During the last few days, you would have heard much sloganeering, thanks to the opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Bill and the almost proposed nationwide NRC. To those who choose a different political voice, it can be a big nuisance to the head and the ears but there is something eerily common about the Left-influenced big, loud, brash protest style, the opposite (seemingly) rational response to issues and the main stream in-power method of creating their solutions for the country. Though each style points to different preferences, they are all trying to do the same thing for the ones who practice them—use their voice and power for the end they want it to serve.
The Left (and all associated and similar) is rooted in people movements among the lower strata of society. These people don't have a big say in matters of politics. In most recent history, power had eluded them. Their voice will seek to demand what they want when they themselves can't bring it about. Speaking, asking and demanding is their only way until they have better equity in the say of how the country is run. It's their only route out and it sounds more desperate the more they don't get what they need, or want—desperate enough to kill your eardrums and make some people annoyed.
The ones in the power are simply doing what the protesters are doing—seeking the change they want—but they're just using a different route that doesn't need slogans. They have the authority to act and are even stretching all the aspects of their mandate to ensure the reality they want. The rational (not-in-power) have less to lose. Their support for issues is based on an objective moral barometer that they sit back, analyze and think about before responding. They have a big enough cushion (at the moment) to offset any possible, predictable loss, if they don't go out on the streets and sloganeer.
All this—policy, passing laws, protesting, objection—is all but the same thing: using your political voice. It is about expressing and acting on/for/towards your idea of what you'd like for your country. What makes it many different things is that it's seen through the lens of all these different hopes: the wider their range, the more separate they seem. The more separate we view them, the more we despise them instead of understanding them.
There are some questions we need to ask first. Can a nation want things that are so different? Can one nation cater to so many different people, if we consider the entire range of these views legitimate? Are those asking for what we consider preposterous even rooted in any common history to justifiably hold those views? In a multicultural and religious nation such as India, is everyone obliged to follow the majority narrative? What happens to the lifestyles of those whose cultures and thought don't fall in line? India, hardly homogeneous, is all its cracked up to be fined by. We can't afford to have the majority approach unless we want to design a slow majority cultural whitewash.
If we are this different indeed, it makes no sense to cast aspersions simply because someone else thinks unlike us when it comes to country. We need to, at the least, accept and allow it. In the case of the CAA and NRC protests, we can best have a reasoned, calmer response or even just say, "Better luck next time. More of you should vote for the parties that have views you are protesting in favour of". However crude that may sound, if that's our individual base national instinct, so be it. We can do better if we really want. There's absolutely no need to try and shut them up, write them off or attempt to stamp on their views. That would imply that there's a right and a wrong to this. There can't be one since a Nation is Home, and home once is home forever. They can't be thrown out, at best disciplined only if necessary and reasonable. More importantly, they need to be heard and be granted what they're due, without discrimination like everybody else.
But, back to the ear-jarring and annoying protests. In the above described utopia, if we are going to look at these different methods of expression and spot the similarity, our outlook has to change. The Left has always been about revolution as a mode when necessary. They either seized it by taking power (leaving behind indefensible, autocratic examples) or held steadfast to ensure that the downtrodden are lifted by those in power - Government (since that's one of the things that good governance involves). Their commitment to no one being left behind is vehement.
The beauty of their trademark method of protesting is that it's a reasonable, accessible means with which anyone can claim their due say and space in a free society, and impress upon it their mark with full representation of the depth of emotion and impact. Protest also allows the authority denying us something to feel the same pinch they're making us feel. It must be seen as a mirror of what the people feel, as raw as they do. The recent protests also included people who were protesting in support of other people whom they believe will be victims, not just for themselves.
It is well known that most of the protests happened because the Government didn't like the first few ones and decided to clamp down on them. What's also notable is that the action of the people (response by people also exercising their political voice) who support this view of the Government resorted to sticks, stones and masks instead of speaking their minds like protestors, like reasonable people. It is safe to say that those who don't understand this about peaceful protest, or at least don't display this understanding of it, don't understand connection to one another as varied human beings with different backgrounds and suffering. A red light goes off for them in their heads despite the fact that they took to the streets when the Government they opposed was in power, because they themselves were powerless.
The right to peaceful protest, and the art of it, needs to be preserved, taught, allowed and practiced to its fullest extremes. It is the one voice that can never be taken away, nor should it be. What is worthy to be noted is that it has no value when people are not trampled on, for obvious reasons. Those who use it conveniently when not in power and walk all over it when someone else does it when in power are but hypocrites. It will always be desperate thing it is, because it is an urgent matter that people are being trampled on. We must note that when people do gather in true desperation to protest, it isn't super organized. It is just like-minded people who welcome all those who are also like-minded. In the company of many thousands of such singularly like-minded, there will be a few rogues, as in any crowd. Protests anywhere shouldn't be tagged violent because of the rogues, unless the cause of gathering itself was violent.
Long live the Revolution!
Comments
Post a Comment