Pritam's Blog
Can Narendra Modi’s Association with Dhruv Saxena, Be Considered as an Act of Waging War against India
As the wheel-chair bound, 90 percent disabled Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba is convicted under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for waging war against the state, the hypocrisy of the Indian judicial system is revealed once again. Professor Saibaba, along with Hem Mishra, a JNU student and three others, has been sentenced to life imprisonment on grounds of having links with the Maoists and supporting their ideology. A sixth person, Vijay Tirke too was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
The question here is not whether or not the Maoist ideology, their demands and activities are justified. Understanding the Maoist issue, without experiencing the life and the socio-political and economic situations in the remotest areas of India where the Maoists are most active and are a powerful force running almost a parallel-government, is simply not possible. It is probably because of this complex nature of Maoism that there are multiple perspectives on the Maoist issue.
Political parties thrive on fear mongering, and this explains the security perspective on the Maoist issue, which considers Maoists as terrorists. This perspective, as Nandini Sundar once pointed out, is held by the Home Ministry. Although it was the Congress-led UPA government who had declared the Maoists as the greatest internal threat to India, similar perspective is now held by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as well. But does that mean holding other perspectives on the Maoist issue, which are a little less harsh than the security perspective, is a crime? Does sympathizing with the Maoist cause makes one a Maoist?
In an interview a week before the current verdict, Professor Saibaba had said that he might have agreements and differences with the Maoists but that doesn’t mean he is a Maoist himself. He is just an activist working against the Security Operations by the state in Bastar and other Maoist- affected areas. Professor Saibaba had been highly vocal against anti-insurgency operations in Chhattisgarh, like the Salwa Judum and Operation Green hunt. These operations had led to massive human rights violations of the adivasis, a fact well-established. Does questioning the policies and operations of the government equivalent to being a Maoist or having links to them?
The fact that the verdict was not given based on reliable evidences makes the position of the judiciary in a democracy more questionable. According to a report, 22 of the 23 witnesses presented before the court were policemen. It is also alleged that the other evidences presented before the court, like letters, memory cards containing so-called incriminating documents about the Maoists, and the likes do not establish any deep association of Professor Saibaba with the Maoists. Does it mean that the state of democracy in India has lowered to such a level that raising voice against violation of human rights is equated to waging war against the state? Does it mean the Indian state perpetuate violation of human rights?
And most importantly, if the court can hold someone guilty because of their mere association with a banned organization, which the prosecution couldn’t establish undisputedly, doesn’t it mean the Prime Minister should also be convicted for his association, direct or indirect, with the likes of Maya Kodnani and Amit Shah? For his link with the child-trafficking leaders in his party? Shouldn’t his association with Dhruv Saxena, the BJP worker arrested last month for being a part of the spy racket working for the ISI, also be considered as an act of waging war against India?