As to “condemning the Maoists”, you can make your own judgement whether it does it strongly enough. Certainly it details and condemns its crimes. But there’s no legitimate reason to condemn the whole movement (the report details many mobilizations of communities and organization, which in my opinion are very healthy).

I have responded to the important issues you raise here in my blog. See my new post today.

Best wishes

Gautam

Let me also add that none of us – Dr. Sen included – hold any brief for the maoists, and never have.

I’m glad you don’t. Now, this blog is not so presumptuous as to pass judgement on Dr Sen, but for the sake of bringing facts and clarity into the debate, I had asked if there have been instances where Dr Sen has unambiguously condemned Naxalism and armed violence. Now Dr Sen is under no obligation to condemn the Naxalites as much as he has condemned the state authorities. But knowing that he has publicly condemned Naxalism will help us see him differently.

But how many cases can you cite when the law worked in a way that obviated the need to resort to violence to remove the grievances of those at the bottom of our shining India?

I hope that’s a rhetorical question. But this is exactly the kind of moral equivalence/justification of violence that is suspect in my eyes. By your argument, if violence is the answer, then why should only those at the ‘bottom of shining India’ be entitled to it? Why not those at other parts of the pyramid? Why is injustice against person/income-group A worse than injustice against person/income-group B? Injustice is injustice. If all those victims of injustice take to arms, what happens to society?

You say you carry no brief for Maoists. Your moral equivalence and apology for violence makes that claim suspect. I condemn injustice, wherever, whenever, why-ever and to whoever it occurs. I condemn the use of violence, wherever, whenever, and by anyone. The only reason violence is justified in a civilised society is in the carefully ring-fenced case of “self-defence”. Even then “self-defence” is a mitigating factor, not a license. In this post, as well as in the op-ed, I’ve criticised Salwa Judum and the restriction on free speech. We know that’s wrong. Why can’t supporters of Dr Sen, at least those commenting on this post, also acknowledge that armed struggle is wrong?

I have to disagree with you that Dr. Sen has full access to lawyers and to the justice system. You should know that on more than one occasion, his trial was conducted by videoconference, without the opportunity to confer with his lawyers. The court had to order that he be brought before the court, so that his rights as an undertrial are protected. He has little or very limited access to his lawyers, and all the discussions have to be conducted by his wife on his behalf. Visiting him in jail is a chancy affair, as I discovered through personal experience.

To address your larger argument about the state’s monopoly on violence, by silencing those who are non-violent critics of government, and who advocate non-violent solutions within the laws and insist that the state operate within the Constitution, the state effectively strengthens the maoist argument that violence is the only effective remedy, and that the law is only for the rich and powerful. Lending credibility to its opponents is not what the state should be doing, unless it wants chaos and mayhem for its own cynical reasons.

Let me also add that none of us – Dr. Sen included – hold any brief for the maoists, and never have. But how many cases can you cite when the law worked in a way that obviated the need to resort to violence to remove the grievances of those at the bottom of our shining India? The laws are there, they are supposed to work, but do they? If not, why not? The failure of governance that you refer to is essentially a failure to apply the law with justice and equity. It also includes mindlessly passing draconian laws that criminalize non-violent protest. Read the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Security Act, and see for yourself. Under its provisions, Sudeep Chakravarti could well be arrested for having written Red Sun.

There is no doubt at all that he has contributed to the community and that people hold him in high regard.

But I hadn’t heard of him before the controversy broke out; so I can only go by media reports and discussions with people who know about the issue. Now I’m aware of his condemnation of the state authorities and Salwa Judum, but I’m curious to know whether he has unequivocally condemned the Naxalites, especially the use of violence and armed struggle towards the pursuit of their goals.

I could not agree more. Dr. Sen is just a poster boy for the many, many round the world. If you knew Dr. Sen personally, as I do, you would understand that a choice between two evils, however perfect, is no choice at all. Can you suggest an alternative while a talent is being wasted in jail? The many people who still wait for him to turn up at his clinic? At the Nagpur railway station a group of doctors detrained to wait for a connection to Raipur. they were on their way to attend a rally for Dr. Sen. While waiting, a fruit vendor asked one of the group where they were going. They said they were going to attend a rally for Dr. Sen. The fruit vendor took out 100 rupees and gave it to the group, as his contribution to Dr.Sen’s legal defence. Because Dr. Sen saved his father’s life when the vendor was a child. This is just one of the many moving testimonies. At the end of the day, one will have to ask where a nonviolent man serves his community best. In jail or in liberty? He is a prisoner of his own conscience anyway, which is his driving force.

