On the face of it, one can say that India is a country that offers one tremendous space to exercise their powers of dissent. The only problem is that most of them (Muttalik, Thackeray etc etc etc) choose to do it in unlawful and illegal ways. Apart from the protests most visibly caught by the news media (the post Mumbai terror attacks protests, the protests regarding the Jessica Lal case), there have been several protests across the country by citizens who have been handed a raw deal by the system and seek to change it. The protests against the Khairlanji massacre, the Gujjar agitation, the anti-SEZ protests in Nandigram and Singur, the anti-POSCO agitations, the list does go on. In fact, the problem of Naxalism is nothing but a form of protest by those agitating for a system change, and not just a resolution on an isolated issue.
This post is not about the relative efficacy of the above protests and whether the existence of mere protests or their success and resolution is a better testament to the democratic nature of our country. This post is about the mode of protest adopted by the urban middle-and-upper-classes (especially the youth) with regard to two specific incidents: the Mumbai terror attacks of 26th November and the attacks by the Shri Ram Sene.
While thinking about this topic, I started off with the idea that the middle-and-upper classes in India only take to the streets over issues that directly threatened them and their way of life, and do not bother about issues that affect the course of society as such. (This is illustrated by the fact that while thousands of protesters in the Arab world as well as countries like England have demonstrated against the utterly reprehensible actions of Israel in Gaza, there has not been the same kind of protest seen here). But this would be terribly unfair. All of the protest movements I have mentioned above have been carried out by people who felt their specific interests and ways of life threatened. Selfishness, defined in such a narrow way, is a common strain running through most protest movements worldwide.
However, there is another point which I think starkly differentiates the protests of the upper-and-middle class youth and the (to use a patronizing term) lower classes, and that lies in the recognition given to political processes. While protests in Nandigram, Singur etc etc wre not afraid of actively seeking the political route to realise their demands, the protests of Mumbai and Mangalore are remarkable more for their non-political character and complete rejection of politics (as seen in the Mumbai protests). The Mangalore attacks has prompted the innovative pink chaddi campaign, which is an attempt to stand up to and shame the fasicst elements of Mangalore into submission.
The democratic system we live in, for all its flaws, does offer us a suitable mechanism to achieve our demands: the power of the vote. Truckloads of pink chaddis will not make an iota of difference to the activists of the Shri Ram Sene; they survive thanks to a political process that has let them survive not just because the system is flawed, but also because right-minded citizens have not made best use of the system. This pink chaddi campaign served a valuable purpose in focussing attention onto the issue; but I doubt whether it would serve much purpose otherwise. Muthalik and his agenda are political creatures; they derive their legitimacy and strength from the political process, and not what sections of society think of them.
If the momentum started off by these symbolic demonstrations were to be supplanted by the power of the vote, I honestly think it would be much more effective in advancing and realising the demands of that class actively opposed to the fascist thugs of Mangalore. The present government in Karnataka needs to be defeated not just because of their links with ideological elements that share the views of hardliners like Muthalik, but also because they failed in their primary responsibility as a Government: to protect the people.
All symbolic protest is only means to and end, and the end is political resolution. Rosa Parks’ sit-in on the bus would have come to nothing if people like Martin Luther King Jr did not push the lawmakers of America to introduce changes in the system. In fact, violence is not even needed to oust a Government from power in present-day India. The electoral system works well enough.
(Whether violence is necessary to change the nature of the Indian State, is another matter!)
Like it or not, successful ends can only be gotten through the political route. Visibility in blogs and new media, publicity etc are only means to the end. The problem with the urban upper-and-middle classes (as seen in the Mumbai and pink chaddi protests) is that they seem to think that the means have become the end.
I completely agree with you on most counts . But there are a few hiccups,
1) I don’t think Indian state has been very successful in safeguarding right to protest in non urban parts of the country. Any legal protest by tribals or peasants(or even workers in urban parts) over acquisition of land have been violently suppressed with police acting as an agent of state.I am not a great believer in Indian democracy either.
2) I think it is unfair to garb both the resistance movements and these shallow acts of narcissism under the same garb of selfishness. I would use the Gandhian maxim of need and greed to separate the two.Most of these resistance movements sprung out of dire need of survival.
In any case , its not as if people in Saudi Arabia or London were directly affected by the happenings in Palestine. Or the Americans of 60′s were directly affected byVietnam.
3) If we look closely enough, its not as if protesters are directly affected by the events either.Most of the protests were sparked off through incidents which enabled them to associate themselves with the victims by forging identities they would associate themselves with(as in case of mumbai as people who want their city back or mangalore as pink loving pub goers) or aspire to(as in case of jessica lal,”Aint she like my pretty daughter?”). And the fact that they seem either unable or unwilling forge any identity that would enable them to connect to the starving suffering masses (As Indians? As Humans?) , is a statement enough about the self indulgent narcissism that underlies these protests, which are’nt plain selfish or arise out of
self interest.
4) Coming to voting, I don’t think voting is the sole way of acting political. Ballot boxes need not be the only place that citizens should demonstrate their ire. But this whole scoffing of politics without any engagement is irksome indeed. I don’t think middle class protesters have much against voting. Come next elections, they would all turn out to vote.Like they did after Kargil. Jaago re. But the point is, theirs numbers would’nt account for much.Its precisely this political space they are claiming. With newfound economic freedom, they want that privileged political space to dish out their woes. Most of the demands are far too juvenile to merit any serious political consideration in the republic of hunger and emancipatory identity politics.
