Author: Shashi Shekhar
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: January 3, 2011
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/307736/Left-sees-red-over-verdict-against-Sen.html
The Left's manufactured outrage over the conviction
of Maoists sympathiser Binayak Sen is neither a reflection of public sentiment
nor an enlightened quest for judicial reforms. This outrage is aimed at deflecting
attention from that uncomfortable and embarrassing question on where exactly
the line blurs between Leftist activism and Maoist terrorism
The life sentence given to Binayak Sen, a
known activist for Leftist causes, by a District Sessions Court in Chhattisgarh
has provoked a curious sense of outrage from certain sections in the media.
Even more curious has been the reaction from leading members of Ms Sonia Gandhi-led
National Advisory Council. The three-year saga over the legal case against
Binayak Sen stands out for the intense scrutiny it has received from national
and international activists of the Leftist persuasion. No judge presiding
over any criminal case in post-Independence India perhaps has been pressured
to this degree.
The certitude with which Leftist activists
and the media had pronounced a verdict in this trial well before the judge
got down to the issue, one in the court speaks of the extraordinary stress
the process and institutions of justice were put to in this case.
There has been a litany of signature campaigns,
inspired media events and even Internet sites dedicated to the single cause
of getting Binayak Sen released even before the courts are done with him.
To further this cause in support of Binayak Sen, a narrative has been floated
in the media highlighting the humanitarian work done by Binayak Sen while
at the same time throwing little light on the kind of politics he has been
associated with all his life.
An example of this carefully crafted narrative
in the media is a piece in Tehelka magazine titled, "The doctor, the
state and a sinister case" published on February 23, 2008. It is remarkable
that in this piece, Binayak Sen's association with the PUCL is underplayed
with just one reference buried deep inside the piece. A more significant omission
in that piece is the fact that Binayak Sen had issued a Press release in December
2005 on Narayan Sanyal's disappearance - a week before the actual arrest of
Narayan Sanyal took place in January 2006.
It would be a grave mistake to assume that
the media campaign in support of Binayak Sen is a reflection of universal
public outrage over his conviction. The merits of Binayak Sen's conviction
notwithstanding, it must be said that the people of India, by and large, have
faith in the judiciary. They believe that justice will ultimately be done,
as it was in the case of the December 13, 2001 attack on Parliament House,
even if it sometimes is delayed by decades on account of systemic backlogs.
It would also be a grave mistake to assume
that this is somehow about dealing with the myriad systemic problems that
justice delivery in India suffers from on account of archaic processes and
outdated laws. If this were really about judicial reforms, we would not just
be seeing episodic outrage over Binayak Sen's life sentence. Had it actually
been about judicial reforms, we would have seen sustained national campaigns
of the variety the Left has been running on issues like RTI, Right to Food
and Right to Work.
This episodic outrage is far from being about
judicial reforms. These very same Leftist-activists are complicit in judicial
activism that goes far beyond the constitutional division of powers between
the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. An example of such activism
is the continuance of Mr Harsh Mander and Mr NC Saxena as Special Commissioners
of the Supreme Court to monitor implementation of court orders on food security
even as they play a political role as advisers to the UPA Government through
Ms Gandhi-led NAC.
The manufactured outrage we are witnessing
in the op-ed columns of the English language media and in the 24x7 TV studios
is neither a reflection of public sentiment nor an enlightened quest for judicial
reforms. The concerted media campaign in support of Binayak Sen needs to be
seen in a different light.
There is a small but committed network of
individuals and groups that goes by the label of 'civil society' that has
worked actively to monopolise opinion-making and by extension policy-making
in New Delhi. This vocal minority has over the years come to coordinate its
efforts at various levels with a commitment towards a shared goal. That shared
goal, described in their own word,s is "interlinking for effective action
of various groups that are opposed to neo-liberalism and domination of the
world by capital". This vocal minority coordinated its efforts under
the banner of the World Social Forum during its fourth convention in Mumbai
held in January 2004.
All the three leading lights of Ms Gandhi-led
NAC - Mr Harsh Mander, Ms Aruna Roy and Mr Jean Dreze, who have been most
vocal on the Binayak Sen verdict, have been closely associated with these
'interlinking' efforts. It is an established fact that the three flagship
items on the UPA's social agenda - RTI, NREGA and food security - were the
result of coordinated national campaigns by the various Leftist groups that
came together during the WSF's 2004 Mumbai convention.
It must be noted that Binayak Sen and his
wife Ilina were an integral part of this committed network of groups and their
associated national campaigns. Binayak Sen and Ilina Sen are acknowledged
as key contributors along with other NAC members in a handbook on NREGA brought
out by the Right to Food Campaign network of groups. The ridiculous and extraneous
reference to ISI during the Binayak Sen trial notwithstanding, it must be
noted that the Jesuit-managed Indian Social Institute was also an active participant
in the 'interlinking' efforts at WSF. It must also be noted that the ISI's
sister Jesuit organisation, JESA, was behind a number of activist interventions
under the banner of the Indian People's Tribunal. These IPT-organised people's
courts have seen active participation from members of Ms Gandhi-led NAC on
a number of occasions.
The outrage from this vocal minority that
comprises NAC members and Leftist-Jesuit activists is understandable for one
of its key members has now been caught in that grey zone where activism blurred
into sympathies for Maoist terrorism. A fact under-reported by the Indian
media is that the Maoist official mouthpiece, the Maoist Information Bulletin,
had sympathetic references to Binayak Sen in almost every issue over the last
24 months. This outrage is aimed at deflecting attention from that uncomfortable
and embarrassing question on where exactly the line blurs between Leftist
activism and Maoist terrorism.
It would be a shame if the executive and the
judiciary were to buckle under pressure from this vocal minority to overturn
the lower court's verdict. Binayak Sen's fate must be decided in the higher
courts on the merits of the case against him. To borrow a commentator's quote
- we must not allow the "grammar of blackmail" from a vocal minority
to replace the "grammar of justice". This vocal minority does not
speak for the silent majority.
