Aum

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Absurd to sympathise with Binayak Sen

Stand up to Maoists

Joginder Singh

January 10, 2011

It's absurd to sympathise with Binayak Sen who helped Maoists under the garb of helping tribals

One fails to understand the reason behind such an uproar against the conviction of Binayak Sen, who is actually a front man, courier and a supporter of Maoists. Just because he is a paediatrician by profession and has worked for tribals does not mean he cannot commit any wrong. The lower court, which has sentenced him to life imprisonment along with two others after an open, two-and-half-year trial, must have found him guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit sedition. Everyone expresses full faith in the judiciary as long the judgement, be it acquittal or conviction, is in favour. The moment a verdict is contrary to one's expectation, the fairness of the judiciary is questioned.

Rights activists, Left sympathisers and members of the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha held a rally and staged a sit-in to protest against the verdict. Such ceremonial protests by activists, who call themselves the custodians of civil and human rights and believe in making irresponsible statements, go on to show that they want to have all the benefits and rights of a democracy but none of the responsibilities of protecting the nation from those who threaten to destroy it. What surprises one is that a former Chief Justice has called the judgement "nonsensical" and "unacceptable" and that he feels "ashamed to belong to a judiciary that delivered such a ridiculous judgement."

The sole objective of these Maoists is to browbeat the security forces and civilians so that their illegal activities like kidnapping for ransom, extortion and protection racket remain unchallenged. What is most disturbing is that they are doing all this and more in the guise of helping tribals and uplifting their lot. An estimate puts their earnings from illegal activities at `1,500 crore. They impose their reign of terror by killing innocent people and men in uniform. Between 2005 and May 2010, they have taken the lives of 10,268 people. While 2,372 deaths were reported in 2009 as many as 1,769 people died in 2008 and 1,737 in 2007. In one of the worst Maoist attacks, 55 civilians were killed, 40 injured and 125 kidnapped at Dantewada on February 28, 2006. And more recently in April 2010, 76 CRPF personnel were massacred in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh.

It irks to see that there is not a word of sympathy from these so-called civil rights activists for the innocent people slaughtered in cold blood by Maoists. But they are up in arms when a conspirator is convicted by a court of law. They are least bothered about Maoist crimes and large-scale corruption. All they want is cheap publicity and this casts doubts on their sincerity.

The Union Minister for Finance, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, is right in slamming the argument that Maoist violence is an offshoot of lack of development as "more imaginary than actual". The Minister, reacting to the 'root-cause theorists' who routinely peddle the 'lack of development' theory to justify the spread of Maoism, said the Maoists are engaged in a political project to capture power by using guns. In his words: "Development is needed. Lack of development may swell Maoist cadre. But they do not run charitable institutions ... They are political elements and want to capture power."

The Union Minister for Home Affairs, Mr P Chidambaram, has been equally candid. He said in unequivocal terms that intellectual and material support to Maoists from various quarters was making the Government's task to curb the menace all the more difficult. He has been equally critical of the liberal media for giving these murderers respectability. According to him, Maoists seduce the media by making false charges in court to generate sympathy. "Maoists believe in violence which has no place in a democracy. A strong head, a stronger heart and staying power is required to tackle them," he said.

That the Maoists have been creating mayhem in the country for the past few years is common knowledge. They account for the top five worst attacks on men in uniform anywhere in India, including Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East. The following instances serve to underscore the threat they pose:

March 15, 2007: 55 killed in an armed attack and bombings at Bijapur in Chhattisgarh.

June 29, 2008: 31 policemen, mostly from anti-Maoist Greyhounds of Andhra Pradesh, and four paramilitary personnel killed in an attack on a motor boat at Malkangiri in Odisha.

April 8, 2004: 19 Jharkhand Armed Police personnel and nine CRPF men killed by landmines at Chaibasa in Jharkhand.

July 9, 2007: 16 CRPF men, eight policemen from Chhattisgarh and one civilian killed in Maoist attack at Dantewada in Chhattisgarh.

February 15, 2010: At least 24 personnel of the Eastern Frontier Rifles killed in an attack on the EFR camp at Silda in West Bengal.

