William Wilberforce is a man one should know about, but few actually do. Wilberforce (1759-1833) was a British politician and abolitionist, a man who spent his life fighting for the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain and across the British empire. The movement that he led in Parliament was met with stiff resistance both in the House of Commons and outside. Among others was a campaign that almost silenced him once and for ever. The argument that made this campaign menacing was that were the slave trade to be abolished, Britain would lose control over its colonies in the Caribbean and France would step in to reap the dividends. The campaign was orchestrated in a way that would brand Wilberforce: he was accused of being seditious. The man beat a tactical retreat, but eventually won the day. Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 through Parliament was assured.
Wilberforce was not the first in history of being accused of sedition or treason, but he was the certainly first who was accused thus in his own country because he fought for justice, for human emancipation, for liberty. Sedition is a very convenient tool to curb those who seek change. It is also an archaic tool, steeped in medieval intolerance. It is this same tool that was used to clamp down on Mohandas Gandhi. Agreed, Gandhi was, technical speaking, fighting against another country. But then Binayak Sen was not. Sen, who gave up a flourishing career to work for the downtrodden, has been incarcerated for being seditious. He did have a choice in life – either he could migrate to the West and make pots of money, or work among the poorest of the poor and make no money at all. He chose to opt for the latter. But then poverty itself is a political issue, it is the worst form of human rights violation. So when you fight against poverty, you fight for human rights, and sooner or later are seen to go against the State.
The same kind of choice had confronted Wilberforce. He was devoutly religious and had almost made up his mind to pursue the path of god. He would have had it not been for a group of anti-slave trade activists like Thomas Clarkson, who persuaded him to take up the cause. Wilberforce did not become irreligious, but he did spend the rest of his life on the floor of the House of Commons arguing incessantly about why the practice of slave trade was intrinsically inhuman. When he was accused of sedition during the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, Wilberforce was shattered. Those were not days when you used Twitter to build up a campaign, or to refute allegations. If mud was flung on you, it stayed stuck. Wilberforce, however, grappled with the vilest of damaging canards amidst failing health. It was after decades of campaigns that the British parliament abolished the practice. Wilberforce did not gain anything on the personal front; but he was the one man who brought an end to one of the most horrific human practices ever. He is not even remembered this day. But then, there are people who don’t take up causes in life because they want to be remembered – they fight for a cause because they believe in it.
So it is with Binayak Sen. Well, to a considerable extent. Wilberforce was not imprisoned, but the doctor from Chhattisgarh has been. If you have been following the case you would know that the charges that were framed against Sen were decidedly flimsy. He has been penalised for disaffection and disloyalty towards the State. What you would probably not know is that there are hundreds of people languishing in jails across the country on the same charges. People in this country are being accused of being unlawful under a colonial law that ruthlessly clamps down on those who dare to speak against the repression of the State. In the days of the Raj, the law did not require your speech to have any effect. It didn’t even require that people would take up arms against the State. The mere statement was enough. Post-Independence developments have seen only a slight modification in this interpretation. Now, the speech must be accompanied by an overt act against the State. The charges, some circumstantial and others trumped-up, against Sen are about giving credence to these so-called overt acts.
Look at it this way. First you have abject poverty that is widespread. If you understand poverty as a political issue and a human rights violation, then you speak out or act against it. When you do so, you are seen as someone who’s going against the State. The State takes it very personally since, at the end of the day, it is the State which should be held accountable for the poverty all around. After all, according to the government’s own figures, the number of people living below the poverty line in India is close to two-thirds of the population.
If speaking out against the government is the same as articulating thoughts against the nation, we are indeed living in the Dark Ages. If Wilberforce were living in India today, he would surely be rotting in a jail somewhere.
