Bogus Outrage over Dr Binayak Sen

Human Rights activists are aghast that the good Dr Binayak Sen has finally been done in by an oppressive state, keen on eliminating voices which speak for the marginalized. Quite poignant was Dr Sen’s query to the trial court judge – “What is Section 124A?” indicating once and for all that the poor man is completely above even the remotest act of scheming, leave aside something as momentous as sedition. 

Unfortunately for the left-liberal cabal and despite their sustained brainwashing efforts, capacity to reason still exists in Indians and a plain analysis of Dr Sen’s ‘innocence’ will indicate that there is much more to what they would like us to know and believe. After all, Dr Sen’s trial had been on for months on precisely the grounds on which he has been convicted. Even before that, he had become a cause célèbre for activists of all hues following his long detention without trial and he had the benefit of professional activists running to him with all support they could muster. Further, he himself does not deny association with Maoists and had held numerous meetings with Maoist leaders over the years. And not unimportantly, he himself is a doctor, a professor at CMC Vellore, and by logical extension, a person of above average intelligence. Lastly, he was present for most of the hearings. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, even when impossibly believed that the police never gave him/his lawyers a copy of the charge-sheet, can it be believed that he was being genuinely curious when he posed his now famous words.

One wonders if Dr Sen’s question was a mockery of the Indian Law or a more pedestrian attempt to play to the gallery. It is not without reason that these champions of all causes have respect for law only when it suits them. The moment laws become inconvenient or worse, a fellow traveler is convicted, rise shrill cries of unfairness. However, while cries of unfairness can still be termed innocuous; what becomes dangerous is the underlying logic of their defense. ‘We don’t recognize the law or the authority which had made this law. So where is the question of our breaking the law?’ Such logic and shamelessness, cloaked in sophistry makes one wonder if India or in fact, the civilized world would not be a better place if such professional activists are packed off to totalitarian societies, where they can fight to their hearts and lives content!

It has been numerously alleged that Dr Sen is a victim of state vendetta, a noble soul who has devoted his life for the benefit of the impoverished locals. Statement of support from Noam Chomsky and 22 sundry Noble prize winners are routinely trotted out in support of this contention. Let us for a moment pause and visit Dr Sen’s supposed Schweitzer like achievements. While Dr Sen has won awards, he was a relatively unknown name even within Chhattisgarh, till he won notoriety. In fact, unlike other Social Workers, who work and win recognition within their native space, before becoming international figures, curiously, in Dr Sen’s case, external bodies seem to be more enlightened on his social service when compared to Indian bodies, except those with which he was associated, i.e., his alma mater CMC, Vellore, and the Indian Academy of Social Sciences. While one cannot deny the fact that he had traded off a probably lucrative career in comforts of a city to a probably difficult and uncertain life in the hinterland, what exactly has he done that would deserve so much of attention to his supposed humanitarian activities? Regarding state vendetta, what exactly does the state need to be vengeful about? Granted that it is so helpless that it cannot apprehend and punish those who openly preach secession and anarchy, but isn’t it stretching credulity to the extremes to believe that it has focused all its energies in getting one person convicted for the crimes of all others? 

Some of the more ‘noble’ ‘intellectuals’ are proclaiming that Dr Sen was punished for helping the poor? Is it so? Honestly, while people have been punished for speaking out for the downtrodden, none seem to have ever been punished plainly for ‘helping the poor’. And we are talking of an era like no other time in Indian history. Social Activists are ruling the roost and are a rule to themselves, serving as super constitutional authorities, i.e., Jean Dreze, Harsh Mander, Teesta Setalvad among others. How can then a fellow traveler suffer on account of the State, of all? And if at all, Dr Sen’s social work was limited to providing medical facilities to the poor, how exactly did he get mired in Maoist activities? Certainly, tending the poor does not involve meeting Maoist ideologues and issuing statements denouncing Salwa Judum.

It is quite ironic that while Indresh of the RSS is sought to be implicated as a terrorist based on one supposed meetings with other bombing accused, that too years back, clear evidence of Dr Sen’s deep involvement with the Maoist ‘struggle’ is haughtily dismissed as mere social service.

