Colonel B S Nagial (Retd)
On 26 Jan 2021, the farmers’ rally, protesting against the agricultural reforms’ bills turned violent as the protestors broke through police barricades and entered the Red Fort. These protestors didn’t adhere to the laid down instructions for the rally and clashed with the police at many places. Police allowed Tuesday’s rally because it would not interrupt the annual Republic Day parade in central Delhi. Farmers were given specific routes for the rally, mostly confined to the outskirts. But a group of them converged on the historic Red Fort. They breached security and clambered onto the fortress’s walls and domes, even hoisting flags alongside the national flag.
Protests followed the enactment of Citizen Amendment Act (Bill) on 12 Dec 2019. The move sparked widespread nationwide protests against the act and associated proposal of National Registration of Citizens (NRC).
In a show of resistance against the Government’s move to revoke the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 and bifurcation of the erstwhile sate in two Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh), a protest march was organised in New Delhi from Mandi House to Parliament Street on 7 Aug 2019.
Leadership occupies an important place in the protest movements as the leaders are responsible for translating objective causes into subjective consciousness and mobilising the participants. Hardly there is a situation where the participants by themselves can organise and lead a movement. However, India’s leadership pattern in different protest movements has been different.
As anti-government protests have become drumbeat of daily life in India, one question always bothers me more than others: the role and purpose of such demonstrations in well representative democracy in the world? Such violent protests representing the people’s power and aimed against ruling elites proliferate in non-democratic, authoritarian regimes is understood and make some sense. In the context of democratic polities, protest movements without a specific political agenda have been relatively rare, and usually occur when it is widely believed that there has been an egregious failure of democratic representation. It is reiterated that peaceful protests are entirely permissible in a liberal, constitutional democracy such as India. Yet, a protest without end, and without a credible political goal in view, only threatens to undermine the legitimacy of Indian democracy, which is unwarranted.
Significance of Right to Protest in a Democracy
* It helps empower individuals and groups to express their perspective, which does not align with the ruling regime and hurts the concerned interest.
* Right to Protest helps set or alter agenda in a debate that transgresses social, political and economic life.
* Right to Protest is an essential voice for the marginalised section in the democracy, as it allows for their view to be reflected equally and not submerged under majoritarian theory.
* Right to Protest helps bring about change in citizens’ mindset and fight discrimination, making the Government more responsive, accountable, and responsible to its people, all while making democracy deeper and broader by increasing individual and social groups’ stake in the nation-building.
But there is no absolute form of such Right and have to be qualified in the form of reasonable restrictions:
* The Right to Protest peacefully is enshrined in the Indian Constitution Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(1)(b) assures citizens the Right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
* Article 19 (2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the Right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
* These reasonable restrictions are imposed in the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or about contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
* In Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India and Ors. case (2012), the Supreme Court had stated, “Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.”
Public Protest in India: Historical Context
After independence, the State was suddenly a national state in the hands of a new national elite, but public protest’s language prevailed. The legacy of the anti-colonial struggle created political languages and forms of manifestations that are still alive and have been immensely invigorated from time to time. Today, the register of public protests, of breaking the law peacefully-the dharna, the rasta roko, hunger strikes, etc.-are deeply embedded, even banalised, across the Indian political landscape as a set of possible languages of political expression and dissent. Through protests, people act as watchdogs and constantly monitor governments’ acts, which provides feedback to the governments about their policies and actions after which the concerned government, through consultation, meetings and discussion, recognise and rectify its mistakes. However, resorting to violence during the protest is a violation of citizens’ essential fundamental duty. Enumerated in Article 51A, the Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence”.
Conclusion
The Right of citizens to protest and gather peacefully without arms is a fundamental aspect of India’s democracy. While the Government also must protect civilians from violent protests, certain essential principles need to be kept in mind. The Right to protest is one of the core principles on which democracy survives and thrives. However, when a protest turns violent, as seen in some places in recent demonstrations, it defeats the protest’s very purpose. While enjoying the rights, one must adhere to one’s duties and responsibilities in a democratic society. In a democracy, the individual will be the Government and limited by the social will, the State, Government, and democracy. If every individual takes the law into his own hands, there is no State. It becomes anarchy, i.e., absence of social law or State, that way lies the destruction of liberty. Therefore, you should subdue your anger and let the State secure justice. The most valid test of democracy is in anyone’s ability to act as he likes, so long as he does not injure anyone else’s life or property. It is impossible to control public morals when in mobs.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel