Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières
Outraged rights activists protest Sen’s sentencing
SEVERAL human rights groups came together on Saturday to condemn the life sentence awarded to activist Binayak Sen on the charge of sedition.
They staged a protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi against the verdict passed by a Chhattisgarh court. Holding banners and shouting slogans against the “ injustice”, the activists demanded Sen’s immediate release.
“ This verdict is unjust. Just because he raised his voice against human rights violations by the government, he has been punished,” Satya Shivraman, who is associated with the Free Binayak Sen Campaign, said.
He said the sentencing was a shame on the government. “ Sedition is a colonial law and it should be repealed,” he added.
Shweta, a PhD student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, said Sen was a role model for her and many other students. “ It is disappointing and depressing for us. Through all these years, he has kept fighting for justice to poor tribals in Chhattisgarh.” Shalini, an activist of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, slammed the court verdict as a travesty of justice. “ The judgment is based on weak evidence,” she added.
Neha Bhatnagar of the Human Rights Law Network, said: “ It is the State’s way to demoralise and discourage civil rights groups working for the tribal people. We condemn such attempts by the State to influence the judiciary,” Neha added.
An upset Harsh Dhobal said the life imprisonment awarded to Sen raised a question mark on the justice delivery system in India.
“ A draconian law has been invoked against a human rights activist,” he said.
The activists said the charge of aiding the Maoists against Sen could not be proved by the prosecution. They demanded compensation for him and his family and an inquiry against those who “ framed” him.
By Kumar Vikram in New Delhi
Mail Today, 26 October 2010
Who is Dr Binayak Sen?
Dr Binayak Sen has been found guilty of waging war against India.
Dr Binayak Sen is a 58-year-old paediatrician and public health physician with a 25-year record of providing health care to the adivasi people of Chhattisgarh.
Binayak sen is a graduate of Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore. One of the top students of his batch, Binayak completed his post graduation in paediatrics in the early 1970s. For most of the years since then, he has devoted his life to health care in poor communities.
In 2004, he was conferred the college’s prestigious Paul Harrison award “in recognition of his outstanding contribution to society”, as stated on the citation presented with the award.
His contribution was not seen so much in his capacity as a physician, but (as the citation notes), for having “... redefined the possible role of the doctor in a broken and unjust society, holding the cause much more precious than personal safety”.
Though his work was in the voluntary sector, but he cooperated closely with the government , especially in conceptualizing and designing the Mitanin programme in Chhattisgarh that went on to provide the model for the ASHA of the National Rural Health Mission. He was a member of the State Advisory Committee on Health Sector Reforms during the Ajit Jogi government in Chhattisgarh.
Dr Sen was also closely involved with civil liberties and human rights work. He was first drawn to this area through his investigations into hunger deaths and the causes of malnutrition in Chhattisgarh, the “Rice Bowl of India.” He was General Secretary of the state unit of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and its National Vice President.
Binayak was among the first to draw public attention to widespread human rights violations in the wake of the Salwa Judum. An all-India team investigated and published a report on Salwa Judum in November 2005.
Although he was often critical of state policy, and particularly the execution of such policy, his engagement with the government was never abandoned.
The Times of India, Dec 24, 2010
Sad day for Indian democracy: Binayak Sen’s wife
RAIPUR: Reacting strongly to the conviction of Dr Binayak Sen for sedition and conspiracy by a Chhattisgarh court, his wife Elina Friday said she was sad for the “state of Indian democracy”.
“I am sad at the judgment. I am sad because my daughters and I and my husband will have to fight another long legal battle and I don’t how long will this be. But I am even more sad for the state of Indian democracy,” Elina Sen said after the verdict.
“I don’t agree with this judgment at all. One who has worked for the poor of the country for 30 years, if that person is found guilty of sedition activities and conspiracy, when gangsters and scamsters are walking free, I think it’s a scandalous situation,” Elina told reporters.
