GYANOPROBHA

PUCL CHALLENGES THE CHHATTISGARH SPECIAL PUBLIC SECURITY ACT IN THE SUPREME COURT

This indeed very good news, received through an announcement from PUCL itself.

The challenge petition has been drafted by former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Rajinder Sachar, and Advocates Sanjay Parikh and Anita Shenoy.

After reading an analysis of the law, my questions are threefold:

1) What difference will this challenge make to Binayak Sen's case, given that he is also charged under various other provisions apart from the CSPSA?
2) Why could it not have been done sooner?
3) How do such bad laws get passed, and how can ordinary citizens prevent the passage of such laws?

EERIE SILENCE NOW BROKEN

Just a few days ago, I noted the eerie silence of the internet jackals. Well, that silence has now been broken comprehensively by their howling in the comments sections of this article by Apoorvanand and a blog posting on Offstumped. No doubt they will soon be yelping all over the internet. The manner of their mobilization, and their tactics of smear and abuse, is strongly reminiscent of GIYUS, the Zionist media mobilisation effort against critics of the Israeli state policies towards Palestinians.

It seems I was a bit uminaginative in anticipating the range of responses of the jackals. Apart from those that I already listed, they have accused Binayak Sen of being a naxal terrorist, a christian missionary, and an agent for foreign missionary organizations. They have also expressed the desire to kill Binayak and his entire family. These commenters speak in the name of a resurgent Hindu nationalism. These are the people with whose mindset Indians are supposed to proudly identify. So what or who inspires them?

Two circumstances have coincided to provide the occasion for the mobilisation of the jackals. They are firstly the tragic and dastardly outrage perpetrated in Jaipur recently by what has been identified as an Islamic terrorist group calling itself the Indian Mujahideen, possibly
an associate of the Bangladesh-based Harkat-ul-Jehad-e-Islami (HuJI); and secondly the increasing embarrassment caused to the state by the public appeal of 22 Nobel laureates to the government for the release of Dr. Binayak Sen, following soon after the Global Health Council bestowed the Jonathan Mann Award on him.

These circumstances provides the background in which "respectable" right-wing ideologues have now found
a new way of smearing Binayak by association (the old ones perhaps having been exhausted). Chandan Mitra's column provides an instance of the method, and noting how many of his arguments have been parroted by the Bharatiya GIYUS jackal gangs, perhaps also their inspiration. Or perhaps they simply share the same Manichaean paranoia.

Mr. Mitra exploits the tragedy and agony of the criminal Jaipur blasts for his own ideological ends as follows: 1) Set up similarities between Islamic terrorism and Naxal terrorism.
2) Then suggest in a slyly misleading manner that they both depend on the same sources of support among the intellectuals and foreign-based organizations.
3) Repeat once again the stale but Big Lie that Binayak is a Naxalite intellectual.
4) Suggest that Dr. Sen was a nobody whom no one had ever heard of before his arrest.
5) Then cast doubt on the credentials of the Jonathan Mann Award, the Global Health Council.
6) Mention "separatist outfits, Christian missionary groups and busybody NGOs" in the same sentence with "Indian subversives have huge international networks", relying on the reader to make the connection with the well-known fact that Dr. Sen is an alumnus of the Christian Medical College, as are his supporters around the world.
7) This makes it possible to suggest a conspiracy...with "unknown" organizations hand in glove with Christian subversives giving "unknown" awards to "unknown" individuals who are "destabilising" India from within with "Goebbelsian propaganda" that Salwa Judum is a vigilante group armed by the state instead of being an unarmed and peaceful movement against Naxalites.
8) And finally the punch line:

"...the siege within is much more pervasive than it appears at first sight. While the country needs more stringent anti-terror laws, better intelligence, superior equipment for security forces and other paraphernalia for combating jihadi, Maoist and separatist terror, apart from draconian measures to stop infiltration from Bangladesh, the war against the enemy within cannot be won by laws alone.

Till such time as we agree that "terrorism in all its manifestations" includes mindset that in effect protect and promote the cause of the perpetrators of terror rather than those of its victims, I am afraid the war can never be decisively won."

Hey Presto! We are in 1984 territory: Airstrip One, complete with Big Brother surveillance and thought crime laws against "mindsets". Garv se kaho, hum Bharatiya (oops! Oceanians) hain! Death to activists, their relatives, Chief Justices, police chiefs, journalists and intellectuals - any Unperson who claims that the Salwa Judum is anything but a spontaneous, peaceful movement against the Naxalites, or anyone who might ask for the rule of law to be upheld while fighting terrorism!

We already have pretty draconian anti-terror laws, and have had them all the years since the 1970's when Mitra was a stripling marxist radical. Yet the laws have failed utterly to curb extremism, while the radicals seem to have garnered yet more support. Mr. Mitra's explanation for this would doubtless invoke sinister destabilizing forces from outside - Islamic radicals, Christian missionaries and organizations, Maoists in Nepal, NGO's, activists, media persons - almost everyone and everything but the failure of governance by predatory states that wish to grab land from tribals and dalits for the sake of "development", with not even the most basic economic security or recourse to elementary justice. Mr. Mitra must be an advocate of such predatory governance if he advocates that critics of such policies are arrested and imprisoned without trial for long periods on false charges of supporting terrorism. In any case, what is the analytical or strategic value of treating all forms of terrorism as if they were the same, and treating critics and enemies as if they were indistinguishable? What is the point of proliferating security legislation and then using it to victimize the peaceful and law-abiding critics of the state like Binayak Sen and Ajay T G, when the real terrorists are able to go scot free?

