Whirlwind trip to Raipur, arranged at nearly the last minute, to meet and chat with one of the country's better-known faces. First see him when I stand outside a gate garded by barking but friendly-looking dogs (you can tell when they're friendly), and suddenly he looks out from under a low roof, then comes to open the gate. He looks tired and a little stooped, but otherwise healthy.
We sit on a nearby parapet and talk for a few minutes. Then we walk over to a nearby building under construction and climb a rickety bamboo ladder onto its roof. Apparently a crack has developed up there and he wants to take a look at it. The roof is an arch, covered with tiles. We walk along it to a man who's on his haunches, and there's the crack, it stretches right across the structure. The two men discuss repairs for a few minutes, then we climb back down the rickety ladder.
Back to the parapet, then he suggests coffee and toast inside the house. We enter and he sits me down, then toasts two large brown slices and makes me a cup of absurdly strong coffee. His wife produces some cheese to go with the toast. I pick out one of several squares of Amul and am about to peel off the foil wrap when he points to a triangle that's also in the container. "Try that," he says, "it's softer and tastes better."
He's right.
We talk some more, over this breakfast. When we finish, he takes my plate and cup and washes them with his, refusing point-blank to let me do it, or even to help. I say, "I'm good at washing dishes," a fact those who know me may or may not agree with. He says, "So am I," and carries on washing.
"I used to have a dog too," I say.
"What kind?" he asks.
"Rhodesian Ridgeback," I say, getting ready to describe this relatively less-known dog as I usually have to. But not this time. He nods in recognition; he knows the breed.
Later in the day, he will make two more cups of coffee for me. We chat over lunch, then he clears a bed so I can take a nap -- I had three hours of sleep last night before a 630am flight to get here, so I'm fading fast after lunch. We chat some more in the evening. This time, I take notes.
There are occasional interruptions in our conversation, once for nearly ten minutes that he has to attend to someone visiting. But each time, he returns to the room and immediately to the precise point in our conversation where we were interrupted, the place I remember only because I'm taking notes. Him, it seems effortless.
When I leave for the airport for my flight back, one of the country's better-known faces stands on the landing as I descend the two flights, waving slowly, almost shyly.
At the airport, my flight is inordinately delayed. While we wait, the woman beside me and I strike up a conversation. She works for a NGO that works in education in a rural part of this state.
She asks me why I'm here. I mention the better-known face, assuming she'll know the name.
"Who?" she asks. She's never heard of him. So much for assumptions.
Showing posts with label Binayak Sen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Binayak Sen. Show all posts
May 04, 2011
May 01, 2011
... and the Big Questions
Caravan carries an article I wrote after the Supreme Court granted bail to Binayak Sen a couple of weeks ago. Take a look: Binayak and the Big Questions.
Comments welcome.
Comments welcome.
April 20, 2011
April 15, 2011
To thinking
Update: Not long after I posted what's below, the Supreme Court granted bail to Binayak Sen. It has also said the evidence on record proves no charge of sedition against Sen. And the bench made this observation: "Symphatising with Maoists is no ground for Sen's arrest [and] possession of literature is no proof of Maoist involvement."
Read what's below in that light.
***
The Supreme Court will hear today (April 15), barring yet another adjournment sought by the Government of Chhattisgarh, the appeal for bail for Binayak Sen.
Right off the bat, there's this comment (Hindi) to remember from the Home Minister of Chhattisgarh, Nankiram Kanwar: that since some doctors in Ganiyari, he thinks, are working for Sen's bail, they have "Naxal connections". With the reasonable assumption that doctors in Ganiyari are in no way privileged over the rest of us, we may assume from Shri Kanwar's reasoning that anyone who works for Sen's bail has "Naxal connections."
Therefore Shri Kanwar must believe that the lawyers arguing the bail appeal today in the Supreme Court have Naxal connections. He must believe that the innumerable groups and individuals all over India, indeed all over the world, who have asked for Sen's release all have Naxal connections. He must believe that the 20-plus Nobel prize winners who have asked for Sen's release have Naxal connections.
