TOI Q&A: ‘Rights activism uses space within the Constitution’ : Ilina sen

Times of India
5 Nov 2008

It’s been a hectic 17 months for Ilina Sen since Binayak Sen was arrested under the Chhattisgarh Public Security Act. In between teaching at Mahatma Gandhi Hindi University, Wardha, meeting her daughters in Mumbai, attending her husband’s trial in Raipur, and coordinating the campaign for his release in Delhi, she talked to Jyoti Punwani:

You and your husband worked with the previous government in some areas. Was the arrest therefore totally a shock?

We had a long history of social involvement and activism in this area and were very well known. I had drafted the women’s policy for the new state of Chhattisgarh. We were both part of the state advisory committee on health sector reforms. At that time too, we were often critical of government functioning. However, once the BJP government came in, they began to fill up civil society spaces with their own people, and people like us were marginalised. This coincided also with the turning of Chhattisgarh into a high-security state, land acquisition for industry, and the Salwa Judum.

As state secretary of the PUCL, Binayak spoke openly against state repression. Once the new security law was enacted, we were sure human rights activists would be targeted. PUCL organised two major national conventions against the Act. Yet, even as the clouds were darkening, one felt that one’s reputation and history would carry one through. In that sense, the arrest and the misinformation campaign that was spread about Binayak (he is a doctor only in name, etc) was a shock.

But as a human rights activist this shouldn’t have surprised you.

Human rights activism is based on using a certain democratic space within the Constitution. Binayak’s work was essentially in this area. He opposed the Salwa Judum, took up fake encounters, visited Maoist prisoners - all this was legal activity. It is only a paranoid system that can treat this as guilt by association. I suppose one had misjudged the democratic space available. I first heard the phrase psychological war from a retired police official after Binayak’s arrest. I have heard it many times since and marvel at the way in which lies and more lies are traded by the police and the administration to frame and nail a person. This has been a great learning experience. I would like to write a novel about it if i survive this crisis.

What about the judiciary?

It is part of the same establishment. A G Noorani in ‘The trial of Bhagat Singh’ writes about the way in which the executive and the judiciary colluded to hang Bhagat Singh. It is the same here.

What’s been the effect on your daughters?

They are hurt and show it in different ways. However, they have also rallied round and shown remarkable courage and resilience. Family and a very large circle of friends have been very supportive. People in Raipur, though afraid to speak up, have shown their sympathy and support in many subtle and unsaid ways.

Related posts

November 12, 2008 | Filed Under Press Reports | Leave a Comment 

An appeal for peace in South Bastar: Ilina Sen

The Hindu
Opinion - News Analysis
Ilina Sen

Dr. Ilina Sen presents certain proposals made by Dr. Binayak Sen, medical practitioner and leading member of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Chhattisgarh. She has written this based on discussions with him during recent visits to the Raipur Jail where he is since May 14, 2007.

The present situation in South Bastar is characterised by an infinitude of chronic deprivation, along with a complete absence of political discourse. On the one hand we have the Salwa Judum, which the government dishonestly tries to characterise as a “people’s response to Maoism.” On the other hand, there is a purely military engagement between the state-based forces and the Maoists, which act as a proxy to a political discourse. Both parties to this enga gement deliberately ignore the fact that a purely military solution, imposed by either party, even if it were possible, would be neither valid nor sustainable. Read more

Related posts

October 25, 2008 | Filed Under articles | Leave a Comment 

A Roster of Crimes Against Chhattisgarh State and DGP Vishwaranjan

Cases of Dr. Binayak Sen and Mr. T.G.Ajay: Terrorizing Human Rights Defenders / Development Activists?

1. Why is the State Afraid of the Good Doctor?
Question: Why does the State NOT specify charges against Dr.Binayak Sen NOR produce any evidence regarding his actions and yet keep him in jail for 534 days?

