From hijab row to farmers’ agitation, it’s now obvious that protests can themselves become a problem if they become a daily occurrence
Recent weeks have brought us news of protests by girls in Karnataka wanting to cover their faces with the hijab in class as a precondition to attend schools and colleges. The controversy began with an all-girls government school in Udupi. The school is called a pre-university college, with first and second year meaning Classes 11th and 12th, respectively.
The protests led to counter-protests by Hindu girls and boys, who began to come to schools and colleges draping themselves in saffron shawls and also chanting “Jai Shri Ram”. The standoff also led to an incident where boys in saffron shawls chanting “Jai Shri Ram” heckled a burqa-clad girl, who retaliated by chanting “Allah-o-Akbar”.
The state government has insisted on the dress code in school and the matter is now with the judiciary, which has asked students to follow the dress code pending the court verdict. The state government has argued in court that hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam; that it pertains to freedom of expression, which is subject to institutional discipline, and not to freedom of religion. The Karnataka High Court has reserved its order on the matter after 11 days of hearing.
Amid the court hearings, the hard line of some students continued, perhaps nurtured by a culture of protest that is a marker of our times.
Indeed, many political scientists have told us democracy is about the right to dissent and protest. It is also true that Mahatma Gandhi himself was a protester par excellence against a colonial regime.
This piece, however, aims at suggesting that protests can themselves become a problem if they become a daily occurrence.
The 72nd Republic Day last year was marred by incidents of violence, as farmers protesting against the now-repealed farm laws clashed with the police and also planted the Nishan Sahib, the Sikh flag, at Red Fort below the tricolour.
This year’s Republic Day marked a celebration of all that one was used to for decades. Yet, there is no denying that a culture of mass protests — a Fundamental Right protected under the larger ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution — has grown over the last decade, beginning with the Anna Hazare movement. It has also grown in intensity, with protests lasting long. The farm protests, the latest in a string of high-profile protests, continued for one year and involved blocking access roads to the national capital on the borders.
The culture of protests often evokes Mahatma Gandhi. Bhagat Singh is also a regular fixture in these protests, as they derive legitimacy from collective memories of the heady days of the freedom struggle.
However, Dr BR Ambedkar had cautioned against continuing a culture of public protest once the constitution came into force. Has history borne him out?
The Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian constitution delivered his last speech to the Constituent Assembly in November, 1949, where he introduced notes of caution for the sustenance of the Republic.
“The first thing in my judgment we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods,” he told the assembly. “These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”
The second warning was against hero-worshipping great men, perhaps a hint at the late Mahatma Gandhi, but a valid word of caution at all times.
The third was to highlight the need to move beyond political democracy to social democracy in a society characterised by hierarchy based on birth, among other hierarchies.
***
Also Read
Karnataka hijab controversy: Indian democracy enters uncharted territory of grave danger
Opinion | On ‘Hijab Day’, the only choice is to drop the cloth for ‘No Hijab Day’
Karnataka hijab controversy: Why Modi government should seriously think about Uniform Civil Code
History will not be kind to ‘liberals’ cheerleading for hijab and burqa
Amid Udupi hijab controversy, demand for Uniform Civil Code grows stronger
The planned Udupi hijab spark and the need for Uniform Civil Code
Udupi hijab row: A pre-planned move to stoke communal tension in Karnataka’s sensitive coastal belt?
There’s a good case to ban hijab in schools, but Congress cheers orthodoxy
***
The first note of caution suggests that he made it a point to highlight his wariness of public protests once the constitution had put in place institutions, including the judiciary, to address grievances and pave the path for a vibrant and peaceful democracy.
Ambedkar had a point here. Mass civil disobedience of a strident kind seeks to bypass institutions — sometimes distrusting them — and take democracy directly to the streets. A democracy that renders toothless institutions that uphold it can easily degenerate into arm-twisting by powerful vested interests in the name of the right to protest and bypass all institutions.
If the Lokpal demand of Hazare sought to bypass Parliament, even deploying the slogan “Saare Neta Chor Hain” (all politicians are thieves), recent protests have gone on even when a High Court or the Supreme Court was hearing the matter or, in the case of the farm protests, even stayed the laws.
Perpetual protests in the context of the farm laws — much to the discomfiture of people whose right to use thoroughfares was restricted — hinted at a desire to solve things directly without awaiting judicial review of laws.
There are even those who openly question the judiciary these days. They cherry-pick the judgments they find problematic while not even making a mention of judgments that they found progressive.
Even as protest is a right, strident protest does amount to the undermining of institutions in the long run, as it creates precedents that can later be used by any group to insist that its demands be fulfilled.
Many on the left and liberal sides of the ideological spectrum have celebrated these protests. However, if such protests were to happen in the context of a demand that is not to their liking, they should pause to think whether their stand would remain the same.
If at the height of the polarisation around Jamia Millia Islamia University and JNU two-three years back, a lakh people had decided to cut off access points to the capital for months demanding that these universities be instantly and indefinitely shut down, would those celebrating protests unconditionally have offered their support?
Herein lies the crux of Ambedkar’s note of caution. Protest is a method, not an ideology. It is a method that can be used by any ideology or pressure group.
Take an example. The Ram Janmabhoomi dispute that changed the course of Indian politics was finally settled — and the green signal for a Ram temple at Ayodhya given — after a prolonged title suit ending in a unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court. The judicial process finally decided who owned the land.
What if during the pendency of the case in the apex court, a few lakh people from various Hindutva outfits had decided to jam roads indefinitely and forced the hand of the system to agree to their demand? We should remember that things had gone out of hand when the Rath Yatra of LK Advani had taken place in 1990.
What does the state do if mass protest becomes a trend? Either bow to the demands based on numbers of protesters and duration of the protest or use force, thereby bringing upon itself the accusation of being anti-democratic.
The belief that protest is genuine when I am for the agenda and illegitimate when it is someone else’s agenda helps none. For, protest is a method available to all to have their demands accepted. It isn’t a given ideology.
If Irom Sharmila fasted for AFSPA, Swami Sanand and Nigamanand fasted and died for the Ganga. Hazare fasted for a Lokpal, which is no longer talked about but seemed to be the most pressing need a decade back.
Sadhus in 1966 protested for a national ban on cow slaughter at Parliament, leading to violence, just as farmers protested at Red Fort in 2020.
And while these protests sway supporters when they happen, they also have a tendency to wane suddenly. If none even talks about the Lokpal today, Irom Sharmila could not get even 100 votes when she contested an election.
Ambedkar’s warning that civil disobedience cannot be the answer to anything in a democracy was perhaps one of his sharpest observations. It was one that our democracy should revisit in times when public protests have become a culture.
The author is a columnist and media academic. The views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.