Round The World

New Delhi, 23 February 2024

UN Veto on Gaza

CALL FOR REFORMS

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

The United States vetoed the UN resolution calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. Thirteen out of 15 UN Security Council members, both permanent and non-permanent, voted in favour, Britain abstained and US voted against. But, since the five permanent members (P-5) have the veto powers, the United States vetoed it causing the resolution to be un-implementable. This is the third time the US has vetoed the resolutions on humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza: October 18, December 8 in 2023 and now this year, February 20. After the veto, the demand for reform of UN organs has become shriller. 

The United States is moving, at the time of writing, an alternative resolution calling for temporary ceasefire linked to the release of hostages held by Hamas since 7 October 2023.  On this dark day, Hamas launched a terrorist attack on Israel killing over 1200 people and taking 256 Israelis, including women and children, as hostages. What will happen to this resolution is a matter of time and speculation. Let us focus on the frustrations and desperations by the international community on the controversial veto process in the UN. Let us recall that the veto power has been exercised by all the five members on numerous occasions. 

In the recent past, Russia has used the veto 12 times in favour of the Syrian government which is guilty of genocide of over 400,000 of its citizens since 2011. Russia even vetoed a resolution calling for ending the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime in the civil war. China has vetoed more than once resolutions on Islamic terrorists working against India, to declare them ‘global terrorists.’ Russia has been vetoing any resolution in favour of Ukraine with regard to the ongoing Ukraine war. China is also vetoing any resolution in favour of Muslim Rohingyas as Beijing completely backs the military regime of Myanmar. 

There is a contentious historical context of the veto power by P-5 members. The P-5 is now divided broadly into two groups – US, France, United Kingdom on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. However, all of them act like a club and the club will not change the rules which take away their privileges. So has been the case. 

The question raised now by many countries is whether it is just, inclusive or equitable to let five countries impose their will on the rest 188 member-countries of the world. In fact, in the context of the veto, it is one country out of five imposing its will on the rest. Is this a fair, prudent and practical way to run international politics? Admittedly, UN Security Council has acted in unity in some cases, like military actions against dictatorial regime of Col. Gaddafi in Libya and sanctions against Iran etc. But in many cases like the ones cited, the one of the P-5 has been able to monopolise the peace process, in fact in most cases, derailing it. 

Let us remember that the UN was created after the Second World War in order to prevent succeeding generations ‘from the scourge of war’. The alternative strategy UN adapted to war consists of diplomacy, mediation and peace initiatives. But because of the unequal composition of the UN organs, mainly the UN Security Council, the principal objective of the United Nation has been defeated; hence the call for reforms of its structure. 

India, as the biggest democracy and the most populous country in the world is leading the campaign on UN Security Council reform. The principle New Delhi puts forth is ‘equity in global decision making’. This will redress the historical injustices committed on the Global South; “centuries of injustices”. India’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj made a powerful case at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform on 16 February. 

She forcefully put it, “I think we might all broadly agree that the historical injustices perpetrated against the Global South can no longer be ignored. It is time to rectify these disparities by ensuring greater representation for regions like Asia, Latin America and Africa on the Security Council through reform in both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership”. 

Furthermore, she elaborated, “Equity demands that every nation, irrespective of its size or power be afforded an equal opportunity to shape global decision-making.” She added that equity entails that the voices of the marginalised and the oppressed be elevated on to the world stage. Including the members of the Global South into the table will lead to more inclusive decision-making. Also, an inclusive Council will foster a broader consensus and legitimacy of its decisions. 

Let it be noted that India is not only demanding the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership of the UNSC; New Delhi is also asking for restructuring the decision-making process in the Council, which includes abolition of the veto power. Unless done so, mere expansion of the membership will not solve the problem; on the contrary, it will lead to perpetuation of existing inequities. 