Chandan Mitra seems to derive his inspiration for his implacable war on terrorism from his gurus in the US - those neocon Warriors on Terror, whose rhetoric he shamelessly appropriates. Like them, his proximity to power seems to have caused him to develop a cognitive delusion that prevents him from seeing the truth - that the war on terror is failing in its own terms everywhere. With the methods that he advocates, we can expect to see more people victimized for "mindset crimes" defined in ever more ill-defined and catch-all legislation. What is the meaning of terrorism when its definition expands to cover almost every public act, and renders every person subject to arbitrary arrest? If the state has to resort to such laws as these, the terrorists have already won.

WHY DR. BINAYAK SEN MUST BE RELEASED

Here in full is an important piece that has appeared on the internet news magazine Rediff. The author is a literary critic and a Reader in Hindi at the University of Delhi. The argument is very similar to the one I have been making on this blog for some time.

Why Dr Binayak Sen must be released

Apoorvanand | May 16, 2008 | 20:35 IST

Dr Binayak Sen seems to have caught the imagination of the mainstream media in India at last. But one has to remember that he has spent a year in a Chhattisgarh jail.

An international award by the Global Heath Council named after Jonathan Mann to Dr Sen for his untiring work in the field of people's health and human rights followed by a strong appeal by 22 Nobel Laureates demanding his release seems to have convinced the media that there is something extraordinary about Dr Sen's arrest and that the issue needs to be probed.

Dr Sen, a paediatrician by training, was arrested on May 14 last year by the Chhattisgarh police under the dreaded Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which are in many ways more draconian than the now repealed Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act.

The police claimed it had evidence to prove that Dr Sen was actively helping out Maoists by providing them logistic support. The only piece of evidence they have been able to show till date is the fact that he made 33 visits to Narayan Sanyal, an old, ailing Maoist leader in jail. They were perfectly legal visits and allowed under the jail manual, not something clandestine. Sanyal was suffering from many diseases and required regular medical support.

As a civil right activist and doctor it was not unusual for Dr Sen to come into contact with extremist Maoists, especially since he was in Chhattisgarh, which is reeling under the bloody conflict between the state and the Maoists.

His plea for bail in the Supreme Court was rejected, which did not find it necessary to verify the claims by the state counsel. It agreed with the state that a free Binayak was a threat to the national security in Chhattisgarh.

The state is a dangerous place for civil right activists. It is the most recent destination for rich capitalists eyeing its mineral rich land and want it to be made available. How do you do it unless the tribals are driven out of their lands?

This is a state where governance is traditionally and criminally tilted in favour of moneylenders and the land and forest mafia. And welfare schemes aimed at the poor, especially the tribals, do not trickle down.

In such a scenario there is bound to be an emergence of a movement for justice. It does not necessarily have to be non-violent as the exploitation of the poor, who have been forced to be part of the developmental state, is extremely violent. National prosperity stands in striking contrast to the increasing impoverishment of the tribals.

Chhattisgarh was fertile land for the Maoist movement as the state failed shamefully to make the mechanism of justice work for the poor. Its loyalty to rich, national and multinational companies creates a compelling urge to eliminate anyone coming in the way. A report by an expert group set by the Planning Commission to look at the developmental challenge in extremist affected areas, says, 'there is, however, failure of governance, which has multiple dimensions and is not confined to the inefficiency of the delivery systems only. It is not fortuitous that overwhelmingly large sections of bureaucracy/technocracy constituting the delivery systems come from the landowning dominant castes or middle classes, with their attachment to ownership of property, cultural superiority and a state of mind which rationalises and asserts their existing position of dominance in relation to others. This influences their attitudes, behaviour and performance.'

'Internal displacement caused by irrigation/mining/industrial projects, resulting in landlessness and hunger, is a major cause of distress among the poor, especially the Adivasis [aboriginals - GP]. It is well known that 40 per cent of all the people displaced by dams in the last 60 years are forest-dwelling Adivasis. The law and administration provides no succour to displaced people and often treats them with hostility since the displaced people tend to settle down again in some forest region, which is prohibited by law. The Naxalite movement has come to the aid of such victims of enforced migration in the teeth of the law.'

The report further states that the Adivasis displaced from Orissa and Chhattisgarh, settling in the forests of Andhra Pradesh would have been easily evicted by officials but for the presence of the Naxalite movement.

Suffering from continuing land loss and displacement, dwindling livelihood resources, acute malnutrition and pitched against a formidable combine of profit-hungry companies and a callous administration, Adivasis found some solace from the Maoists. The Maoists therefore are not the cause but a result of the miseries of the Adivasis.

Instead of addressing these issues, the state took recourse to a militarist shortcut by helping in creation of an armed campaign called Salwa Judum which vowed to eliminate the Maoists. It employed Adivasis in its ranks, most of the times forcibly. It is not a coincidence that Salwa Judum started days after the signing of contracts between the state and some companies.

Salwa Judum is a law unto itself. Though it is claimed to be a peaceful people's movement in reality it is a State-sponsored peoples' militia which marches into villages, forces people to join or burns their houses, destroys their cattle, livelihood and drives them out. More than 640 villages have been evacuated in this drive. Lakhs of Adivasis have been forcibly removed from their habitations and some 40,000 of them live in Salwa Judum camps set up by the government, living in hellish conditions as another state-sponsored Administrative Reform Committee report found out. The committee was lead by senior Congress leader Veerappa Moily.

The Supreme Court was forced to express its displeasure of Salwa Judum by observing that the government cannot arm people and instigate them to kill others. Defending Salwa Judum was not a state lawyer but counsel for the central government who made an astonishing admission that the state police were unequal to the might of the Maoists. They were employing as special police officers only those who have been at some point, in some way been victimised by the Maoists, he pleaded. It was extraordinary for a state to openly defend an army of revenge.

Dr Sen's consistent opposition to Salwa Judum is the real cause of the state's ire. It was all good and rosy till he confined himself to providing health services to the poor. In fact, the government had invited him to advise on its health programmes.

