PUBLIC AGITATION: STATE VRS PUBLIC

Agitation of the ruled, to express their grievances and dissatisfaction, against the ruler/s is no new a phenomenon. It is as old as the history of human civilization itself when man started living in an organized society. In fact, throughout mankinds recorded history, there have been numerous instances of the ruled, through their organizations, expressing their dissatisfaction and disapproval regarding the policies of the authority which in their opinion affect or hampers their growth and progressive development. There have been no empires, kingdoms, government or nation-states, which are free from the pressure of agitation and protest of the masses against their ways of governing. However, good a particular system might be, but the vices of the authority more than often results in clashes of interest, between the ruled and the ruler. Even though public agitation or public protest (not all public agitation are public and for the public, public in my dictionary in this context is the educated middle class not the common masses), as a method of expressing the discontentment of the ruled against the states policies has been in existence for a very long time, nevertheless it little attracts the attention of political and social thinkers. Not until the arrival of the writings of John Locke, considered as the father of liberalism, who appropriately give place for the right of the subjects to revolt against the established authority (provided the majority of the subjects feel that the ruler is acting against the interests of the ruled). Prior to Locke, scholars (like Hobbes and the Divine Right theorists) tend to justify the absolute sovereignty of the ruler and their infallibility. Against this delineation of the evolution of the concept of public agitation, we shall now focus on the place of public agitation and protest within the realm of the democratic political set up. Democracy as a form of government emerges from the ashes of the decline of empire states and the eventual emergence of the westphalian sovereign nation-states. As against the feudal state, the modern liberal welfare democratic state has its bases in individualism, freedom (liberty), justice-social, economic and political and fraternity. Freedom of expression of ones opinion and voices, thus, regarding any particular public policy forms the central theme of liberal democracy. J. S. Mill, a father of positive liberalism, puts the freedom of expression and speech as the key essence of democratic society, without which it would turn Victorian Britain into a nation of dull conformists. Lest we forget, were not to be of the agitations and protests of the British public during 14th & 15th centuries England, against the autocratic rule of the Monarch (propelled by the need for greater power to the people in decision-making), democracy would not be able to see the day. Coming to the Indian scenario, democracy in our country is a colonial legacy of the British Raj. Prior to the coming of the British, democracy in the sense we understand it today has not really been in existence. This alien concept is being picked up by the Indian educated intelligentsia (influenced by western liberal education) of the pre-independence movement (under the umbrella of the Indian National Congress) and integrated in our post-independent political set up. After

more than 60 yrs of democratic practice, the Indian society has not been able to live up to the standards of the liberal democratic principles especially when it comes to the freedom of expression (for instance the right of national self determination). Realizing the importance of freedom within the democratic set up, the framers of the Constitution, under the Chairmanship of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, has appropriately assigned a proper and due place to the right to freedom in the Indian Constitution (Part III, Article 19-22 , read with Articles 18-19 of the UNs Universal Declaration of Human Rights). From the many rights to freedom that finds a place within our Constitution, the right to freedom of speech and expression constitutes the most essentials of all the fundamental rights. It, thus, imply that freedom of expression indirectly empowers the citizens to voice their grievances against the acts of omission or commission on the part of the authority. Without the freedom of speech and freedom of speech and expression, thus, a human being loses his/her being as a human being i.e. ones moral and rational worth as a human being. The right to freedom of expression guarantees the citizens that their fundamental rights are assured when it comes to various issues concerning them. In our 60 years of living under the democratic experience, the pages of history has witnessed numerous public agitation and protests against the established authority, which sometimes (due to the indifferent attitude on the part of the authorities) threatens the very stability and integrity of the country. Experience testifies that public agitation and protests in India have taken the forms of public rally, road blockade, hunger strikes, office picketing, bandhs and to the extreme cases even took up to arms against the state. Apart from the last case, the former methods of public agitation fall (more or less) within the constitutional parameters and such is legal (though the debate doesnt end here). The rise of Civil Society, in the forms of NGOs, functional groups, Womens Associations and the like, has led to the changing dimensions of the right to freedom of speech and expression ( and association), both horizontally and vertically. Horizontally, it has submerge within itself various others fundamental rights (freedom of association, religion, etc.) within its fold. Vertically, it has led to the emergence of diverse pressure groups challenging the authorities of the government. The Government of Meghalaya, disturbed and concerned by the recent occurrence of bands called by the different NGOs of the state -like the Khasi Students Union ( KSU), Federation of Khasi, Jaintia and Garo People (FKJGP), Garo Students Union ( GSU), and numerous other NGOs, and its consequential effects on the people, has on March, 26th, 2010, passed the historic bill known as the Meghalaya Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2010, replacing the Meghalaya Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill,1953. The main aim behind the Act is to quell bandhs and other forms of agitation. According to the amendment Act, any disruption to normal life caused by an individual or organization would now be considered as illegal and unconstitutional and punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. The offenders