Elina’s strong comments came after District and Sessions Judge B.P. Varma found Dr Binayak Sen guilty of sedition and treason under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act.
Sen, a doctor, was arrested in 2007 from Bilaspur for alleged links with Maoist ideologue Narayan Sanyal but was released in May 2009 at the behest of the Supreme Court.
The Times of India
International Association of People’s Lawyers’s Statement on the conviction of Binayak Sen
The International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) condemn the conviction, in last December 24th, of Dr. Binayak Sen, and also Narayan Sanyal and Piyush Guha, to life imprisonment for the crimes of sedition and conspiration and under the draconian Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act, 2005 and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2004.
Binayak Sen is Vice President of the renowned Indian People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), and is a people’s doctor, who chose to exercise his profession among the poorest tribal people on India, suffering the hardest deprivement of social conditions and violated and displaced by joint action of mining corporations, the militia Salwa Judum and the State. He was accused after he went to serve medical assistance to the allegedly Maoist leader Narayan Sanyal in a Chhattisgarh jail. He was falsely charged as serving as a courier of letters between Sanyal and Guha, another allegedly Maoist.
In October 2007 IAPL conducted an International Fact Finding Mission in Chhattisgarh on state repression and the conditions of tribal peoples. The team tried to interview with Dr. Sen and was abruptely blocked by high jail authorities to go inside the prison. The report Chhattisgarh: an Indian State in conflict, said “A well known case brought to the attention of the Mission is the one of Dr. Binayak Sen, a socially-committed pediatrician and civil-rights activist, who is presently under detention for criticizing the state’s policies. The IAPL delegation attempted to visit Dr. Sen in jail to verify his condition and know whether his rights are being respected. The IAPL submitted a formal request to visit but was not allowed by the prison officials.”
After a strong international campaign for his release, and weekly protests in India, Dr. Sen was released on bail on May 25, 2009.
Therefore, IAPL Repudiates the judgment and conviction of Dr. Binayak Sen, Narayan Sanyal and Piyush Guha.
Condemn the Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act, 2005 and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2004, as laws that criminalize every democratic dissent and set a state of terror instead of a rule of law.
Defend the free exercise of medical profession and urge the health organizations worldwide to take action in solidarity to Dr. Binayak Sen.
Strongly repudiate the systematic violations of human rights such as harassments, illegal arrests, displacements and killings by the state by a terror militar action against the people called Operation Green Hunt.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE’S LAWYERS
Oudegracht 36, 3511 AP Utrecht
The Netherlands
Tel & Fax: +31‐30‐2145593
Email: iapl iapl.net
Website: http://www.iapl.net
City activists flay Sen’s conviction
The activist forum People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) demanded freedom of human right activist Binayak Sen who has been sentenced for life imprisonment by the sessions court at Raipur in Chhattisgarh. The activists also said that they will move the high court for freedom of their national secretary.
PUCL termed it as a conspiracy against the human right activist so that no one can raise a voice for the tribals and down trodden people of the community. “Today its Sen’s turn, tomorrow it could be anyone of us,” said Dinesh Shukla, a political analyst and member of PUCL. He demanded that the human rights commission and Lokayukt must be started in the state as early as possible.
Rajni Dave, another activist alleged that the industrial lobby is behind Sen’s troubles. He also said that none of the political parties are supporting the cause of human rights and they would have to fight their battle on their own.
The activists also were of the opinion that all is not rosy about industrial development of Gujarat and the state government is also demoralising activists working for tribals in the state. Ila Pathak of Ahmedabad Women’s Action Group (AWAG) stressed upon the need to sensitise farmers on the new land acquisition policy where in the government has offered market rates for agriculture land instead of jantri rates. “The state government must understand that pulses and vegetables will not come out of ATMs and must save land for growing food grains,” said Rohit Prajapati, an environmentalist.