It would do good to us to remember a few points regarding his case;

• The Kolkata based Maoist Piyush Guha has accepted that he was ferrying money, messages and letters for Sanyal. Interrogation of another Maoist, Bikash Bhattacharya, in Bihar has corroborated Guha’s testimony
• Sen had arranged for Sanyal’s rented accommodation, vouching for his ‘credentials’ to three landlords, and helped him open a bank account.
• A letter from Maoists thanking him for his support was found in Sen’s residence
• What made Dr Sen meet Naxalite Narendra Sanyal some 30 times over a period of one month?

Much has been made of the jail wardens turning hostile. That itself is testimony to the Maoist menace. If the tale of state oppression were indeed true, Jail wardens, being Government Servants had the maximum to lose by turning their back on the State itself. But we must not forget that these jail officials work in trying conditions, cut off from civilization and most of the time, at mercy of the Naxalites. Dr Sen could have been more roundly convicted if they hadn’t turned hostile. But could the state have guaranteed security of life and property against the Maoists to these hapless officials? Hence, if the officials have indeed turned hostile, isn’t it more likely that they have done so out of fear of the Maoists rather than a love for Dr Sen?

Most importantly, Dr Sen has the path to appeals open to him. No-one stops him from appealing the verdict in higher courts. Why then the shrill voices asking for his release? Is it simply because of the fact that he is a fellow traveler of the Left-Liberal cabal that he is above the law? Why should not the laws applicable to other Indians applied on him? If we appreciate the anguished howls of these activists regarding Dr Sen, what right do we have to question the acts of parents of Manu Sharma and Vikas Yadav? They too wanted to save their near and dear ones and likewise believed that their progeny were being ‘fixed’ by a blood-thirsty media. Let us save our society from this loony fringe which seems to believe that crimes of any sort are fine provided they are committed by those who are deemed ‘ideologically correct’.

While it can be argued if the quantum of Dr Sen’s crimes did indeed deserve life imprisonment, the fact the corrupt go scot free or bigger criminals roam around unpunished cannot be a valid excuse to his release. If it were so, let the country disband its criminal law and its enforcement agency; let us all sit on morchas till all the ‘big fish’ come and atone for their sins. After all, the crime of a petty murderer, a thief and a roadside ruffian does pale in comparison to the crimes being committed by the powerful; or don’t they?

Facts or Faith?

This note has been late in coming, so late that the ‘news/issue’ is very much on the backburner after having held the Nation’s attention and breath for a few tense days. 

The historic verdict on Ayodhya was unexpected to state the least. What was not unexpected was the frothing, vitriolic reaction of the ‘progressive-liberal’ media which could not digest the court judgment, particularly its unanimous decision to handover the precise spot housing Ram Lalla idols to Ram Lalla Virajman. This judgment proves that adage like nothing else does, judgment must not only be done, it should also be seen to have been done. Had there not been a Muslim among the Honorable justices, all of them, and not only Justice Sharma, would have been tarred by the brush of being RSS sympathizers by our ELM.

A few of you may have received ‘rogue’ emails detailing foreign holdings in Indian Media Houses insinuating that the ‘anti-Hindu’ bias in our English Language Media and from the last few years, in the Indian Languages Media, flows on account of their financing and ownership lying with shady evangelical and Wahabbi organizations abroad. Since this mail does not provide and source or date for this information and I myself am not aware if such detailed information is publicly available, I, alongwith a vast majority of my countrymen would rather ignore such mails. 

However, this denial in no way negates my belief in the presence of ideologically committed warriors in influential positions in Media Houses who have ensured that the prime focus of media has shifted from broadcasting news to peddling views. In a general sense, while our citizens would be discomfited by the shenanigans of a vixen like news editor causing death of our securitymen in siege like conditions through her relentless information sharing diatribe, most would prefer to excuse such acts as the impact of high adrenalin in tense situations. Hence, for the discerning, chatterati reaction to the Ayodhya verdict might have come as an eye-opener on the ‘not-so-hidden’ agenda of these warriors.

Till the very moment of the judgment being made public, almost everyone in the ELM and quite a large section of the Hindutva warriors themselves, were quite convinced that the court could rule in no way other than handing over the site to Muslims. So, in addition to sermons on the necessity of maintaining peace, honoring the court judgment and unconcealed glee on the very visible prospect of a severe setback to the knickerwallahs, the news anchors kept on harking on how the blacker than black hole stain of December 06, 1992 needs to be erased. However, as minutes passed, we could soon hear the exuberant words of Ravi Shankar Prasad narrating the crux of the court’s proclamation and as the enormity of the court’s ‘sacrilege’ sank in, our progressive-liberals reactions morphed from smugness to disbelief to anger and finally vitriol.

