Mr. S S Digga, the jail superintendent of Raipur Central Jail where Binayak is lodged, has responded to the alarm our family has raised over his refusal to have Binayak treated at Vellore. (The decision of the court on this question is awaited today.)
He denied that Sen had been asked to take treatment at the medical college hospital. “If Apollo Hospital cannot provide treatment then we can send him out,” he said, adding that there were no differences between the court and jail authorities on the matter. Asked whether this stand-off between the state and the prisoner would put Sen’s life in danger, Digga said the court’s direction would be implemented.
Let me pose a few questions that it was probably not seemly for Sreelatha Menon to pose to Mr. Digga.
Having already shown some initiative and resourcefulness in frightening Binayak's cardiologist into making a recommendation that the court did not ask for - that Binayak could also be treated locally - what is to assure Binayak's friends and family that similar pressure to stage a medical "accident" will not be applied to Binayak's surgeons at whatever private hospital the police have him admitted?
Having already created a formidable reputation for lying, creating false witnesses and fake evidence, and killing suspects through staged "encounters", can the police in Chhattisgarh now expect a doctor to trust them with his life under the dangerous conditions of a complicated surgical procedure?
The basic question here is of trust. Mr. Digga's stance of fake reasonableness ("If Apollo Hospital cannot provide treatment then we can send him out") assumes a certain trust in the police's integrity and their capacity and willingness to protect Binayak's life that we simply cannot have.
The police might reply - reasonably, of course - that they cannot be held liable for surgical error or accident, and that even if he goes to Vellore, the same risks exist. They might add that if it really was their intention to harm Binayak, they could have done so earlier, and can do so at any time. (As if being jailed for imagined crimes is not harm enough!)
Yes, it is true that Binayak is not being tortured physically in jail (although torture in police custody is routinely practised in India). But the police are not supposed to torture prisoners in custody anyway. But if they have not harmed him by torturing him, they have subjected him to intense psychological pressure through unwarranted periods of solitary confinement, and by neglecting his health. Now they are endangering his life by denying him urgent treatment for a life-threatening condition at a hospital and by doctors he can trust - a right to which he is entitled by law and by precedence.
Look at this latest attempt at obstructing Binayak's treatment in the context of everything else that the police have done: concocted charges and evidence, brought false witnesses at the trial, intimidated Binayak's family, manipulated the media into broadcasting their lies about Binayak being a terrorist. And now are we supposed to believe that they have Binayak's best interests at heart? Would it not be more reasonable to assume that they wish him dead, preferably under circumstances that provide instant and plausible deniability for their complicity, if there is any?
Here is a little parable. Make of it what you wish.
A well known thug terrorizes a town with his arbitrary violence and killing. While no one dares leave home for fear of being attacked and robbed, he offers the people of the town free transportation to the bank, so they can draw money to meet their daily expenses. No one takes up the offer, so the thug tries to persuade the townspeople by reassurıng them that they are free to walk about. He also boasts that no one has run away from the town, and that he could have killed or tortured them at any time, but did not. He promises that if any one is killed going to the bank under his protection, he would make other arrangements to ease the hardship of the townsfolk. The town dwellers refuse to trust the thug with their lives and money, and prefer to stay at home.
Comments