumed the milatry junta could have been of assistance in helping quell the insurgency.

With India's economic boom, private and government business eyed the market across the border. The military junta also wary of its over dependence on China were looking for alternate sources to help its development.

With its disengagement tactic failing, India was weighed down by its strategic and security concerns as well as Burma's business potential. It seems that it decided to put aside its moral and ethical ideology and instead engaged the military junta.

India-Burma ties; Mixed results and wrong signals:

Trade between the two countries is now said to soon reach 1B dollars. India will also become the largest investor in the country. India has managed to almost level its leverage with that of China's on the small nation.

Unfortunately Indian trade and cooperation has not just been in developing infrastructure and use of resources. It has become a major supplier of arms and ammunition's in an effort to make money and equal that of China's supplies. The Burmese generals have also been promising cooperation with the counter insurgency operations but have shown little in terms of true effort.

New Delhi hosted a visit by Burma's military leader in 2004 and more recently India's Minister for External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited Myanmar to further boost ties. He also gave a weak statement in response to the crackdown on the peaceful demonstrations by the Burmese Monks that raised eyebrows the world over. A government official is said to have compared India's alliance with the junta with that of US's interest in Pakistan's Musharaff.

What India can and should do:

India needs to adhere to the highest standards of international conduct to maintain its steadily increasing visibility on the world stage. It needs to revert to its morality and ethically driven ideologies in dealing with Burma. Trade sanctions might be necessary while maintaining humanitarian assistance. India needs to involve China in a bilateral coordinated move to find ways to pressure the regime to return the country to democracy. With both the nations working together neither would have to have be concerned about the other taking advantage of its pullback. The Burmese people are looking to the outside world to oust their oppressor. For India to fail them would be a grave error and a serious lack of moral considerations.