Patricia Mukhim
The recent protests by students of Kiang Nangbah College and the events thereafter have gone viral. A students’ protest cannot happen without the tacit consent of the teachers. This means that the teachers too have their grouse. The Vice President of the Students’ Association of the College, T Phawa had made public the demands since September 23 last when he spoke to the media. The demands include extension of college building, sanctioning of new departments, hiring of full-fledged teachers for the morning classes and construction of a basketball court. These demands are legitimate and the students have every right to these aspirations. Considering that this is the only government college in Jaintia Hills the government ought to have responded positively to at least some of the demands, if not all of them at one go. Phawa says that letters have been sent letters to every Minister in the government with a list of their demands but none of the ministers even deigned to give them a hearing; not even the Education Minister who is also their MLA. The government had enough time to respond but it did not. And why do governments wait for things to spiral and turn ugly as they did on November 10? From the video footage on social media it is evident that Meghalaya does not have a rapid response police force to tackle ugly incidents when peaceful protestors turn violent.
Bu the point to ponder here is why a students’ protest should turn violent. Was it because the students had reached the end of their tether? Is it because a peaceful protest is ignored and government only takes a protest seriously when it is given an ultimatum of now or never? We in India have lived in the erroneous belief that democracy is a government of, for and by the people. But this is hardly the case. Once we have elected a government, it no longer serves the ‘common good.’ It appears to serve the interests of a section which tends towards profit making. The others who are outside that charmed circle get only the crumbs that are left over from the development platter.
Gandhi had averred that democracy is the art and science of mobilizing the entire physical, economic and spiritual resources of various sections of the people in the service of common good of all. But this is only a truism. The anti-corruption movement lead by Anna Hazare in 2011 was a protest that millions of Indians subscribed to since corruption hits at the root of governance. Development has become the new idiom for money that comes to the states and disappears into private pockets. Annual CAG reports that point to several anomalies in spending by the government are disdainfully ignored. Hence there is virtually no one to haul up the government for corruption since the CAG does not have punitive powers.
Many of those who joined the Anna Hazare protest expressed their aspiration to create a new form of participatory democracy which goes beyond the rigmarole of a once-in-five-year election. In Meghalaya, for instance, the Right to Information came after a sustained protest by RTI activists and groups. Protests have been instrumental in forcing the introduction of most of the freedoms that now exist in liberal democracies today. Protests are a sign that democracy is alive and kicking even if such protests are inconvenient for governments, which more often than not prefer to remain in a comfort zone with no external stimulus to stir them. It is unfortunate that those in government tend to forget that they are not the masters of the people but their servants and that the law is also not the master but is meant to serve the public.
Whenever the Government and the Law are out of step with the will of the People, it is expected that the People would make their views known through the medium of protest. This is the essence of democracy. A government that does not lend its ears to the voice of protest is asking for trouble. A sensible government should have braced itself for the protest of the students on November 10. This is the first time that one can recall a protest by students of any institution turning violent. The protestors whose only slogan was, “We want justice,” should have been given an opportunity to state their demands instead of being kept out of the gates to the Deputy Commissioner’s office.
In a democracy dialogue is the only method of resolving differences between the rulers (servants) and the ruled (masters). Also what caught the attention of the public is the engagement by the additional deputy commissioner with the protestors. The body language of the former was provocative and not conciliatory. He, in fact, enraged the students further with his taunts.
Perhaps the ADM is unused to facing a protest of this nature or he has forgotten that democracy is alive not because citizens suffer in silence but because they give vent to their grievances. Without protests we would slowly lose even those rights that are guaranteed to us. Protests are part of a systematic and peaceful campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion but in a non-violent manner. Actually, a democratic state provides its citizens the right to protest, so that they can enjoy their fundamental rights and give their opinion in case they find anything against the system. The right to protest is a perceived human right arising out of a number of recognized human rights. So why do protests fail to stir governments?
The reasons are many. A protest that does not have the numbers is not taken seriously. Hence even the recent protests by the Rangbah Shnong necessitated the garnering of public support and such a public cannot be guaranteed to be disciplined or non-violent. What we had was therefore a stone pelting incident! However, the Rangbah Shnong were magnanimous enough to apologise for the gathering turning chaotic. A sensitive, responsive government would not look at the numbers but at the genuineness of the demand, even if it is only by a small group of people.
Some officials of the Education Department however defend the government action saying that the there were processes to be followed in the expansion of an institution. The girl’s hostel was to be funded by the University Grants Commission of which the state government is to pool in only 10 % of the expenses. Yet the building is being constructed despite the fact that UGC is yet to release the amount. But the students according to the official were taking up the case of the casual employees more than anything else. These casual employees were appointed arbitrarily by respective principals without following formalities as required in any government institution. That the students should take up the cause of the employees is altruistic and in tune with their slogan, “We want Justice.” But should the employee issue form the brief of a students’ protest? How would their studies suffer if the employees were terminated because of the arbitrary nature of their appointments? And if that sort of arbitrary appointment is allowed at Kiang Nangbah College what prevents other colleges and government bodies from following suit? Legally therefore the protest does not sound tenable. But having said that it was the government’s brief to engage the students in a dialogue without talking down to them. And considering that the unrest had started several months ago one is curious as to why the government allowed this issue to fester.
The next big protest could be by the citizens who will be demanding their rights to good roads that should last at least for a minimum period of five years. Look at the roads in Shillong city. In some parts the black topping has completely been washed away. Should the citizens not protest this corruption? The government is therefore looking at a series of protests against its own failure to provide public goods and services. Let’s not curb all such protests by imposing Section 144!