Media365
What next? What should we expect now in the medley of protests? Sitting in Bengali Market, I munched over this question, a good distraction from the chhole bhature that did not live up to their fame.
It was a good moment to ask this question. Monday, October 12, was the death anniversary of Rammanohar Lohia, who famously said “zinda kaumein paanch saal tak intezar nahin karti” (A living people do not wait for five years). Over the previous 10 days, I had been detained five times — grabbed, dragged, pushed and shoved into police vans — for peacefully protesting against the Chief Election Commissioner. This was one of those lucky days when I did not end up in a police station.
We had just returned from the march to the Supreme Court. This was not a protest against the judiciary, least of all an attempt to put pressure on the courts. If anything, it was to restore the majesty of the Supreme Court that lay tattered on the streets of Delhi this weekend. Above all, it was to assert our fundamental right to peaceful protest in the national capital that was placed under a virtual curfew and experienced a reign of terror in miniature. We had reclaimed the streets.
What should be the next move? Obviously, the movement has to be expanded both in geographical and social terms. Some new forms of action need to be devised, besides a routine of street demonstrations. Some new institutional pressure points need to be identified. While the strategy and tactics of the protest are being worked out, an understanding of the destination and route might help navigation.
Suhas Palshikar characterises the present protests as a moment of “redemocratisation”, as the way of opening the multiple systemic “closures” that we have witnessed (‘Crackdown on Jantar Mantar 2.0, amid other closures, calls for redemocratisation’, IE, October 13). These “closures” are a consequence of what I have called “democracy capture” that began in 2014 — a capture of democracy by using seemingly democratic means. The key instrument was “election capture”: Elections are held regularly, but the playing field is tilted progressively to insulate the regime from electoral defeat. It began with the taming of mass media and monopoly over money power, was supplemented by the capture of the Election Commission and misuse of the CBI and ED, and is finally taking the shape of permanent architectural changes by way of the SIR, delimitation and One-Nation-One-Election. The current protests are against this design to ensure a permanent majority for the BJP.
The protests are about restoration of electoral integrity. No more. No less. Although there is no official charter, three demands are shared by all the protesters. First, the resignation or impeachment of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, a symbolic act towards restoring the proper functioning and credibility of the ECI. Second, the rollback of the SIR, so as to undo the largest ever disenfranchisement in the history of democracy. Third, the repeal of the 2023 Act, which grants the regime unfettered powers to appoint anyone to the ECI and complete immunity to those appointed. The basic impulse underlying these demands is the quest for free and fair elections, at least as free and as fair as the election that brought the BJP to power in 2014. Nothing less would do.
At the same time, this protest is not about regime change. Many of the forces behind the protest may wish to see an exit for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sooner rather than later. But this is not the sentiment that drives ordinary citizens to the streets. Not yet. As of now, it is about restoring a system that keeps open a fair possibility of a democratic and peaceful transfer of power. If this bare minimum demand is frustrated, and every legitimate avenue for redress remains closed, the present protest may morph into a popular upsurge for regime change. The human and systemic costs of that kind of upheaval would be terrifying. Thankfully, we are not there yet. We should continue to hope that the residual capacity of regulatory institutions and the sheer long-term self interest of the ruling party would prevent such a catastrophe. Popular mobilisation on the streets does not bypass the constitutional order. It generates countervailing pressure that can strengthen institutions against the overwhelming power exerted by the regime.
Steering the protests towards this objective would require a realignment of forces. So far, these protests are a textbook example of “spontaneous synchronisation”, where orderly collective action emerges without any central command or coordination. This happens when different actors, responding to one another, gradually align their actions without any conscious design or plan. The spontaneous call by “concerned citizens” (including this writer) leading to street action on October 2 to 4, the October 10 protest originally called by the CJP and the series of actions by the INDIA coalition from October 6 to 12 were not coordinated decisions. But the outcome appears like an orchestra or a relay race where the baton keeps changing hands.
That cannot be the way forward. If the regime has decided not to yield an inch, the protesters have to find a mechanism to coordinate their efforts. The CJP, the INDIA bloc, youth organisations and civil society may not and need not come under one umbrella, but they must ensure that they do not work at cross-purposes, that their energies cannot be deflected against one another. Fortunately, Rahul Gandhi has opened a window in this respect by stating that there are no separate or parallel protests, that all protests are one. Also, the relative strength of different strands of this movement has undergone a shift this time. This makes a realignment possible. The success of this movement hinges on this. The strength of organic or self-mobilised protesters, who were the backbone of the July youth protests, is critical here. These young protesters are not wedded to any organisation and their enthusiasm could be dampened if they find conflicting signals. Instead of an organisation- or party-led movement, they would like to see a citizens’ movement supported by parties and organisations.
My train of thought stopped here as the insipid “machine coffee” I was sipping got over. I resolved not to order anything except South Indian filter coffee. And not to take chhutti till Gyanesh Kumar gets his chhutti from the Election Commission.
The writer is member, Swaraj India, and national convenor, Bharat Jodo Abhiyan