Perhaps this is a farce that I should not be taking seriously. But I cannot help wondering, how is it that Sen's detractors -- and there are plenty of those -- are unable to see the case against him for what it is: a tissue of whisper and insinuation that on even the most cursory examination holds no water? In other words, a farce.
I mean, think of it: if a Home Minister -- a Home Minister! -- is this oblivious of the working of law and justice, what does that say about his government's case against this man?
But you don't even have to read that news report to wonder on these lines. The case is full of stuff that should give any reasonable Indian enough questions to ask.
Two examples:
* One chargesheet against Sen starts by saying he met Naxals "accused of murder", "looting", "kidnapping", and "he has been meeting Narayan Sanyal repeatedly." (Sanyal, of course is the 70+ year-old imprisoned man whose meetings with Binayak Sen are the basis of this case). All of which may be true, but where's the crime in meeting such men? It may offend you, but where's the crime? Even Sen's detractors, surely, must wonder about the legitimacy of guilt by association?
* Next, the same chargesheet has a couple of paragraphs near the start that talk of a Maoist magazine seized from another accused in this case, Piyush Guha. The paragraphs tell us that this magazine talks of boycotting the Lok Sabha elections, "strengthening the guerrilla Army", etc. No mention of Sen anywhere. Then there's one sentence I'll spell out in a bit. Then there's a list of Maoist crimes: they destroy schools and bridges, they are dangerous, they are creating terror around the country, they battle CRPF personnel in Dantewada, etc. Still no mention of Sen.
No, but the sole mention of Sen in all this is in that sentence right in the middle: "Like this accused Piyush Guha together with Dr. Binayak Sen with directions from Narayan Sanyal was working for the Maoist organization."
Nice, no? Mention a magazine owned by an accused. Mention what it contains. Fill half a page listing Maoist crimes. Somewhere in the middle, toss in a mention of Binayak Sen and his co-accused.
This is not even guilt by association. This is guilt by the hope that when you stumble across names stuck in the middle of a critique of Maoists, you will just assume those names are Maoist too.
There is just plenty more of this stuff, too much for a mere blog post. Riding on such tissue, a man has been sentenced to life in prison.
To me, Sen's case raises plenty of questions about us, for us. But maybe it raises this one above all: why is it that as soon as a government mentions the word "Maoist", so many of us willingly give up thinking?
Read what's below in that light.
The Supreme Court will hear today (April 15), barring yet another adjournment sought by the Government of Chhattisgarh, the appeal for bail for Binayak Sen.
Right off the bat, there's this comment (Hindi) to remember from the Home Minister of Chhattisgarh, Nankiram Kanwar: that since some doctors in Ganiyari, he thinks, are working for Sen's bail, they have "Naxal connections". With the reasonable assumption that doctors in Ganiyari are in no way privileged over the rest of us, we may assume from Shri Kanwar's reasoning that anyone who works for Sen's bail has "Naxal connections."
Therefore Shri Kanwar must believe that the lawyers arguing the bail appeal today in the Supreme Court have Naxal connections. He must believe that the innumerable groups and individuals all over India, indeed all over the world, who have asked for Sen's release all have Naxal connections. He must believe that the 20-plus Nobel prize winners who have asked for Sen's release have Naxal connections.
Perhaps this is a farce that I should not be taking seriously. But I cannot help wondering, how is it that Sen's detractors -- and there are plenty of those -- are unable to see the case against him for what it is: a tissue of whisper and insinuation that on even the most cursory examination holds no water? In other words, a farce.
I mean, think of it: if a Home Minister -- a Home Minister! -- is this oblivious of the working of law and justice, what does that say about his government's case against this man?
But you don't even have to read that news report to wonder on these lines. The case is full of stuff that should give any reasonable Indian enough questions to ask.
Two examples:
* One chargesheet against Sen starts by saying he met Naxals "accused of murder", "looting", "kidnapping", and "he has been meeting Narayan Sanyal repeatedly." (Sanyal, of course is the 70+ year-old imprisoned man whose meetings with Binayak Sen are the basis of this case). All of which may be true, but where's the crime in meeting such men? It may offend you, but where's the crime? Even Sen's detractors, surely, must wonder about the legitimacy of guilt by association?
