A distressing feature of Indian - indeed, subcontinental - politics is the tendency of dissenters to ignore the normal democratic processes of discussion and compromise and take to the streets instead at the slightest pretext.
The latest example of such irresponsible behaviour was in Karnataka, where demonstrators organised a 12-hour shutdown in protest against the decision of a tribunal on the usage of the Cauvery river waters by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The dawn-to-dusk strike was worrying enough for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to inquire from the chief minister about the functioning of the information technology companies in Bangalore with their uninterrupted, 24-hour work schedules. As is known, Bangalore is one of the major centres in India for the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) units linked to clients mainly in Europe and America. Any sudden stoppage can be hugely damaging to them.
But the protestors seemed to have little concern for the harmful impact of their reckless conduct on the city's and the country's reputation as a reliable business destination. All that they were interested in was to voice their displeasure over the verdict even though, as the well-known film and theatre personality of the state, Girish Karnad, pointed out, Karnataka had entrusted the tribunal with the authority to make a decision.
The state may have deemed the verdict to be unfair. But, as Karnad said, the answer lay in appealing against it rather than indulging in street-level protests. Yet, the desire to score political points through such rash and irresponsible behaviour is so high among Indian political parties that they are loath to follow the customary course of working through the existing systemic institutions.
It was not surprising, therefore, that M.H. Ambareesh, a minister in the Manmohan Singh government from Karnataka, considered it politically expedient to resign as a minister and also from the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament, on the issue presumably because he believed that it would enhance his political standing. He probably thought that an appeal for calm and adherence to democratic norms would not help his image.
While neighbouring Bangladesh provides an extreme example of how politics based on agitations can lead to a situation where an emergency has had to be declared and an army coup is feared, India, too, is not free from this particular malaise.
Its root seems to lie in the long period of struggle against colonial rule in the subcontinent when the absence of popular representation in the legislatures and lack of faith in the judiciary left the freedom fighters no option but to descend en masse on the streets. There were also are volutionaries', mainly in Bengal and Punjab, who placed greater faith in the gun than in civil disobedience movements.
The habits of indiscipline and extra-constitutional action bred at the time, along with an indifferent and even hostile attitude towards public property, are yet to die down, with the result that attacks on buses and even private cars are not unknown during such demonstrations.
Another legacy of the fight against colonial rule was seen when Mamata Banerjee, who is leading a movement against the construction of a car factory on fertile agricultural land in Singur in West Bengal, resorted to a hunger strike to make her point.
As commentators have pointed out, this form of what has been called emotional blackmail may have been all right when democratic forms of redress were not available, but not in an open society where elected governments and an independent judiciary are in place.
It is also possible that such recklessness has persisted because of the continued dependence of virtually all the political parties on anti-social elements to enforce their writ not only during the agitations but also at election time for influencing, actually intimidating, voters.
Source :earthtimes |
