Continued from:
FEBRUARY 2013 GENERAL STRIKE OR THE ‘BHARAT BANDH’: THE
UNCIVIL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (II)
http://severallyalone.blogspot.in/2013/03/february-2013-general-strike-or-bharat.html
A case of
‘Chauri Chaura’ violence hurt the Mahatma so much that he called off the hugely
popular and successful Non-cooperation movement of 1922 and went on to observe a
three-week fast to repent for the violence that killed 22 policemen. The
Mahatma thus set an epoch-making example giving India
totally successful and absolutely peaceful non-violence civil protests or
Satyagrahas including the Salt Satyagraha and the Quit India Movement that
pushed the British to leave India.
It was only
the power of the Mahatma’s Satyagraha that he conveyed through his fasts that
could end the violence erupted in the aftermath of the India-Pakistan partition
in 1947.
That was the
civil disobedience practiced by the Mahatma. The current culture of ‘Bandhs’ is
contrary to that. Gandhiji was a call. Gandhiji had become a cause. Gandhiji is
still the call the country needs to take. Gandhiji is still the cause the
country needs to follow.
Yes, civil
disobedience is a way to protest the government apathy, to oppose the
anti-people policies.
Yes, it has
to be active and provocative like the Mahatma said during the meeting in
Jinnah’s house.
But forcing
people to protest the government apathy is not civil disobedience. It will only
promote fear and hence an atmosphere of distrust that will ultimately kill the
cause, even if it was the most pressing need of the time.
And that is
already happening with ‘Bandhs’ of India. Though, the ‘Bandhs’ evoke
mixed response based on the political affiliation and area-wise political
influence, these are now the distorted tools of protest disrupting the normal
course of life without producing any desirable result.
The country
has not seen any response by any of the governments, from states or the union,
on the demands of the ‘Bandh’ supporters.
Because a
violence-ridden ‘Bandh’ lacks the moral sanctity to press, even for the
rightful demands!
It
is well known by now that when the ‘Bandhs’ are called by the political parties
or when the election time is not near, the ruling political group doesn’t care
much about it.
The
‘Bharat Bandh’ on May 31, 2012 didn’t see the prime minister appealing the concerned
parties to call-off the ‘Bandh’. Similar was the story during the July 5, 2012
‘Bharat Bandh’. The prime minister didn’t make any appeal even during the
September 20, 2012 ‘Bharat Bandh’.
Then,
elections were still pretty far away.
During
this ‘Bharat Bandh’, it was the time, to seriously think about the elections
which are just some quarters away. So, even if there was not any immediate spark,
the government was looking at it with watchful eyes.
Also,
the call this time was not by the mainstream political opposition. Involvement
of the central trade unions as well as the banking and transportation unions,
which represent a considerable segment of the population, was enough to make
the government feel nervous in case the ‘Bandh’ got a widespread support.
And
so, we had, our comfortably-numb prime minister appealing the trade unions to
call-off the strike.
But
the violence during the ‘Bandh’ gave the government the necessary
counter-points to hit back and questioning the authority and morality of the
‘Bandh’, two factors a must for any civil disobedience movement – authority of
non-violence and morality of rightfulness – as the Mahatma has shown the way –
as we saw in the massive public protests during the anti-corruption movement
called by Anna Hazare or the leaderless massive but peaceful civil protests
against the Delhi gangrape of December 16, 2012.
These
movements were active and provocative enough to awaken millions and bring an
arrogant government to the talking table. Whatever has been the outcome; there
were moments when millions felt it was their duty to be the part of the
protests to raise the voice against the System and the systemic corruption.
This
‘Bharat Bandh’ or to say any other in the recent past, has been an utter
failure on being active and provocative to motivate and mobilize masses for a cause
because they were not peaceful and lacked in moral authority.