There is some wind of reforms blowing from the P-5 countries as well. One hears the talk of embracing the concept of ‘voluntary restraint’. Prof. Jenifer Trahan discusses this concept in her book ‘Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes, Chapter 3 focuses on ‘Initiatives to Voluntarily Restraint Veto Use as to the Face of Atrocity Crimes’. There are six initiatives discussed in the chapter. 

She addresses a legal issue here, i.e., whether P-5 countries can legally use the veto in the face of atrocity crimes – which has serious implications on conflicts, and on the lives of all those affected by the conflict. Crucially, she establishes the linkage between the exercise of the veto power and ‘continuing death tolls on the ground’, like it is happening now in Gaza, Ukraine and other ongoing conflicts. 

Heeding the arguments and advice of Prof. Trahan, the world must do its utmost to ensure that UN charter’s voting provisions (veto) are never used that facilitates or enables the perpetration of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. 

The second much-talked about reform is the expanding the membership. The United States, UK and France are apparently open to expansion whereas China and Russia oppose it. The most potential candidate for permanent membership of the UNSC are India, Brazil, Japan and Germany which somewhat operate as G-4. This should happen sooner than later. 

To sum up, the United Nations has not been effective in countering conflicts, preventing wars and restraining belligerence by many countries. But, without doubt, United Nations has done commendable and critical developmental as well as humanitarian work. As we scan the multiple development arms of the United Nations, their works across the globe deserve admiration of the international community. So, one is not writing the obituary of UN. On the contrary, if UN did not exist, we had to invent it. More power to United Nations as it resets its structures and functions.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 22 February 2024

The Rajya Sabha And Biennial Poll

By Inder Jit

(Released on 20 March 1990) 

The Rajya Sabha is again in the news. Fresh biennial elections to the House are under way as one-third of its members are due to retire soon. The outcome of the poll is of interest any time. But it has greater significance this year in view of the stakes involved for the ruling National Front and the Congress-I as the Opposition. The National Front has to get two of its Cabinet Ministers --- Mr. P. Upendra and Mr. M.S Gurupadaswamy --- returned to the House and another two Ministers --- Prof M.G.K. Menon and Dr. Raja Ramanna --- elected to it. The Congress-I also wants some of its leaders back in Parliament via the Rajya Sabha. Prominent among these are Mr. Buta Singh, Mr. M.L. Fotedar, Mrs. Mohisina Kidwai, Mr. Balram Jakhar and Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad. It is also eager to get two of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s close aides --- Mr. R.K. Dhawan and Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyer --- elected to the House. The BJP and the Left parties, for their part, are not far behind. They, too, are trying to get some of their prominent leaders elected from wherever possible. 

In the process, the ruling National Front, the Congress-I and other major parties are poised to trample the Constitution both in its letter and spirit, ignoring the basic scheme of the Rajya Sabha in India’s Union of States. Under the Constitution, any voter in India can contest an election to the Lok Sabha from anywhere in the country. But the same is not permitted for the Rajya Sabha. Each member represents a State and is therefore elected by the members of the Assembly of that State alone. Further, he has to be a registered voter in the State and is required to be ordinarily a resident of that State. This principle has been repeatedly undermined and the Constitution violated since the time of Indira Gandhi. Mrs. Gandhi had, for instance, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, her Finance Minister, elected to the Rajya Sabha from Gujarat, following his defeat in the Lok Sabha poll from his home State of West Bengal in 1980. At present, we have Mr. Shiv Shankar elected from Gujarat and Mr. M.L. Fotedar from U.P. 

