By Poonam I Kaushish
In this silly political season when Parties are gearing up for general elections, protests are the current flavor. On one end, Government is busy grappling with Punjab-Haryana-UP farmers’ demanding Government’s guarantee on Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crop production in a repeat of their 2020-2021 protest, for over a week.
Camping in Capital Delhi’s 200 kms radius fortified with concrete blocks, metal barricades, barbed wire and nail strips, Samyukt Kisan Morcha has rejected Government’s offer of five-year contract to buy pulses, maize and cotton at old MSP.
West Bengal too is witness to protests over Sandeshkhali violence with women alleging sexual assault by TMC strongman Shahjahan Shiekh and his cahoots. What to speak of AAP’s remonstration against BJP over inflated water bills in Delhi, down pro-Kannada gripe on English signboards in Bengaluru or Maharashtra’s Maratha leader’s recent hunger strike demanding reservation for his community and Tamil Naidu’s complaint against Karnataka over Cauvery water sharing.
Curse all you want but India thrives on protests aka bandh-hartal, chakka jams. The voice of resistance. The voice that says, enough is enough, which has perfected the saying “jiski laathi uski bhains”! The cause is immaterial. It is all about registering ones dissent, the louder the better. Success is measured in terms of causing maximum dislocation and discomfiture to people bringing work to a standstill. Wherein a person’s freedom ends at the tip of the others nose!
Over the last 10 years 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, Nirbhaya 2012, Shaheen Bagh and Citizenship Amendment Act December 2019 to 2021 farmers’ Bharat Bandh and its encore today.
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?
Undoubtedly, protest is an exciting word, sustenance of democracy, a fundamental right to bring to Government’s notice what is not acceptable or odious and a catchphrase for free speech. But sweeping and uncompromising politics of heads-I- win-tails-you-lose on laws is unjustifiable.
Each protest sows hope that the gripe would reap dividend as people take to streets to defend their rights and Constitutional integrity against attacks, even from Government. Sure, some laws are changed, some repealed, some guilty punished, some systems established and on some Government refuses to budge.
Scandalously, India lost 36.94 lakh man-days in 210 strikes and lockouts in public and private sectors in the past four years with Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka topping the list, according to Labour and Employment Ministry data. The public sector lost highest number of man-days 19.91 lakh in 89 strikes 2018-20.
Part of the current paradox is explained by the changed notion of protest. The original concept was centred on the logic the only way for a disempowered people group to shake the system was agitate, from gherao for more wages to voluntary hartal against policy decisions. But slowly perversion set in. A strike could be effective only if stoppage of work could not be overcome easily by the system. Consequently, strikers use their power base, including violence, to stall anything that spells change from routine.
Gone are the days when it took months or days to plan a protest. In today’s digital-AI 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 endemic corruption during UPA II.
Besides, it is easy to identify classic protestors who believe in the cause, others join as they have nothing better to do, few as it is ‘fashionable’. Some are interested in “épater la bourgeoisie” (shock the bourgeoisie) than in coming up with viable solution for the cause they are protesting against.
Many simply shrug off protests as “sab chalta hai, this is Mera Bharat Mahan at its rudest and crassest best.” Some assert “ki pharak painda hai.” Indeed, India has travelled a long way from Lokmanya Tilak’s “Swaraj is my birthright” to “protest is my birthright.” Today, some section of society plans strike as a matter of routine to stall anything that spells change from routine.
As India marches ahead, are protests the right recourse? Certainly, Constitution guarantees right to protest, but it does not guarantee 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, gain sympathy or wriggle out of working hard.
Remember, democracy is neither mobocracy nor license to create bedlam. It’s 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 but only create psychological pressure on Government.
Yet unending dissent just to muscle the Government to bend only threatens to undermine the legitimacy of Indian democracy. Unless protesters have a viable alternative to offer, continuing a strike could lead to chilling chaos and mob tyranny. Alongside, human casualties and damage to economy and businesses.
Paralysing the State, black-mailing corporates, industries to get attention and policy reversals, xasperates and inconveniences the public, cuts off money flow, shoos off investors and endangers their own jobs.
Time has come to take a leaf from 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 individual or public and public order.
In UK, 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 Parliament sittings.
We need to remember India is a civilized democracy, whereby, a citizen’s right is paramount. 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)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
