Ajai Sahni: ‘If the accused have set up an anti-fascist front, they’re, in fact, acting in defence of democracy’ // Arrested lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj says letter read out to media by police is ‘concocted’
As three of the five
activists – Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in Mumbai and Varavara Rao in
Hyderabad – arrested across the country on August 28 were produced in a Pune court on August 29, public prosecutor Ujjwala
Pawar claimed that they were members of the outlawed Communist Party of India
(Maoist) and constituted an “anti-fascist” front that aims to overthrow the
government.
Two activists detained
on August 28 – Sudha Bharadwaj in Haryana and Gautam Navlakha in Delhi – had
petitioned the High Courts and had been placed under house arrest. Scroll.in posed some questions to Ajai Sahni, executive
director of Institute for Conflict Management, about the case.
Excerpts:
What do you make of
the prosecution’s arguments against the activists arrested on August 28?
If I had read these excerpts without knowing the context, I would have thought them the work of a satirist or comedian. Obviously, not a single charge will actually stick, but that is clearly not the intention. The case will drag on in what I have described as a process of “punishment by trial”. The judicial system is slow, and is willing to pretend that it does not notice the utter silliness of the prosecution’s submissions. The accused will either continue to languish in jail or, even if enlarged on bail, will be harassed for years by the judicial process. This alone is the objective. In any civilised country, this would be regarded as malicious prosecution, and the people responsible would be severely penalised. In India, however, officers putting up such cases face no consequences beyond a rare dressing down by a conscientious magistrate.
If I had read these excerpts without knowing the context, I would have thought them the work of a satirist or comedian. Obviously, not a single charge will actually stick, but that is clearly not the intention. The case will drag on in what I have described as a process of “punishment by trial”. The judicial system is slow, and is willing to pretend that it does not notice the utter silliness of the prosecution’s submissions. The accused will either continue to languish in jail or, even if enlarged on bail, will be harassed for years by the judicial process. This alone is the objective. In any civilised country, this would be regarded as malicious prosecution, and the people responsible would be severely penalised. In India, however, officers putting up such cases face no consequences beyond a rare dressing down by a conscientious magistrate.
The prosecutor
claimed that Arun Ferreira “recruited” Maoists through photo exhibitions on mob
lynching which created an anti-government opinion. Does opposing the government
constitute an offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act? Are photo
exhibitions of mob lynchings evidence of Maoist recruitment?
If their offence is protesting against mob lynchings, half this country would be in jail. There is no such offence. Unless the specific charge of recruitment can be proven – and mere claims that “two students were specifically radicalised by him” will not suffice – the case will eventually be thrown out of court. Further, “radicalisation” is not an offence under UAPA; terrorism is. Unless direct involvement in recruitment for terrorism is proven, nothing will hold.
If their offence is protesting against mob lynchings, half this country would be in jail. There is no such offence. Unless the specific charge of recruitment can be proven – and mere claims that “two students were specifically radicalised by him” will not suffice – the case will eventually be thrown out of court. Further, “radicalisation” is not an offence under UAPA; terrorism is. Unless direct involvement in recruitment for terrorism is proven, nothing will hold.
By labelling the
activists “anti-fascist”, what is the prosecution implying?
The prosecution should first be taken to task by the court and the authorities for suggesting that the government is a fascist organisation. If the accused have set up an anti-fascist front, they are, in fact, acting in defence of democracy and the Indian constitution.
The prosecution should first be taken to task by the court and the authorities for suggesting that the government is a fascist organisation. If the accused have set up an anti-fascist front, they are, in fact, acting in defence of democracy and the Indian constitution.
The prosecution
claims that that the anti-fascist front had started negotiating with an arms
dealer in Nepal, and that Varavara Rao was the conduit. The prosecutor
submitted a “catalogue of arms” allegedly received from a dealer. Does this
scenario seem plausible?
Varavara Rao has long been known as a Maoist sympathiser. This is something that has been known to enforcement authorities and security analysts for decades. We may not approve of this, but this does not constitute any offence. As regards the allegation of mediating an arms deal, submitting a “catalogue” of arms received will prove nothing. A chain of material evidence would need to be established between suppliers and the recipients, with Rao plumb in the middle. I am confident that no such chain will ever be established.
Varavara Rao has long been known as a Maoist sympathiser. This is something that has been known to enforcement authorities and security analysts for decades. We may not approve of this, but this does not constitute any offence. As regards the allegation of mediating an arms deal, submitting a “catalogue” of arms received will prove nothing. A chain of material evidence would need to be established between suppliers and the recipients, with Rao plumb in the middle. I am confident that no such chain will ever be established.
Have we heard of
arms flowing in from Nepal before?
There were a few reports of arms flows from Nepal over a decade ago. There has been no credible report of such arms transfers in recent years. Of course, I work on the open source, and the government may have evidence that I have no access to. But prima facie, these claims are not credible.