All this has come to be accepted, thanks mainly to ignorance about the Rajya Sabha and its role. The Rajya Sabha is not the Upper House or the Second Chamber, an expression which connotes an inferior position. It has a status of its own and a specific role to play unlike the House of Lords. In fact, Nehru made his position abundantly clear in 1953 when a controversy erupted in regard to the respective powers of the two Houses. He then stated the following in the Rajya Sabha on May 6, 1953: “Under our Constitution, Parliament consists of two Houses, each functioning in the allotted sphere laid down in the Constitution. We derive authority from the Constitution. Sometimes we refer to the practice and conventions prevailing in the United Kingdom… Our guide must, however, be our own Constitution… To call either of these Houses as Upper House or a Lower House is not correct…Neither House by itself constitutes Parliament. It is the two Houses together that are the Parliament of India…”

Some basic facts about the Rajya Sabha require to be restated. The Rajya Sabha cannot pass a vote of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers. Nor is the Council of Ministers under any obligation to resign if defeated on the floor of the House. The Rajya Sabha’s powers in relation to financial matters and the budget are also much less than those of the Lok Sabha. It has the power to discuss the budget. But it is barred from either rejecting or amending a money bill. It can only make recommendations to the Lok Sabha which the latter may or may not accept. A money bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses of Parliament if the Lok Sabha declines to accept the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha also appears to suffer a certain disability in a joint session of the two Houses because of its numerical weakness --- its membership is limited to 250 as against 544 of the Lok Sabha. Nevertheless, the Rajya Sabha is invested with certain special powers which add to its prestige and dignity.

The Constitution bars the Lok Sabha from legislating in regard to matters specified in the State List. However, the Rajya Sabha as the Council of States and representing the federal principle is specially empowered under Article 249 to make it lawful for Parliament to enact “in the national interest” legislation in regard to any matter enumerated in the State List for the whole or any part of India. Again, under Article 312(1) of the Constitution, the Rajya Sabha alone can empower Parliament to create in the national interest one or more all India services common to the Union and/or States. In exercise of this power, the Rajya Sabha passed in 1961 a resolution for the creation of the Indian Service for Engineers, the Indian Forest Service and the Indian Medical Health Service. A similar resolution for the creation of the Indian Agricultural Service and the Indian Educational Service was passed in 1965 by the Rajya Sabha by not less than two-thirds of its members present and voting, a constitutional requirement. 

One other aspect of the Rajya Sabha needs to be emphasized. The Constitution makers wanted the House to consist of persons of greater experience and eminence. They, therefore, deliberately opted for three things. First, indirect elections from the State legislatures. Second, fixation of minimum age for membership at 30 years as against 25 for the Lok Sabha. Third, nomination by the President of 12 persons “having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of literature, science, art and social service.” But the hopes roused by the Constitution have been belied during the past two decades. The provision has been diluted and distorted unconscionably. Several eminent men adorned the Rajya Sabha during Nehru’s time and for some years thereafter. They included educationists like Dr. Zakir Hussain and Dr. P.V. Kane, an authority in Dharmashastras, historians like Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji and Dr. Tara Chand, scientists like Satyendranath Bose, poets like Maithilisharan Gupta and Harivansh Rai Bachchan and artists like Rukmini Devi Arundale and Prithiviraj Kapoor. 

Indira Gandhi misused the provision to provide a convenient berth in the Rajya Sabha for ex-Ministers such as Mr. Mohanlal Saksena and Mr. Jairamds Daulatram, a Congress-I General Secretary, Mrs. M. Chandrashkhar and some others undeserving of nomination. Last year, the Rajiv Gandhi Government nominated four partymen: Mr. B.N. Pande, Mr. S.P. Mittal, Syeda Anwara Taimur (Assam’s former Chief Minister) and Mr. M.L. Bhatia. Astonishingly thereafter, it chose Mr. Justice M.H. Beg, formerly Chief Justice of India, for a vacancy. Mr. Justice Beg, however, passed away a few days before the formalities could be completed. Mohd. Yunus was then nominated in his place, causing all round surprise. Not only that. Independent persons have been encouraged over the years to become members of the ruling party, making a mockery of the Constitution whereunder these members are barred from voting in the Presidential poll to emphasise their non-alignment and independence. At least eight of the 12 nominated members today are members of the Congress-I in violation of the Constitution and its spirit. 