“The state government claims that the ’Save Girl Child’ campaign improved the gender equity ratio. However, the figures revealed by the state government are based only on birth registration, which is not quite comparable with figures of 1991,” said Trupti Shah. The activists also threw light on other issues such as problems of unorganised workers, migrant workers, bonded labourers, manual scavengers and manhole workers.
Girish Patel said that there is an outright denial of the system of bonded labourers and manual scavenging, but the ground level facts are quite contrary and the government must work for the same.
Secretary of PUCL (Gujarat unit), Gautam Thakar, asked for creating awareness about human rights among citizens, especially the youth and students.
DNA, Ahmedabad, 27th December 2010
Binayak sentence travesty of justice – Editorial comment in Deccan Chronicle
It has to be a travesty of any notion of civilised justice that Dr Binayak Sen, who has spent three decades providing health care to the poor tribal communities of Chhattisgarh, should be sent to prison on any charge at all. In societies that respect dedicated service, and which seek to strive towards the idea of equity and fair play, someone like Dr Sen ought to be honoured with the highest distinction society can offer instead of being hounded by petty-fogging dispensers of formal justice who have obviously not heard of the philosophy that underpins law and justice.
Unlike most of us, Dr Sen gave up privileged circumstances — turning down top professional opportunities and honours worldwide after completing his education at one of the country’s most respected medical colleges to which admission is not easy — to work among the poorest of our people. He worked with the dedication of a missionary. He cared for the idea of human rights, took up the cause of custodial deaths, and thought about those who go hungry even when they work hard. Would a Gandhi not be troubled by issues such as these which go to the heart of democracy in any discourse on that subject? The poor naturally looked upon him as a saviour; for many in middle class India Dr Sen became an icon, an embodiment of an ideal some of them might have wished to follow but could not. Is there any wonder that 22 Nobel laureates appealed to the Indian government to allow Dr Sen to travel abroad in order to accept an honour in person?
The charge against Dr Sen is that he saw an apparent Naxalite ideologue (who was in jail) 33 times in 35 days, and that he took his letters to a Kolkata businessman. Even if the prosecution is to be believed, can this be evidence for any crime at all, let alone sedition? The judgment handed down not only shocks our conscience but will bewilder legal luminaries. The case of the defence was clearly found to have no merit at all: Dr Sen saw the imprisoned Maoist so many times because he was his doctor, and jail officials were present at all times. However, even if this was not the case, are there laws in this land that bar sympathy visits to prisoners other than by family? If so, why was Dr Sen permitted those visits? The state has to answer the question, not the defence. As this is being written on Christmas Day, it is apposite to recall that the Lord Jesus gave succour to a prostitute, a person whose way of life is considered a social crime till date. Frankly, no law — written or unwritten — can prevent members of the society from visiting prisoners, even if they are deservedly found guilty of the most heinous crime. To think of the ridiculousness of the whole thing, a charge against Dr Sen is that he read Mao and Marx’s Das Kapital. Especially in his generation, a university graduate would be considered illiterate if he had not attempted to read those abstruse — but also memorable — writings. While looking at the Sen case, we must look at something more basic. If we do not instigate violence, is it a crime to be a supporter of Mao or Marx or Golwalkar or Gandhi, although each of these has powerful intellectual or political foes? The answer would depend on whether we want to be a democracy or a sham democracy.
Deccan Chronicle, December 26th, 2010
Raj throwback – Editorial comment in Times of India
The life sentence imposed on globally acclaimed human rights activist Binayak Sen on the charge of sedition is easily the most scandalous abuse of a colonial remnant in independent India. Judging by the intensity of civil society’s outrage, the verdict by a trial court from Chhattisgarh might provide impetus for a fresh review of the arbitrary manner in which this provision continues to be invoked to gag dissenting voices.