Gone was the talk of the need to maintain decorum or to honor the court’s judgment. How could the court, decide in favor of Hindus? Wasn’t the court condoning the acts of December 06 through this judgment? A breast beating Shabnam Hashmi gave us a further glimpse of her bigoted mindset when she proclaimed that the second class status of Muslims, had been affirmed by the court. It would have been funny, had it not been so pathetic, to see columns of ill-informed opinions castigating the Court for giving its judgment on basis of ‘faith’ and not ‘facts’. Very surprising considering the fact that the court judgment was over 10,000 pages in length and even the best speed-readers would have taken at least a couple of days to simply have gone through the report. How then, could these news-anchors and columnists, ignorant of law and nuances of legalspeak, be out with their denunciations the next day itself? When the judgment itself wasn’t read, how could those ignoramuses decide that the basis of judgment itself was incorrect?

An aside of this is the usual progressive-liberal defense of obscene art or defamatory, insulting literature. “Have you even read/seen it?” they sneer, confronting protestors hurt by attacks on their temples and Gods. Only, these very people forgot to read the judgment before being up in arms when their sentiments and beliefs were hurt. Huh!

An almost universal target of condemnation has been the court’s recognition of Ram Lalla as a juristic person. Eminences such as Dileep Padgaonkar condemned this as a ‘sleight of law’ and darkly insinuated that Hinduism has been insulted by the Court’s act of equating God to a mere mortal. Of course, since Dileep is only a journalist, he cannot be expected to know law in toto. At the same time, as a journalist, he is expected to research before peddling his views. Not only have Indian Laws, the Contract Act included, recognized deities as juristic persons, they have been defined as minors in perpetuity, i.e., their affairs would be handled by their guardian. Mr Padgaonkar and his ilk would do good to know that grants by kings, gentry and the common man were made in the name of the Lord and in any dispute before courts, the primary deity of the temple would be a party to the dispute. So, what was so new in the Court making Ram Lalla a party to the dispute? On the insult to Hinduism, had Mr Padgaonkar been a little aware of our culture, he would have known that the entire edifice of Bhakti has been built on the Lord being a friend, a lover, a father, a mother, a companion of all times and one who feels joy, pain, anger and indifference like any other human being. But this is really asking for too much, isn’t it? Expecting our know-it-all journalists to be aware of their Indian roots?

On a more serious note, the court was to adjudicate on three questions primarily: whether there existed a temple at the spot of the demolished structure; who owns the land and did the idols of Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman exist inside the mosque, or were the idols placed inside on 22 December, 1949?

Now, how could the court have decided otherwise on at least two of these issues? Namely, the pre-existence of a temple and the presence of idols in the structure. Except for the committed warrior band of ‘eminent historians’, no sane person could dispute the Himalayan evidence supporting existence of a temple before the mosque was constructed. How could an adjudicating authority ignore facts and go with the deep-rooted faith of these eminences that the mosque was constructed on an unused piece of land? Likewise, all the judges concurred that the idols were placed in the structure on the intervening night of December 22, 1949. What is there which can be disputed in this matter? Regarding another issue of whether the structure that existed was a mosque and whether it was constructed by Babur, the judges had different views and presented reasons on why they decided so. On the more critical aspect of ownership, before jumping to conclusions, let us review the salient facts of the issue:

• The party representing Muslims, AIBMAC, did not have any sort of possession of the mosque at any time
•  The premier Muslim body in Indian, Muslim Personal Law Board was not a party to the dispute at any time
• The Sunni Waqf board did not contest dispossession of the structure till 1961
• No Muslim body demanded that the idols be removed after they had been placed in 1949
• Hindu Mahasabha did not have possession of the land at any time
• Nirmohi Akhada contended that they were the traditional keepers of the temple, but could not prove ownership
• Retd Justice Deoki Nandan Agrawal filed suit seeking representation as the friend of Ram Lalla Virajman

Now, except for some records (supposedly incomplete) from the medieval ages which indicate grants and collections in the name of Ram Lalla, there is no documentary evidence of any of the party having possession of the land at any time. The litigant whose claim seems closest to being the most valid is of Ram Lalla himself, as he was and is the deity in possession and the fact of his dispossession being barred by limitation was negated by his being a perpetual minor. Hence, more than 400 years after the demolition of His temple, his claim to property was renewed the moment he was placed under the domes of the structure in question. What could the courts have done? Handed over the land to Muslims in negation of these facts, just to ensure that ‘faith’ of the ostensible champions of minorities was maintained?

