Open Forum

New Delhi, 31 May 2023  

Of Protests & Movements

GOVT MUST EMPATHISE, NOT IGNORE

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The wrestlers’ protest April in the national capital with no sympathy being shown by the ruling dispensation is an example of stifling democratic values and worse an authoritarian posture. The wrestlers have brought glory to the country, but sadly their attempt to hold a women’s Mahapanchayat to press for their demands invites police wrath rather than a patient hearing. All this because a ruling party MP happens to head the wrestlers’ national association. Congress leader reacts: “The coronation is over – the ‘arrogant king’ is crushing the voice of the public on the streets!” 

Protests and mass movements are integral to India’s democratisation processes, and they have long occupied a central role in shaping public policy and legislations. India’s genesis itself is a product of popular struggle against the British rule, where top national leaders participated.  Our founding fathers, especially Mahatma Gandhi, believed in the idea of the common man standing up for himself and expressing his dissent to the policies of the regime. 

This precedent of protests is reflected Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees it as a right to our citizens. It was believed by Dr B. R. Ambedkar, one of the founding fathers and drafters of our Constitution, that protests would be rare in an independent India as other means would be available to get justice. However, this no longer holds good as many mass movements have taken place in the country initiating socio-economic and political reforms and changed the nature of our institutions.  

The best-known example is that of people’s movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan, which led to the fall of the ‘invincible’, dictatorial Government of Indira Gandhi in 1977, a feat thought impossible leading to the first non-Congress government since Independence. Similarly, Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement in 2011 was instrumental in taking down the scam-riddled central government. Social issues such as rape have too been addressed through protests, evidenced by the large-scale movement after the Nirbhaya case in 2012-13, which forced legislators to address the situation immediately. 

However, it is disheartening to note that in recent years, except the organised and massive protest by farmers, there has been no noteworthy movement that has a national or state-level appeal. The reason for the decline in protest movements is difficult to ascertain, but it is generally believed that the authoritarian tendencies of both Central and most State governments may be a critical reason. 

The other important factor is the lack of dynamism of the middle class, which has been benefitted by the pro-capitalist policies of the ruling dispensation. The upper middle class is always away from protest movements as it is more interested in its self-interest while a section of the lower middle class sometimes had earlier joined protests. In recent years, the educated sections of urban society are increasingly getting disillusioned with the political class for its authoritarianism, unthinkable corruption, mixing religion with politics and promoting violence, but rarely get on to the streets. 

Besides, recent years are seeing unleashing of concerted ‘propaganda’ against civil society groups and NGOs working in the social sector as being labelled as ‘foreign agents.’ A recent statement issued by a group of such individuals, just before the Bharat Jodo Yatra (BJY) made three arguments. First, the country is facing an unprecedented crisis with an “overwhelming majority of the farmers and workers, Dalits and Adivasis, women and religious minorities facing. . .  effective exclusion in the shaping of the nation’s future”. Secondly, the BJY is seen as a mode to reconnect with the people at the grassroots level simply to assert the constitutional values of liberty, equality, justice and fraternity. 

Finally, an important clarification is made regarding the relative autonomy of peoples’ movements. The statement stated, “in extending one-time support to an initiative like the BJY, we do not tie ourselves to a political party or a leader but, simply affirm our readiness to set aside partisan considerations and stand with any meaningful and effective initiative to defend our constitutional republic”. 

One may refer here to the well-known political scientist, Rajni Kothari, who called civil society movements non-party political formations. These grassroot movements influenced mainstream electoral politics. Political parties had to acknowledge the issues raised by these struggles. The Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha, a trade union movement, led by Shankar Guha Niyogi, is a pertinent example. This apart, the Narmada BachaoAndolan (NBA) against the Sardar Sarovar Dam emerged as an important reference point for the democratic and just notion of sustainable development. Also, the formation of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) was another significant movement to offer democratic resolve to the challenges posed by economic globalisation and aggressive communal politics. 

But in recent times, it has been manifest that the State has become violent and use force against the non-violent protests of common people. This is quite natural for an authoritarian government, which swear by the name of Mahatma Gandhi, but is totalitarian in character. There is no respect for pluralist democracy and involvement of the people in the development process remains a jargon. It is ironic that the panchayats have no power and everything is decided from the top. 

A lot of the legislation used for silencing detractors can be traced to colonial times which remained after independence. Just as protests are intrinsic to Indian democracy, the laws to suppress them are as well. One of them is the sedition law in the Indian Penal Code (Section 124-A), which has been construed to treat dissidents as rebels and put them in jail. Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru were charged under the same provision by the British and subsequently imprisoned. Recall, Disha Ravi, an activist who edited two lines of a document shared by Thunberg to show solidarity with farmers was arrested under this provision. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, dealing with several petitions against the misuse of the law, has put a stay on it. Another legislation, the UAPA too has been misused to detain dissenters during protests and dissenting on social media. 

The protestors and detractors are often termed ‘anti-national’, aided by the media, which is reluctant to criticise the Government. This leads to social ostracisation and, in some cases, even death threats. Police too has been increasingly discouraging protestors through harassment and brutality. The possibility of severe repercussions such as public vilification or FIRs at the behest of ruling dispensation can’t be ruled out. 

Social scientists believe, and quite rightly, that fragmentation of society as also political chaos and authoritarianism can only be curbed if there are mass protestsagainstpolicies of the government, which, in recent times, are seen as autocratic and anti-people. But for this the role of the educated class, who mostly come from the middle class, is vital in organising such movements, putting forth the demands in a judicious manner to the relevant authorities and continuing the movement till the goal is reached. 

However, the attitude of the authorities these days shows an unwillingness to understand the viewpoint and address people’s grievances. This needs to change for unless the problems of the people are understood and considered, inclusive democracy cannot be a reality. It is critical for the government to understand and empathise with the masses and not seek to entice them with talk or claims of taking India to new heights, of it becoming a superpoweror a 5 trillion economy.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)