This is the latest in a series of cases in which either the prosecution or the court appears to have missed the strict condition on which Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has survived the test of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that no sedition charge can be made unless the disaffection against the state spread by the accused was found to be a direct incitement to violence or armed rebellion. This meant that even if the prosecution’s version were accepted that he had couriered letters from a jailed Maoist leader to his associates, the trial court would have had to establish that Sen’s words or deeds were a direct incitement to violence or jeopardised public order. Without showing how any intent of violence could be attributed to a human rights activist with a lifetime service in rural healthcare, the trial court held him guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit sedition in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Such a cavalier approach reinforces the impression that the judiciary is allowing itself to be overrun by security arguments. Blaming the sins of the Maoists on Sen, the trial court awarded him the highest possible penalty of life sentence. Clearly, India could do without the shame of jailing a humanist for sedition while the hate-mongers responsible for the cataclysmic events of 1984 (Delhi massacre), 1992 (Ayodhya demolition) and 2002 (Gujarat riots) strut around as patriots.
Quite apart from the question whether Sen qualifies to be called a seditionist, the December 24 verdict deserves to be overturned for overlooking serious gaps in evidence. That the three incriminating letters allegedly carried by Sen had been recovered from co-accused Piyush Guha was by no means proved beyond doubt. The recovery story hinges entirely on the testimony of a cloth merchant who admitted to have been called by the police as a seizure witness when Guha was already in their custody. The trial court also overlooked discrepancies in the prosecution’s version of where Guha had been arrested. This miscarriage of justice cannot be ignored, especially due to its larger ramifications.
The Times of India 27 December 2010
Justice outraged – Editorial, in Deccan Herald
‘The evidence produced against Sen is unconvincing.’
The conviction of celebrated human rights activist Binayak Sen for treason by the Raipur sessions court on Friday has raised question about the country’s system of justice. Sen, along with two others, has been awarded a harsh life sentence for allegedly aiding and abetting Maoist activities. But the evidence produced against Sen is very unconvincing and there are strong reasons to believe that it was manufactured or doctored to implicate him in a false case. He has been hounded and persecuted by the police and the authorities in Chhattisgarh for long and has suffered much for his commitment to the welfare of poor tribals in the state. He was even denied the normal right of bail after he was arrested in 2006 and it was after spending nearly two years in jail that he won freedom at the intervention of the supreme court.
The prosecution charge that Sen acted as a conduit between a jailed Maoist leader and a businessman is weak because all the meetings between the two in jail were under the supervision of the authorities. The defence claim that evidence was planted to incriminate Sen seems to be correct in the light of production of letters and documents which were not recovered from his residence. The ridiculousness of the prosecution claim became clear in the court during the trial when it accused Sen of links with the Pakistani ISI on the basis of an e-mail message to an organisation with that acronym. It turned out the organisation was the Indian Social Institute (ISI) in Delhi.
There is no doubt that Sen did not get a fair trial and his conviction has tarnished the reputation of the country. He has become an international symbol of the struggle of the poor and marginalised people for their legitimate rights. The Amnesty International considers him a prisoner of conscience. A man who has been honoured with international awards for his work among the poor, and on whose behalf Nobel laureates have pleaded with the government, should not be treated the way he has been. The Chhattisgarh police and the trial judge who accepted its story uncritically have sent out a dire warning to all those who value and work for human rights. It is the disregard for the rights of the poor that has triggered the Maoist revolt. It is unfortunate that this truth is not recognised.
Deccan Herald, 27 December 2010 | Editorial
Muzzling Voices of Dissent – Kashmir Times Editorial
An innocent man, human rights activist Binayak Sen, may spend the rest of his life in prison because he dared to go against the stream and talk about the state’s oppressive policies in Maoist areas. Perhaps dissent doesn’t qualify to be democratic enough. That is why we suddenly see the liberal use of sedition charges being slapped on people who do not agree with the State, or have a different point of view. Laws like sedition and Official Secrets Act, remnants of an imperial past, have been used for years to muzzle any kind of criticism or opposition by powers that be. But such charges were never invoked as a matter of routine. If they were, it didn’t much appear in the limelight. The problem today is not just the ruthless state. It is also how discourse, in media or academic circles, is manipulated and monopolised. It is tailor made faithfully toeing the official line without a whimper, forbidding informed opinion from percolating down to the masses.
