How Binayak Sen changed my mind

Let me confess that my initial reaction to the media furore over the arrest of Dr Binayak Sen for sedition was less than positive.

Looking at the various mails and online forums supporting the man and attacking the Chattisgarh government for jailing him, my first reaction was that this was yet another instance of human rights activists going berserk over someone who had been convicted of a crime.

I did not like it because I strongly believe that when a court gives a judgment, the only option is to appeal against it in a higher court, and not a trial by media.

Hence the overwhelming support for Dr Sen and against the court verdict in the public domain raised reservations in my mind about him.

But all that changed dramatically when I heard Dr Sen for the first time yesterday at the Mumbai Press Club.

Addressing a large gathering of journalists, Dr Sen, who is out on bail following a Supreme Court order, systematically explained the three serious, interconnected issues which are at his heart, and how they led to his arrest.

The issues are: hunger, displacement and sedition.

Over 37 per cent of India’s adult population suffers from hunger and chronic malnutrition. One of the main reasons for this is the common man’s lack of access to land and other common resources.

Large scale displacement of people due to acquisition of land by the government for private institutes is a major factor here. And any attempt to raise any voice against this is suppressed by using sedition laws.

Dr. Sen’s remarks on displacement come at a time when when land acquisition in Uttar Pradesh for a highway project has become controversial, with the Congress party and the ruling BSP crossing swords over it. At the same time, National Advisory Council (NAC) has issued a new blueprint for land acquisition as well as resettlement and rehabilitation, which is scheduled for discussion in Parliament during the monsoon session in July.

Dr. Sen is disturbed by the current state of affairs. Land has been acquired in the past too. But his contention is that now the government is increasingly acting as a guarantor in the process of handing over such resources to private interests. This, he says, not only increases inequity in society but is also against the directive principles of the constitution.

The facts are on his side. Thirty seven per cent our total adult population, 60 per cent of SCs and 50 per cent STs and 47 per cent children below five years have a biomass index of less than 18.5, meaning they face chronic malnutrition. And this is not due to lack of food, but people’s inability to access it.

But there seems to be an inherent contradiction when Dr. Sen speaks against land acquisition.

Removal of hunger can be achieved by two ways – making foodgrain accessible to the poor at subsidized rates, or enhancing the purchasing power of poor families by providing jobs.

The first option has been plagued by rampant corruption, and non-eligible families misusing the privilege. Job creation and development involves projects, which in turn requires land.

Bringing people above the real poverty line and equipping them with adequate purchasing power is the only permanent solution.

Dr Sen, however, is quick to clarify that he is not opposed to taking away land for public purpose. But he feels that the government should have a dialogue with the landowners before that.

“Democracy is not limited to elections, but it is about governance by consensus. Democracy demands that people be taken into confidence. In a Sovereign state, it is the people who are sovereign,” he argues.

Our government’s record on this count is pathetic. There seems to be a policy of concealment, of wishy-washy responses, forcible action and sneaky, corrupt deals, and total lack of credibility.

But social actions groups and NGOs are no exception at times in making tall claims. The recent case in point here is Supreme Court’s serious reprimand of Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) for giving wrong information to the apex court.

But all is not lost. There is a slow but definite change in governments’ attitude. People like Dr. Sen and his friends can exert pressure to further this process of openness, dialogue and enhanced compensation.

But they must also understand that vehement, violent opposition to a project itself at times compels the government too to take hard line.

If legitimate demands over compensation by the project affected people and other related issues are met, how many activists or organizations are willing to work on the government’s behalf to convince people to give their land? Can we guarantee that no politics is involved in opposition to such projects?

Dr. Sen asserts that he is against violence —both by the state and non-state actors. But he also asserts that the whole phenomenon of structural violence should be addressed from the root cause- widespread malnutrition and the displacement of malnourished communities from their resource base, putting their survival at risk. Pushed against the wall, at times they have no recourse other than violence. And that is where the Naxals come in.

Speaking of Naxals, Dr Sen is quite categorical: “Neither I am Naxal supporter, nor oppose. I am only an observer and analyst of situation on ground and in my role as public health and human rights activist, I react to the situation.”

Who can argue with such a position?