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, leave alone be sentenced for life for sedition. In societies that respect dedicated service, and which seek to strive toward 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 does not come 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 carried letters from him to a Kolkata businessman. Even if the prosecution is to be believed, can this constitute evidence for any crime at all, leave 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 — that Dr Sen saw the imprisoned Maoist so many times because he happened to be his doctor, and that jail officials were always 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 on one occasion to a prostitute, a person whose way of life is considered a social crime to this day. 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. In the fitness of things, the state should withdraw the case against Dr Binayak Sen.