Speaking and talking freely today has become a crime not only because the political powers are consumed by their own ill-will and vendetta but also because media has become an easy tool in the hands of the state. This fourth pillar of the democracy willingly bends arguments to suit governments in power or anybody in an authoritative position. Media is excessively used to obfuscate truth with prejudices and unquestioned official versions, falsehoods as they may be. Even before the judicial trial takes place, media has nailed and convicted those suffering from the disease of speaking the truth. Sometimes, the judiciary also plays the loyalists of the mighty State.
Take the latest case of Binayak Sen, where the entire case seems to have been constructed on basis of the human rights activist’s visits to the jail as a physician to heal jailed Maoist leader Sanyal. All the letters forwarded as evidence have not even been reportedly signed by Binayak Sen. Yet, they become evidence. He and his wife are accused of ISI links, evidence of which has been forwarded in form of their e-mails, where ISI has been used an abbreviation of Indian Social Institute, a Delhi based research and advocacy organisation. And, yet all this has deemed as concrete evidence by the courts. Sedition charges in the recent past have also been slapped against Arundhati Roy and other activists alongwith Syed Ali Shah Geelani, questioning their right to speak. One may beg to disagree with Roy but does this country allow someone the right to speak freely, if he or she is not inciting violence, which seems to be basic premise on which the essence of law of sedition rests. In yet another case, a college professor in Kashmir has been charged of sedition for having set an exam paper asking students to debate whether a stone pelter is a hero or not. Though one may question the lack of sensibility and wisdom in setting a paper that exposes students in a Valley of distress and turmoil, where everything is looked upon with suspicion, and where free expression has already been brutally crushed with examples galore of facebookers being hounded, does the professor qualify for sedition charges? Should Binayak Sen have visited Sanyal in jail frequently or should Arundhati Roy have questioned accession or the Kashmir professor involved students in a debate on stone pelter are debatable questions and in any healthy democracy, they should have been debated and discussed, with everybody having the right to oppose or support these ideas. But do these acts under question qualify to be crimes? Speech crime! Thought crime!
Perhaps in this Orwellian nightmare of Big Brother watching over all thought crimes, we need Faiz Ahmed Faiz to be reborn and remind us:
Bol ki lab aazaad hain tere
Bol zabaan ab tak teri hai ……..
Bol ki sach zindaa hai ab tak.
Bol jo kuchh kahane hai kah le.
However, it is not sure if Faiz’s magical appeal on revolutionary minds can create the wonders it did not just in Pakistan, but the entire sub-continent few decades ago. His call for pursuit of truth had an appeal in a newly born Bangladesh, in Pakistan reeling under a series of dictators and in India while in the throes of Emergency. And the revolutionary minds didn’t look back, they marched on undeterred to question all curbs and speak of freedom, of truth and justice. But today when the world is monopolised in the hands of not just ruthless political powers but those backed by mighty corporate world, truth is not just crushed under jackboots and draconian laws. It is camouflaged by what Chomsky calls as ‘manufacturing consent’ through organs like media, judiciary and appropriated spaces of activism and intelligentsia.
Kashmir Times, 26 December 2010
Undo The Misdeed : PUDR Statement
People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Delhi (PUDR) strongly protests against the conviction order of the Sessions Court at Raipur sentencing Dr. Binayak Sen, Piyush Guha and Narayan Sanyal to life imprisonment.