April 2010: 76 CRPF men killed in an ambush at Dantewada in Chhattisgarh.

The prophetic warning of Mr Chidambaram needs to be drilled into the heads of civil rights activists: "There can be no half-way approach. Most people still think there could be a compromise or some kind of median approach. This is immature and foolish ... This (Maoist violence) is expected because as long as we did not engage them, they were happy and expanding. They will continue to expand unless we challenge them."

The rights activists would do well to advise their Maoist friends on the futility of killing innocent and poor people. In fact, that would be of help in dealing with what the Prime Minister describes as "the most serious threat to India's internal security". Despite the Prime Minister's deep concern over the "virtual collapse of law and order in view of extortion demands, display of arms, encroachments on public property and the militant rhetoric of Maoist leaders at rallies and meetings", the situation remains unchanged. It is high time for every right-thinking person to come to the aid of the Government. On its part, the Government needs to change the law to encourage people to come forward and depose before a court of law, as nobody, except a foolhardy person, would do so when an atmosphere of fear and terror prevails.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/309402/Stand-up-to-Maoists.html

Fwd: FW: Fwd: "SELECTIVE AMNESIA OF OUR LIBERAL DEMOCRATS" - CHANDAN MITRA

http://www.dailypioneer.com/309190/Selective-amnesia-of-our-%E2%80%98liberal-democrats%E2%80%99.html

AGENDA | Sunday, January 9, 2011

Selective amnesia of our 'liberal democrats'

Chandan Mitra

[ Their hearts beat for Binayak Sen and assorted terrorists and secessionists, but they are prompt in condemning others being tried by the same system of justice ]

With some amusement I read reports last Friday about jailed Maoist Binayak Sen having moved a court in Chhattisgarh against the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him last month. I say amusement because only 48 hours prior to his going in appeal, his wife Ilina Sen lashed out at the Indian judiciary, police, Government and finally India itself. Declaring that her husband's trial was staged, that the whole thing was a frame-up and Indian courts were putty in the hands of politicians, Ilina Sen said she had no faith in the fairness quotient of India's judicial process. She went on to add that in view of the harassment her Maoist husband had undergone, she would seriously contemplate seeking political asylum in a "genuine liberal democracy", implying Indian democracy was a sham.

After that outburst, broadcast on various news channels and extensively reported in newspapers (English-speaking Maoists get a lot of mileage in the English-language media and relatively little in their Indian-language counterparts), one would have expected Sen's considerable brigade of supporters to move international agencies to process his application for "political asylum". Since the convicted leader has no faith in the Indian judicial process, it would only be appropriate that he should pursue migration abroad.

But I wonder what kind of "genuine" liberal democracy Ilina Sen has in mind. Since Maoists are fighting the Indian state with the aim of establishing a proletarian dictatorship in India and avowedly reject Western-style democracy, there is a contradiction in her statement. Liberal democracy, as commonly understood, refers to the system of Government prevailing largely in Europe and North America and some countries of South Asia. In the past, Communist regimes fashioned themselves as People's Democracies that were subject to one-party rule. Barring a few countries in Asia (China, North Korea and Vietnam come to mind) and one in Latin America (namely, Cuba) that discredited system has been buried everywhere else.

Surely, the Indian Maoist leader's wife does not have any of these countries in mind when she expresses her desire to migrate! Although, it must be pointed out that most Naxalite intellectuals of the 1970s eventually abandoned the 'revolution' and succumbed to the discreet charm of the Green Card and took the first available flight to JFK once they quietly converted to the capitalist faith. Some have continued to spew revolutionary fire through their academic pursuits in US universities, turning institutions like Berkeley into quasi-Maoist dens. It would not be surprising, therefore, if the Sens are nursing a similar goal.

This is not the place to debate the merits of Binayak Sen's case. It may well be that the Raipur court has passed an unduly harsh verdict on the Maoist ideologue and his sentence would get reduced in appeal. That is a matter in the legal domain and since senior advocates of various political persuasions, BJP MP Ram Jethmalani included, are falling over one another to argue for him, I am sure that Sen will have the best defence he could have hoped for. The issue, however, is one of double standards and systematic orchestration of opinion in favour of a convict.

