Professor Saibaba given life term for Maoist links: A stark warning for the Azaadi brigade

Delhi University professor GN Saibaba was awarded life imprisonment along with five others for his links with Maoists, under the Unlawful Prevention of Atrocities Act  (UAPA) on Tuesday. 

Along with Saibaba, JNU student Hem Mishra, ex-journalist Prashant Rahi, and three others were also convicted, according to news agency reports. Now it is expected that Prof. Saibaba suffering 90% disability with only the ability to move his thumb, will get a torrent of sympathy from social media and the liberal quarters. Already in 2015, Arundhati Roy received a contempt notice from the Bombay High Court for defending Saibaba. So brace for a thousand op-eds about how dissent is under threat in India and how the state is increasingly turning authoritarian. 

But let us look at the case in hand dispassionately.

The Sessions court in Gadchiroli convicted Saibaba

Sessions Court in Gadchiroli's conviction order

Saibaba is convicted 'of being active member(s) of CPI (Maoist) banned organisation and its frontal organisation RDF which was formed with the infamous slogan of Naxalbari Ek hi Rasta'. According to the court, the prosecution proved that the six accused have 'conspired together for carrying out illegal and violent activities of banned CPI(Maoist) and RDF'. The court in its judgement said that since December 31, 2008 to present day, 'several innocent persons were killed by Naxals on suspicion of police informers, and several police officers have been killed by Naxals and huge public property has been either destroyed, damaged and burnt'.

 The court in a scathing fashion said that because of Naxal movement and violent activities, Gadchiroli has seen no improvement since 1982, when the district was created. The court squarely put the blame on these six accused, for this lack of development. 

About the oft-repeated argument that Saibaba is 90% disabled, the court said:

Sessions Court on Saibaba's disability

Saibaba is 'mentally fit and he is a think tank and high profile leader of banned organisation CPI(Maoist)'. The court elaborated on the judgement saying: by 'adopting 'Naxalbari ek Hi Rasta', the CPI(Maoist) and its frontal organisation, RDF, intended to overpower the government machinery by means of violent activities and armed rebellion. It is high time for these terrorist organisations to think of changing the path of Naxals and to come in(to) the mainstream.'

It also said that Babasaheb Ambedkar was also looking for a revolution, but in a bloodless manner. The Sessions Court was emphatic in its judgement that no individual can take up arms or hatch a plan to overthrow the Indian state and expect to get away without any punitive action. This is where the crux of the argument lies. Now, obviously Saibaba has the right to appeal in a higher court and seek redressal of grievance. But as of now, the Gadchiroli court is clear in its verdict that Saibaba used his intellect to try and orchestrate violent activities in the country. He wasn't a silent crusader, not a mere symbolic force raising his voice against Operation Greenhunt. 

Nowadays, very often in our educational institutes, we see secessionist slogans being raised and brazenly anti-national views being espoused. Now here, anti-national is the operative word, not anti-government, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Frequently these alt-Left leaders take the umbrage of freedom of speech to claim that they are entitled to their views, and the law enforcement and government shouldn't act against them. But where does the mere intellectual support end and active collusion start? Determining the thin line is often difficult and very may have a direct impact on the security and sovereignty of the country. While encouraging dissent is essential for the moral fabric of the society, it shouldn't be used as a convenient fig-leaf to hatch nefarious plans against the State. Using the shield of the constitution to try and overturn it, is probably the biggest hypocrisy of certain 'student leaders' and the cabal of intellectuals who provide them covering fire. Chanting about Kashmir's azaadi in the national capital may sound trivial to many, but often a state is bruised with many cuts by such blatant acts. Slow haemorrhage is what the enemy is looking for to strike at an opportune moment.

It is time for intellectuals and commoners across the aisle to come to a common conclusion that violence is unacceptable and any action which endangers the Indian state even remotely is condemnable. Trying to normalise violence by speaking ad-hominem or saying certain deaths are less condemnable or better for larger good will not hold any mettle in a civilised environment. Let there be debate, dissent, a free-wheeling society. But let's not allow anarchists to misuse it. That will actually bring about a slow death for dissent.