Binayak Sen was a gold medallist from the prestigious Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu. He decided to leave his teaching job at Jawaharlal University in New Delhi to move to Chhattisgarh in 1978 to work with the legendary trade union leader Shankar Guha Niyogi, who built up the formidable Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha. Niyogi was later killed by the industry mafia. Dr Sen moved around in villages, establishing clinics and providing healthcare to those who were damned by State-run systems.

But as Dr P Zachariah, his teacher at CMC, says, "His interest in civil activism grew out of witnessing malnutrition deaths among children. The lack of governance worried him deeply. Chhattisgarh is a complicated state with a complicated history. The government did not meet the people's needs and it was easy for Naxalites to exploit that. The government found it difficult to deal with militants who operated out of dense forests and took a very repressive stance. In the end, it led to the creation of Salwa Judum."

"The police machinery too was getting large funds to fight the Naxalites. In the dark days that followed, people began to disappear. As a member of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, Binayak couldn't help but get involved. The PUCL was constantly approached by villagers saying that their relatives had disappeared. The police had to be approached, FIRs had to be filed, and Binayak began to help," Dr Zacharaiah said.

Areas of disagreement between Dr Sen and the state government were bound to emerge. He could not have approved of measures like Salwa Judum. His work as the general secretary of the state's PUCL became a pain for the government. He was also staunchly anti-communal and critical of the activities of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Adivasi-dominated areas. Otherwise a quiet man, this English-speaking doctor was increasingly becoming a cause of worry for the state government. He was, like other law-abiding activists, a critic of unlawful encounters by the police and thus an impediment to national and multinational companies. He needed to be silenced and removed from the scene.

This was done by the state symmetrically, with an active help from the local media. In April and May last year, the Chhattisgarh police stared a vilification campaign against him when he was away in Kolkata to see his ailing mother. He was declared an absconding Naxalite doctor who had fled to evade arrest.

Dr Sen's brother circulated an open letter telling the world that he was not absconding, had gone to visit his mother and the police was in fact indulging in this vilification only to justify his arrest. His fears came true. Dr Sen returned to the state capital Raipur and was immediately arrested under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

These laws do not need actual acts of conspiracy to make you criminal, even a perception that you may, even in future entertain thoughts which would be potentially against the state interest is sufficient reason for arrest.

Appeals by several civil right activists and individuals demanding the repeal of such absurd laws and the release of Dr Sen have been treated with disdain by the Chhattisgarh and central governments.

There is a strong belief in the establishment that all civil right activists are nothing but a respectable cover for extremists of all kinds, including the Maoists. They very conveniently ignore the criticism of Maoist violence by these individuals. What is disturbing is that if this liberal middle space is gone, there would not be a counter voice to violence.

It is only appropriate that the Global Health Council chose Dr Sen for its Jonathan Mann award. His international colleagues cutting across disciplines have asked the state and central governments to create situation for him to be able to receive this award in person which would be given in a public ceremony in the US on May 29. Given the arrogant insensitivity of our state institutions, it is unlikely that the appeals would be heard.

Can we expect our judiciary to help redeem the promise the Constitution makes to the people to safeguard their right to hold opinions and express it even if goes against the official line the state would like all of us to follow?

SALWA JUDUM TO CONTINUE DESPITE SUPREME COURT STRICTURES

The Salwa Judum campaign started in Chhattisgarh has already attracted much opprobrium, both from the Supreme Court as well as from other agencies of the government and from left parties and even sections of the business press. This does not seem to deter the state government in Chhattisgarh from insisting that it will continue the movement. Nor does it deter Delhi from playing Pontius Pilate and allowing the state government of Chhattisgarh the option of allowing it to continue if it so wishes. In fact, the central government seems set to extend it to Manipur - a state in the north-east of the country, and the site of an ongoing insurgency spanning decades. Of course, it will not operate under the name of Salwa Judum, but it will be essentially the same thing - the state arming vigilante groups of citizens to "protect themselves against" (i.e., kill) other citizens.

None of the lessons of Chhattisgarh, Punjab or Kashmir seem to have registered with the governments of the states or the centre. Nor does the Supreme Court opinion seem to mean much for the central government. The killings will go on. Contempt of court apparently does not apply to the government, which can flout its own laws and court opinions with utter impunity. Will Mr. Harish Salve care to comment?

As far as I can see, the only people being protected here are the arms sellers and the extractive companies that will gain from the forcible resettlement of the tribals and forest people. As the peoples of Iraq and central Africa have discovered, we live in an age when it is a curse to have natural resources under the soil.

REFLECTIONS ON THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF BINAYAK SEN'S ARREST

Today, my older brother Dr. Binayak Sen will "celebrate" the first anniversary of his entirely unjust arrest under false charges of waging war against the state by associating himself with terrorist Maoist groups and individuals.

What is there to "celebrate"? The fact that right now, it is Binayak, the servant of the poor, who has more credibility worldwide than the state that holds him prisoner.

The charges against him are not only false, but have been publicly shown to be false. But this by itself has not damaged the credibility of the rogue state that has been holding him as much as the fact that his work among the poor and exploited tribal and dalit communities of Chhatisgarh has been repeatedly recognized, most recently in the Jonathan Mann award and in the call by 22 Nobel scientists for his release. Without his becoming an international cause celebre, the state could have maintained its credibility for a while longer, perhaps even indefinitely. Which is why it has to go to such lengths to slander him publicly. But this public slander has patently failed, except among the irredeemably ignorant internet jackals of Shining India.

When the state holds innocent people like Binayak Sen, Prashant Rahi or Ajay T G, it destroys its own credibility - the very same credibility that it needs to tackle real criminals and terrorists. In holding people such as civil society activists and humanitarian workers, merely because they are critical of the government, the government reveals its own desparate failure to deal with the real problems of extremism that have been allowed to grow for the last forty years, despite being quelled with much bloodshed over thirty years ago.

