54. DISSENT AND PROTEST
In all societies, differences of opinion develop in course of time between the rulers and the ruled. Such differences were expressed in a wide variety of ways, depending upon the sensitivity of the rulers. Generally under Indian monarchy, the kings had a system of assessing the public mood on important issues. They were also surrounded by men of wisdom and experience, who could correct them. Above all, there was a basic bond between the rulers and the ruled. The king was bound by dharma, and his subjects were not enemies. They had a dharmic or moral right over him.
WISE COUNSEL AND CRITICISM
In Sangam Tamil literature, we have the instance of a wise poet
( Pisirantaiyar) advising the king (Pandya, Arivudai Nambi) about how he should tax the people:
காய்நெல் அறுத்துக் கவளங் கொளினே
மாநிறைவு இல்லதும் பன்னாட்கு ஆகும்;
நூறுசெறு ஆயினும் தமித்துப்புக்கு உணினே
வாய்புகு வதனினும் கால்பெரிது கெடுக்கும்;
5 அறிவுடை வேந்தன் நெறியறிந்து கொளினே
கோடி யாத்து நாடுபெரிது நந்தும்;
மெல்லியன் கிழவன் ஆகி வைகலும்
வரிசை அறியாக் கல்லென் சுற்றமொடு
பரிவுதப எடுக்கும் பிண்டம் நச்சின்
10 யானை புக்க புலம்போலத்
தானும் உண்ணான் உலகமும் கெடுமே.
If we gather the ripe paddy, and make rice balls and feed the elephant,even a small field will supply the food for many days. But if we let the elephant free to graze the field on its own, more will be spoiled by its feet than what goes into its mouth. If the wise king knows the proper method to gather his tax, he will get much and the country will also prosper. If,prompted by greedy and ignorant relatives, he forces his way to collect high taxes, he will not get much, nor will the land prosper, like the field run over by the elephant.Thus these wise men performed the function of informed critics and counselors. Therefore Tiruvalluvar advised the kings to be surrounded by men who could criticise and chide them!
அறன் அறிந்து மூத்த அறிவுடையார் கேண்மை
திறன் அறிந்து தேர்ந்து கொளல்.
Esteem the men who have grown in righteousness, and acquire their friendship.
இடிக்கும் துணையாரை ஆள்வாரை யாரே
கெடுக்கும் தகைமை யவர்.
Who can ruin the man who commands the association of men who can reproach him?
இடிப்பாறை இல்லாத ஏமரா மன்னன்
கெடுப்பார் இலானும் கெடும்.
The king who does not have men who can rebuke him- he will perish even when he has no enemies.
DISSENT AND PROTEST IN DEMOCRACIES
In modern democracies, dissent, opposition and protest are all recognised in theory; but in practice, there are limits within which dissent can be expressed, and the forms which protest may take. In countries with true two party systems, the Opposition watches and checks the govt, though from mainly ideological angle. The United States experienced unprecedented protests by youngsters in the 1960s, and in novel forms, which cut across party lines. The society as a whole has taken a leftist turn since then- in any case the administration, the Press, the Academia are all generally leftist now. The government is ever growing bigger in the so called freest country, which began with a distrust of big government and monopoly power. It is difficult to express openly, or find space for truly liberal or conservative thoughts in the public space. Our freedom of expression and dissent is subject to leftists' pleasure. Freedom there really means the duty to be leftist!
But today on many issues, people are divided across party lines in both the US and the UK. The differences are not only between the rulers and the ruled , but among the different social, religious and economic groups in almost all democratic societies. Any solution on any issue is bound to produce dissent. The government changes periodically by election, but dissatisfaction and dissent develop under all governments.
source: https://Scroll.in
In Tamil Nadu, we can see how the anti-Hindi agitation of the 60s has spawned separatist tendencies, and promoted hatred of the Central govt and the very concept of United or Federal India. Though the demand for a separate Dravida land has been outwardly given up due to political expediency, the same forces are feeding the flames of separatist Tamil nationalism. This is the undercurrent of the state's educational machinery and administrative apparatus under half a century of rule by local Dravidian parties.
[The Centre does not appear to have taken serious note of this issue.Just imagine the number of youngsters passing through the state's education system, raised on a diet of Tamil nationalism, nurtured on the belief that North Indians have subjugated them. What began as anti-Aryan movement has taken the form of Tamil nationalism. The youth are taught that the Tamils are a separate race, and have nothing in common with North Indians ( and Brahmins) who are Aryans.
Ironically, both the main all-India parties have kept electoral alliances with parties which foster separatism ( Tamil nationalism) in some form.]
MODERN INDIA BORN IN PROTEST!
Modern India's journey as a nation begins with dissent and protest against British colonialism. The British government of India was not legitimate- it was forced on us by brutal military power and sustained by cunning, savage taxation and repressive measures. The moderates who began with mild desire for greater part in the administration and some reforms and concessions, and believed in achieving this through prayer, pleading and petitioning, did not realise the true nature and intent of imperialism. They talked of lawful or constitutional means, but this law was that of the colonial power; it was illegitimate, and it would never recognise the ruled except as economic and political slaves. Happily, this was understood by younger elements like Tilak and Sri Aurobindo who taught us to demand full freedom- Swaraj. This was to be accomplished by adopting Swadeshi, boycotting foreign goods, boycotting foreign courts, taking to national education and generally by Passive Resistance ie not cooperating with the colonial government. These methods were tried in 1905 when Curzon partitioned Bengal. These methods were so successful that the partition was annulled. [ The revolutionary fervour among Bengalees was so great that the British eventually shifted the Capital out of Calcutta!]
