<p>May 14, 2009 marked the second anniversary of the detention of Dr Binayak Sen by the state of Chhattisgarh and his incarceration in the Raipur central jail since then. Sen, who has been recognised the world over for his dedication and commitment to the health, nutrition, medical care and human rights of the adivasi people, has been arrested by the state government as a “threat to national security” as a result of his alleged support to the naxal movement. <br /><br />An alumnus of the Christian Medical College, Vellore and winner of several international awards for community health, Sen has been working with adivasi health issues for over two decades and moved to the Chhattisgarh region in 1981. As a part of this work, he discovered how 1,200 villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts have been caught in this crossfire between the Maoists and the state sponsored Salwa Judum forcing almost half the villages to abandon their homes and live in miserable camps. <br /><br />Excluded from health care<br /><br />Ever since, he has been expressing his concern that whole villages are excluded from government health care, some burnt, others destroyed in this process. He has also been repeatedly faced with killings of adivasis for being “supporters” of the Naxalites, when they displayed reluctance to cooperate with the Salwa Judum. <br /><br />The People’s Union for Civil Liberties, under the leadership of Sen, took up the difficult and complex task of looking into such “encounters.” In fact, the immediate provocation for Sen’s arrest came in the wake of his statements regarding the March 31, 2007 killings of adivasis in Sahthoshpur in Chhattisgarh. While the state government has alleged that the killings were done by Naxalites dressed up as police, the PUCL findings implicate the police forces and Salwa Judum officers in the massacre.<br /><br />By this time, Sen had become a thorn in the flesh for the state administration. His meetings with imprisoned Maoist leader, Narayan Sanyal, held under the scrutiny of the jail authorities, provided an opportunity to accuse Sen with complicity with the Maoists and arrest him as a ‘threat to national security.’<br /><br />His detention raises very uncomfortable questions about the use of the Chhattisgarh Public Security Act 2005 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. More importantly, it forces a serious examination of how human rights activists are treated when they directly criticise or expose state policy or actions that have violated basic rights of citizens.<br /><br />Is such criticism a right and duty of citizens or does that construe a crime under these laws? The subjective and vague manner in which such laws are interpreted could land several journalists, academics, environmental scientists and social activists, including erstwhile members of the judiciary, behind bars -- as these ‘watchdogs’ of democracy are bound to critique state and society in their quest for the truth or justice. <br /><br />Naxal movement<br /><br />However, this hyper-sensitivity has been largely restricted to issues concerning the Naxal movement and the actions of state administrations in response to the naxal presence. As long as Sen was serving the people of Chhattisgarh, setting up the Shaheed Hospital, working on TB related problems, establishing Rupantar to provide low cost primary health care and even advising the state government, he was perceived as a do gooder and a noble soul.<br /><br />When he linked ill health and survival issues to state development policy, adivasi's marginalisation and social structure, he moved from being a doctor to a health activist and a “problem” for the state. <br /><br />Several activist intellectuals share with the Maoists an analysis of social structure, but differ on issues of identity and on the use of violence to bring about change. Yet they are often projected as Naxalite sympathisers, even though their solidarity is for the adivasis, rather than for those who have opted for armed conflict to resolve adivasis’ problems — be they Naxals or Salwa Judum forces. <br /><br />Surely, this could be tantamount to a distortion of the activists’ commitment to justice and perspectives on change. Is the arrest of Sen by the Chhattisgarh government and his portrayal as a Maoist accomplice, a similar exercise in extrapolation? Or is it an attempt to silence voices that could expose state brutality? <br /><br />Another paradox of double-speak revolves around the Salwa Judum itself. It is indeed incongruous that while the Supreme Court, the Planning Commission, the Tribal Affairs and Panchayat Raj Ministries have questioned the Salwa Judum and requested withdrawal of the Union government’s support, such criticism is met with studied silence. Yet when someone who has spent a lifetime striving to bring basic health care to some of the world’s poorest people raises the very same issues, he is accused of being a threat to national security and shoved into jail. <br /><br />Judum’s presence<br /><br />At the same time, the state government is under pressure from the National Human Rights Commissions and the Supreme Court to stop arming civilians to fight the Maoists. While claiming to disband the Salwa Judum in the face of such criticism, the Judum’s presence is still strongly justified by the administration and political leadership at various fora. <br /><br />The most ironic paradox however is that today Sen — the health professional and human rights activist — is himself in dire need of medical attention and protection of his fundamental rights. A recent hearing on his bail application in the Supreme Court was adjourned last week. While the Supreme Court has directed the state government to provide him medical facilities in jail, his bail applications have been repeatedly rejected despite the fact that the completed investigation has not thrown up any evidence against him. <br /><br />It now seems as if the elections will decide Dr Binayak Sen’s fate as well as that of the Salwa Judum. </p>
