Of Peaceful Protests and Public Spaces
By: Ashi Gupta
Tags: Farmers, Civil Rights, Protest, Democracy

Shaheen Bagh Protests, 2020.

2020 witnessed a multitude of protests across the world. We entered the year with the Hong Kong and the Shaheen Bagh protests. From there, we saw numerous protests, both internationally and domestically. Currently, Thailand is going through massive pro-democracy protests while farmers have been marching to Delhi against the farm laws. The one consistent theme across these protests has been the response of the various governments, which has ranged from mild to severe violence and suppression of democratic freedoms.

Most democracies of the world have their roots in violent struggles and protests like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, etc. India gained freedom through mass protest movements (Non-Cooperation, Civil Disobedience), some of which turned violent in some places (Quit India). However, once democracies were established, it was decided that citizen discontent and disagreements would be resolved through democratic processes such as elections. Through the power of votes, a government which was working against its citizens could be ousted. Yet, we find that even in democracies protests happen. This is because elections take place every few years and some issues need immediate resolution. To address this, most democracies allow peaceful protests. In India, the right to peaceful assembly is enshrined in Article 19 (right to free speech and expression) of the Constitution .

Ideally, a peaceful protest that causes no inconvenience should be able to attract the government’s attention to find a solution through engagement. However, protestors have discovered that often the only way to get their concerns heard is through causing public inconvenience. It is this inconvenience that the government uses as a ground to suppress. In India, especially recently, protestors have been met with internet shutdowns, sedition, curfews, etc. Farmers, who have been protesting peacefully, were met with tear gas and water cannons. The spontaneous protests after the 2012 Delhi gang rape had received similar treatment.

Months after the Shaheen Bagh protests had dispersed (because of COVID-19), the Supreme Court pronounced that while the right to protest is a fundamental right, it cannot extend to occupying public spaces indefinitely. It also added that the administration was responsible for ensuring that such spaces are not encroached. However, the administration often resorts to designating areas (like the Burari ground), where protestors can easily be ignored. This question came up in the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan case (2018), where it was argued that protests are only meaningful and impactful if their voice is heard. The occupation of public spaces peacefully, precisely because it causes inconvenience to the public, is necessary. It goes without saying that the inconvenience should not extend to cutting off the essential services. The Hong Kong protesters making way for ambulances is an example of thoughtful protests.

It is possible for the governments to ignore the protests if the numbers are small, or the protests are by minorities or marginalised or economically deprived communities. When the larger public is inconvenienced, the government is cornered into reacting to it. In a democracy, citizens have to be mindful of each other’s rights, which can often be in conflict. The public that is affected by the peaceful protest should pressurise the governments to resolve the conflicts faster, with the recognition that the protestors are occupying public spaces temporarily to fight for their rights.

However, governments find it easier to suppress than to resolve, especially when the issue does not concern their vote bank communities. Farmers had been protesting locally in Punjab for two months where they received little attention. By marching to and protesting in the capital, they have captured the sympathies of the larger public. A democratic government should meet with the protestors to resolve the points of contention. In the case of the farmers, the governments should have let the farmers march to Delhi to meet them. By responding with force, the governments turned many citizens against itself and made the movement bigger. Ordinary citizens saw it as a failure of the government to engage with its citizens, and this in turn reduced the faith in the government.

The protestors, on the other hand, have a duty to make their demands and grievances be heard without resorting to violence. Controlling a large scale protest is difficult as it can easily turn violent due to the inherent nature of crowds. Therefore, it is upon the leaders or the representatives amongst the protestors to ensure that this does not happen. It is at this point that the local administration should step in to guide the protest, not stop it. This is why protestors often take permission from the administration, even though it goes against the fundamentals of a protest itself. If the local administration and the government engage with the protestors at this point, it would be considered not just a successful protest, but also a mature and successful democracy.