Dr John Mohan Razu
Professor of Social Ethics
The recent protest that the country had witnessed although raised our eyebrows in Delhi show the deficit of space. The number of protesters kept swelling day-by-day, and so, the space went on shrinking. It could be deliberate move on the part of the ruling class-caste nexus wanted to contain the protesters within a minimum space, so that in any eventualities the protesters could become easy targets. Lack of physical space was so visible as their movements became very restrictive. As the numbers swelled, it started to spill-over beyond Jantar Mantar.
Gradually it started clogging the neighbouring streets of Parliament and Connaught Place. When it started people at large thought to be peaceful protest where few thousands would assemble, but turned out to be a symbol of civil resistance where we have hardly witnessed in the modern history of India. 36-day long protest rocked the ruling caste and class and sent clear messages that what the young India thinks and what to do despite hurdles sparks. Focussed, determined, and highly organised protest without much plans and strategies.
Jantar Mantar hardly qualifies to be the site for protests and public gatherings, and so, there is a need for another place to accommodate whenever there are massive protests, public gatherings, and demonstrations. The recent one could not accommodate everyone and therefore spilled over right across the neighbourhoods. Before settling on protest sites, there a few questions loom at large: whether the major cities need to have larger spaces for protests and mass demonstrations? Should Indian cities moot places for the public to vent their anger and frustrations? Should the ruling governments fix the numbers?
If the protests are against the ruling regimes, what happens then? Will the governments let go the protests and demonstration—all in the name of democratic rights or impose strictures on the protesters? The governments in the past both national and others allowed massive protests as part of democratic process. The protest sites happened to be located within the close proximity to the seat of political power. In Washington, with Lincoln Memorial as stage and the Tidal Basin as enclosure, Marin Luther King’s historic speech ‘I have a Dream’ was blistering and thundering against such background. In Paris, Champs Elysees is venue for both –public celebrations like Bastille Day and for student marches.
From Beijing’s Tiananmen Square to Cairo’s Tahrir Square (Arab Spring uprising), public drama and visibility are essential to communicate the cause-and effect of any crucial national impending issues that should have the widest coverage. Such visibility is important and vital as it has been practised for long time as against the backdrop such historical monuments and names. Mexico City’s main plaza is in such lose proximity to legislative buildings and municipal HQ that critical issues are effectively discussed and protested within easy hearing of the legislators and policy-makers.
In all these, the pedestal is a personal expression of dissent which plays the crucial role. This where the masses pitch their issues and come out with one unison so that others can hear and listen to. One such site is London’s Hyde Park where the raised platform allows anyone to air his/her public view to take stand, and speak on any issue, to anyone willing to listen. To shout, argue, and be heckled is the democratic right of anyone in close vicinity. In many places, a public wall of expression uses slogans, poems, art, drawing or graffiti to bringthe issues to the fore in diverse forms to public attention. Hong Kong has a Democracy Wall for students to express.
Indian cities hardly we have large protest sites and in some cities they don’t exist. The absence of squares is the deliberate attempt on the part of the ruling governments either to constrict or not allowing to happen. The ruling governments do not want to have protests thereby they continue to govern in whatever way they want. In some cities there are designated areas where the demonstrations travel via in the streets and roads as stipulated by the governments. In Mumbai for instance cricket ground and open park have been allocated for protests and public meetings. Many Indian cities lack such spacious sites for the public and civil societies to air their grievances by ways of protest and dissent.
If this is the case, how, then, public intent and vent should be known and shown when we come across the growing cities with multi-storied tenements occupying the public spaces? Governments that call democratic are not keen in allowing or constructing protest sites because the images and democratic voices can be heard and read. All these are detrimental to their power-play. If the governments think differently than they should allow or find place that can accommodate more people where peoples’ grievances and problems be heard and addressed.
Woody Allen wrote that ‘for a protest to be successful it must out in the open. There is no point demonstrating quietly behind living room sofa’. People should come out and march on the streets shouting slogans. The ruling castes-class would not listen unless and until masses turn into million thronging the public spaces. We are heading for such mass civil unrests in the coming days, months, and years as masses cannot remain swallowing their grievances, except venting out. As Howard Zinn rightly point out that “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.
