There is a Binayak Sen whose selfless work as a doctor among backward tribals in Chhattisgarh is recognised, appreciated and applauded. There is a Binayak Sen whose work on human rights, apropos Salwa Judum and People?s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) is also recognised. And there is a Binayak Sen who is accused of committing a ?crime? under sections of Indian Penal Code, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA). (Minnie Vaid gets the year of the second statute wrong and the exact title of the third statute wrong, too.)
The first two Binayak Sens have been recognised through awards (Paul Harrison award, RR Keithan Gold Medal and Jonathan Mann Award). ?Crime? is always with respect to a specific statute. Does it necessarily follow that someone who has been in the business of selfless and altruistic public work is incapable of committing a ?crime?? That logic is tenuous and most (though not all) defence of Binayak Sen is based on stretching that tenuous link, for his initial arrest, for non-grant of bail and for subsequent conviction. One should also be clear about legal issues and role of a lower court like Raipur Sessions Court.
Unlike the Supreme Court and even High Court, lower courts do not create law. They ascertain facts. It is certainly possible to have problems with sections of IPC or even the entirety of statutes like UAPA and CSPSA. However, that?s not for Raipur Sessions Court to sort out. The forum lies elsewhere. It is also possible for lower courts to make mistakes on ascertaining facts. That?s the reason an appellate process exists. It is no one?s case that there aren?t problems with India?s legal system, especially with criminal justice and police.
Delays, fabrication of evidence and problems of undertrials are known. Once one is accused of a ?crime? and the fury of the state is unleashed, hell can break loose, with rights honoured more in the breach. Ask Shankar Sharma and Devina Mehra, or Kumar Badal of Tehelka. But that cannot be an argument for ascertaining guilt or innocence through referendum. Had law not possessed technicalities, there would have been no need for lawyers and judges and we would have been comfortable with khap panchayats or justice ?delivered? by Naxalites.
But those are broader issues. A Doctor to Defend: The Binayak Sen Story is a book on Binayak Sen and it is difficult to disentangle Minnie Vaid?s biography from that broader persona of Binayak Sen or the legal case, which is the reason the book will do well. Irrespective of the case, Binayak Sen is an interesting and extraordinary person and a biography, properly written, would have been welcome.
However, are Indians capable of authoring good biographies? It is difficult to think of an instance. Good biographies of Indians are also generally authored by Westerners. That apart, a good biography requires objectivity and some distancing from the subject. Perhaps time and space also help.
Minnie Vaid is sympathetic to the Binayak Sen cause and, per se, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that she is unable to transcend reminiscences and anecdotes to bring out the man.An extraordinary man has been rendered somewhat ordinary by an inept effort. One can?t even say that it was a quickie, since the book has been at least two years in the making.
For the record, there are ten chapters, with a prologue and an epilogue, and a foreword by Ilina Sen. The letter from 22 Nobel Laureates has also been included. Because of the subject, the book will do well. But it is boring, doesn?t quite gel, and doesn?t tell us anything we don?t already know.
?The writer is a noted economist