As far as pink chaddi campaign goes, Ram sene officials were plain amused. They donated the chaddis to an orphanage. Full points for tact.They could be amused in the wisdom that the chaddi senders are’nt capable of much more.
Btw, most of the protest forms seem to be inspired from two films Rang De Basanti and Munnabhai . The first murdered Bhagat Singh and Gandhigiri is a rather juvenile understanding of Gandhi’s ideology.
Most importantly, the feminist nature of the protest was near invisible. Its a womens issue. Its a communal issue. With some maturity, it could have easily grown into a protest about spatial containment of women. (Which part of Bangalore can a woman walk around at 3 in the night?) .Or about the anti minority policy of the BJP government.
Hmm, you have points there.
It was never my intention though, to say that voting is the only way to get political. But it is a first step that no-one seems to be talking about.
And yes, I will fully concede to you the point of the freedom of protest being limited to a large degree to urban centres.
Moreover, you bring up a very good point about the movement that materialised after the Mangalore attacks. This was a perfect opportunity for a truly feminist movement that highlighted the state of women’s rights in the country. The fact is that elements in our country that give full ideological (and active) support to the subjugation of women also support political power from parties that share in this worldview (or at least do nothing to change the state of affairs). Somehow, the issue seems to have become one surrounding the issue of drinking and the right to make the choice to drink. While it is necessary to fully empower women so that they are able to make their own choices in life (whether this includes drinking or not), the discussion doesn’t seem to have gone much beyond that.
Let’s hope other people also get in on this discussion and its not just you and me talking to each other when we do that all the time on gmail!!
First I would just like to point out that when prathamesh uses the phrase “aint she like my pretty daughter” in his comment.
he sounds like a redneck american
and thats just distrubing
what! No?
apart from that i dont get prattys whole point about forging identities which, while im sure is well argued, I didnt pay attention to while reading.
I think protesting such incidents and hating the ram sena is wrong. we shouldn’t be talking to the politicians. They will always be there( look at so called developed countries) the important thing is to take long term steps to address the base that the ram sena caters too.
The incident shows that some politians feel there is mileage to be gained. ie people to be impressed by indulging in such clearly
regressive antics
but when was the last time two protests (ours and the ram senas which is also a protest) canceled each other out and left the peoples sentiments healed.
the thing to do is to take a long term view. the class of people who protest this clearly have something they are unhappy with and we should identify that and address it
another example i like to give( and ive already give rahul this on gchat) is as follows
Some years ago the Shiv Sena was busy breaking down mcdonalds for serving beef or something. I saw it. I was just starting at Xaviers
and everyone involved in the riot clearly couldnt afford to be eating at mcdonalds
so they were clearly not worried they had been fed anything against their religion
so what made them angry.
luckily i knew a guy who took part in the riots.
he also sold cd’s near mcdonlads at VT. Porn and games. I used to buy games. I promise! But I asked him pointedly what his reasons were, because he clearly had never eaten in McDonalds. He was a young guy. And he agreed that he was angry because he watched the rich folk eat there everyday. he actually mentioned women in short skirts too.
so there is frustrated libido and economics involved. and the long term solution is to give these guys hope. and the short term solution is not to encourage all the rich kids going into mcdonalds to also start throwing pink chaddis on the face of the guy who sells Cd’s. that would just be mean!
Arjun,
Within context, the comment sounds very unlike a redneck.
Will get back about the identity thing later.Perhaps on a chat.I was referring to Amartya’s sens theory of multiple social identities here.
Coming to economic causes for it, I completely agree with you.That has precisely been my point. There are complex socio-economic dynamics to it. Ignoring all that and throwing pink chaddis at the face of Ram Sene is plain dumb.
But a lot of the ground level support does not come from lower classes. Though, at times, they do form a part support base for such movements. Rise of Shiv Sena in bombay for instance coincided with the closure of mills, unemployement among the mill workers and hence the destruction of mill workers movement. The malls that came in the place, would’nt employ them simply because they did’nt know english. Same holds for Ahmedabad(or is Ahemdabad?) where the mill worker movement was hijacked by BJP to the interest of mill owners and to meet its own communal ends.
Upper caste middle classes and the comfort of cultural nationalism that they can alone afford, often forms the steady base of it. Like with R.S.S. .As a castes/class that gained from the neo liberal reforms, their economics is the protection of interests of domestic mercantile/capitalist/feudal classes and their way of life. For them while neo liberal globalisation is a welcome economic development, Culturally it undermines their position in the traditionally organised hierarchy and the way of life. This results in a urge to dominate the global scene culturally and economically(which they believe that they already do) , which serves the underlying motivation factor in such cases. Like with Nazis. Coupled with the fact that the partially socialist and secular nature of pre ayodhya politics, with its identity and caste based politics did little to preserve their traditionally held positions and weaned a lot of political power away from them. Which led to a sense of resentment.The culture that they are seeking to protect is strictly the upper caste culture. It has little to do with most lower castes(especially dalits) where sex,drinking or working women are far from a cultural taboo.
Precisely why strongest support bases for such acts come from the traditional middle class, upper caste suburbs like the Peths of Pune, Dadar in Bombay or Udupi near Mangalore.
ps: No regional agenda here, But a section of maharashtrian and konkani brahmins seem to be the steady support base for most of the ultra right wing-cultural-nationalist activities.
I forgot to add this.
Menon had an extremely interesting and insightful take on what he labeled as the divisive centre politics. Scroll down till you reach this article called Left,right and centre.