The chargesheet against Dr. Sen under CSPSA intentionally uses “vague” terms such as “sedition,” “waging war against the state” and “abetting unlawful activities.” He is charged with helping an illegal organization as a member by participating in it OR as a non-member by funding OR receiving funds OR by “hatching a conspiracy.” Dates, time or places of these “activities” are often not specified. This allows police to endlessly drag the trial by producing long list of witnesses without specifying their relevance.

2. Dr. Sen, Can We Presume?
Question: On what basis has the police determined that Dr. Sen is a “doctor in name only”?

The chargesheet against Dr.Sen says that he “is certainly a doctor: but is a big zero in terms of actual practice of medicine.” Does a gold medal from CMC Vellore, the 2004 Paul Harrison Award, Global Health Council’s Jonathan Mann Award 2008, and founding Shaheed Hospital in Chhattisgarh not matter?

3. No Evidence? Doesn’ Matter, Plant Some
Question: Why did the police try to fabricate evidence against Dr. Sen?

Even though the seizure memo in Dr. Sen’s case lists 10 items obtained from his premises signed by the Investigating Officer (IO), Dr. Sen and witnesses, the sealed bag of evidence opened in court had 11 objects, the extra one bearing only the signatures of the IO and prosecution witness.

4. Now, who is a threat to who?

Question: Can you explain why there is a consistent attempt to harass Dr.Ilina Sen (Binayak Sen’s wife and co-activist) -neither an accused nor a witness- both in and outside the court room?

On July 2nd, 2008, during the trial, the public prosecutor tried to implicate Dr. Ilina Sen by asking leading questions to a witness asking him to “identify” Ilina in court. On another occasion, the same prosecutor publicly threatened to falsely implicate Ilina by boasting that “if the defence wished they could make the wife of the accused an accused in the present case at anytime.”

5.No Chargesheet, But Imprisoned; Released, But Not Free
Question: Why was Mr. T.G. Ajay, an independent film maker jailed for 93 days under CSPSA, and with no chargesheet produced by the police at the end? Why is Ajay’s case not yet withdrawn?
Question: Why were police personnel threatening the women and children of the slum where Ajay’s school, Drksakshi operates despite all odds on issues of malnutrition, illiteracy and livelihood?

6. Entrapment?
Question: Why was Ajay being pressurized to sign a letter falsely implicating Binayak Sen and the PUCL as a condition for his release?

Despite efforts to try and frame him, Ajay had to be released on statutory bail. The police could not find any evidence of his wrong-doing. Yet, as shockingly revealed by PUCL legal team, Ajay was also being forced by the police to sign a statement against PUCL, Binayak and Ilina Sen as a condition for his release.

Salwa Judum:  Democracy Chhattisgarh-Style, State Impunity For State Violence Against Citizens?


1.When Report after Report Documents State Sponsored Violence…Can The Emperor Have Any Clothes?
Question: Will the DGP (as the senior most police officer in the State) be liable for murder? Since the State and its police dept. gives logistic and monetary support to Salwa Judum, shouldn’t they be considered accomplices?

In September 2008, a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal after perusing the National Human Rights Commission report on violence in Chhattisgarh said, “The allegation is that the state is arming private persons. You can deploy as many police personnel or armed forces to tackle the menace. But, if private persons, so armed by the state government, kill other persons, then the state is also liable to be prosecuted as abettor of the murder.” Chief Justice Balakrishnan added “It is very painful to read the report. It says there is arson and looting, people are armed and they [Salwa Judum] are committing serious offences. It says people who are subjected to serious problems are still afraid of coming out.”

Question: What kind of police force has more than 85% of its officers commit crimes that got them “discharged”?

In a recent interview in Pioneer, the DGP admitted that 3,250 Special Police Officers (SPOs, the official title for Salwa Judum employees) were “discharged on various grounds of indiscipline.”  The DGP has also claimed (to HRW) that there are 3800 SPOs altogether (the SP Dantewada claimed 3500). If this is the admission of the top police officer, then is it difficult to see why SPOs murder, rape, & forcibly displace?

Question: Will the DGP now include the Supreme Court justices in his list of “Maoist sympathizers” who are demoralizing the Indian state?

