Political Diary
New Delhi, 28 September 2021
Culture Of Protests
WILL GRIPE REAP
DIVIDEND?
By Poonam I Kaushish
In
this silly political season where Governments are busy indulging in symbolism
of ‘my Dalit Chief Minister in Punjab vs
‘my Brahmin-OBC Cabinet in UP,’ why should farmers be behind? Curse
all you want but India thrives on tu-tu-mein-mein
aka protests. The voice of resistance. The voice that says, enough is enough, which
has perfected the saying “jiski laathi
uski bhains”!
It
is all about registering ones dissent, the louder the better. Success is
measured in terms of causing maximum dislocation and discomfiture. And over the
last 10 years we see this voice raised aloud. India
has witnessed number of protests cutting across cities, classes and communities,
from farmers, students, Dalits, Muslims to women.
From
the Anna Hazare protest 2007 down Nirbhaya 2012, Citizenship Amendment Act
December 2019 to Monday’s Samyukta Kisan Morcha’s Bharat Bandh marking one year
since President Kovind assented three controversial farm laws and 10 months
since thousands of farmers set camp at Delhi's Singhu border to voice their
protest.
Life in Haryana, Punjab and western UP was
disrupted with protesters blocking highways, key roads, squatting on railway
tracks et al. West Bengal too saw protests
backed by the Left Front. In Guwahati Socialist Unity Centre of India activists
took out a protest march. In Andhra, YSR
Congress-led Government extended support.
In Odisha Nirman Sramika Sangha blocked roads in Bhubaneswar. In
Karnataka, a ‘Rasta Roko’ led to
disruption in vehicular movement in Bengaluru and several other parts. Public transport was hit in Kerala thanks to both the
ruling LDF and opposition Congress-led UDF support. Parties too joined
the melee. Besides the Congress, Left, AAP, Samajwadi, BSP, YSR Congress, TDP
and Swaraj India. Perhaps to score brownie points.
Raising
a moot point: What role do protests/ bandhs
play in our functioning representative democracy? Are strikes actually
expression of freedom or are they means of suppressing fundamental rights in a
democracy? Why do protestors resort to this measure? Is the cause valid? Is the State being unjust
or unreasonable?
Importantly,
will sit-ins on roads be the new grammar of Naya Bharat’s protests? Is it the
new political paradigm of dissent? To keep its flock together? Ignominy of
becoming irrelevant? Or political
considerations? Why are they allowed, despite innumerable court rulings banning
them?
Sure,
protest is an exciting word, the sustenance of democracy and a catchphrase for
free speech. It connotes peaceful march against issues from the mundane to
dastardly, injustice meted out by authorities, against a law, aggression by the
police, inaction by those in authority and what is perceives as encroaching on
their freedom.
Over
the decades each protest sowed hope that the gripe would reap dividend. Yet one
thing that stands clear is people are ready to take
to the streets to defend their rights as well as the integrity of the
Constitution against all attacks, even from the Government. True, some laws were changed, some repealed, some guilty punished,
some systems established, on some the Government refused to budge.
Gone
are the days when it took months or days to plan a protest. In today’s digital
media world, it is easy to organize dissent. Remember Nirbhaya outpourings
started with a SMS or Hazare’s dharna reflection
of “people power" who came out in droves against the endemic corruption
during the UPA II regime.
Besides,
it is easy to identify classic protestors who believe in the cause but there
are others who join as they have nothing better to do and not a few who join
the free ride as it is ‘fashionable’. While not a few are interested in “épater la bourgeoisie" (shock the
bourgeoisie) than in coming up with viable solution for the cause they are
protesting against.
Further,
some simply shrug off protests as “sab
chalta hai attitude, this is Mera Bharat Mahan at its rudest and crassest
best.” Many assert “ki pharak painda hai.” Indeed, India has travelled a long way from
Lokmanya Tilak’s “Swaraj is my birth right” to “protest is my birth right.”
Today, every other section of the society plans strikes as a matter of routine
to stall anything that spells change from the set routine.
As
India marches ahead, are protests the right recourse? Certainly, the
Constitution guarantees one the right to protest, but it does not guarantee one
the right to infringe upon others rights. Unfortunately, our strikers fail to
realize that strikes negate the basic concept of democracy. These are just a
camouflage for non-performance, self-glorification, to flex their might and
muscle, to gain sympathy or wriggle out of working hard.
Remember,
democracy is neither mobocracy nor a license to create bedlam. It is a fine
balance between rights and duties, liberties and responsibilities. One’s
freedom pre-supposes another’s responsibilities and liberty. Importantly,
protests cannot set things right and at the same time it cannot create any
psychological impact or pressure on the minds of those people who are sitting
at the helm of affairs.
Unless
protesters have a viable alternative to offer, continuing a strike could lead
to chaos and tyranny of the mob. Alongside, losses in terms of human casualties
and damage to the economy and businesses. Paralysing the State, black-mailing
corporates, industries to get attention and policy reversals only exasperates
the public and inconveniences them, cuts off the money flow, shoos off
investors and endangers their own jobs.
Undeniably, there is no harm in peaceful
protests. Yet unending dissent just to muscle the Government to bend only
threatens to undermine the legitimacy of Indian democracy: For, it offers no
viable alternative and only the chilling prospect of chaos alongside, losses in
human casualties, damage to economy and businesses.
Clearly,
the time has come to take a leaf from out the US law, wherein there is no
Constitutional right to make a speech on a highway or near about, so as to
cause a crowd to gather and obstruct the highway. The right to assembly is to
be so exercised as not to conflict with other lawful rights, interests and
comfort of the individual or the public and public order.
In
the UK, the Public Order Act, 1935 makes it an offence for any person in
uniform to attend any public meeting, signifying his association with any
political organization. The Prevention
of Crime Act, 1953, makes it an offence to carry any weapon in any ‘public
place’ without lawful authority. The
Seditious Meetings Act, 1817 prohibits meetings of more than 50 persons within
a mile of Westminster Hall during the sittings of Parliament.
We
need to remember India is a civilized democracy, a fine balance between rights and duties, liberties and
responsibilities. Whereby, a citizen’s right is paramount. One’s freedom
pre-supposes another’s responsibilities and liberty. Alongside one’s freedom ends where
another’s nose begins!
The question we all need to ask is:
Can we afford protests at all, leave aside for what purpose it may have been
called? At
some point we have to stand up and bellow, “Bandh
karo ye bandh!
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|