* Next, the same chargesheet has a couple of paragraphs near the start that talk of a Maoist magazine seized from another accused in this case, Piyush Guha. The paragraphs tell us that this magazine talks of boycotting the Lok Sabha elections, "strengthening the guerrilla Army", etc. No mention of Sen anywhere. Then there's one sentence I'll spell out in a bit. Then there's a list of Maoist crimes: they destroy schools and bridges, they are dangerous, they are creating terror around the country, they battle CRPF personnel in Dantewada, etc. Still no mention of Sen.
No, but the sole mention of Sen in all this is in that sentence right in the middle: "Like this accused Piyush Guha together with Dr. Binayak Sen with directions from Narayan Sanyal was working for the Maoist organization."
Nice, no? Mention a magazine owned by an accused. Mention what it contains. Fill half a page listing Maoist crimes. Somewhere in the middle, toss in a mention of Binayak Sen and his co-accused.
This is not even guilt by association. This is guilt by the hope that when you stumble across names stuck in the middle of a critique of Maoists, you will just assume those names are Maoist too.
There is just plenty more of this stuff, too much for a mere blog post. Riding on such tissue, a man has been sentenced to life in prison.
To me, Sen's case raises plenty of questions about us, for us. But maybe it raises this one above all: why is it that as soon as a government mentions the word "Maoist", so many of us willingly give up thinking?
March 12, 2011
Banal, inexplicable
Yesterday's Hindustan Times (March 11) carried an edit-page essay I wrote about some of what has gone into the case against Binayak Sen. It involves "Mahila Kosh" and an appeal.
You can read it here: Banal, inexplicable. Note that HT inadvertently inserted a hyphen in the URL mentioned in the essay. Remove it and it will work fine (i.e. it will take you here).
Comments welcome. Far as I'm concerned it's more than just banal and inexplicable.
You can read it here: Banal, inexplicable. Note that HT inadvertently inserted a hyphen in the URL mentioned in the essay. Remove it and it will work fine (i.e. it will take you here).
Comments welcome. Far as I'm concerned it's more than just banal and inexplicable.
January 06, 2011
Prepared for surprises
As expected, Binayak Sen is challenging his sentence of life imprisonment in the Chhattisgarh High Court. While I hope it will be overturned, there is what a good friend, a lawyer, said to me the other day: "Be prepared, always, for our courts to surprise you." And he did not mean pleasant surprises.
There are many things about this case that disturb me.
One, the way a law (Section 124) the British used against the giants of our freedom struggle is used by an Indian government against Indians.
Two, the way this use of the law is uncritically applauded and justified by so many.
Three, the flimsiness of the evidence against Sen. He carried letters? He spoke to jailed (but not convicted) Maoists? He got email from the "ISI", only that turned out to be Delhi's Indian Social Institute?
Four, the way governments seek to stifle any discussion of why we have this enormous problem of the Maoist movement hanging over us.
Five, the way so many of us go along with that stifling, and abuse anyone who seeks such discussion.
Six, the meaning of Indian democracy itself. Does holding elections every few years make us a democracy? Or should the standard be the fundamental promise and ideal of democracy: that everyone feels she has been heard?
Seven, and this follows: the meaning of India itself.
There are many things about this case that disturb me.
One, the way a law (Section 124) the British used against the giants of our freedom struggle is used by an Indian government against Indians.
Two, the way this use of the law is uncritically applauded and justified by so many.
Three, the flimsiness of the evidence against Sen. He carried letters? He spoke to jailed (but not convicted) Maoists? He got email from the "ISI", only that turned out to be Delhi's Indian Social Institute?
Four, the way governments seek to stifle any discussion of why we have this enormous problem of the Maoist movement hanging over us.
Five, the way so many of us go along with that stifling, and abuse anyone who seeks such discussion.
Six, the meaning of Indian democracy itself. Does holding elections every few years make us a democracy? Or should the standard be the fundamental promise and ideal of democracy: that everyone feels she has been heard?
