We talk a lot about liberty and the burden of it therefore in this country. It is reminded and taught to us at every stage of our lives that we are the voice of the voiceless. Here, we signify – the privileged, the educated, ones with degrees which institutionalise their intelligence and promise them the assurance that they know better. It is under these preface Civil liberty organisations like PUCL operate- That they know better and Indians for the most part, agreed, until very recently.
One of such organisation that has metaphorically and literally dropped the ball on the Indian psyche is the PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties). They were founded during the Indira Gandhi emergency Era. At the turn of the 21st century, something fundamentally changed within the organisation. They stopped being a civil liberties organisation and shifted to a more activist-centrist, anti-state and anti-corporate confluence point for radical elements.
It is important to note, that the playbook of PUCL was first publicly scrutinized when their National Vice President Dr. Binayak Sen was arrested for having Naxal links in Chattisgarh and also allegedly working as a courier between a prominent Naxal leader and the banned outfit CPI (Maoist), in 2007. Let us examine the events –
Dr. Bianyak Sen and The CPI (Maoist): Binayak Sen, was the General Secretary of PUCL Chattisgarh at that time. He was arrested by the Chattisgarh police on the charges of Conspiring against the State and also working to further strengthen the Naxal network in the state. He allegedly worked as a courier between Narayan Sanyal and a Bengal Based Business man Piyush Saha. Both of whom would later be charged with Sedition along with Binayak Sen. It is important to note that Sanyal was the Member of the Central committee in CPI (Maoist), which was the apex decision making body for the Indian Maoists.
“Sen met Narayan Sanyal 33 times within a span of 11 months (Form June 5th, 2006 to April 30th, 2007) by falsely representing him as a brother and relative of co-accused Sanyal. The purpose of meeting entered in the (jail) register was – ‘domestic reason’” – Raman Singh Government to the Court.
The allegations against Sen did not stop here. The state government further stated that Sen and his wife allegedly sheltered hardcore Maoists secure jobs. Here is what the State Said to the Court –
“The Petitioner also arranged job for absconding naxalite amita Srivastava in a local school. To camaflouge the identity of the hardcore naxalites, Sen and his wife Elina Sen showed Hardcore Naxalites as employees of their alleged charitable organisation ‘Rupantar’ .“
We will be talking about Rupantar, on a different article, maybe later. Now, what would you, the reader, assume the reaction would be for the arrest of a Maoist sympathizer, who has actively sheltered hardcore Maoists, provided them with jobs and also acted as a courier for the head of the banned outfit?
The International Outcry and Manufactured Consent
What followed after the arrest of DR. Binayak Sen was like a textbook implementation of the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci’s module. All of a sudden, the arrest of a single Maoist Ideologue became an attack against democracy. ‘Activists’ and ‘Professors’ were coming out of the woodwork to defend Dr. Sen. A concerted effort was made to make Dr. Sen a champion of liberties, He was given not one by two ‘international’ awards, while in Jail. Sen was arrested in May, 2007. In December of the same year he was awarded the prestigious R.R.Keithan Gold Medal by the Indian Academy Of Social Sciences. In 2008 he was awarded Jonathan Mann Award for Global health by The Global health Council. The international network was activated. PUCL and PUDR, an organisation we will soon be reporting on came out joint statements. Sashi Saxena, A DU professor, in that very Press release stated this –
“The situation in Chhattisgarh is volatile as the state has launched an all out war against the maoist movement … Dr. Sen’s untiring work in documenting the atrocities and violations committed by the state forces in the guise of the Salwa Judum has earned him the ire of the police.”
22 Noble Laureates from around the world started a ‘symbolic Fast’ in support Sen, more than 100, yes you read that right, One hundred international organisations endorsed this fast. Amnesty International even termed Dr. Sen – ‘a prisoner of conscience’. Now, the question is why I am telling you all of this. The reason for this entire context is to show who or what PUCL actually stands for. You see, they have mastered the act of selective outrage. Crying foul at every chance they get but remaining completely shut eyed when it comes to atrocities done by Maoists.
PUCL and other organisations like it have tactfully used word and have been very sincere students of Goebbels and Gramsci. PUCL transformed what constitutes as Human rights, and in turn what qualifies somebody to be human. Right around the same time Binayak Sen was arrested, actually in the same year 2007.
Maoists killed off nearly 100 security personnel. On March 15th 2007, 55 policemen were massacred in Bijapur, when the Maoist Insurgents attacked a police camp. In the same year, on July 10th Maoists ambushed Cops leading to the death of 24 police personnel. On August 30th, 2007, they again attacked a police convoy, killing at least 12 security personnel. In fact here is a list of all the attacks by Maoist against security personnel from 2005-2007 –
- Sept 3, 2005: 20 cops killed in landmine blasts in Bijapur.
- Feb 28, 2006: Maoists blow up truck in Dantewada, 55 civilians killed
- March 25, 2006: 13 civilians killed in Kanker in a landmine blast
- April 28, 2006: 13 persons taken hostage beheaded in Dantewada
- March 15, 2007: 55 cops killed in an attack on a police outpost in Radi Bodli, Bijapur. More than 300 Naxals carried out the attack.