What should be questioned is the decision of the courts to partition the property? The court seems to have depended on actual usage to decide tripartite ownership while one can argue that if both the existence of a temple and Ram Lalla’s claim has been upheld by the court, how can a part of the property be given to other parties?

It is probably here that the court’s desire to appear fair finally made it over-ride harsh facts of the case!

Finally, the Hindutva organizations have not exactly covered themselves with glory with their conduct before the verdict was announced. While there certainly cannot be any doubt towards the strength of their ardor with regards to the cause of Ram Janmabhoomi, the apologetic tone, the apprehensions regarding the court verdict and the bravado, betrayed that leading lights of the greatest mass movement in Indian history post independence were swayed more by rhetoric and had probably nurtured guilt in their hearts, quite a lot, which they seem to have felt as getting washed away by the court judgment.

Are We All Biharis Now?

Lest I be taken for a sourpuss, let me congratulate the JDU-BJP alliance on its spectacular victory in Bihar Assembly polls. Greater congratulations still, for the populace of Bihar, which rewarded performance over rhetoric and rejected those who promised a journey to the ‘olden days’.

Certainly, 206 out of 243 is an overwhelming mandate, beaten only by Congress (I)’s 404 out of 514 in 1984 and the SSP/SDF’s 32/32 in Sikkim, over many elections. There is yet again no doubt that the Bihar elections revolved, at least for the ELM, around one person, Nitish Kumar and with his re-victory, he is now seen as a potential Prime Ministerial candidate of the NDA in 2014. While it can be argued that the BJP’s gains in these elections have been more spectacular, i.e., a gain of 36 over the 55 seats it held previously, the ELM has been reluctant to credit the BJP for this gain and insist that this is a rub-off effect of Nitish’s glory. It, however, does not explain on why the Sun, i.e., (Nitish and JDU) have shone less brightly than the moon (the BJP in this case)

However, moving ahead of the self congratulatory posturing of the victors, it will do good to all of us to analyze and accept that while by no means ambiguous, the Nitish/NDA victory in these elections owes much to the vagaries of our ‘First past the post’ electoral system rather than any profound change in the political preferences of the voting public. Let us run through a few figures here:

·    General Elections 1984 (63.56% polling); Congress (I) 404 of 514 seats with a vote share of 49.1%

·    Assembly Polls Bihar 2000 (62.57% polling); BJP+Samata Party+JDU - 122 of 324 seats with a Vote share of 29.76%. RJD 124 seats with 28.24% vote share.

·    General Elections 2004 (Bihar only) 58.02% polling; NDA – 11 seats with 36.13% of votes; RJD+LJP – 29 seats with 46.68% of votes

·    Assembly Polls Bihar 2005 (46.50% polling); BJP + JDU – 25.52%; No of seats – 92; RJD – 25.07% & 75 seats while LJP + Congress (I) 17.62% and 39 seats

·    Assembly Re Polls Bihar 2005 (45.85% polling); BJP + JDU – 143 seats with 36.11% vote share. RJD+Congress+NCP 64 seats with 30.33% vote share

·    Assembly polls West Bengal 2006 (81.97% polling) - Left Front 227 out of 294 seats with 49.47% vote share. Congress – 21 seats with 14.71% vote share and the TMC 30 seats with 26.64% vote share

·    General Elections 2009 (Bihar only) NDA – 32 seats with 36.13% of votes; RJD+LJP – 4 seats with 28.03% of votes

·   Assembly Polls Bihar 2010 (52% polling), NDA – 206 seats with 39.07% of votes, RJD+LJP – 25 seats with 25.59% of votes

Thus, we see that the NDA, with only a 3.14% increase in vote share registered an increase of 63 seats.  It underlines that while the magnitude of NDA’s victory is amazing, the same is not backed by voting preferences of the public. For that matter, BJP’s victories in Gujarat have been on a vote share of around 50% but the number of seats won has hovered around 2/3rds. The Left Front victory in Bengal (2006) was on similar lines, around 3/4^th of seats backed by around 50% of popular vote. 