In an interesting discussion on NDTV with activist Arundhati Roy, centred on the question of whether Dr. Sen's continued imprisonment has become an international embarrassment for India, Harish Salve, the former Solicitor General of India and now a prominent Supreme Court lawyer, acknowledged that he does not know the full facts of the case. But he nevertheless expressed full faith in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in the judicial system generally, and suggested that foreigners (like the 22 Nobel laureates and the Global Health Council) should now butt out of interfering in the judicial process. Despite this appeal to judicial nationalism in what is clearly for him an uncomfortably globalized world, he had no difficulty in citing opinions of US courts in support of his arguments, or in comparing Indian security laws with those of other countries and finding them much less draconian. Perhaps his standard of comparison was the US, or possibly Uzbekistan. At the point where he claimed never to have heard anything about the corruption of the judicial system, I felt truly embarrassed for him. If NDTV had selected him to represent the government position (because as the anchorwoman explained, representatives of the Chhattisgarh government had refused to appear on the program to defend their actions), he was obviously not doing it too well. He was clearly annoyed at activists like Arundhati Roy for calmly arguing that a democracy could not afford undemocratic institutions to be held beyond criticism by a vigilant citizenry. But how persuasive Salve was would depend on how well or badly infomed his listeners were. If they were as ignorant as he was - both of the facts regarding Dr. Sen's case, as well as of the integrity of the judiciary which has been the subject of concern by the Prime Minister and public figures of the establishment such as Fali S Nariman - then they would simply have their own prejudices reinforced by what he had to say. The other discussant in the NDTV program, Pradeep Singh, a former DIG of Police in UP and an author of a book on Naxalism, expressed sympathy with many of the aims of the maoists (a pretty difficult and surprising admission for a former policeman to make). But he also clearly and rightly condemned the maoists for their terrorism and their alliance with forces that threatened the integrity of the country. He seemed to suggest that in Binayak's case, the state had overreached itself, even though curiously, he did not feel that the security laws under which Binayak was held needed review or repeal.

The entire case for the government seems to be: trust us, we know more than we can tell you. On that basis, the Supreme Court (and two lower courts before that) refused bail to Dr. Sen based on the lies of the state counsel, ignoring all the arguments in his defence. But why should anyone trust the state, beyond the purely negative reason that NOT trusting the state may have even more dire consequences? Isn't that precisely the reason why the state should be open to democratic scrutiny by an informed and vigilant public? If the judiciary and the police were (and moreover were seen to be) scrupulously fair and incorruptible, I admit that this would look pretty damning for Binayak, even though it would have the effect of a sentence before the trial even started. But the important point is that this presumption of scrupulous incorruptibility cannot be made in the case of our judiciary.
And this is not because of anything that Binayak or Prashant or Ajay has said or done, but because of the state's own actions.

Binayak's case will not end with his release. It will end when the thousands of other innocent under-trial prisoners held in our jails without the benefit of proper legal representation and publicity are released. It will end when the real criminals and terrorists are caught and dealt with in accordance with the law. But the way in which the state has behaved has so far in Binayak's case has not only damaged its own international credibility, despite the weak arguments of its defenders like Salve. It has also cast a harsh glare of publicity in identifying the real obstacle that lies across the path of those causes for which Binayak has worked for his entire life - public health, food, education and dignity for the poor and powerless among us. And that is the state itself.

I will repeat myself: we need a second peaceful and non-violent independence movement for a more participative, accountable, responsive and transparent polity. Why a political alliance like the NAPM cannot be organized to initiate such a movement, I do not yet know. But I do know that another state is possible!

EERIE SILENCE OF THE INTERNET JACKALS

I started the last post with the hope that I was wrong. Well, so far, OK, I have been wrong. That means that for now the Shining Indian jackals of the internet have remained silent...in fact, conspicuously silent, especially since the Jonathan Mann award announcement. The NDTV poll shows that 67% think that Binayak's imprisonment is an embarrassment to India. I know such polls are useless, but I'm willing to eat crow in this case...eagerly.

Well, there are exceptions. Here's one spotted by Binayak's teacher Dr. P. Zachariah:

"Here is Dr Sen who help naxalites. Naxalites wages arms revolt again law and order in India. how come Nobel laureates and Washington organisation know so much "human rights and helath service activities of Dr Binayak Sen which most of Indians are not aware? who are Indians socalled human right activities and leftists fellowtravellers who are in US academic field? do they brief wrong and misleading information to American nobel laureates? What Dr Sen did is security offence, not freedom expression and freedom of association. will these laureates and Us govt give same freedom of expression and freedom of association to Islamic fundamentalists in Us or any part of world? why Us is keeping unknown numbers of "freedom of expressionist and freedom of associations" in secret jail and without trial.In case of Dr Sen he is guilty in the court."

The writer does have a point. When the US government is locking up people in Guantanamo without trial, why shouldn't we do the same in India?

Yes, we do have a few things to learn about running a democracy for corporations, I admit. So far our record has been somewhat patchy, thanks to all those left-wing goons in the media and in parliament who spout nonsense about human rights.

22 NOBEL LAUREATES CALL FOR BINAYAK SEN'S RELEASE

I hope I am wrong, but I'm willing to bet that international calls for release such as this one from 22 Nobel prize winners are likely to elicit the following kinds of reaction from the India Shining crowd:

"So what???"

"International support for terrorists - what's surprising!"

"Winning a Nobel Prize in economics, chemistry, physics or medicine does not qualify these worthy scholars to pronounce on international problems such as terrorism. The government should ignore such appeals."