I am glad you agree that Dr Sen has unfettered access to the legal system and lawyers. While I have every sympathy for a family of someone accused of a crime and taken into custody, I still have faith in our legal system. Can our legal system be better? Undoubtedly. But given the imperfections, should we start assuming that the testimonies of the defence witnesses and the media as the truth? Surely not. [For surely, the corollary to this argument is that we should accept the prosecution's case and declare the accused guilty]. So even given the imperfections, the legal struggle is the best way forward.

While your passionate defence of Dr Sen is well-justified, I would urge you not to draw comparisons with other cases. I’m sure Sanjay Dutt’s relatives felt that he was being unduly punished then (when he was taken into custody under TADA) and now. But we believe justice was delayed, but done: not because what the media says, but because the court ruled so.] The danger of comparing Dr Sen’s case with someone else works to Dr Sen’s disadvantage—so many more people are in custody, as undertrials for years together, because many are too poor to afford good lawyers. The media doesn’t cover them either.

Why is it that Sanjay Dutt, caught red handed with guns and grenades, been let out on bail but Dr. Sen been denied bail? Nothing incriminationg was found during the various searches conducted at his farm house, appartment and computer.

If we say that a state is sovereign within a given geographical boundary, I take it to automatically mean that this state has successfully assumed a monopoly within the said territory. I guess this is the standard Weberian definition.

>>But the nature of the state is less relevant, or not relevant at all, in international relations. Governments and regimes may change, but national interests don’t. >>

Very true. Whether the state uses the monopoly it has acquired to enrich the dictator or whether it seeks to cede as much space to personal liberty as possible – these are important. But only if the entity we are talking about has the characteristics of a state in the first place. We can talk about the nature of the state of Cuba, but we cannot about Chad.

For the population, say in the undivided Bastar dist (which is bigger than Kerala, a fact that still amazes me). They are caught in the geographical territory where two parties are staking claim to the monopoly. This is an unpleasant situation. The naxals collect toll, taxes, and even deliver justice. The Indian state has police pickets and occassionally forays into this territory chasing Naxals/Maoists. The population actually could not care less if the Naxals won decisively and established their monopoly in that area. They could then carry on their lives under a Maoist Socialist government instead of a Communal Socialist government. Nepal is an example of that. This would in effect mean the Indian state is not sovereign as far as Bastar is concerned. There is unfinished work. A natural conclusion is that Bastar, then has the properties of an separate state except for purposes of foreign policy. This is the situation that Sri Lanka finds itself in and is determined to invite the rebels into an escalation challenge.

Another issue before the Indian state (which claims to golmonopoly) is the nature of the territory in which the monopoly of force is being challenged. These are the only remaining swathes of forest left in India. The forest at Abuj Mand is 10,000 Sq Km, again a fact that stuns me. We are talking about prime, nature rich with lots of old growth teak/sal, mineral rich territory here. Read more at http://realitycheck.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/politics-of-entitlement-and-naxalism/ which I wrote after the Dantewada incident two years ago.

Sorry for the rambling comment. Kudos to you for this and the latest article. This must be required reading for the “community of humans” who represent the monopoly, the honourable MPs.

We may never agree because this monopoly [over violence] is the single most important prerequisite for statehood (in my opinion) …

I agree that we may never agree on this. Further, as Nitin has pointed out, if you defined state as the entity that had monopoly over the use of violence, there isn’t any scope for discussion, is there?

I lean towards the Jeffersonian concept of minimal state, and very wary of granting anymore rights to the state than those absolutely necessary to guarantee the inalienable rights of individuals, and to a lesser extent, enforce contracts between them.

I don’t agree that the overarching objective of the state is or should be its own survival. There is a real danger that it’d turn the government “of the people, by the people, for the people” into a government “of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians” in power. It’s precisely what led Mrs. Gandhi’s regime to impose emergency and suspend the constitutional rights of the citizens. It’s also the scariest prospect faced by the people of the U.S. after 9/11, especially when it became known that the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 [Patriot Act II] was in the works. The last is an example of the tendency of the state to anoint itself with extra-constitutional powers, ostensibly in the name of external threats.

For some interesting readings on this subject, checkout the papers on Alien and Sedition Acts at the Library of Congress, U.S.A..