<p>May 14, 2009 marked the second anniversary of the detention of Dr Binayak Sen by the state of Chhattisgarh and his incarceration in the Raipur central jail since then. Sen, who has been recognised the world over for his dedication and commitment to the health, nutrition, medical care and human rights of the adivasi people, has been arrested by the state government as a “threat to national security” as a result of his alleged support to the naxal movement. <br /><br />An alumnus of the Christian Medical College, Vellore and winner of several international awards for community health, Sen has been working with adivasi health issues for over two decades and moved to the Chhattisgarh region in 1981. As a part of this work, he discovered how 1,200 villages in Dantewada and Bijapur districts have been caught in this crossfire between the Maoists and the state sponsored Salwa Judum forcing almost half the villages to abandon their homes and live in miserable camps. <br /><br />Excluded from health care<br /><br />Ever since, he has been expressing his concern that whole villages are excluded from government health care, some burnt, others destroyed in this process. He has also been repeatedly faced with killings of adivasis for being “supporters” of the Naxalites, when they displayed reluctance to cooperate with the Salwa Judum. <br /><br />The People’s Union for Civil Liberties, under the leadership of Sen, took up the difficult and complex task of looking into such “encounters.” In fact, the immediate provocation for Sen’s arrest came in the wake of his statements regarding the March 31, 2007 killings of adivasis in Sahthoshpur in Chhattisgarh. While the state government has alleged that the killings were done by Naxalites dressed up as police, the PUCL findings implicate the police forces and Salwa Judum officers in the massacre.<br /><br />By this time, Sen had become a thorn in the flesh for the state administration. His meetings with imprisoned Maoist leader, Narayan Sanyal, held under the scrutiny of the jail authorities, provided an opportunity to accuse Sen with complicity with the Maoists and arrest him as a ‘threat to national security.’<br /><br />His detention raises very uncomfortable questions about the use of the Chhattisgarh Public Security Act 2005 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. More importantly, it forces a serious examination of how human rights activists are treated when they directly criticise or expose state policy or actions that have violated basic rights of citizens.<br /><br />Is such criticism a right and duty of citizens or does that construe a crime under these laws? The subjective and vague manner in which such laws are interpreted could land several journalists, academics, environmental scientists and social activists, including erstwhile members of the judiciary, behind bars -- as these ‘watchdogs’ of democracy are bound to critique state and society in their quest for the truth or justice. <br /><br />Naxal movement<br /><br />However, this hyper-sensitivity has been largely restricted to issues concerning the Naxal movement and the actions of state administrations in response to the naxal presence. As long as Sen was serving the people of Chhattisgarh, setting up the Shaheed Hospital, working on TB related problems, establishing Rupantar to provide low cost primary health care and even advising the state government, he was perceived as a do gooder and a noble soul.<br /><br />When he linked ill health and survival issues to state development policy, adivasi's marginalisation and social structure, he moved from being a doctor to a health activist and a “problem” for the state. <br /><br />Several activist intellectuals share with the Maoists an analysis of social structure, but differ on issues of identity and on the use of violence to bring about change. Yet they are often projected as Naxalite sympathisers, even though their solidarity is for the adivasis, rather than for those who have opted for armed conflict to resolve adivasis’ problems — be they Naxals or Salwa Judum forces. <br /><br />Surely, this could be tantamount to a distortion of the activists’ commitment to justice and perspectives on change. Is the arrest of Sen by the Chhattisgarh government and his portrayal as a Maoist accomplice, a similar exercise in extrapolation? Or is it an attempt to silence voices that could expose state brutality? <br /><br />Another paradox of double-speak revolves around the Salwa Judum itself. It is indeed incongruous that while the Supreme Court, the Planning Commission, the Tribal Affairs and Panchayat Raj Ministries have questioned the Salwa Judum and requested withdrawal of the Union government’s support, such criticism is met with studied silence. Yet when someone who has spent a lifetime striving to bring basic health care to some of the world’s poorest people raises the very same issues, he is accused of being a threat to national security and shoved into jail. <br /><br />Judum’s presence<br /><br />At the same time, the state government is under pressure from the National Human Rights Commissions and the Supreme Court to stop arming civilians to fight the Maoists. While claiming to disband the Salwa Judum in the face of such criticism, the Judum’s presence is still strongly justified by the administration and political leadership at various fora. <br /><br />The most ironic paradox however is that today Sen — the health professional and human rights activist — is himself in dire need of medical attention and protection of his fundamental rights. A recent hearing on his bail application in the Supreme Court was adjourned last week. While the Supreme Court has directed the state government to provide him medical facilities in jail, his bail applications have been repeatedly rejected despite the fact that the completed investigation has not thrown up any evidence against him. <br /><br />It now seems as if the elections will decide Dr Binayak Sen’s fate as well as that of the Salwa Judum. </p>