All these people - ardent nationalists, all of them - claim to speak for Indian interests, and in the name of Indian pride. But they are not the least ashamed of publicly traducing an innocent man. Nor are they ashamed that their country looks increasingly like a tin-pot dictatorship rather than like the democracy that they claim it is.

Of course, their usual rejoinder to this line of argument is: "We are a democracy where law and order is upheld. Those who criticize the government should let the courts determine whether Dr. Sen is guilty or not. "

One begins to wonder whether these people are seriously delusional, or whether they ever experience those parts of India that don't Shine.

The problem with their argument is that it assumes that the courts are beyond manipulation by the executive, and that the laws themselves are beyond reproach. Is the first assumption justified? As for the second, the ways the states use their security laws themselves have been called into question by no less than the Chief Justice of India.

So how can we pretend that everything is lily white with the police and the judiciary when those who are supposed to benefit from their functioning - the common people themselves - have had a rather dim view of these instruments of state since at least 2002, whereas the Prime Minister himself has recently admitted the need to deal urgently with corruption in the judiciary.

Here is a telling anecdote from Rajendra Sail, the President of PUCL in Chhattisgarh:

On 24th May, 2007, I was arrested by the Chhattisgarh Police in the evening when I was returning from a day-long Dharna protesting against the illegal detention of Dr. Binayak Sen, General Secretary, CG PUCL. The police conveniently used a warrant issued by the MP High Court at Jabalpur in a two years old case of Supreme Court ordering 7 days simple imprisonment in the Contempt of Court Case (related to my comments on the MP High Court judgment in the Shaheed Niyogi Murder Case, when it had acquitted all the accused in June 1998). Even the warrant was dated February 2007, but the Chhattisgarh police found it politically beneficial to serve the same on me almost three months later, while it was all this while lying on the table of the Superintendent of Police, Raipur.

When I was being taken from Raipur to Jabalpur (some 300 Kms away) by road in the night of 24th May, 2007, and the police officials escorting me had asked me to go to sleep in the back seat of a luxury car in which I was being taken to Jabalpur, I heard a very interesting conversation being made on phone!

One of the police officials was talking to some media person on his mobile: Kya heading laga rahe ho?Aare Sayal Saheb ke liye kya heading laga rahe ho? (What is the heading you are using for Mr. Sail?)

He called about half-a-dozen newspapers around 10:00 pm, while I kept listening to this interesting conversation lying down in the back seat of the car.

The manner of authority and confidence with which this police official addressed these media persons (obviously the newspaper people), it was crystal clear that they were hand-in-glove with each other.

Here too is a much longer report [slightly edited] from Kavita Srivastava of the PUCL Rajasthan of what the police have been up to with Ajay TG, Dr. Sen's colleague in PUCL Chhattisgarh.

This is what people in Chhattisgarh - and indeed in almost every other state in India - find themselves up against when dealing with the police. Does this look like a state that is sensitive to the force of public opinion? Only when the opinion is a strong signal from the Sensexual community is there impressive alacrity in taking corrective action.

The bottom line is this: unless important corporate interests are mobilized to support a form of governance more transparent and accountable to the people - not just for the corporations - nothing substantial will be achieved. And that will happen when - in Brecht's undying sarcastic phrase - the corporate government "dissolves the people and elects another". Which too they are in the process of accomplishing in Chhattisgarh.

And now Kavita's report....

Dear friends,

This is to inform you that we have enough evidence to show that Ajay TG is completely innocent and that has become even more evident from what the newspapers are reporting about the police case. Ofcourse the exact story of the police will only be known when the complete file will be accessed during the trial, incidentally the FIR is yet has not with us.. However he has been booked u/s 124 (A) IPC[1] and Sec 3, 4 ,8 (1)(2) of the Chattsigarh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam[2][3].

Explanatory notes:

[1] 124 (A) of the IPC is sedition: whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation,, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite dissatisfaction towards the Government, established by the law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added or with fine.

[2] 8 Penalties: (1) Any person, who is a member of the unlawful organization or participates in its meeting or activities of such organization or makes contribution or receives contribution or requests for contribution for the purpose of such organization, shall be liable for imprisonment, which may be up to three years of imprisonment as well as fine.

[3] Any person, who manages any unlawful organization or assists in its management or promotes or assists in promoting a meeting of any such or any member thereof or assistss or indulges in any unlawful activities of such a organization in any manner or through any medium or device, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Let me share a few details of the case and also about the state of his wife and child.

Ajay TG's Case

Ajay has been booked in what is called the infamous Arms Dropping Case of Raipur that took place on January 21st 2008, in Chattisgarh where one Malti Rao was arrested, the wife of Gudsa Husendi, the spokeperson for the Maoists. According to the police Malti and Meena were arrested for trying to pass on a huge cache of illegal arms and ammunition to unknown groups. While travelling, in a car on Jan 21, they seem to have dropped eight bags loaded with 91 pistols and 26 wireless sets at Dangania area in Raipur. The ammunition and equipment were meant for unidentified groups. But the police recovered the cache before it was taken away.

Malti belonged to Sutela in Bhilai and during the search of her house they discovered a letter written by Ajay on CACL (Campaign Against Child Labour campaign of which he was a State Convenor).

They came with this letter and showed it to Ajay perhaps on Janaury 22nd itself. When the police came to their house Ajay TG called Advocates Sudha Bharadwaj and Bose Thomas. In their presence their house was searched and his computer taken away. When the police showed him the particular letter he owned it up and shared the circumstances in which he Ajay TG himself had written it. (which I will tell in the next para quoting from an article written by Nandini Sundar which was published in the DNA in 2006).

Ajay TG for whom the computer is his livelihood as being a film maker all the editing work is done on this machine, went a few times to the SP in order to get back his computer but the police told him that it would take sometime. In early February Ajay TG 's uncle died in Kerala and he met the SP as he had to go, the SP assured him that actually there was nothing serious about his case and he could comfortably go and return. According to his wife they returned in early March before women's day and life returned to normalcy, although he was not in a position to make any films as the computer was not made available as yet.