The DGP is fond of calling anyone who condemns the Salwa Judum as “maoist sympathizer”. This list includes so far Shankar Guha Niyogi–labour leader founder of India’s largest mass organization, the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha; sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha, author Arundhati Roy, journalist Shubhranshu Choudhary, human rights groups such as PUCL, Gandhians such as Kanak Tiwari, Himanshu Kumar and Sandeep Pandey, the entire Planning Commission Experts Committee–in short he includes anyone who dares to dissent in his terrorized state.

2. How to Make a Terrorist? A State Primer
Question: Why does the Chhattisgarh police arm children under 18 years? Does the DGP know that “Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities” constitutes a war crime under the “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998″?

“The police asked me also to become an SPO [special police officer] but I refused because I did not want to become an SPO and commit heinous crimes. I did not want to shoot and kill people. … They do not ask anyone how old they are. Even 14-year-olds can become SPOs if the police want them to become SPOs.”
– Poosam Kanya (pseudonym), former resident of Errabore camp, December 2007 (Human Rights Watch)

3.Deny First Information Reports (FIRs), Claim no Evidence= No Atrocities
Question: Why are FIRs not filed for cases when victims have requested that they be filed?

On 18th March 2008, three tribals in Matwada Salwa Judum camp in Bijapur district were brutally killed by the Salwa Judum/police. On August 11th, 2008, Salwa Judum/police killed 5 people at the Arlampalli village. The police refused to file any FIRs in both cases despite constant requests by Himanshu Kumar of the Vanvasi Chetna Ashram. On March 31, 2007 the Salwa Judum/police killed six or more aboriginals in Santoshpur/Ponjer, a fact that was testified later by the “team leader of SPOs” to a journalist.

4. Meritocracy in the Bureaucracy: Murder, Rape, Torture as Credentials

Question: Why has no action been taken against former SP Kalluri for his crimes?
S.R.P. Kalluri, (Former) SP,Balrampur has been implicated in Custodial rape of Ledha Bai and murder of her husband, Police beatings in Ambikapur,  Lathicharge of Rozgar Adhikar Yatra (March for Right to Employment), custodial torture, fake encounters and Intimidation of Lawyers. Kalluri has been promoted and made DIG, Anti-naxal operations, in the capital city of Raipur.

5. Who is in charge in Chhattisgarh?
Question: Why does the Chhattisgarh government harass NGOs by speaking in two voices?

In August 2007, Chhattisgarh state tried to ban NGOs, including Medicine Sans Borders (MSF or Doctors without Borders). Why did a local DC (Dantewada) and SP (Bijapur) claim that NGO’s (and MSF) are assisting Maoists, whilst the State government in Raipur expressed full cooperation with MSF? Why did the media rush to declare MSF as banned, leading to harassment of MSF personnel by Salwa Judum?

Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA) is a new version of extraordinary laws such as POTA and TADA that bypass many routine forms of due process through a broad definition of an unlawful activity and acceptance of vague and unreliable evidence, all in the name of national security.

Salwa Judum: State sponsored militia set up in 2005 ostensibly to counter Maoist-led violence in mineral rich districts of Chhattisgarh, home to a large population of aboriginal groups now the predatory target of Indian and foreign multinational corporations. Many human rights groups and independent citizen’s groups such as Asian Center for Human Rights, International Association of People’s Lawyers, People’s Union of Civil Liberties/People’s Union for Democratic Rights/Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) West Bengal, and Indian Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Indian National Human rights Commission have documented the details of how Salwa Judum has been responsible for killing, looting, rapes and forced eviction of people from their homes to camps with inhuman conditions.


DGP Vishwaranjan: Highest ranking police officer in Chhattisgarh, consistent apologist for CSPSA, Salwa Judum

Related posts

September 27, 2008 | Filed Under Protests, articles | Leave a Comment 

FACT SHEET ON THE CASE OF DR BINAYAK SEN

(compiled by Ilina Sen, August 2008)