- July 10, 2007: 24 security personnel killed in the forests of Regergetta near Errabore in Dantewada
Not a single peep came out of PUCL, PUDR or any of the 100 organisation which so readily tried to shield Sen. This theme of selective and cherry picking ‘human cost’ of the conflict has become the trademark of these ‘alleged’ civil liberties institutions. They do not talk about killing of adivasis for the alleged crime of ‘colluding’ with the state government by Kangaroo courts. They do not talk about the impact on education and children when Maoists blow up and destroy schools. Thus, PUCL does not consider anyone but armed Maoist insurgents as humans. They fight to push forward Maoist agenda with little to no regard for the actual people and children.
Salwa Judum and Why PUCL hates it
We have already spoken about Salwa Judum in the previously discussed press release of PUCL and PUDR. These organisations do not like Salwa Judum that is established. Now before we can actually delve into the reason behind their strong disliking of the organisation, we must understand what is Salwa Judum. ‘Salwa Judum’ was the ‘anti-thesis’, as our maoist comrades would call it, of Naxalism. The villagers fed up with kangaroo courts and extortion by the Maoists; decided they are going to fight back and fight back they did. They managed to free up huge number of hamlets. On March, 2006, the Communist Party Of India (Maoist) came out with a press release.
If you look at the allegations leveled against Salwa Judum, it is somewhat a carbon copy of they had claimed in this press release and the Supreme Court bench Which deemed Salwa Judum ‘unconstitutional’ was of the new VP candidate of INDI bloc – Justice Reddy. Interestingly, the PIL filed by DU professor Nandini Sundar & Gandhian Poster boy Ramachandra Guha very consciously avoided any mention of violence handed out by the Naxals; they focused on constitutionality and the alleged violence caused by the creation of Salwa Judum. If one is not careful and considerate enough, they might even argue that Nandini Sundar represented the CPI (Maoist) in the PIL. In both the Press release and the PIL, state force and the Salwa Judum is touted and presented as the aggressor. they conveniently left out the bath where naxalites committed violence and murdered over 3500 people between the years of 2005 and 2011. These numbers are not some imaginary non substantiated numbers that we are quoting. South Asian terrorism portal attest to the fact that out of those 3500 deaths, more than 2000 were civilians who are killed by the naxalites. Their treachery doesn’t stop there.
The State is Fascist, The corporate is the Oppressor & Only Righteous are the Maoists
You see according to PUCL the government is always the fascist, the corporates are always the greedy oppressor and the only righteous people around are the Maoist and their supporters. Let us see what they have said every time that the Indian government has gone after naxalites.
Operation greenhunt (2010)
This was a massive push by the state government against the Maoist which involved tens of thousands of security personnel pursuing naxal insurgence deep into Maoist affected regions. PUCL comes out and labels it undeclared emergency and not only that they go one step further determine the entire operation as an attack on the people of Chhattisgarh.
Salwa judum (2005 – 2011): we have already discussed how the language of the PIL filed by one of the most vocal members of PUCL- Nandini Sundar and the language used by the Dantewada unit of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) are strangely and starkly similar in their way of describing counter insurgency operation, willfully ignoring the huge numbers of death associated with naxal violence in the area and also an interestingly using hyperbole language which is early similar to the CPI Maoist press release in describing Salwa Judum, calling Salwa Judum– a state backed Armed Vigilante movement.
Operation Kagar: Which is the continuation of the Green Hunt, in a more tactical and scaled up way, also bought ire from PUCL. The moment the state forces were gaining ground into pushing back the insurgents, here comes PUCL asking for ceasefire. Here they ask the security forces to cease offensive operations and ‘engage in dialogue’ with the Maoists. They also demand that a proxy organization called ‘Moolvasi Bachao Manch’s leaders be freed. The organisation has been banned in 2024 for “continuously opposing and instigating the general public against the developmental works”. PUCL came out with a statement condemning the elimination of dreaded maoist leader Keshava Rao too, here is the press statement. Here they wanted –
-A transparent, independent judicial inquiry into the killings.
-Accountability of officials involved in the operation.
-Immediate return of the remaining bodies to the legal next of kin.
-A halt to Operation Kagar and its variants, and a return to rule-of-law-based policing.
This modus operandi of PUCL is nothing new; we have already talked about how PUCL’s Prashant Bhusan wanted to prosecute security personnel under SC/ST act.
The story of PUCL is not simply one of a civil liberties group that lost its way, but of an organisation that actively chose selective morality as its guiding principle. Time and again, its reactions to government counter-insurgency measures reveal a consistent pattern: silence on Maoist atrocities, outrage only when the state responds, and a systematic attempt to reframe insurgents as victims while ignoring the suffering of ordinary civilians, adivasis, and security personnel.
By lending intellectual cover to armed insurgency, PUCL has positioned itself not as a neutral defender of rights but as an enabler of one-sided propaganda. Its statements during Salwa Judum, Operation Green Hunt, and other campaigns were indistinguishable from CPI (Maoist) press releases, betraying an ideological alignment that undermines its own credibility. Civil liberties cannot be selectively applied, nor can human rights be reserved only for those who pick up arms against the state. True defenders of democracy must have the moral courage to speak against all forms of violence, whether by the state or by insurgents. PUCL’s failure to do so has not only eroded its legitimacy but has also exposed its deeper agenda of creating a narrative battlefield in favour of Maoists.
What emerges, then, is not a watchdog of liberty, but a partisan organ—loud against the state, mute before Maoists, and blind to the blood of innocents. For India’s democracy to remain robust, we must separate genuine defenders of rights from those who weaponise “civil liberties” as a shield for insurgency. PUCL, regrettably, has made its choice clear.