So he had come to Raipur on the 30th April in order to apply to the court to get back his computer. His aplication was filed on the 2nd of May and the hearing had been kept for the 9th of May, regarding getting back his computer. But then he was picked up on the 5th.

Why AJAY TG wrote the letter which is today the being used against him.

I am glad that Dr. Jonathan Parry shared this information with me so I was able to understand the case, secondly, when I shared this with Rajendra Sail, he also said that he has a letter written in Ajay TG own hand as an application to the PUCL Chattisgarh about the entire incident. So this is it.

The most relevant part of Nandini Sundar's article reads:

"There were four of us, including an independent film-maker and a Gondi-speaking guide, who decided to investigate the impact of the Maoist election call. Apart from a couple of roadside polling agents and some BJP and Congress flags, there was nothing to suggest it was election day. As we turned off the main road in Dantewada, even the party flags disappeared. Of the three notified booths we passed, not one was open.

By late afternoon we reached a village school. The slogans scrawled in English read: Boycott elections. Voting gets you nowhere. As we stood there photographing the empty booth, youthful Maoists surrounded us. They told us to wait till the headman gave us permission to film. He never arrived and the youths grew increasingly threatening. Finally we were told to leave our camera behind for the squad to decide.

We decided it was pointless reporting the incident to the police. Surprisingly, a month or so later, the filmmaker got his camera back with an offer of money in case it was spoilt and a letter of apology from a Maoist spokesperson. The delay, the letter said, was because of the difficult conditions under which the Maoists operated."

The article is dated 7th June, 2006 and appears to have been in the public domain ever since. The elections to which the article refers were the Lok Sabha ones held in 2004.

The Four questions that come to my mind are:

1. The entire incident by the police is being presented as one where there were financial transactions between him and the Maoists?

Well Nandini's article makes it clear what the so called "transaction" was about.

2. The police have charged him under sections of 3, 4 and 8 (1) and (3) of the CPSA

That is, these events pre-dated the Chhattisgarh Public Security Act, the Act came in 2005 and this incident happened in 2004, it is clear that the organisation was not a banned one under this act then, so how can he be charged for an offence that relates to an action that was not an offence at the time it was done

3. The police is also making a hue and cry that they got a handwriting expert to prove that the writing was his:

Well, this is rubbish as Ajay TG owned up the letter himself on the 22nd of January in the presence of Sudha Bharadwaj and Bose Thomas, the two advocates so why this nonsense about a handwriting expert.

4. The police is also stating that they found the letter head on which the particular letter was written on his computer.

Well, as Convenor of CACL in Durg, he had designed the letter head on his computer, after all we all design our letter heads, so what is the big deal.

I think we all know now why Ajay TG is being fixed when there is no case at all.

The timing of the arrest of AJAY TG. Why now?

I have spoken to his wife and others with whom he has worked and am even more certain that the timing of this particular arrest is to simply impose their might over all of us and PUCL in particular, Since not a single witness of the six out of 88 who have deposed in Binayak's trial withstood cross examination and the police "case" is now showing cracks, it is evident that the police is now trying to cover up its loss of face. So they first demonised Ajay TG through the tool kit episode and then arrested him and have now started the whole cycle of attacking the person and PUCL.

The timing of the arrest has a sense of deja-vous. Last year too, six days before the big All India Sammelan that had been planned for the 30th of May in Raipur, against the arrest of Dr. Binayak Sen, they arrested Rajendra Sail, President of Chattisgarh PUCL so they could sabotage the programme. They have planned to do the same this time too. Since various programmes demanding the unconditional release of Dr. Bianyak Sen have been planned in Dalli Rajhara (11th May), Bagrunmala (12th May), Bilaspur ( 13th ) and the finale at Raipur on the 14th , they wish to destroy the morale of the people and prevent people from participating in these activities.

Ajay's Bail situation and the condition of his wife and child.

The bail application should come up on any date now as it was filed on the 5th of May itself . The procedure will mean having a motion hearing, calling for the file and then the arguments, then the order. This would mean minimum 10-15 days. In case the bail is rejected then the next step is the High court, since the Bilaspur High Court closes on the 9th, it will mean that the application will go in front of a vacation judge.

Ajay TG's wife Sudha and their 20 month old son Aman need a lot of support. She still regrets that she had sent him to buy provisions at 11 am on that ill fated day, when he did not return. It was only at 4.30 pm that a local policeman came and gave the sheet stating that he had been arrested under the draconian sections of CPSA.

She also feels utterly miserable that in 2004 when the incident happened, they lived with the fear that the Maoists would harm them as they thought that they were police informers. And now that in 2008 the police is making them Maoists associates, she is at a complete loss as to what to do. The sense of isolation is also tremendous and that needs to be responded to immediately. Since this law makes one "guilty by association", they have lost all their local friends. Nobody wants to come and meet them. She is living with her mother and sister and brother.

I think we need to go immediately and reassure her that she is not alone. .

As soon as the FIR will be in our hands we will send it to all of you.

Kavita Srivastava

DR. BINAYAK SEN'S PUCL COLLEAGUE JOINS HIM IN JAIL

"Main akela nahin hoon" [I am not alone], declared Binayak at possibly his first public appearance after his arrest, when he accompanied the police in a raid on his apartment in a fruitless search for incriminating evidence.

His statement has now taken a rather ironic meaning as he is joined by Ajay T G, a film maker and activist. Like Binayak, Ajay is, among other things, a member of the Chhattisgarh State Executive Committee of the PUCL.

So why has the state detained him under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act?

