Open Forum
New Delhi, 26 December 2019
Protest Politics
PARALLEL GROWTH TO PARLIAMENT
By Dr S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Protests over the Citizenship Amendment Act and
the National Register of Citizens have as a side effect reopened the debate
over the right to protest – a right asserted by activists as part of freedom of
expression on one side and on the other believers of its lawful limits for
orderly life. There is no blanket right in
any society for anything. The protests continuing in many States despite Prime Minister’s
clarifications need to be examined from many angles – causes, instigators,
leaders, organisers, participants, methods, results, actions and reactions, and
so on. The actors are many, some on the
scene and some behind -- unseen, heard or unheard. They are not the affected
people.
Protest politics has intensified in recent
times all over the world. The worrying
factor is that not all protesters are aware of what they are protesting
against, and many who are aware seem to be fed with misinformation,
misinterpretation, and rumours and exaggerations circulating as truth. There
is no consistency in the stand taken by some parties in the Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha or inside Parliament and outside. The malady has gone very deep as politics
and political parties, always having an eye on elections and offices, try to
catch every opportunity and twist every issue to collect votes.
The Act and the Register are different -- a
starting point that protesters, including many of their leaders, fail to see partly
due to ignorance and partly due to political interest in complicating issues
for propaganda. The only common feature is the term “citizen” though it is used
for different purposes. It sounds like the story of “crying wolf”, which in a
way is needed to compel the government to publicise the details of the two for
public consumption without delay.
Parliamentary majority to enact laws or to
frame regulations are not sufficient to build and to retain popularity with the
people. Out of Parliament speeches and street-level politics are forceful
weapons in the hands of parties and pressure groups which cannot be ignored by
the government of the day. It is necessary first to understand the value of
citizenship that has triggered violence on the roads.
In the West, since the time of ancient Greece,
the title of “citizenship” has been considered an honour and to be a good
citizen is something for admiration and respect. In the ancient Roman Empire,
citizenship was a privileged political and legal status accorded to individuals
with respect to law, property, and governance. In France, a distinction as
“active citizens” and “passive citizens” was made -- the former having the
right to vote and the latter living under government protection. Right to have
rights is the centre of citizenship in USA. How one becomes a citizen and what
makes one a good citizen has been historically matters of difference of opinion
and even dispute.
T.H. Marshall, widely accepted as the authoritative
exponent of post-War conception of citizenship as rights, conceived three types
of rights – civil, political and social. In Europe, the concept of citizenship
is traced to the French Revolution.
State citizenship is a human creation, a
status that carries political significance. It confers a number of rights and
duties, but the citizen is inclined to claim the rights and forget the duties. Citizenship, in some countries, is also
understood as an office, a responsibility, a status-cum-burden, and an
entitlement. Battle over citizenship is for the rights it confers and not for
the duties it imposes. It is concerned with the process by which people(s) become
citizens.
Citizenship provokes disputes and disputes
give rise to protests because it provides equality of status as the basic
principle. It relates to quality of life meaning availability of opportunities,
access to resources, chances to improve one’s prospects, freedom for
independent and individual growth, and assurance of equal respect. Citizenship
is intimately linked with progress and security. Only citizenship can ensure a
lasting bond in a plural society due to its legal basis irrespective of the
diversities within. Among citizens, there is a sentiment of equality. Citizenship
requires members to be loyal to the society in which they are members.
Protests have erupted as the law intended for
extension of citizenship is misinterpreted as a law for depriving some sections
of the population of their citizenship and for differentially treating those
seeking citizenship on grounds of religion. It is easier to escalate riot and
disturbances if communal prejudice and minority position are
attributed as the basis of this deprivation contrary to the spirit of the law
meant to help minority population persecuted in some neighbouring countries for
their religious persuasions and have migrated to India.
There is absolute need to publicise the
actual intent of the two exercises so as to clear the doubts of the people fed
with a variety of interpretations. NDA government has obviously failed in its
duty to educate people while embarking on such important measures. After going with
strong words in favour of the CAA, the government is now reported to be
proceeding cautiously in framing rules.
As protests have spread to many parts of the
country, Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits assembly
of four or more persons, was clamped in many States. It confers on the executive officers such as
executive magistrates or sub-divisional magistrates powers for passing orders
to tackle any urgent cases of “nuisance” or “apprehended danger” that may arise
in their territorial jurisdiction where such orders will prevent or are likely
to prevent any adverse impact upon human life, health, safety, or prevent “a
disturbance of the public tranquility”. The Section can be imposed only after
prior notice and hearing of the persons whose rights will be adversely affected
and only “in cases of emergency” this condition could be waived.
Restrictions could not be minimal and
reasonable as often advised by the Court as Section 144 was not enough to
contain violence this time. In Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka, statewide clamping
of Section 144 was accompanied with blocking of mobile services and internet
and in Delhi metro services were shut down in many places.
Arson and vandalism ruled in many cities in
UP leading to police firing. Extensive damage to public and private property by
protesters in UP and Karnataka is
evidence of the extent of anti- CAA and
anti-NRC campaigns and the ease with which masses can be provoked and incited
to violence without even a knowledge of
the cause of protest. The presence of the police has not been sufficient
to control the situation. Violence could not be contained by limited action as
false information spreads in split seconds giving no time for damage control.
This protest has firmly established the
efficacy of slogans in the place of reasoning and fear mongering replacing fact
verification. The way it is conducted raises a doubt whether there are
professional protesters in this country out to destabilise orderly life or
nursing a wrong notion that direct actions are the most democratic form of
expressing views.
There is need to make an in-depth analysis of
protest politics that is growing parallel to parliamentary politics. Indeed, it
is enacted even inside Parliament.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|