The Heart of a Protest
To be or not to be, that is the question.
The year 2020 posed an existential question to the world - not only to human beings and their illusory pride but to the structures of the state and society - most notably to democracy. Why I say this is not because of the horrors of the pandemic but owing to the unrest and popular protests which emerged during this time. The Black Lives Matter movement in the US, pro-democracy protests in Thailand, Belarus and recently in Myanmar, the CAA-NRC and the Farm Laws protests back at home, protests against sedition - the list goes on.
Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), all of these, without exception, were met with charges of ‘terrorism’, ‘unlawfulness’, ‘sensationalism’, ‘misinformation’ and the all time favourite of all authoritarian regimes facing resistance - ‘conspiracy’.
Protests against unemployment, corruption and inflation in the 1970s were termed as part of an “international conspiracy to destabilise India”. The result - Emergency. Today, a mass protest against corporatisation of the farm sector (regardless of its merits) is being called an “international conspiracy to destabilise India”. No one knows what will follow. In this context, therefore, it is imperative to try and understand the dynamics of a protest.
There’s a reason why Marx speaks through the centuries. He proposed that the middle classes act as the shock-absorber of revolution due to their aversion to any kind of disruption - bandhs, hartals, blocking of public roads etc. The apex court (with all due respect) seems to agree with them, when it pronounces conveniently - “public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.”
It is ironic that the nation is commemorating the Dandi March to mark 75 years of perhaps, the most beautiful and brave protest in history. Protestors (it is unfortunate enough that they have become a class of their own) often have to bear the brunt of obscenities thrown at them by no less than holders of constitutional offices. They are the object of indifferent sighs in our drawing rooms - “I don’t know what’s the problem with these people !” And let’s not forget - they face the atrocity of the State’s ‘exclusive right of violence.’
As an admirer of Gandhi (with all his flaws), I find the legacy of peaceful, non-violent protest left by him to be remarkable. Not only has it influenced the likes of Dr. King, Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi but more importantly, it has inspired the courage of a farmer, a young climate activist in her 20s, a Muslim woman hitherto ignored and students like me to express our dissatisfaction with the status quo.
The Heart of a Protest, according to me, is reclaiming democracy. As one of my teachers puts it - “Democracy is not a form of government. It is a way of life.” It is not democracy to conduct elections every 5 years and then allow politicians to turn around and show us those results as a justification for their actions. It is not democracy for leaders to claim that they alone, as ‘elected representatives of the people’, have the right to decide the destiny of our nation. A protest, in my opinion, is the purest, the most original and the most spontaneous expression of democracy.
Saying that protests should be ‘conducted’ in ‘designated places’ is like telling a Black woman in America that she has the right to participate as an equal, but segregated in another room. A protest, by definition, is an expression of unhappiness with the law and public policy, as it stands today. It is bound to contain within it, elements of illegality or disruption but as long as it does not lead to violence, a truly democratic government is bound to not only allow its citizens to voice their dissent, but to do so with dignity.
To forward a succinct argument - a protest allows greater representation and participation of ordinary people, initiates public discourse on issues of importance and problems being faced by certain groups, acts like a check on the establishment and puts forth ideas, solutions and an alternative viewpoint.
Hence, it is pertinent and even necessary for a democracy to have regular expressions of contrary opinion on a mass scale and respond to them in meaningful ways. It falls on the government of the day to not brand protestors as trouble-makers but to listen to them with an intent of addressing their concerns.
To borrow from Immanuel Kant,
To allow ourselves to simply acquiesce in skepticism can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason.
Well written! 🤠
This is one of my favourites!