The politicizing of protest

Protest has always been associated with those in the margins, those who have no one to speak for them and those who have no one who cares. So much that the word itself has been an anathema for those in power. The simple usage of the word brings about a feeling of enmity and dissociation with what is constructed to be true and right. The word protest has not been in the media dictionary for a number of years simply because it would bring about uneasy and uncomfortable questions for those associated with power, including the various media. The revolution in the Arab world changed all that. The protest there was seen as beneficial to all involved in the quelling of protest till then. From then on the Indian media has also been fascinated with the word protest.

India’s revolution came in the form of Anna Hazare and his media savvy team. Protest in India is clubbed with fasting and non-violence. Both though have attained new meanings. What does fasting mean? No food, no liquids, no non-veg? What does non-violence mean? No manhandling, no physical touch, no destruction to public property? Even as fasting and non-violent protest has gained new meaning, there also has been a change in those who are associated with it. While till yesterday, the powerless protested and where beaten into submission, today the powerful protest and are treated as state guests and fed with public money. Protest has been taken over by the rich and the powerful and Narendra Modi’s fast is another example of that. He maintains that he fasted for the bright future of Gujarat and the good of India. There is no doubt that Modi is a good orator and his speech yesterday would even put seasoned orators and film actors to shame. But does that absolve him of the significant acts of omission and commission that happened during his tenure as chief minister of the state where communal violence led to the killing of many people and brought about a culture of fear in the minds of people?

Will protest and fasting wash away the sins of the powerful? Can these token protests change the skewed system and society that we are a part of? The Jesus of the gospels appears to be a simple man with a simple band of followers, who travelled and traversed, met people, offered them respect, dialogued with them, gave them hope and remained a simple man till his death on the cross. But hasn’t the church and the so called band of followers now hijacked Jesus and put on his clothes of protest and fasting? But does this make us Jesus? The grounding for Jesus to lead mass protest during his time was not that he was a powerful man but that he associated himself with the ordinary people and that gave him the mandate to protest. Protest is not for the powerful. Protest is for the ordinary people. It is their right. A few protests here and there which are held by those who have immense power at their disposal, cannot and will not be considered as true protest because it lacks the main ingredient of protest and that is the helplessness of the people who see protest as their only cross of hope. But we will have to identify true and false protest and make out the sheep in wolves skin. Till then this new found mass (media) hysteria for powerful instead of powerless protest will continue.

D for idiocracy

A bill to make voting compulsory? Modi has outdone himself in the quest of bringing draconian laws onto an unsuspecting and susceptible public. Along with the countless oppositions, there are also voices of support, a prominent one being Lalu Prasad Yadav, who introduced the 'efficient' cattle class concept in the Indian Railways with an additional side berth which he said would bring in additional revenue, even if the people could barely fit in to the berth! But can anything be compulsory in a democracy? Yes, safeguarding of the public, based on existing laws and the good will of the people can be termed as something which is compulsory in a democracy. But in a state like Gujarat ruled by an autocrat like its chief minister Narendra Modi, who literally got away with the murder of hundreds of people in his state, the wind is blowing in the wrong direction again.

So, what could be the reason behind such a law, if it were to be passed and accepted across the board? The reason given is that this could lead to the restoring of a dead electoral system in which voting has come down drastically over the last many years. Urban areas have out done rural areas in showing disinterest and lack of motivation to get out of their houses and cast their votes. There have been discussions earlier on what could be done to reverse the trend and how to make the voter come to the polling booth and cast her/his vote. But should this be the way of getting the voter interested in politics or should we explore other ways?

Being a priest I can’t help but thinking of how religions and churches especially take and use the reality of democracy in their own settings. Dictats are given out to church members that they will be punished if they err from the official line and that they have to follow the rules laid down by the various churches down to the last letter (It is another matter whether anyone actually follows anything when it comes to rules in the church??!!). This in churches which are supposed to be public platforms where people can come to and express their hurt and dissent!

Dissent and protest in society is not a sign that things are going to come to an end and therefore the leadership has to crack the whip to prevent things from going out of hand. Dissent and protest rather are the legitimate rights of people who are otherwise not given a chance to express themselves. Jesus by being born in a manger and not a palace becomes part of this dissent and protest and this act is supported by the shepherds and the wise men. By making church attendance compulsory we take away the legitimate right of people to say they disagree. By making voting compulsory we again take away the legitimate right of people to protest against the system of politics and against the candidates who set themselves up. Just as raising ones voice is protest, staying quiet and not doing something is also protest.

Modi is working against this right of the people. He is stifling protest and taking away what little remains for the religious minorities in Gujarat. If he or any other politician is interested in increasing public participation during elections, then there are other ways to do it, starting from conscientization of people to the freedom of people to enter and be part of the electoral process. A leader is one who has to read the sentiments of her/his people, not someone who imposes sentiments onto them. This bill, if ever to be taken seriously has to be discussed, debated and left to the people of this country to decide on. Modi represents only one such group of people and not the people of Gujarat and the people of India!