Ajay TG was one of those who attended Binayak's trial on April 30. But he was found carrying a sharp instrument - actually "a small multipurpose toolkit ... (less than 4 inches (about 10 cm) long which has a small cutting plier, small screwdrivers, a small scissor and a small knife)" - in his bag, which he often carried with him as an accessory to fix his filming equipment. The police showed it to a judge who declared it harmless. Ajay surrendered it to the police anyway. No case was registered, nor was he later questioned about it. Later the local media made a brouhaha about it - "another semi-legal naxal sympathizer up to some mischief at the trial of a fellow conspirator" was the attempted spin. The next morning, thanks to the inventiveness of the media, he read that he had been "arrested". Thus far on May 4.

On May 6, Kavita Srivastava, also of PUCL, reported that Ajay had been picked up the previous afternoon from his home in Bhilai under the CSPSA.

Rajendra Sail, President of the PUCL in Chhattisgarh, gives some background:

It may be recalled that the Chhattisgarh Police had searched the premises of Mr. Ajay T G and interrogated him in January 2008, after it had arrested some members of the CPI (Maoist), and confiscated Ajay's Computer and Filming equipments, which are yet to be returned to him. The police claims that during the search of one of the members of the CPI (Maoist), they have discovered a letter supposedly written by Ajay T G on his letter-head ( of voluntary organisation he is associated with) to one Mr. K R C Rao (alias Gudsa Usendy), spokesperson of the CPI (Maoist) in Chhattisgarh. After almost three months of investigation, the police claims that the hand-writing is that of Ajay T G, although it also claims that it has no evidence of his links with the CPI (Maoist). It is merely on the basis of this letter (which is yet to be proved), that he has been arrested under the draconian and anti-democratic law called The Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005.

Sail attributes the arrest to an attempt by the government to distract attention away from the increasing strictures on the Salwa Judum emanating from within the government.

Yet another blow that the State Government received for its active involvement in the Salwa Judum (claimed to be a campaign against naxalism) in Dantewara district of Chhattisgarh was through the disclosure made in the report submitted by the working group of the Planning Commission, headed by a well-respected former bureaucrat, Dr. D Bandopadhyay that Salwa-Judum was a violent and criminal campaign with the connivance of the State machinery, BJP and a section of the Congress (I) led by the leader of the Opposition in Vidhan Sabha, Sri Mahendra Karma (MLA of Congress-I). The Planning Commission has called for immediate suspension of Salwa Judum, and suggested the State/Central Government to take initiative for "peace talks".

Earlier, the Administrative Reforms Committee of the GOI, headed by Sri Veerappa Moily had stated that Salway Judum was not the solution but a highly controversial campaign. It clearly states that "Even though Salwa Judum is publicised as a spontaneous awakening of the masses against extremists, today thousands of tribals are being protected in fortified camps pointing to the disturbed life they are forced to lead."

The Supreme Court of India has already commented on Salwa Judum during the hearings of a PIL that the State can not arm civilians to kill. The NHRC has been asked by the SC to investigate the issues and concerns and submit a report within 8 weeks.

Disturbed by all these developments, the State Government is not resorting to desperate measures targeting the human rights organisations and activists. PUCL believes that this systematic repression by the State will continue in the coming months.

Here is a profile of Ajay T G.

Here is another more detailed one, courtesy of M N Natarajan on Chhattisgarh Net

Ajay was born in Kerala and grew up there in a large extended family of women and children presided over by one of his father's brothers. His father and the other brothers had left to find work elsewhere. One settled in Bhilai in 1959 where he began by selling tea and then started a 'dosa-idli hotel' at Powerhouse, one of the main market areas of Bhilai. He was followed at intervals by his other brothers. After several years in Sri Lanka, Ajay's father arrived in 1969 and subsequently began a small poultry farm, which was wound up in 1991.

Under pressure from his father, Ajay left formal education after tenth class and took a succession of jobs in the industrial belt around Bhilai, the longest lasting of them being that of Licensing Agent. During this time he was actively involved in the All India Youth Federation and became its District Secretary, District President and State Vice President. In 1993 he met Jonathan Parry, Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics, by chance in the waiting room of the Bhilai Steel Plant and shortly afterwards was employed by him as research assistant on a project concerned with industrialisation in the area. This led to a subsequent job as research assistant for a PhD student from University of Iowa, Balmurli Natrajan, who was working on craft industry in the
Durg-Bhilai belt. With both pieces of on-going he research he has remained closely associated ever since; and during the course of both he has been in charge of making an archive of still photographs. Several of his photos have been published with Jonathan Parry's work and some have been publicly exhibited in London.

The link with Professor Parry led to Ajay being consulted about a proposal for a media project known as Images in Social Change or Jandarshan which was successfully submitted for funding to the EU-India Economic Cross Cultural Programme. The project, managed by its European and Indian partner organisations, included a digital video training project based in Bhilai and supervised by the Indian partner, the Deshbandhu Newspaper. Ajay became co-ordinator of the training unit, a job he did while also enrolled in the diploma course as a student. At thirty-four he was much older than the other students and came with a range of experience. After obtaining his diploma, Ajay worked with the Raipur based Jandarshan for six months and then left to do further research for a book by Balmurli Natrajan and to develop and shoot a related film. (From http://www.fieldtofactory.lse.ac.uk/TraineeBiogs/AjayBiog.htm) He also acquired his own video equipment and began to make independent documentaries.

In September 2005 Ajay started an organization that is now registered since January 2006 as Drksakshi which is primarily designed to provide a dignified educational environment for young girls from extremely impoverished families who live in an urban slum in Bhilai, and which also provides a nutritious mid-day meal for 25 girls currently. Ajay has been the Director (very irregularly paid) of this organization which also works on generating a livelihood for the older students. Over a period of barely 2 years, Ajay has almost single handedly changed the complexion of this slum (approx. 150 households) by winning the trust of the residents who now are willing to send their girls to school regularly. By providing the nutritious meal and regular health check-ups, Ajay and his small team at Drksakshi have given back some dignity and positive vision to all the children.

