dna edit: Undermining democracy

The modern democratic state moves in mysterious ways. Binayak Sen, doctor and human rights activist — the man dubbed a Naxal accomplice and seditionist without any credible evidence and put behind bars for a considerable period of time — has been denied permission by a Raipur court to attend an international seminar on healthcare in Kathmandu.

According to the Chattisgarh police, his attending the conference — on the invitation of the United Nations Special Rapporteur to the Right to Health — would “consolidate Naxal and Maoist networks” and compromise India’s internal security. The world’s largest democratic nation is yet again demonstrating a troubling disregard for the bedrock principles of democracy.

Sen’s sin was criticism of the state. And the reactions to him underscore the manner in which the space for dissent in the public discourse on national security has narrowed over the past decade or so. Disagreeing with state policy is too often conflated with being anti-national; a handy catch-all tag. State excesses, the criticism they evoke and attempts to contain and suppress that criticism are nothing new; no democracy is impervious to such things. But the difference, increasingly, is the manner in which that suppression has been legitimised with nationalism veering towards jingoism in the political and public mainstream.

Thus, a Prashant Bhushan is assaulted on television for supporting a referendum in Kashmir, and Arundhati Roy charged with sedition. Speaking out against government policies in Naxal-affected areas is, as many like Sen have found to their cost, liable to leave the individual open to state persecution. And fundamental rights are abrogated by the military and paramilitary forces citing the imperatives of national security with few eyebrows raised. These are issues that require dialogue and debate. And while much of what a Roy, for instance, says may be problematic, she must be afforded the freedom of expression guaranteed to her by the Constitution.

India is justifiably proud of its history of democracy; it has persisted with its belief in the system when many other developing nations have been unable to do so.

But democracy means more than elections; free and open debate holding the state to account for its actions is absolutely critical to maintaining its vibrancy and health. If this right to disagree and criticise is not guarded by the people — and by the state itself — democratic structures and institutions are hollowed out.
Cases like Sen’s are litmus tests. The state must not fail the next one.