Surprisingly, there is serious talk at the time of writing that Dr. Raja Ramanna, Minister of State for Defence, and Prof M.G.K. Menon, Minister of State for Science and Technology are likely to be nominated to enable them to continue as Ministers. Undoubtedly, Dr. Ramanna and Prof Menon are eminent scientists. Both qualify for nominations to the Rajya Sabha. But it would be wholly wrong to nominate them to enable them to continue as Ministers. A Union Minister told me in Parliament on Friday: “There is no bar to the appointment of nominated members as Ministers.” Yes, technically. But, as I explained to him, nomination of ministers would go against the spirit of the Constitution and the unwritten convention. Prof Nurul Hasan, presently Governor of West Bengal, honourably resigned his nominated membership of the Rajya Sabha when Mrs. Gandhi invited him to join her Council of Ministers. Nehru in his time inducted a good few eminent non-partymen into his Cabinet, such as John Mathai and C.D. Deshmukh. All were, however, elected to Parliament. Not one was nominated. 

Where do we go from here? Both Mr. V.P. Singh and Mr. Rajiv Gandhi need to find honourable ways of bringing their party or non-party colleagues into Parliament --- and to desist from violating the constitution and healthy conventions. In the present case, only voters who are genuine residents in one State or another should represent that State in the Rajya Sabha. For instance, Mr. Buta Singh, could be found a safe seat for the Lok Sabha in Karnataka and a sitting member of the House from that State provided a berth in the Rajya Sabha. Dr. Ramanna should be found a place in the Rajya Sabha from his home State or a safe seat in the Lok Sabha. Two points need to be borne in mind in the final analysis. The Rajya Sabha is not the Second Chamber or the Upper House but the Council of States, representing India’s federal character. Nominated members represent the country’s conscience. They are expected to speak up loud and clear in the best interest of the nation, not of any party. --- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 21 February 2024

Farmers’ Fresh Stir

ARE THEIR DEMANDS JUSTFIED?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The conferment of Bharat Ratna to the late M.S. Swaminathan brings to the forefront the subject of farmers and their conditions of life and living for which the agricultural scientists had a definite contribution. But just after that, there has been a fresh agitation by farmers with various demands which include legally binding minimum support price (MSP) of 23 crops. 

It is well known that MSP is fixed at a level of at least 1.5 times of the all paid-out costs incurred by farmers.Experts have opined that this should receive a statutory legal backing and the MSP should be fixed at 50% above the comprehensive cost of production which includes actual cost incurred to grow crops and assumed values for other items such as family labour, fertilisers and chemicals etc. 

With no legal backing, it is a fact that over 80% of the country’s farmers have been unable to sell their crops at the MSPs fixed by the government. Most analysts believe that the ruling dispensation has little concern for the farming community and is not serious in ensuring how their income increases. 

However, it is quite benevolent towards the rich and reports indicate that the ruling party has allowed tax concessions of around Rs 1 lakh crore every year to Indian domestic corporate houses but most of them were not increasing their investments. According to Prof. Atul Sood of the Centre for the Study of Regional Development, JNU, multinational companies were involved in tax abuse to the tune of Rs 75,000 crore per annum. 

Meanwhile, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi recently at Chhattisgarh maintained that the party’s government would accept all the demands of the farmers, apart from a law guaranteeing MSP. In fact, Kharge unequivocally stated that the Congress has decided to implement the Swaminathan Commission recommendations, which are accepted to change the lives of 15 crore farming families. Recalling the unfulfilled promises made since 2014, the party president recalled Modi’s had said that “farmers’ incomes will be doubled” and promised “Rs 15 lakh in every account and two crore jobs every year”. Now other guarantees are being given, which they contend are also false.   

