Republic Day violence raises questions about right to protest and agitational politics

(Image: Reuters/Adnan Abidi)

There were several things that had already gone wrong with the farmers’ agitation against the three farm laws much before the mayhem shook us on the Republic Day. There was no sense of direction among the leaders of the so-called ‘Kisan Morcha’ after they rejected the Union government’s offer to keep the laws in abeyance for 18 months — a time given to them to overcome their apprehensions about the impact of the legislation.

There were sharp differences among leaders on this issue. While the experienced farmer leaders, who had been attending the talks with the government, wanted the Centre’s offer to be accepted, leaders from Punjab believed that the government would buckle under pressure if the agitation continued. Some among them from Punjab wanted nothing short of an immediate repeal of the laws — which, in any case, the government had ruled out.

The ‘tractor rally’ was planned for January 26 to further increase pressure on the government but it ended up backfiring on the protesters; talk about cutting the nose to spite the face. What unfolded on Republic Day was a senseless show of anarchic behaviour, raising questions about the very politics of protest and culpability of its organisers.

They forgot the basic rules of the game: no protest can go on forever; no matter what the cause is. One must know when and where to stop street sit-ins and disruptions, and opt to negotiate an amicable solution. History is replete with examples when Mahatma Gandhi called off non-cooperation movement in the course of the freedom struggle whenever it turned violent.

Mass movements are known to go off the course because of the inability of its authors to always be in control of circumstances and forces at play. In this case, the farmers did not have a strong reason for a ‘tractor rally’ when the farm laws had been stayed by the Supreme Court and the Centre offering a structured discussion clause-by-clause.

The chaos that had to play out on the streets of central Delhi, particularly at the Red Fort, underscored the helplessness of its organisers to rein the anti-social elements who were out to abuse the ‘right to protest’. The farmer union leaders were nowhere to be seen stopping the anarchists. This raises a big question: Whether the government should have let the Delhi Police allow an exposition?

Should the Supreme Court have let the Delhi Police take the call on the ‘tractor rally’ on the ground that “the law and order is police’s business” when it had not hesitated to stay the farm laws? The government and judiciary owe to themselves now to relook at the ways to ensure the right to dissent and prevent protests in public spaces from degenerating into street battles and chaos.

Authorities admit they were under instruction to avoid an impression that the government was against farmers and their right to protest. Definitely, the role of the central government and the police will come under scrutiny as to whether they should have let the situation get to where it did.

But the manner in which the police handled the violent agitation, with restraint despite extreme provocation, is bound to receive praise rather than censure — because the use of force could have led to situations that would have reopened wounds of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, or even the Jallianwala Bagh episode in Punjab. Of course, this restraint in the use of force has come with a heavy price in terms of the morale of Delhi Police who were abused by men wielding swords and rods. It is welcome and reassuring that the police have started the process of identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators of the mayhem.

In all this the Opposition cannot escape scrutiny. It needs to introspect whether its politics by employing proxies absolves it of responsibility towards the polity. There should be a strong deterrent against any group using the public space as a tool of blackmail against the established norms of political engagement, negotiations and finding solutions to India’s numerous problems.

It's not enough to condemn the violence at the United States Capitol Hill and turn askance at what happened in Delhi. The Red Fort is a symbol of our national heritage and the desecration that took place there should have shaken us, if it has yet not.