Division Status

How to Define Political Prisoners
Santosh Rana

I was arrested on 30 May, 1968 from Gopiballavpur, Medinipur for participation in political activities. This was my first experience of police arrest. After that, I was brought to the Medinipur Central Jail. Kishan Chatterjee, who received me at the prison-gate, took me to the Division Ward. Since I had no prior experience of imprisonment, difference between a Division Ward and an ordinary ward was unknown to me. Chatterjee explained that the government had arrested us under the Preventive Detention Act (C), under which the arrested persons were to be lodged in the Division Ward and to be provided with good food, beds, electric fans and even mosquito curtains. Besides, each prisoner was to be given a family allowance. I was in prison till March 1969 and all through this period, received a family allowance at the rate of Rs 175 per month. In all of the three prisons, namely Medinipur, Dum Dum and Tihar, where I stayed, I received the status of a PD(C) prisoner.

More than four years later, I was again arrested. I was in the police custody for about a month and then brought to the Medinipur Central Jail where there were more than three hundred prisoners who had been arrested for association with our movement. Among the arrested were Pradip Banerjee, Meghnad, Pradip Singh Thakur etc. Myself and some of these prisoners were lodged in Cell No 32, while the rest were in Ward No 13. This time none of us was granted the Division Status. We were treated at par with ordinary prisoners, but there was a difference. While the ordinary prisoners were allowed some freedom of movement within the jail permises, this facility was denied to us.

This was the period when it was considered a ‘revisionist’deviation to ask for the ‘Divison’ status or any other facilities from the prison authorities. But even before my arrest, we had begun to differ from what was known as Charu Majumdar’s line. After my arrest, we launched a hunger-strike demanding the right to read books and newspapers, alongwith other facilities. The strike lasted seven days with the result that the conditions inside the prison became somewhat bearable. Since I was an accused in the Amherst Street Conspiracy Case, I was brought to the Presidency Jail, Kolkata in 1974 to face the Fifth Tribunal constituted for the trial of the case. The judge of the Tribunal decreed that all the accused of the case should be treated as political prisoners, and hence he ordered the Division status for them. The then Government of West Bengal did not oppose the order.

In the present jail code, the section on political prisoners contains a clear-cut definition of the term ‘political prisoner’. This section, non-existent in 1974, was incorporated as an amendment in 1992. The amendment clearly states that those who have broken the law not for personal interest, but for political purposes, can be treated as political prisoners. But after the arrest of Gour Chakrabarty, Raja Sarkhel, Prasun Chatterjee, Chhatradhar Mahato and others, it was observed that the Left Front Government that had made the amendment of 1992 was refusing to treat these persons as political prisoners.

In 2007, alongwith Asim Chatterjee and some others, I met the then Home Secretary, Mr Prasad Ranjan Ray and demanded the status of political prisoners for those imprisoned as Maoists. Mr Ray told us in clear language that there was no legal hurdle, but the decision was to be taken by the government. He advised us to talk with the Chief Minister, Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. We did not, however, get the opportunity.

As a matter of fact, the government refused to act in accordance with its own law. It was then arguing that these prisoners had allegations of heinous crimes like murder against them. But in the amended act of 1992, nothing was said about the type of allegation that could disqualify or qualify one for the status of a political prisoner. It was said that if someone committed the offence with ‘exclusive political objective’ and was ‘free from personal greed or motive’, he/she could be called a polticial prisoner. Clearly the Left Front Government of West Bengal violated its own norm. Yet it cannot be gainsaid that by introducing the amendment in 1992, the Left Front did a good thing the like of which was not done by any other state government of the Indian Union.

In 2011, the new cabinet came to be formed with Mamata Banerjee as the Chief Minister. Few persons had expected Mamata Banerjee to solve all the problems of the state, but many hoped that she would at least release the political prisoners. In the wake of the mass upheaval in Lalgarh, she went there and shared the same dias with Chhatradhar Mahato at a public gathering. Besides, she had reportedly secret talks with the Maoist leaders and supporters, the result of which was an unwritten agreement to defeat the Left Front. But the stand she took after coming to power was a breach of promise and to put exactly much more than that. It was a sort of double-dealing that has few precedents in Indian politics. Before the polls she shared the same public platform with Chhatradhar Maharo, and hence her first duty after the polls was to order his release. But even after the expiry of more than eighteen months, Mahato is languishing in jail.

Four months ago (8 August, 2012) the Calcuttal High Court ordered the political status for a few prisoners branded as Maoists. They were Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren, Agun Murmu, Sukhsanti Baske, Prasun Chatterjee, Gour Chakrabarty and V Venkateswar Reddy. The High Court pronounced this judgement in accordance with Section 24(3)(vi) of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act 1992. In the order of the High Court it was categorically stated that even if a person was a member of an outlawed political outfit, he/she could not be deprived of the status of a political prisoner.

Newspaper reports suggest that the Central Government is greatly worried about the matter of granting political status to UAPA prisoners and they have already written to the state government for scrapping the provision of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992. The Trinamul Congress has already withdrawn its support to the UPA government and has been a party to a no-confidence motion against the latter. But there does not seem to be any serious defference between the two in respect of suppression of democratic rights. Rather the Trinamul Congress Government of West Bengal seems to be surpassing all previous records as far as the supperssion of any opposition is concerned.

Anybody has the right to differ from the politics of Chhatradhar Mahato, Prasun Chatterjee or Gour Chakrabarty. In truth there are many who do not approve of this politics. As a specific example, it can be said that the way the Maoists, in 2009-10, joined hands with the Trinamul Congress to put a stop to all other political activities and kill more than three hundred political activists differing from them was not approved by the people of Jangal Mahal. But can it be said the Chhatradhar, Prasun or Gour Chakrabarty are not political prisoners? Since the colonial times, the Indian people have considered such prisoners as political prisoners. The Act of 1992 has recognised this reality.

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 28, January 20-26, 2013

Your Comment if any