Public Protest and the Political Process in India

Abstract

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE is to explore the role played by public protest in contemporary Indian politics. It should be clearly understood that no attempt is made to provide a characterization of the nature of the Indian political system. The object is to explore only one particular feature of Indian political life. India is the world's largest democracy. Its record in the defense of political freedom and in the translation of democratic theory into practical reality is remarkable not only among less developed nations but among the nations of the Western world as well. Public protest and even violence in the politics of a nation do indicate that all is not well with the system, but they do not serve in themselves as a basis for characterizing the nature of that system. Great Britain and the United States have both been the scenes of violence and protest in recent years; just as it would be wrong in these instances to argue from protest and violence to the extinction of democratic attributes, so too in the Indian case a discussion of public protest should not be read as an implicit denial of the vitality of its democratic processes. A descriptive characterization of a political system must rest on judgements far more complex than the discovery that protest and violence exist. Public protest in India assumes many forms. For example, there are legal and illegal forms of protest. The illegal forms come in two varieties: violent and non-violent. Satyagraha, or non-violent civil disobedience, is a nonviolent but often illegal form of protest. Violent illegal protest refers primarily to riots, although it may include assassinations and coups d'Stat. This article does not examine all these forms but focuses upon those which are most disruptive, that is, which pose the greatest threat to public order, and those which have a very explicit political purpose, that is, which seek to affect governmental policy. Attention is therefore directed primarily to the agitational activity of groups which by constituting a threat to public order seek to challenge and change the policies of government. Indians compel official attention and constrain decision-making by deliberately engaging in activities that threaten public order. Violence or the threat of violence have become important instruments in Indian politics. Group violence, like the wider category of protest, comes in many varieties. It is possible, however, to distinguish three general kinds, one of which has