A friend on Facebook recently posted a count of articles in favour of Sen. On one given day alone there were 124 write-ups in the Indian print media alone, leave alone suitably tilted TV discussions and blogs! Some time ago, I was horrified to note the number of Google entries the doctor attracted. Significantly, two of my earlier pieces in these columns, predictably not flattering to him, drew the ire of hundreds. I have rarely got so much hate mail on any other subject.

Binayak Sen may eventually be acquitted. But my point is about the selective orchestration (actually manipulation) of public opinion by a set of Left-leaning radicals who have a romantic notion of Maoists, Kashmiri secessionists, 'persecuted' Christian missionary proseletysers and so on. In other words, all those out to weaken the Indian state and dilute the country's national resolve are lauded uncritically and anybody mildly suggesting anything to the contrary is howled down, apart from being tainted as a neo-Fascist. It is exactly the same way that December 13 Parliament House attack accused SAR Gilani was feted.

The same people volubly defended the secessionist jamboree in Delhi last year in which Kashmiri groups implacably hostile to India, the rump of Punjab and North-East outlaws and sundry India-bashers assembled to preach India's dissolution. Their cause was spiritedly championed by the redoubtable Arundhati Roy, who has already declared her desire to "secede" from India for a variety of imagined grievances. The separatist conference in Delhi truly crossed the borderline, forcing the courts to intervene and direct the police to file cases of sedition against the preachers of hatred, since the Government was too weak-kneed to proactively pursue them. I nevertheless believe there is a space for dissent in every democracy even for unpalatable views.

The problem, however, arises when the so-called votaries of "genuine liberal democracy" refuse to concede similar space to contrary opinion. I hold no brief for Swami Aseemananda, Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit or Pragya Singh Thakur — currently languishing in various jails for allegedly participating in terrorist activities. But when reports of the young Sadhvi's torture and serious health problems came to light, not one 'liberal democrat' questioned the apparent brutality of the Indian state apparatus. Incidentally, none of them has been convicted and from every account the chargesheets (wherever filed) are appallingly weak. On the other hand, Gilani was convicted and sentenced to death but acquitted later and Binayak Sen too is now a convict.

Even the courts appear terrorised by the hysteria these people can work up. When the Supreme Court refused to entirely endorse their plea on raising the height of Gujarat's Sardar Sarovar dam, the same 'liberal democrats' burnt effigies and vocally demonstrated outside the court premises. The judges, who would have slammed the handful of agitators into the cooler for at least seven days had they championed any other cause, dealt with this bunch with kid gloves, letting them off with a mild rebuke.

On the face of it, there is no linkage between those denouncing a Raipur court for holding Binayak Sen guilty and Congress heavyweight Digvijay Singh's strident utterances against Hindu groups and equally fierce defence of suspected terror sympathisers. But I see a pattern and a political ploy in both. The 'liberals' hold an ideological position similar to Digvijay Singh in matters of terrorism. They are trying to argue that there are 'good' terrorists, wronged by an insensitive state and 'bad' terrorists (although no terror charge against them has been proven) who are flourishing because of misguided majority support. In the process of articulating this position, they justify Maoist depredation, jihadi terror and secessionism of various hues.

I believe, despite their effort to overpower all other opinion, the silent majority will ensure India remains one and even if it takes a long time, the conspiracy of destablisation hatched by sundry malefic elements will be resoundingly defeated.

"USING 'HINDU TERROR' TO GRAB HEADLINES"- SWAPAN DASGUPTA

http://www.dailypioneer.com/309363/Using-%E2%80%98Hindu-terror-to-grab-headlines.html

COLUMNIST | Sunday, January 9, 2011

Using 'Hindu terror' to grab headlines

Swapan Dasgupta

In the mid-1970s, when the Soviet Union was still around, there appeared a Red Joke Book in time for the Christmas market. The nice thing about the collection was its indiscriminate irreverence: it mocked both the capitalist West and the socialist East. One Stalin joke is worth repeating.

