Redefining rights

Sir, - The views expressed by Dr. Ninan Koshy about the Kerala High Court verdict banning `hartal' in the article ``Curtailment of a democratic right'' (The Hindu, August 22) are nothing but the views of a particular political party regarding the same verdict.

Soon after the Kerala High Court banned ``bandh'' on July 28, 1997, on the ground that ``bandhs'' result in loss of production in various sectors of the country and curtails individual freedom, all political parties in Kerala, in a competitive manner, shifted to call and implement `hartal', ``to protect democratic right and express their views.'' These `hartals' became, in effect, `bandhs' (old wine in a new bottle).

Dr. Ninan Koshy underestimates the term `democratic right' only for the political parties. If the CPI(M) or the Congress, or the BJP calls for a `bandh' or `hartal', it should not be interpreted as the call by the people. There are millions of people who have no political bias. By blocking the roads and railway lines, throwing stones on State-run buses, attacking the bus conductors, breaking furnitures in government offices, preventing the vehicles which carry pregnant and diseased people to hospitals and marriage parties, burning the newspaper and police vans, attacking press photographers, destroying factories, etc, how many times the Congress, the CPI(M) and the BJP have `protected' the individual rights of the people of Kerala?

Definitely, `bandhs' and `hartals' result in loss of production in all sectors. In the unorganised sector, the labourers will not get their little wages if there is `bandh' or `hartal.' No political party will give them 1 kg of rice each. Dr. Ninan Koshy didn't consider the right of this large group. He didn't state the achievements of political parties, in the egalitarian distribution of what is produced, through `bandhs' or `hartals.'

Dr. Ninan Koshy says that the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1991 was against the principle of socialism. Clearly, there are demerits of the NEP. The author forgets the fact that the NEP has produced some good results. In 1990-91 the Indian economy faced negative growth. In 1991-92, the GDP growth was 0.8 per cent. After the adoption of the NEP, the GDP growth in percentage is as follows: 4.0 (1992-93), 4.3 (1993-94), 6.3 (1994-95), 7.0 (1995- 96), 7.2 (1996-97), 6.8 (1997-98), 6.2 (1998-99), 6.4 (1999- 2000). In 1991, foreign exchange reserves were only for two weeks imports. Now they crossed $37 billions. In 1990-91, inflation rate was 17 per cent. The average inflation rate last year was about 5 per cent. The per capita income of India reached the level of Rs. 10,207 at constant prices (1993-94 prices) in 1999- 2000. The NEP of 1991 is one of the different factors which contributed to this progress. Is this against the interest of the people? If yes, why did the subsequent governments follow it?

The author asks, ``if a political party calls for `hartal' and clearly makes an appeal against violence and intimidation, and then some miscreants indulge in violence, is the political party responsible for that?'' If violence happens on a bandh or `hartal' day, clearly the supporters of that party perpetrate it. How many attacks have been reported on teachers, press photographers, and innocent people, by the supporters of the political parties concerned during `hartal' days. Who is responsible? America?

Joseph K. Antony,

Guwahati

Sir, - The author is perhaps echoing the views of our political parties, particularly the leftist. This is a classic example of how the political parties quite often have an agenda totally out of sync with the problems faced by common people. If someone were to take a poll among people who are not committed party workers, 99 per cent would most likely support the decision of the courts banning `bandhs.'

The author is unable to comprehend the difference between the `democratic right to protest' and a call for a `bandh.' It is very simple. If any organisation issues a call to its own constituents to do or desist from doing something as an expression of protest and it is willing to carry out the protest without indulging in violence or coercion, it would be perfectly legitimate. However if it were to issue a call for protest action to other organisations or the general public, it is no longer acceptable and should most certainly attract the ruling of the courts. Most `bandhs' fall in this latter category even if they are to be accompanied by assurances that there will be no violence or coercion. The courts are right to ban such `bandhs' and this in no way curtails the rights of any organisation or party.

N. K. Raghavendran,

Bangalore

Sir, - The article ``Curtailment of a democratic right' is illuminating.

Though one cannot agree with all the views expressed by the author, he has made a brilliant analysis of the matter. There can be no doubt that general strikes, bandhs and hartals cause serious distruption to civil life and in the name of agitating for achieving social objectives or correcting perceived wrongs, these forms of protests are nowadays being resorted to at the drop of a hat. Often in the name of bandhs and hartals even transport of seriously ill persons to hospitals could not be done.

It is not correct to say that the court has `banned' bandhs and the verdict amounted to a piece of legislation. The court's judgment has only upheld the fact that the fundamental right of a person or group of persons should not interfere with that of another or society at large composed of a large number of citizens and the citizen's right for a peaceful life without disruption of essentials.

The author's view that `many a social legislation is brought in only after mass agitations and many social objectives can be obtained only through mass mobilisations' may be factually correct but such methods do not go well with sound democratic principles since the government and the elected representatives of the day are supposed to respond adequately and promptly to the demands of the people made through methods other than disruptive agitations.

Bandhs and hartals are organised normally by political parties in opposition and a motive of political gain can often be present in the agitations.

A fact of experience is that these forms of agitations usually give rise to violence and loss of life and property and to say that the parties organising them do appeal to conduct them peacefully has no meaning since it is well known that miscreants and anti-social elements take advantage of such situations and their activities are beyond the control of those who issue the call.

T. R. Anandan,

Coimbatore (TN)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : At the crossroads
Next     : Koreas' example