The right to protest is a 'fundamental right' in a free society which is part of 'right to speech'. This is the core of a democracy in which we as Indians supposedly live. This is something all of us agree with. But, what happens when we violate these rules?
The recent fracas over the killing of some people belonging to the peasant community near Pune by the police is just one such incident that raises this broader debate on the use and mis-use of freedom of expression. In fact, this problem is not germane to just India as the London riots are also similar in nature. Let us not get into the the matter of how the people were shot dead by the police as the media reports, which is the only source of information, will provide a view which is largely sympathetic to the farmers.
We are always made to believe that when the police kills some people, it is unnecessary and that they should do nothing while they are stoned or when vehicles are other property are damaged in the name of giving vent to anger. Is this right? It has become a bad habit these days to have ourselves heard by violating the space of the public in terms of causing inconvenience or damaging property. This holds for bandhs too where the rioters can burn cars and shops and the cops are not supposed to do anything except try and arrest some of them who will anyway come out on bail to repeat such offences. What happens to the people who are affected by such inconvenience? Nothing really because no one cares.
The right to demonstrate is something which should be allowed but it should not go beyond a limit where it encroaches on other people's rights to live. If the Mumbai-Pune highway is being held up on account of such a demonstration, which causes pain to all those using the road, then surely, action is sought from the police. Who pays for the damage to the vehicles during such a protest? Certainly not the protesters. If the cops do not take stringent action, then it looks like that they are supporting the protesters. We would then say that they are inefficient or ineffective. But, if they do resort ot firing, then it looks inhuman (though no one asks whether the protesters were being human to the other affected people on the road). Therefore, how does one draw the line? This has been a raging problem in England too where the cops are not quite sure as to what should be done to quell the protest.
Quite clearly we need to draw a line somewhere. Demonstrating in public spaces is permissible provided it does not intrude on others' spaces. There are spots for holding such rallies. However, the moment it gets disruptive, we need laws that are merciless as the job of the police is to protect the people from an assault of their spaces. This is the only way that we can stop such incidents from happening. Today people who make a nuisance of themselves know very well that while burning public property as an individual means judicial action, the same done along with a group of people actually attracts public sympathy. Today it could be farmers protesting, tomorrow it would be some other group that feels aggrieved. But the final result is coming in the way of the larger public which should not be permitted.
We need to seriously debate this issue.