Seven, and this follows: the meaning of India itself.
December 27, 2010
Should alarm us all
I don't know whether to be flattered or otherwise by the comments (50+ already) the essay already has, having gone up just today. Whatever it is, it makes for interesting reading. The same point about the mention of the word "Maoist" that I made in my previous post here holds. The sometimes incoherent anger in a lot of people is something to behold.
I refer to an essay I did as a part-response to the conviction of Binayak Sen, up on rediff.com here.
Your comments welcome, as always.
I refer to an essay I did as a part-response to the conviction of Binayak Sen, up on rediff.com here.
Your comments welcome, as always.
December 25, 2010
Remembering scepticism
What gets me most about the conviction of Binayak Sen is not the conviction itself. Not the sentence. Not the fact I can see no evidence for what he has been accused of.
What gets me most are the reactions. The people who immediately pronounce that the "antinational" has been punished. That the "traitor" should be taken out and shot. That the "jholawallas" have finally got their "come-uppance".
So here's a random grab-bag of things I believe about this case, and I believe there's going to be no come-uppance about them.
1) On appeal, a higher court will overturn this judgement. That's how flimsy I think the evidence against Sen is. This is the silver lining I see in the case.
2) Those who easily label others "antinational" are in truly exalted company. Thus did people brand Nelson Mandela for 25+ yrs. And Aung San Suu Kyi.
3) People who work among the poorest Indians are promptly branded "leftist" and "communist" and the like. The only reason I can imagine for this is that the branders feel an inexplicable guilt that they don't have the balls, substance or interest to work like that themselves. So they seek to denigrate those who do, and these words are the worst denigration they can imagine.
4) A lot of people are ordinarily sceptical of governments, and rightly so. But too many of them only need to hear the same governments use the word "Maoist" to forget their own scepticism.
Or let me put it this way: Our political establishment's complicity in 2G, or Adarsh, or the Kargil coffin scam, or you name it, is the reason I'm sceptical about their pursuit of Sen. It's baffling that others who recognize and deplore that same complicity become believers as soon as Sen's accusers say "Maoist" in the same breath as his name.
5) Sen's case is a litmus test for us for this reason: it asks us to think about what's going on in this country. I think the Maoists are a menace to us all; but I am forced to face the fact that they have a lot of support in the areas in which they operate. Why? What are the circumstances for those people that makes them support Maoists? That's what Sen's case makes us ask.
Therefore: Remember your scepticism and ask.
What gets me most are the reactions. The people who immediately pronounce that the "antinational" has been punished. That the "traitor" should be taken out and shot. That the "jholawallas" have finally got their "come-uppance".
So here's a random grab-bag of things I believe about this case, and I believe there's going to be no come-uppance about them.
1) On appeal, a higher court will overturn this judgement. That's how flimsy I think the evidence against Sen is. This is the silver lining I see in the case.
2) Those who easily label others "antinational" are in truly exalted company. Thus did people brand Nelson Mandela for 25+ yrs. And Aung San Suu Kyi.
3) People who work among the poorest Indians are promptly branded "leftist" and "communist" and the like. The only reason I can imagine for this is that the branders feel an inexplicable guilt that they don't have the balls, substance or interest to work like that themselves. So they seek to denigrate those who do, and these words are the worst denigration they can imagine.
4) A lot of people are ordinarily sceptical of governments, and rightly so. But too many of them only need to hear the same governments use the word "Maoist" to forget their own scepticism.
Or let me put it this way: Our political establishment's complicity in 2G, or Adarsh, or the Kargil coffin scam, or you name it, is the reason I'm sceptical about their pursuit of Sen. It's baffling that others who recognize and deplore that same complicity become believers as soon as Sen's accusers say "Maoist" in the same breath as his name.
5) Sen's case is a litmus test for us for this reason: it asks us to think about what's going on in this country. I think the Maoists are a menace to us all; but I am forced to face the fact that they have a lot of support in the areas in which they operate. Why? What are the circumstances for those people that makes them support Maoists? That's what Sen's case makes us ask.
Therefore: Remember your scepticism and ask.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)