The Congress recalled that consistently Modi, since his days as Gujarat chief minister, had advocated MSP and went back on his words after becoming Prime Minister. It is a known fact that he endeared himself to the farmers in North India only through his public pledge for 50% profit over input cost and doubling their income to 2022. Congress spokesperson, Pawan Khera, showed videos of Modi’s affirmations on MSP and Swaminathan recommendations and also referred to the Report of the Working Group on Consumer Affairs in March 2011 which, under his chairmanship, had said that “higher prices would motivate farmers to increase production”. However, the government took a U-turn and in an affidavit in the Supreme Court pointed out that giving 50% profit plus input cost was impossible. 

According to government sources, farmers from both Punjab and Haryana benefited immensely from increased procurement of paddy and wheat at MSP as well as from multiple farm schemes during the last 10 years under NDA compared to the previous 10-year period when UPA was in office. In the case of Punjab, total procurement of paddy in 10 years of UPA (2004-05 to 2013-14) was 1263 lakh metric tonnes (LMT) which went up to 1686 LMT during the NDA government (2014-15 to 2023-24). Similar has been the case of Haryana. 

Meanwhile, an analysis by the Commission for Agricultural Costs & Prices (CACP) showed that farmers in Punjab are already getting MSP that is 50% higher than the comprehensive cost (C2). Applying C2+50% formula in Punjab results in a cost of Rs 1503 a quintal while the current MSP is Rs 2275 a quintal, which is 51% higher than the comprehensive cost (C2) or Swaminathan Committee formula. However, the comprehensive cost for a farmer growing the same commodity in Bihar and Bengal works out to Rs 1745 a quintal and Rs 2003 respectively. This means that they are getting less than 50% over the comprehensive costs under the C2+50% formula.  

Apart from MSP procurement, experts have suggested the need for a more decentralised and dynamic framework that might play a role in supporting sustainable, agro-ecological and economic transitions across different regions. The government needs to look into this aspect to ensure that small farmers at the grass-root level get the right price for their produce.   

While Europe’s farmers are protesting the EU’s drive to fight climate change, among other issues, Indian growers are more focused on state-set assured prices for their crops. They also want the government to honour a promise to double their incomes, complaining that costs of cultivation have jumped over the past few years while incomes have stagnated, making farming a loss-making enterprise. 

With a stagnant rural sector and a huge population dependent on agriculture, there is an imperative need to make agriculture more profitable. It goes without saying that the path shown by Swaminathan is evolving an integrated approach can help solve the challenges facing Indian agriculture. The objectives of government policy should be to develop an effective system, based on research and modern technological inputs to facilitate high productivity and ensure crop diversification for value addition and increasing incomes of farmers for which training programmes for small farmers are needed. 

In this connection, the Indian Council for Agricultural Research should provide inputs about crop diversification suited in specific areas and set up experimental farms in this regard, preferably at the block level. Unless this is done at the grass-root level, it would be difficult for farm incomes to increase. The approach should be to target over 80% of farming households having a holding size of less than a hectare. 

Additionally, there have been suggestions to set up farm management cooperatives that would manage for a fee, i.e., increase productivity without any rights to the land. These farms would benefit from economies of scale and their owners would have the option of seeking non-farm work. But even the allocation for the flagship scheme MGNREGA cannot guarantee employment for more than 40 days. 

The point that needs to be stressed is that if industry can be given so many incentives, why not agriculture, which employs a huge section of the population. Moreover, agriculture contributes 17% to India’s economy. But corporate houses are powerful enough to extract benefits from the government while agriculture, though providing food to livelihood to a substantial section, cannot get the attention it needs. Even food and fertiliser subsidy is being criticised though nobody talks about the incentives given to industry for their new projects or expansion plans. 

If the country has to develop in a balanced manner, the ruling dispensation has to give sufficient attention to the rural and farm sectors as they cannot be allowed to languish. Some economists have stated that if the farmers’ demands for MSP are met, there may be food inflation. It can only be said that there is no justification of the rural poor subsidising the rich and middle- income sections through cheap food when prices of all other items have escalated.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 20 February 2024

Farmers Protest 2.0

WILL GRIPE REAP DIVIDEND?

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)