There were a few reports of arms flows from Nepal over a decade ago. There has been no credible report of such arms transfers in recent years. Of course, I work on the open source, and the government may have evidence that I have no access to. But prima facie, these claims are not credible.
The prosecution
claimed that Arun Ferreira went to Kerala on International Human Rights Day
with the intention of convincing “young leaders” to talk to Varavara Rao. Do
you think it is fair to conflate human rights with Maoist work?
Participation in a Human Rights event and asking “young leaders” to meet Varavara Rao constitute no offence whatsoever.
Participation in a Human Rights event and asking “young leaders” to meet Varavara Rao constitute no offence whatsoever.
The prosecution
used the term “Urban Naxalite” in the court, though he admitted it was not well
defined. What do you make of this term?
“Urban Maoist”, “half-Maoist” are labels of recent invention. They have no utility in a court process. The court requires proof of membership in a proscribed terrorist organisation, or of participation in terrorist activities. There is no suggestion here that any such proof is available.
“Urban Maoist”, “half-Maoist” are labels of recent invention. They have no utility in a court process. The court requires proof of membership in a proscribed terrorist organisation, or of participation in terrorist activities. There is no suggestion here that any such proof is available.
The prosecution
acknowledged the names of the accused were not in the First Information Report
filed after violence in Bhima Koregaon, but said the law does not require this.
Most of the statements made by the prosecution did not relate to the Bhima
Koregaon investigation but pertained to general claims about Maoist propaganda,
recruitment. What does this indicate as far as the strength of this case goes?
The law may not require inclusion of the names of the accused in the FIR. However, the inclusion of any additional accused after this stage weakens the case against them, and the requirements of evidence become even more stringent.
The law may not require inclusion of the names of the accused in the FIR. However, the inclusion of any additional accused after this stage weakens the case against them, and the requirements of evidence become even more stringent.
The prosecution
said that Arun Ferreira’s work is nothing but propaganda for Maoists which
inspires many young minds and eventually pushes them to the jungles to join
Maoists, and so is involved in recruitment. What do you make of this argument?
“Maoist propaganda” and recruitment for Communist Party of India (Maoist) are two entirely different issues. There are numerous Maoist formations that participate in electoral politics. These are parties of ex-Naxalites who have given up violence, but continue to believe in some of the fundamentals of the Maoist ideology. There is no legal prohibition against “Maoist propaganda” or “Maoist advocacy”.
“Maoist propaganda” and recruitment for Communist Party of India (Maoist) are two entirely different issues. There are numerous Maoist formations that participate in electoral politics. These are parties of ex-Naxalites who have given up violence, but continue to believe in some of the fundamentals of the Maoist ideology. There is no legal prohibition against “Maoist propaganda” or “Maoist advocacy”.
The prosecution
brought up an alleged letter, which is said to include a plot to
assassinate the prime minister, and it has been claimed that this is one of the
main pieces of evidence for police to proceed in this case. Others have,
however, questioned the authenticity of the document, in part because of the
manner in which it is written.
As regards the letter,
first, the integrity of the chain of recovery would have to be established,
proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was recovered from the individual and
in the manner claimed by the police. From open source reportage it appears that
it is unlikely that such a chain would be established. An analysis of the
contents of the letter, moreover, strains credibility. Anyone familiar with the
patterns of communication adopted by the Maoists would immediately reject this letter
as an obvious fabrication. Moreover, in trying to implicate a number of
unrelated and prominent critics of the current regime in a plot to murder the
Prime Minister, prosecuting agencies appear to be constructing a straw man in
order to sensationalise the case. I do not believe the case will be sustainable
over time, unless courts are sufficiently intimidated by the political
executive, as they were, for instance, in the Binayak Sen case in Chhattisgarh,
to pass a judgment that would eventually be thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Hours after a senior
Maharashtra police officer told the media that the police had solid evidence to
establish that five human rights activists arrested on Tuesday had links with
banned Maoist groups, one of the arrested people, lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj, said
that the letter being offered as proof was “totally concocted”. “It is a mixture of
innocuous and publicly available facts and baseless fabrication,” Bharadwaj
said in a handwritten statement released by her lawyer.
Bharadwaj was among
the five people arrested on Tuesday when teams of the Pune Police raided the
homes of nine human rights activists across the country. The authorities
claimed that these people had been involved in an event in Pune on December 31
at which inflamatory speeches were made, sparking caste violence in Bhima
Koregaon, 30 km away, the next day. In addition to
Bharadwaj, four others were also arrested: Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira
in Mumbai, Gautam Navlakha in New Delhi, and Varavara Rao in Hyderabad. The police claimed to
have arrested these five after obtaining evidence from raids on five other
activists who had been arrested on June 6. They were Rona Wilson, Surendra
Gadling, Shoma Sen, Mahesh Raut and Sudhir Dhawale. During the
investigation into the role these activists had allegedly played in provoking
violence in Bhima Koregaon, the police claimed to have uncovered evidence of a
plot to assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi..
read more:..
