Sunday, March 9, 2008

Arrest of Binayak Sen as naxal accomplice

My comment posted on yossarin's blog, reproduced here:

There’s a recurring theme in the defense of Dr Sen. Few raise more questions than they actually answer.

I also insist, especially to Dr Sen’s aggrieved relatives that I’ve nothing personal for or against Dr Sen and these are my general observations, a different pov from theirs for sure. Just as you believe that we don’t see or understand your side, so do others who are on the other side of this argument. It’s reciprocal.

It may appear that the other side is faceless state, but the state is ultimately representative of the people, something that seems to have been overlooked so far. Since we're a democracy you can still take actions of state as carrying of legitimacy of people's opinion unlike the Marxist quakery where the label "people's" is appropriated to legitimize totalitarian diktats.

First, that he’s innocent and he has had a clean record. Quite possibly he’s innocent, but then why not let the courts judge for us all? They’ve the constitutional authority and obligation to do that. Let law take its own due course.

Someone’s track record does not necessarily transfer into guilt or innocence. More often than not people commit legal offense despite having a clean record. If someone says that people don’t change over years, then they’ll also have to concede that criminals released after completing a sentence cannot be certified as reformed, and it would be irresponsible to set them free. Further, all rehabilitation programs will have to be shut down if the belief is that people don’t change.

Second accusation is that the state is unfairly incarcerating an honest man and his integrity is beyond reproach. This observation, too, is fraught with danger. It unfairly indicts the honesty and probity of those who serve the people by working for legal agencies, or represent people, or sit in courts in judges’ chair. There’s a whole string of hard working, decent, honest people who are part of the legal procedure, and who work for the system. They are just doing their duty based on available evidence. What personal grudge can so many have against one individual to connive so broadly? Perhaps we can find a street vendor, a teacher, a chaiwalla, a panwalla or two who will vouch for their integrity too.

One might be cynical of the system, but let’s not forget that the system too is made of people like us, who can be, and indeed are, well-meaning more often than not.

They’ve made a case, and taken it to court, not taken recourse to gun as some seem to suggest to be the only option. Dr Sen has access to lawyers and the same court that the legal agencies, who are responsible for public security, have.

No comments: