Anita Anand | Protests, and how to handle them: A wake-up call for all governments

Growing up in rural West Bengal, I first encountered protests when I heard the word “gherao”, which literally means “to encircle”. In the mid-1960s labour activists, union leaders and workers, wanting improved working conditions, better pay and benefits, would surround a person in authority and/or a building until their demands were met.

These protests, in different forms and by diverse groups, continued into the late 1960s and early 1970s when I was a student and later, working in Kolkata. Almost every day there would be a protest, a demonstration, a march, a sit-in, to get the government to pay attention to the protesters’ demands. Often there were “bandhs”, which meant the entire city shut down.

Gherao, as a word and as a concept, took on such importance that it was added to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary in 2004, “Gherao: n (pl. gheraos). Indian; a protest in which workers prevent employers leaving a place of work until demands are met”.

In India, protests are legal under the exercise of two fundamental rights: freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and the freedom to assemble peacefully under Article 19 (1)(b). India has an extended history of protests and as a nation was born out of civil disobedience movements in the struggle for an independent country, free from the British colonisers.

Indian citizens, disenfranchised groups with little political, economic, social or religious influence, take to the streets in various forms of protest when they feel they are not being heard. The fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression means citizens can express themselves, in peaceful ways. Sometimes, protesters -- when they think they are not being heard -- may resort to violence. Or, even if they are committed to non-violence, other anti-social elements see it as an opportunity to riot and loot.

Two recent and substantial protests in India were against the Central government’s proposed policies or policies adopted without sufficient interaction with the concerned parties: the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the three farm bills (that were subsequently withdrawn). Other protests focus on violence against women, student and minority rights.

In December 2019, the government proceeded to enact the CAA, which amended India’s citizenship law to accept illegal migrants – Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists, and Christians -- from neighbouring Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and those who entered India before 2014, following religious persecution. Excluded from these categories were Muslims and other communities who were refugees -- the Sri Lankan Tamils in India, Rohingyas from Myanmar and Tibetan refugees. Under the CAA, a National Register of Citizens (NRC) was to be an official record of all legal citizens of India. Individuals would need to provide a prescribed set of documents before a specified cutoff date to be included in it. There were protests all over the country and sit-ins in New Delhi, over the obvious targeting of Muslims and activists. To the government’s advantage, these were disbanded due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown in March 2020. This year, the government has yet to frame the rules for the CAA.

The 2020–2021 farmers’ protest was a response to the three farm laws acts passed by Parliament in September 2020. Often called the farm bills, they were described as “anti-farmer laws” by many farmers’ unions. On November 20, 2020, an all-India 24-hour general strike was called, and an estimated 250 million people around the subcontinent participated in solidarity. A year later, in November 2021, the Union government moved to repeal the laws.

These two recent protests highlight the lack of public discussion and inclusion of the affected parties by the government in designing policy. The protesters must resort to various methods to get the attention of the government and the public. The government responds by stalling the protesters, appeasing them with promises, and using the police force to threaten and demoralise them.

The blocked roads, closed shops, traffic jams and calls for day-long shutdowns and strikes are bad for the economy, public morale and the government’s image.

Unlike protests of the past, today the Internet and the social media have enabled protesters to garner support, locally, regionally, nationally and globally. The two large and recent protests -- the three farm bills and the CAA -- have brought criticism of the policies and the government’s handling of the protests. Excessive violence by the police violates the fundamental rights of citizens to protest. Deliberate disinformation campaigns by the government to discredit the protesters is shameful and unfortunate. With smartphones, WhatsApp and Twitter, these incidents can be recorded and circulated.

The right to protest is a protection of citizens’ social, political, economic and cultural rights. Policies which are proposed and passed without the due process of law that discriminate against vulnerable groups will draw protests. The government sees protests as inconveniences to be handled and controlled and threats to be removed, and does not seem to believe in the basic tenet of democracy – participation by the people.

In India and globally, governments can expect more protests as people’s needs are unfulfilled. Shrinking economies, internal and external conflicts, migration, joblessness, all mean more conflict. According to its global protest tracker, carnegieendowment.org reports that since 2017 there have been over 400 significant anti-government protests; in 132 countries significant protests; 23 per cent lasted over three months and of these, 135 were significant economic anti-government protests.

Governments, especially democratic ones, have a choice. They can either become more participatory while designing policy, seek ways to reduce inequality and promote justice, or face the consequences of increasing protests by their citizens.