A delegation from his native Georgia, it seems, left Stalin's office after a long meeting. After they had left, Stalin realised that he couldn't find his favourite pipe. He promptly summoned the notorious Beria to find out if anyone from the delegation had purloined it. However, after some time, while rummaging through his own things, Stalin located the pipe under his table. He promptly telephoned Beria and asked him to release the Georgian visitors. "I am sorry Comrade", replied the KGB boss, "but half the delegation has already admitted taking your pipe, and the other half died during questioning."

At the risk of doing the newly-formed National Investigation Authority a colossal disservice, this Stalin joke came to mind upon reading the official drip-feed accounts of the confessions of Swami Aseemananda, the Bengali sadhu who is making headlines. It is not that there is any reason to disbelieve Aseemananda's statement, made before a Magistrate and therefore admissible in court, and equate it with the confessions Beria secured. My sources suggest that the swami made his statement voluntarily because he was insistent on telling the truth regardless of the consequences. The swami apparently believes that retributive terror is morally justified and may even say so in court.

Aseemananda's apparent determination to emerge as another Nathuram Godse fighting for a misplaced ideal is his own business. Such beliefs (if indeed he holds them) have no place in democratic life and any sympathy for such extremism is unwarranted. However, my concerns are different.

First, the confession is an important input into the investigations of at least four terrorist strikes that occurred between 2006 and 2007. Aseemananda was well connected with the network of extremist Hindus who believed in an eye-for-an-eye approach. It doesn't seem he was involved in the operational aspects of the bombings but he certainly provided intellectual inspiration and may even have given logistical and financial assistance to the field operatives. Every lead he has provided has to be rigorously pursued and examined, not least because catching the real culprits of the bombings is a national obligation for the investigative agencies. Equally, the investigators have to collect corroborative evidence so that the prosecution cases are able to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Given the inordinate importance of Aseemananda's confessional statement, it is bewildering that it has been supplied to the media even before all the leads provided by him have been pursued and suspects either interrogated or arrested. Any criminal lawyer will readily admit that the premature release of the prosecution's evidence can forewarn others who may be involved and enable them to take evasive action. So, why did the government make this statement available to the media last week?

The answer is self-evident: to extract every drop of political mileage from the confession and use it as another prop in the "Hindu terror" charge of the Congress against the BJP. Since Rahul Gandhi has been shown to have said that Hindu extremism is more dangerous than jihadi terror, the Breaking News must be made to demonstrate his prescience. Equally, "Hindu terror" constitutes a parallel narrative to the national preoccupation with Congress corruption.

That the government can risk compromising the larger investigation for two days of headlines is revealing. It is a pointer to the cynical politicisation of criminal investigations in India.

Secondly, there is something extremely curious about the way in which there is a rush to suggest that the Samjhauta Express bombing of February 18, 2007 was the handiwork of a gang headed by a RSS pracharak. With ruling out the possibility entirely, it would seem that Aseemananda's testimony doesn't provide any meaningful leads. It suggests that one Sunil Joshi had boasted to him that his men had carried out the bombings, and that even Aseemananda had discounted the claim.

In an ideal situation, the investigations have to find corroborative evidence to substantiate the point. Were the "Hindu" desperadoes technically equipped to make such sophisticated bombs? Did they have the logistical wherewithal to carry out the operation?

There is a larger international dimension as well. The US investigators have claimed, based on inputs from sources in Pakistan, that it was a Lashkar-e-Tayyeba squad under Arif Usmani that had carried out the blasts. This was an important basis for the UN Security Council decision to brand the LeT a terrorist organisation, a decision that has international ramifications. Does Aseemanda's testimony overturn these conclusions?

The answer is: highly unlikely. The theory that the Sunil Joshi gang carried out such an audacious operation can't yet be substantiated. But at the same time, to say so makes fantastic headlines at a time of political turbulence: BJP linked to terror, Zero losses in 2-G!

Where the country is yearning for a robust and rigorous approach to the war on terror where the culprits must be apprehended regardless of their political and religious cover, the government is seeking to earn political brownie points. Just like Beria did.