Culture Of Constructive Protest : Good Means for Durable Ends

Seram Neken *

Students raze down toilet complex of DMC Science on July 30 2013 :: Pix - HL

It is the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to safeguard public property and abjure violence. Destruction of public property in demanding rights and opportunities is against the Constitution of the country. While cherishing development works from the authorities, some sections of people have resorted to spoiling existing properties. It may be remembered that only dutiful citizens are entitled to enjoy the rights.

Public protests in democracy usually aim at social good. Generally, pressure groups or individuals launch agitations against the existing government either to express disapproval of a programme or for demanding certain development works or policies. Agitations may also be launched merely to make public awareness on a particular matter. It is natural for the people to raise their grievances to the authorities, but it is not certain that their demands will be fulfilled wholly at one go.

The fulfillment of demands depends on the availability of resources, feasibility of implementation and priority status of the works. Protesters have to be patient and must create room for negotiations in order to get durable ends. Whenever there is a meeting point between the protester and the authority, the public demands will easily get materialized. The means must always take care of the end, or vice versa.

On very important and serious issues of the society, the public as a whole rarely happens to rise and demonstrate its fury, thereby causing damage to public properties. Such exceptional incidents may be justified on the pretext of the national importance of the issue. For example, the Great June uprising led to destruction of structures including the erstwhile state assembly.

Howsoever destructive the agitations were, they were deemed inevitable due to the magnitude of the issue which was the protection of territorial integrity of Manipur. There were also severe statewide strikes on serious human rights violations. They were of course necessary to rectify the misdeeds of the perpetrators or authorities. However, every protest cannot go the same way and every agitation cannot rise at the same magnitude. There must be limitations.

Recently, some students of D.M College at Imphal dismantled their toilet complex for non-repair of the same by the authorities. Around a month later, miscreants burnt down a good portion of the Maha Union Higher Secondary School building in Chandel. Many instances of such nature have been happening in Manipur. We may recall the most unfortunate incident of burning down the state library some years back. Although these were the results of government inactivity on related issues, the public at the receiving end was always the loser.

For putting up and demanding certain grievances from the authority, some people in Manipur have the habit of resorting to violent activities. They never opt for constructive form of protest. In defiance of government apathy, they may volunteer to arrange their grievances on their own and set an example to the authority. Such a trend may also be promoted among the people particularly the agitating groups. “Constructive Protest” is also necessary in matters of development works.

Had the students of DM College unitedly come out to repair the dilapidated lavatory instead of damaging it, the people of Manipur would have lauded their endeavor. At the same time, the authority would have been psychologically defeated. Government infrastructure is public property. School and college buildings are for use of the public. Such buildings, whatever be their conditions, have been instrumental in shaping the future of the nation. To those who cherish the sanctity of education, educational institutions are like the temples of learning.

Everywhere in Manipur, there is one or the other grievances in almost all sectors. People of the state are habituated to launching strikes, bandhs, blockades and sit-in-protest even for petty demands concerning small sections or groups. We have heard bandhs demanding declaration of examination results, blockades against lack of school infrastructure, strikes for non-payment of salaries for some employees, and such other small issues of different groups. Such protests and agitations only affect the poor general people, while the authorities seem unmoved at such agitations. Then what is the benefit for launching agitations?

On many occasions and situations, the people on their own may contribute towards necessary development works instead of awaiting government response. It will teach a lesson to the authority on the hectic public responsibilities on a variety of issues. Meanwhile, most political leaders have the habit of announcing development plans in public functions without considering the feasibilities and availability of resources. Majority of them rarely take care of materializing commitments by keeping their words.

Hence, the ministerial pledges have often reduced its significance. Many a times, the public become intolerant towards the government inactivity on its commitments, thereby inviting agitations of all sorts. Here, the political leaders and bureaucrats need to be sincere in their commitment and action. At the same time, the public may also endeavor to solve the petty problems at their own effort, without awaiting the government action.

VOICE OF THE WEEK

As the poor government of Manipur cannot fulfill majority of the public grievances, the public at their own cost needs to make-up as much as possible regarding creation and maintenance of public properties. The culture of constructive protest may be promoted. On the other hand, the political leaders must avoid the blind announcement of commitments in public functions without considering the availability of resources and their priority status.