This is not the first time that we have noticed the vagaries of our existing electoral system. The BJP won around 34% of votes in the 1993 Uttar Pradesh polls, as compared to around 28% share of the SP-BSP combine but both ended with 177 seats each. More recently, in 2009 General Elections, the Congress gained around 2.5% vote share but that gain got translated in 63 additional Lok Sabha seats. It is a sense of déjà vu when we find the ELM getting breathless commending Nitish’s victory today. The same scenes and statements got bandied around when the UPA won in 2009 – Defeat of communalism, rejection of divisive politics, vote for development, so on and so forth.

While getting carried away in our self-exaltations comes naturally to us Indians, NDA in general and Nitish in particular, will do good to acknowledge a few points.

·    The Bihar vote is certainly a vote for development but more importantly, it is a sign of growing disenchantment with the RJD-LJP combine which experienced a significant decline of around 8%-10% of votes, even when accounting for the fact that these parties fought the last polls separately. In a way, while being a positive vote for NDA, it is a stronger repudiation of the RJD-LJP combine

·    That said, they still command loyalty of a quarter of voting population, and as West Bengal has shown, a down politician is not an out politician. It may take only a small event but before one knows, the NDA might be staring at serious opposition again

·    In spite of the many positives of the Nitish-Modi government and real fears of the state going back to the RJD, there wasn’t any strong wave of people coming out and voting for the NDA to reward it, a phenomenon which contrasts badly with 2000, when scared of an NDA victory, the Muslim and Yadav communities voted in droves and shored up the polling percentage. Hence, while Nitish may be appreciated, it is not necessary that he would be aptly supported by people in face of a determined opposition

·   Let not the BJP gloat over its ‘better strike rate’. Much of this victory, more pronouncedly in the Seemanchal region, owes to the absence of tactical voting by Muslims, who while not voting for the BJP, did not vote tactically to defeat its candidates. BJP’s base remained where it was and unlike in Orissa, where it managed to retain its base even after BJD’s termination of their alliance, it remains to be seen if it can display that much tenacity when Nitish does a Naveen

·    The NDA stands further weakened as the stake of JDU in continuing with an alliance with the BJP has vanished now. If the JDU remains in the NDA, it will have more to do with the search for relevance for leaders like Sharad Yadav and the rump of George Fernandes’s followers, rather than Nitish’s need for the BJP

·   While the ELM has all along been advising the BJP to completely break off from Hindutva and points to Bihar as a symbol of India fed up with identity politics, it fails to mention that Hindutva has been conspicuous by its absence in BJP campaigns right from 1995 though with a notable exception of Gujarat 2002 polls. Without any defining identity or program, the BJP is reduced to merely an electoral machine of diminishing capability and it will be reduced to a Regional party, somewhat larger than Jana Sangh in its hey-days

·   Most importantly, both the BJP and the JDU have not jettisoned caste. Not only has Nitish managed to create a solid support base among non Yadav OBCs and non Pasi Dalits, his championing of minority causes has seen the so called Pasmanda Muslims swearing by him. Likewise, the BJP has silently but resolutely courted the Upper Caste and landed gentry in Bihar. Other than caste, while Nitish has very certainly managed to make Bihar a much safer place to be in, his courting of Anand Mohan Singh (who ultimately supported Congress), Taslimuddin and the presence of numerous history-sheeters in the winners' list of both the JDU and the BJP give credence to the fact that the pragmatic Nitish realises that it will be many more years, if and if indeed, voters jettison caste and other parochial considerations.

Yet again, the purpose of this write-up was not to belittle the NDA's victory in Bihar. The victory is heartening and does indicate that the voters are turning their back on those whose only contribution is to act as promoters/spokespersons of a particular community. After all, the same voter did repose faith time and again in the Laloo brand of politics even as he saw Bihar descending into an abyss. Fortunately, the winners seem to have their feet more firmly on ground as compared to the ELM which seems to be reading a little too much in the victor's win.