Two
days of general strike of February 20-21, 2013 in India
It
can be said from the places where the ‘Bandh’ saw establishments shutting down,
it was more from the fear of vandalism and not because of the camaraderie to
join the brotherhood of ‘Bandh’ supporters.
It
is always easier for the government employees to participate in such ‘Bandhs’
as they can easily go to avail an off day but most of the private sector
entities, vulnerable to their balance-sheets and unfriendly towards employees,
usually abstain from such practices unless and until there is a great call,
something that the country has not seen post the call by Vinoba Bhave or the
Jayaprakash Narayan Movement or the Lohia Wave, when there could be a complete
shutdown on mere a call from a leader for a cause or a cause itself.
Also,
the February 20-21 ‘Bharat Bandh’ had not any immediate precursor like
some fuel price hike or introduction of a controversial policy like the Retail
FDI. The country has already seen mixed-response ‘Bandhs’ over these issues.
The
September 20, 2012 ‘Bharat Bandh’ to protest the fuel price hike and the Retail
FDI decision evoked a mixed response, claims and counterclaims. The ‘Bharat
Bandh’ called by the political opposition on May 31, 2012 to protest the steep
hike in petrol prices was a similar story. The country saw similar developments
during the July 5, 2012 ‘Bharat Bandh’ called again by the political opposition
to protest the fuel price hike. Then there was yet again ‘Bharat Bandh’ called
by the trade unions in February 2012.
So,
there wasn’t any ‘newness’ in the factor to call the strike. But the general
strike was called.
But
was it really civil disobedience?
Mahatma
Gandhi, who introduced (or invented) ‘Bandhs’ or ‘civil disobedience through
complete halt of work’ in India had certainly different thoughts and commitment
about ‘Badhs’ as means of protest.
The
following conversation from the movie ‘Gandhi’ beautifully explains it. (Text
sourced from the Internet.)
JINNAH'S DRAWING ROOM
PATEL: Well, I've called you here because I've had a
chance to see the new legislation. It's exactly what was rumored. Arrest
without warrant. Automatic imprisonment for possession of materials considered
seditious...Your writings are specifically listed.
KRIPALANI: So much for helping them in the Great War...
JINNAH: There is only one answer to that. Direct action –
on a scale they can never handle!
NEHRU: I don't think so. Terrorism would only justify
their repression. And what kinds of leaders would it throw up? Are they likely
to be the men we would want at the head of our country?
His
stand has produced a little shock of surprise. Holding his tea, he turns to
Gandhi with a little smile.
NEHRU: I've been catching up on my reading.
JINNAH: I too have read Mr. Gandhi's writings, but I'd
rather be ruled by an Indian terrorist than an English one. And I don't want to
submit to that kind of law.
PATEL: I must say, Panditji, it seems to me it's gone
beyond remedies like passive resistance.
GANDHI: If I
may – I, for one, have never advocated passive anything. I am with Mr. Jinnah.
We must never submit to such laws – ever. And I think our resistance must be
active and provocative. I want to embarrass all those who wish to treat us as
slaves. All of them.
He
holds their gaze, then turns to the immobile servant and with a little smile,
takes the tray from him and places it on the table next to him. It makes them
all aware that the servant, standing there like an insensate ornament, has been
treated like a "thing," a slave. As it sinks in, Gandhi pours some
tea then looks up at them with a pleading warmth – first to Jinnah.
GANDHI:
Forgive my stupid illustration. But I want to change their minds – not kill
them for weaknesses we all possess.
AZAD: And what "resistance" would you offer?
GANDHI: The law is due to take effect from April sixth. I
want to call on the nation to make that a day of prayer and fasting.
"Prayer
and fasting"? They are not overwhelmed.
JINNAH: You mean a general strike?
GANDHI: I
mean a day of prayer and fasting. But of course no work could be done – no
buses, no trains, no factories, no administration. The country would stop.
Patel
is the first to recognize the implications.
PATEL: My God, it would terrify them . . .
AZAD: Three hundred fifty million people at prayer. Even
the English newspapers would have to report that. And explain why.
KRIPALANI: But could we get people to do it?
NEHRU: Champaran stirred the whole country. (To Gandhi)
They are calling you Mahatma – the Great Soul.
GANDHI: Fortunately such news comes very slowly where I
live.
NEHRU: I think if we all worked to publicize it . . . all
of the Congress . . . every avenue we know.
=================================================================
Now
that is the concept of ‘Bandh’ as the Mahatma had proposed and yes, it was not
at all a passive act. It terrified the British as Sardar Patel had reacted on
Mahatma’s proposal.
It
was beginning of Mahatma’s experiments with civil disobedience as the tool to
reorient and direct the Indian freedom struggle that ultimately led the country
to the Independence
It
is not that the civil disobedience movements called by the Mahatma didn’t have
any violent incidents. It is about how the Mahatma reacted on it. It is about
the countrywide support on Mahatma’s call.
The
‘Bandhs’ in India
To
Continue..
©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey - http://severallyalone.blogspot.com/