GANDHI'S THREE PLANKS
But the real era of total opposition to colonial rule began under Gandhi after 1919. There were three main elements in his approach:
- Non Cooperation, Civil Disobedience, Passive Resistance or Satyagraha as the chief method to express our dissent. This involved more suffering on the participants and no violence on the opponent. It preached no hatred.
- Making it a mass movement, making every Indian feel part of the movement, overcoming the earlier limited appeal to the English educated middle class.
Leaders like Tilak and Sri Aurobindo before the Gandhi era had defined Indian nationalism on the basis of India's long historical past and continuity as a living civilization. True nationalism was based on recovery of basic national identity. 'Bande Mataram' captured this identity. However, with the coming of Gandhi, the question of national identity was obscured, though in his 1909 book "Hind Swaraj" he spoke about Indian civilization. India is still struggling, unable to face this question honestly and boldly.
THE DOWNSIDE?
It could be seen by a keen observer that the negative aspects of protest were offset by the constructive activity, so that people's energy was not frittered away in mere opposition. But in reality, it is easier to gather people against something , than to make them engage in constructive work, especially for prolonged periods. As the possibility of Independence neared, more people took to the show of protest, than to the path of constructive action; more out of opportunism, than out of conviction.
This prospect had indeed worried some thoughtful leaders even in those days. Masses could be incited against a foreign govt. But how could the masses be contained? How well could they be directed? What would happen if people adopted the same methods after freedom was won, and when we had our own govt?
It so happened that in spite of Gandhi's insistence on non-violence, instances of violence happened, and Gandhi had to call off some agitations. His individual Salt Satyagraha in 1930 was nonviolent, but the British let loose a reign of terror. The Quit India Movement in 1942 was a complete fiasco, as the British had out-foxed Gandhi, and he was arrested along with the other leaders, before he could give any detailed instructions. The masses were without direction as to what to do. The resulting chaos and violence came in handy to the British, who completely snuffed out the movement within 6 months. Thus, in the final analysis, Gandhi's method of Civil Disobedience did not succeed against the British.When Gandhi was released from prison in 1944 due to ill health, he was a spent force, and he could make no positive contribution to the situation, on any issue thereafter.
INDEPENDENCE HASTENED BY:
India's freedom was hastened by-
-the changing geo-political reality in the subcontinent after the Second World War and the enormous defence expenditure that it entailed on Britain;
- Britain emerging as a debtor
-the rise of Netaji Subhas Bose's Indian National Army. It electrified the nation, enthused the youth, and captured the imagination of Indians in the Army and Navy. There were even mutinies by Indian Navy men. The British could no more take the loyalty of Indian soldiers for granted.
Thus, though Gandhi awakened the Indian masses as no leader before him had done in modern India, he did not successfully conclude the movement. The British suddenly decided to leave, and leave in a hurry. They did not even give the Congress leaders time to think and prepare. They were caught in a daze. Even the details of partition- the exact boundaries were not known to Indian leaders even on the day of Independence. Thus, freedom came to India in spite of Gandhi, not because of him. .
Indian writers, especially the text-book writers generally do not see and adhere to facts. They simply promote the Gandhi image.
GANDHIAN METHODS MISUSED
While Gandhi did awaken the masses, the methods he adopted have proved to be handy for people who do not share his philosophy after Independence. Gandhi struggled against colonial powers who did not allow us any civil liberties, or methods to voice our grievances or effectively participate in our governance. Constitutional or lawful means in those days meant acceptance of colonial rule, which lacked legitimacy. The standard method of protest against it would have been violent revolution. Gandhi avoided that deliberately, and adopted Civil Disobedience as the non-violent alternative. That was the best he could do under the alien government.
But today, we have our own Constitution and government . We have adult franchise and elect our own govt. We float parties on different philosophies or ideas or demands. We have constitutionally provided methods to get the Constitution itself amended!
VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL METHODS
Yet we find Indian political parties and other groups abandoning Constitutional methods and taking to the streets, and indulging in acts of violence in support of any demand. Unfortunately, both the Central and State govts also remain totally insensitive to peaceful protests. They cannot deal with peaceful protests. They respond only when there is prospect of violence or widespread public disorder. Often, they act only when their supporting vote base is affected. Any leader can gather a mass of people and drum up support for any local cause or grievance. The police deal with the mobs brutally, as if we are still in colonial days, while the leaders who incite them go scot free. In a federal set-up it is so easy to create animosity against the central govt, or another state, to please local mobs.
The recent disturbances in Tamil Nadu, the so called Cauvery agitations, are of this type. The Supreme Court has given a final judgement in an inter-state dispute which lingered on for decades. It has provided for creation of a machinery to enforce the judgement. The Central govt is on the job, but has sought certain clarifications from the Court. The Tamil Nadu govt, one of the parties, has also gone to the Court, with a Contempt of Court petition against the Centre. The Court has already fixed a date for taking it up. Thus the matter is sub-judice. Where then is the need for a mass agitation at this time? In the Press and the media, no one has pointed out the facts, but everyone is either feeding or succumbing to the public frenzy. The so called social media is full of vulgar, unrestrained and uncivilized abuses against the Centre and its leaders. Truth has been conveniently brushed aside. No avenues are open for the ordinary citizen to express a view, which goes against the current frenzy.
This is a glaring instance of how in Independent India, people have no regard for Constitutional methods.