Over recent years Ajay has also been actively involved in the PUCL movement and in The Campaign against Child Labour.

Recently, some people like Naresh Khubani (who was arrested for allegedly supplying uniforms to the naxalites arrested in January this year) were released. Reportedly, the state government does not wish to alienate the traders in the run up to the elections. (This is according to personal communications received from PUCL members and corroborated by others in Raipur.) Others like Ajay T G are suddenly arrested for allegedly being in communication with the very same naxalites.

Clearly some people are more important to lock away - and more urgently - than others, especially if they have been active in social welfare activities and/or in pointing out state abuses of human rights, or if they have international connections, as do both Binayak and Ajay. Apparently others get a pass if they belong to a politically well-connected trading community.

DR. BINAYAK SEN'S TRIAL ADJOURNED TILL JUNE 23

The trial in Raipur of Dr. Sen has been adjourned by the judge till June 23.

The reasons are not entirely clear, but apparently it's not going too well for the prosecution. The prosecution claims to have a list of 83, or 85 or 88 witnesses (depending on who is telling you), of which about half are policemen. All the witnesses that have appeared for the prosecution so far (i.e., since April 30) have collapsed under cross examination by the defence lawyers, or have turned hostile.

For instance, the manager of one of the hotels - the Geetanjali Hotel - was unable to identify Dr. Sen or his wife, although he was brought in as a prosecution witness. The manager of another hotel - the Mahendra Hotel - also failed to identify Dr. Sen, and unlike the other hotel manager, was declared hostile to the prosecution (I don't have the details of what he said). Apparently, if a witness is declared hostile, the evidence is disregarded for the trial, and cannot be used by the defence.

The translations from Bangla and English into Hindi were also demolished by the defence lawyers. For instance "comrade in arms" was translated as "hathiyaron se sahayog mein lage raho" (meaning "keep up the reliance on arms"). "Comrade" could conceivably be translated as "sahayogi", but to translate the phrase "comrade in arms" in this way suggests a deliberate intention to mislead.

At one point, the Public Prosecutor was reduced to joking that the PUCL must have paid hundreds of thousands of rupees to buy off the prosecution witnesses. (Was Binayak, who is the General Secretary of the Chhattisgarh unit of PUCL, laughing all the way back to jail?)

The judge is likely to feel pressure from both the government as well as from public opinion, and apparently wishes to avoid showing any bias towards any one side. So on the one hand he allows the defence objections to the prosecution's questions to be noted and settled at the time of the final arguments; while on the other, he allows public access to the trial without rescinding the earlier order to hold it in camera. He also ordered refreshments to be brought to the accused by their visitors.

Well, it's difficult to understand the pressures he must be under. But he could do worse.

Thanks to Kavita Srivastava for the details in the above account.

DR. BINAYAK SEN'S TRIAL BEGINS TODAY - AFTER NEARLY A YEAR IN CUSTODY

UPDATE OF MAY 1 2008: See this update on the first day of the trial from the Chhattisgarh branch of the People's Union of Civil Liberties of which Dr. Sen is an office bearer. Download pucl_trial_update_30.4.'08.pdf

Justice in India is notoriously slow - unless you happen to be a large company or a celebrity employing expensive lawyers.

Nearly a year after his arrest on May 14, 2007, Dr. Sen's trial began today in the face of mounting opposition to his continued incarceration, and increasing recognition of his life's work in promoting health with social justice. The trial will continue till May 3, after which, if necessary, the case will be adjourned till after the summer holidays. I understand the prosecution is bringing eighty-five witnesses to testify to his alleged membership of a terrorist organization to wage war on the state. Today, the court had time for only one of them. The defence lawyers reportedly demolished his testimony without much difficulty, showing it to be entirely concocted. Tomorrow there will be two witnesses. The day after two more, perhaps. And so it goes...for all eighty five of them. And we are supposed to be glad that our justice system works.

The court also initially restricted access by his supporters to the trial to allow only one. This flies in the face of the principle of a public trial recognized in all democracies. Eventually all were allowed in after a security inspection at which one visitor was discovered carrying a foldable knife. The local media were instructed by the authorities to make much play of this, and they duly complied. Was he an agent provocateur? It wouldn't surprise me if he was.

Dr. Sen was left waiting outside the court in the 50 degree Celsius heat (presumably under armed escort) for the two other accused to turn up. Eventually, after some prodding by Kavita Srivastava, the Inspector General of Police agreed to hasten their appearance.

Yesterday, Sahara TV aired a half-hour program on its national channel about Dr. Sen, his work and his imprisonment, locating these in the context of the social conditions in Chhattisgarh. But the democratically elected government in Raipur blocked access to the programming.

I leave it to the reader to judge whether these are only the latest in a long line of measures that indicate the Stalinist direction that the state has decided to adopt in its zeal to mislead the public about the growing crisis in the country.

It is mildly encouraging to note that the reliance of the state on draconian laws to silence those who could mediate in solutions to the conflict has drawn a gentle rebuke from the former Director of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW, the foreign intelligence agency in India) as well as even the current Chief Justice.

Meanwhile, my brother rots away in jail., even while the difference between the Chief Justice's position and his own on the need to stop Salwa Judum and state abuse of human rights appears to vanish. And even while a former Director of Intelligence suggests that locking up people like Dr. Sen is a mistake. There are those who argue that no matter how saintly my brother may be, the law must take its own course. I too see no alternative to this. But where I differ from them is that they will not admit the possibility that the state itself may have turned criminal in supporting the Salwa Judum, as the CJI himself suggested in his hearing of the PIL against the state of Chhattisgarh.