.JPG)
Mid-summer crisis
A premier cellular service provider says "Barriers break when people talk".. And this is so true, now more than ever before.. With the Gurjars at the negotiating table, the trouble at ground zero seems to be ebbing. The main fall-out of this : trains have started plying again, and mind you, this is very important to keep the economy on track..
But the point I make here is entirely different.. What is it that will finally solve this impasse.. The Gurjar leaders have gone on record and said "ya to ST status de do, ya goli maar do".. With such being the ferocity of their demand, an obvious solution seems unlikely.. What is it that the Raje government can offer to help restore peace and normality.. I do not know how this impasse will end, but as long as the two sides keep talking, I am sure some solution will be found.. It has to be a compromise for both sides, but the state government must act fast and swift, to ensure the common public is not inconvenienced..
A question to all the intellectuals who are reading this.. What would you do if you were heading the government, while a particular section of the society resorted to similar voilence and economic shutdown.. I personally believe that if calls for negotiations fail, and the violence continues unabated, a complete blockade of that area might be the way to break up the agitators.. No power, no water, phone networks down, and then restrict supplies into the region. This should continue till the agitators walk the extra mile to the negotiating table.. What is important here is to let the people know that while they have a fundamental right to a peaceful gathering to put forth their demands, holding the State ransom and restoring to violence will not get them anywhere..
I am sure some of you will disagree with my methods here, but this is a last resort, to make sure a solution is found through dialog, not through the lathis.. In any case, please do leave a comment what is it that you would have done, if you were to find yourself at the helm of affairs when such trouble broke out..
6 comments:
The Gurjar agitation is only a symptom of a larger issue with our democracy. The incentive system we create is one where groups, large or small, get rewarded based on the amount of trouble they create, and not the justness of their case.
Sure, deal firmly with the Gurjars, but that must not be done in isolation. The farmers agitating in Haveri, the anti-Taslima agitators, the anti-MFHussain/ValentinesDay/whatever agitators and even the Singur/Nandigram agitators all deserve to be treated with equal lack of sympathy.
Every time we compromise to prevent a bad situation from going worse, we send a message to the next group (in this case, the Meenas are already stirring) that their aims can only be met if their method of expression is violence on the streets. Compromise in the face of violence is the wrong long-term solution.
It's about time to make it clear that violent protests and coercive strikes will be met with firm and to an extent ruthless action.
I can understand the case of "the anti-Taslima agitators, the anti-MFHussain/ValentinesDay/whatever agitators" but the Singur / Nandigram agitators??? The first few are just agitating for the sake of it, classical case of empty mind is devil's workshop (most of these are unemployed youth) but the people in Singur and Nandigram are a different league. It is their fundamental right against exploitation. To club these together would be certainly a mockery of the very foundation of our Constitution.
There is the problem. The Gujjars believe their cause is as just as that of the Singur/Nandigram agitators (although you and I may differ).
Who decides what cause is just and hence allowed to resort to violence and what isn't?
I do not understand how the difference is unclear. In the Nandigram / Singur case, it is a breach of fundamental rights, the Gurjar agitation is a case of self-cnetric demands by a group of people. Also, note that the Nandigram / Singur agitations cut across caste and religious divides..
If you are looking at 'who' to make this demarcation, I guess the Supreme Court could be the final authority. I trust the SC to uphold the essence of our democracy.
What I'm trying to say is: if you have group X with grievance Y, whether Y is justified or not has nothing to do which whether X should be allowed to indulge in violence towards the public.
The problem we have is that it's not the nature of Y, but how much violence and trouble X is able to stir that determines what sort of reaction governments have.
Side note: property is not a fundamental right in India since the times of Indira Gandhi, though it should be. That means the government can take over our property, just like they did in Nandigram and Singur, and our legal rights have not been violated as long as proper procedure is followed. I think we'd be better off with stricter limits on what governments can do with private property.
The fundamental right that I have been mentioning time and again is not the right to property. That went long back, though not by IG. It was the doing of Morarji Desai led Janta government. Also, I see no reason why it should be a fundamental right, simply because if it were so, then land acquisition for any project (example the DFC), even of grave national importance, could became an even bigger hurdles, and project life-spans would stretch from the current decades to centuries!!!
Anyway, the right I mention is the right against exploitation. This is what our government has to take care of. The poor need to get a fair compensation, as per market rates, not the rates set arbitrarily by the local council.
PS : This will make an interesting read, about the right to property.
Post a Comment