This blogger doesn’t really have much information regarding Binayak Sen case. Binayak Sen a 
Doctor and Human right activist was arrested for being a sympathizer of Naxalites in Chattisgarh State. His petition was rejected even by the Supreme Court. For common people Judiciary epitomizes rightness therefore justice. Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. But the State of affairs within judiciary is being questioned many a times. There has been serious allegation of corruption as also insensitivity and bias towards elitist policies. The recent petition of eminent people around the world and within the country in support of Binayak Sen has put a serious question mark on judicial system in the country as also the way in which Naxals are dealt by the Centre.
Any system in a democratic set up has to function under the condition of scrutiny and accountability, otherwise it is authoritarian. The contempt procedures initiated by the Courts falls into feudal mindset. People in this country have all the right to know the functioning of judiciary wherein the matters are not affecting or interfering the effective transmission of justice. People have all the right to question and discuss court verdict-at the most it is a law and order issue. One wonders why RTI shouldn’t include the way Judiciary is functioning (and what happened to judicial commission?), bringing judges under ombudsman as a public servant is a step long due. Then there is a matter of proper representation of different sections of society in Judicial system (empathy an important context in Indian social reality seems to be lacking in many cases). As policies are increasingly influenced by Market (in the guise of economic development), as Media is substantially concerned about popular and attractive issues, common people are increasingly relying on Judiciary. An unrepresented Judiciary with insular understanding can only breed unrest; Naxalism is but one face of it.
PM might refer Naxals “threat number one” (that sounds like Govinda-Dhawan flick!!), the fact though is GDP led policies has its limitations. Of course economic globalization has helped lots of people but the ‘market competition’ can be sustained by the society if it is equipped. If there is no high level of schooling and education, if land reforms cannot be done then these ‘market competition’ can only accentuate disparities, clearly the benefits is being accrued disproportionately by a narrow section. One cannot negate the issues taken up by the Naxalites, their means though is reprehensible and should be severely dealt. It seems though that the state has blundered in the case of Binayak Sen. The State is wrong in prosecuting non violent sympathizers of Naxals that goes against norms of civilized society. Civil right is a step towards political right and both have umbilical link. Denying Civil right is denying political right and therefore chance for political solution. The State is not presenting a civil option, this will only breed violence. It would do the Government much good if it rethinks the way it is dealing with Naxal ideology. People like Binayak Sen are important link between alienated people who have taken to Naxalism (and violence) and the State, he is part of the solution. The earlier government realizes better. As Amartya Sen wrote in his essay (Democracy as Universal value) “The protective power of democracy may not be missed much when a country is lucky enough to be facing no serious calamity, when everything is going quite smoothly. Yet the danger of insecurity, arising from changed economic or other circumstances, or from uncorrected mistakes of policy, can lurk behind what looks like a healthy state”.
Doctor and Human right activist was arrested for being a sympathizer of Naxalites in Chattisgarh State. His petition was rejected even by the Supreme Court. For common people Judiciary epitomizes rightness therefore justice. Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. But the State of affairs within judiciary is being questioned many a times. There has been serious allegation of corruption as also insensitivity and bias towards elitist policies. The recent petition of eminent people around the world and within the country in support of Binayak Sen has put a serious question mark on judicial system in the country as also the way in which Naxals are dealt by the Centre.Any system in a democratic set up has to function under the condition of scrutiny and accountability, otherwise it is authoritarian. The contempt procedures initiated by the Courts falls into feudal mindset. People in this country have all the right to know the functioning of judiciary wherein the matters are not affecting or interfering the effective transmission of justice. People have all the right to question and discuss court verdict-at the most it is a law and order issue. One wonders why RTI shouldn’t include the way Judiciary is functioning (and what happened to judicial commission?), bringing judges under ombudsman as a public servant is a step long due. Then there is a matter of proper representation of different sections of society in Judicial system (empathy an important context in Indian social reality seems to be lacking in many cases). As policies are increasingly influenced by Market (in the guise of economic development), as Media is substantially concerned about popular and attractive issues, common people are increasingly relying on Judiciary. An unrepresented Judiciary with insular understanding can only breed unrest; Naxalism is but one face of it.
PM might refer Naxals “threat number one” (that sounds like Govinda-Dhawan flick!!), the fact though is GDP led policies has its limitations. Of course economic globalization has helped lots of people but the ‘market competition’ can be sustained by the society if it is equipped. If there is no high level of schooling and education, if land reforms cannot be done then these ‘market competition’ can only accentuate disparities, clearly the benefits is being accrued disproportionately by a narrow section. One cannot negate the issues taken up by the Naxalites, their means though is reprehensible and should be severely dealt. It seems though that the state has blundered in the case of Binayak Sen. The State is wrong in prosecuting non violent sympathizers of Naxals that goes against norms of civilized society. Civil right is a step towards political right and both have umbilical link. Denying Civil right is denying political right and therefore chance for political solution. The State is not presenting a civil option, this will only breed violence. It would do the Government much good if it rethinks the way it is dealing with Naxal ideology. People like Binayak Sen are important link between alienated people who have taken to Naxalism (and violence) and the State, he is part of the solution. The earlier government realizes better. As Amartya Sen wrote in his essay (Democracy as Universal value) “The protective power of democracy may not be missed much when a country is lucky enough to be facing no serious calamity, when everything is going quite smoothly. Yet the danger of insecurity, arising from changed economic or other circumstances, or from uncorrected mistakes of policy, can lurk behind what looks like a healthy state”.