would also be liable to compensate to the government, the public or private citizens for the loss suffer by them. One must keep in mind the reasons behind such an act. The Government decisions to declare bandhs and hartals illegal came in the backdrop of the Supreme ruling, passed in the case of CPI(M) vs Bharat Kumar and others, asking states to take all necessary steps for preventing infringement of various fundamental rights of the citizens on account of various calls of bandhs given by political parties and other organizations. Further adding impetus and weight to the Government decision is the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in January, 2010, (after hearing two separate public interest litigations (PILs), filed in Assam and Meghalaya) declaring bandhs in Assam and Meghalaya as illegal and unconstitutional. Chief Justice Jasti Chelameswar described it a step forward for preventing infringement of fundamental rights on accounts of bandhs. Apart from the above courts ruling, the Government of Meghalaya justify its act saying that the bandhs had not only affected the day-to-day activities of the common citizens but also created a negative impact on the functioning of the educational institutions in the state, causing huge financial loss to the state exchequer and made the maintenance of law and order difficult (by its inciting effect it has in creating communal violence). This act of the Government has received mixed response from the public. The Federation of Industry and Commerce of North Eastern Region welcomes this development as a step forward in the process of evolution of democracy in our country. However, several organizations in Meghalaya vowed to defy the order saying it was a "suppression of democratic rights". It is in the light of this tussle between the Government and Civil Society (public) regarding the act, that the Act has generated much debate and attention. The public contends that while terming bandhs as violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens, what does the Government actually means? Whose rights is it protecting? Does banning on bandhs and all forms of public agitation would lead to an authoritarian rule? Is the government a God that is infallible that no one has the right to question its acts? And more plainly what is democracy without freedom of speech and expression (for that matter freedom of choice)? A discourse on the above questions leads us to the open secret that the Government (as the Marxists contends), though proclaiming itself to be acting for the common good, is a wheel for promoting and protecting the interests of the elite and dominant class. While talking of rights, the Government is in essence talking about the interests of the rich business class and of the sections of the emerging middle class of society. Giving the above discourse one must acknowledge the fact that the act by itself is undemocratic and goes against the spirit of the Constitution in many ways (as the public claims). No doubts denial of the freedom of expression and speech would render democracy no democracy at all, or for that matter it would mean going in time to the days of absolute LEVIATHAN of Hobbes, but the acts by itself doesnt imply nor does it intend to take away the right to freedom from its citizens. The Government is talking about alternative means for the public to air their grievances like public debates, hearings, discussions, and the like. Through these mechanisms, the aggrieved parties can question and hold the government accountable for its acts of commission and omission.

One must not be blind to the hard truth that within the Indian context, however legitimate and genuine a demand might be, your demand will always be met with deaf ear and will not bear fruits unless you apply pressure on the government. Given the indifferent and adamant attitude of the authority the masses are left with no option but to turn to agitation and protest against the state. However, while calling for bandhs the public (NGOs and Civil Society) should take up issues that really concern the common welfare of the people (though I dont see it happening), not on every small and petty issues as they have been doing, otherwise it should be kept as the last resort. Lets now turn to another side of the coin, the government, no doubt, has failed time and again to deliver the goods expected of it; the peoples are losing faith in their own representatives and thus resort to agitation. However, while talking of the right to freedom, the so self-proclaimed right conscious citizens are forgetting the underlying point that rights as we understand today is not negative rights but positive rights i.e. not absolute rights but with reasonable restrictions. That is my rights and liberty are conditioned by others rights and liberties, I cannot enjoy my rights at the expense of others or at the cost of others. There has to be a balance between my rights and others rights. Apart from causing huge lost to the state exchequer, bandhs affect education, law and order and the common man who live from hand to mouth, the question the public in Meghalaya should be asking ourselves is, Does public agitation in the past bear fruits and if it did up to what extent? Correct me if I am wrong, but in my opinion, with the exception of the Hills States Movement of the 1960s, no public agitation has bear the expected results that is worth mentioning, but the only positive outcome it had been generating is the poisons of hate and jealously between communities and disrupting law and order. So why public agitation? why not try to invents and discover new democratic methods of holding the government accountable? After all it is our government, right!!! In fine, both parties are guilty of the same psychological imbalances and mental deficiencies. The government, failing to deliver and discharge the functions expected of it, is trying to curtail the freedom of its citizens more than ever before (but definitely not taking away the right to freedom as the public claims). I would love to add here that the act in itself is intends to empower and protect the rights of the common man who are really affected by the bandhs and agitations. The public or should I say the NGOs, represented by the rising educated middle class, are taking the masses for a ride, raking up all issues (sometimes irrelevant to the masses interests), for their own vested interests. Both the concerned parties- government (our government represented by our representative) and the public (educated middle class minus the masses) are suffering from the mental dilemma of what liberal democracy really is? They forget that liberal democracy is not merely a form of government, it, in fact, is multivalent and multi facetted. In short, democracy is a way of living, which is yet to evolve into the mentality of Indians, with the exception of the intellectual few (though I hate using the word intellectual). The point I am driving home here is that the root cause of everything is that the government, the public and the masses are ignorant (if not totally) of the values and ideas of liberal democracy in itself. The need of the hour is a social revolution to educate the people of the ideals of liberal democracy. But I just dont see the possibility of it happening in the foreseeable future. Forgive me for saying that, but if a person having his post-graduate degree in political science has no idea what the hell is liberal democracy, what on earth shall we expect liberal democracy to thrive in

the country? You might not agree with me but that is the basic ground reality of the Indian social and political life at the moment. It might take more than three centuries for liberal democracy to fully evolve in Britain, shall we too have to wait for 300 years (may be more or less than that) to see a successful democracy? Do we have that leisure? To wrap up, I would like to raise up two issues before the public- is democracy our way of living? Do we have any alternative to that? In my plate, democracy is the lesser evil of all the angevils* (* a combination of good and evil, every form of government has its own share of positives and negatives). Democracy is here to stay. So considering the rights conscious Indian citizens, (and the freedom of expression encrypted into their genes as their inalienable right), and the mentally confused, corrupt and inefficient government, public agitation (democratic or undemocratic) will always be there. Hats off to the Indians!!!