The reason for the institution of this case by the Chhattisgarh police was to prevent the growing opposition to the government policy of creating and arming of the Salwa Judum, an opposition that the PUCL, Chhattisgarh was leading. The PUCL and its General Secretary, Dr. Binayak Sen organised fact-finding missions and brought to light the untold misery being caused to the tribal people by the Salwa Judum mobs through hitherto unrecorded murders, rapes, arson and looting that led to the total evacuation of around 700 villages. Such efforts were not to be taken kindly by the police and civil administration and Dr. Sen had been threatened that he would be booked. Being the conscientious civil liberties activist, Dr. Sen continued in his work unmindful of the threats. That such were the designs of the Chhattisgarh government is made amply clear through the demolition of the Vanvasi Chetna Ashram and hounding of the noted Gandhian, Himanshu Kumar, till he was forced to flee.
The charge made out by the prosecution against Dr. Binayak Sen was that he was responsible for passing letters from Narayan Sanyal lodged in jail to Piyush Guha. During the trial, not a single witness testified to this. The charge was wholly demolished. Hence a number of additional flimsy charges were made against Dr. Sen. These include receiving a letter from Narayan Sanyal duly stamped by jail authorities, visiting Narayan Sanyal in jail to assist in his medical treatment, receiving a letter from another jail inmate regarding appalling conditions of jail inmates, helping to organise a fact-finding in Nagpur into the attacks on dalits at Khairlanji, among others. While each of these is a legitimate activity taken up by every civil rights organisation in the country, a sinister colour was sought to be given to it by the prosecution. All of these charges were found utterly baseless during the course of the trial.
Lies were resorted to at various levels. First of these concerns the arrest. Piyush Guha’s arrest was shown many days after he had been arrested. His return ticket to Kolkata and the reservation chart with the Indian Railways shows this amply. Thus he was already in police custody and had been tortured for many days before he was shown to have been arrested with the letters ostensibly given to him by Dr. Sen. Lies were submitted on record by the prosecution to the highest courts in the case of Dr. Sen’s arrest. Dr. Sen was in Kolkata when the Chhattisgarh police started making insinuating statements against him. Dr. Sen publicly criticized these statements and proceeded to Bilaspur and went straight to the police to confront them. He was told that he was under arrest at the police station. Police has however stated that Dr. Sen was nabbed by the police, implying that he was evading arrest. The courts consistently failed to see through this web of lies and Dr. Sen was denied bail for two whole years.
Most recently, during the final stages of the trial, a letter was brought before the court and was attributed to having been seized from Dr. Sen’s house. All articles seized from his house were signed by him at the time of the seizure. This one did not bear his signature, but the judge allowed it to be taken on record. During the final arguments, he was sought to be linked through emails to the Pakistan ISI by the prosecution, a charge that turned out to be comic since the ISI turned out to be the Indian Social Institute at Delhi. The judge did not deem it fit to even chastise such glaring mal-prosecution.
Far from being rejected by the court and the prosecution reprimanded, the huge number of such blatantly false accusations have finally paid off for the prosecution. This has been made possible by charges being made under the UAPA, the CSPSA and the provision relating to sedition in the IPC. All of these laws define politics as a crime. And in doing so, these laws enable the state to choose and target the politics, the organisation and the individual and to hit them with legislated violence. It is for this reason that human rights organisations across the globe have opposed such laws.
In another case Asit Sengupta, editor and publisher of a communist magazine, A World to Win was convicted for his work and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. His conviction is also based on charges under the CSPSA and UAPA, based solely on possession of literature of banned organisation. This conviction is a direct attack on the freedom of the press and the freedom to inform our self and read literature.
PUDR strongly protests against the verdict of the Sessions Court at Raipur. We demand that the judiciary take suo moto notice of this grave miscarriage of justice and take measures to undo the misdeed that this verdict involves. PUDR also demands that governments stop taking recourse the use of sedition and special laws for silencing dissent and criminalising human rights activity to cover up their own crimes.
PUDR calls upon all people who stand by democracy, rule of law and political freedoms to join the protest at Jantar Mantar on Monday, 27 December 2010 at 2 p.m.
Harish Dhawan
Paramjeet Singh
Secretaries
Twitter
Facebook