Something. Has. Been. Troubling. Me.
Why do we do bandhs the way we do them in Shillong? Why are bandhs in Shillong so all pervasive? I'm a great believer in protest, space for dissent, and the right to stand for what you believe in. After all, we are a democracy, aren't we? We have pretensions of having been democratic (culturally) even before the current administrative structures were introduced in the Khasi Hills (a claim that i have a few quibbles with) so i am thrilled when people stake a claim in governance and fight for their right.
What worries me, irks me even, is when people start literally fighting for their right. Don't get me wrong - there are fundamental, epoch changing times when people literally fight for their right. I don't believe that we are there yet. We are not slaves (other than the myriad forms of slavery that we subject ourselves to) nor are we subjugated (again, other than in ways that we unwittingly allow ourselves to be subjugated).
These past few weeks, bandhs and blockades have been called by various groups - denizens of the broad-brush term "Civil Society". The issue that has serve to underwrite these actions is the call for the Inner Line Permit (ILP) to be implemented here, a complex and multi-dimensional beast that is not the focus of this post. Bandhs, blockades, picketing, protest marches, sit-ins, these are powerful tools in any discourse. For one, i am delighted that there is space for such protest, that there is a voice given to dissent. We are all better for it. I'll tell you why: it focuses attention on the issue at hand and acts as the precursor to dialogue.
Bandhs are called for and are adhered to en masse. Does that mean that everyone agrees with the bandh and the purposes it was called for? Why is it that practically every bandh is wholly subscribed to? Not a soul venturing out, not a pair of eyes peeping out. I have heard so many views on the ILP from so many different people. Some compelling, some flimsy, some thought through, some emotional. All that it tells me is that there are people with views spread across the gradient and shades of views on this topic. Why, then, are bandhs fully subscribed to?
Why is it that every office is deserted? Why is it that someone exercising their voice of dissent, of protest must curtail my right to continue living my day-to-day? Sometimes i wonder whether this constitutes an abuse of the right to protest. If we have rights, should we not respect them and respect the way we use them? Why should i not be able to buy a loaf of bread or fresh vegetables? Why should a daily wage earner lose out on his earnings? Is life coming to a complete stand still the only way to protest?
Why is it that if a friend opens his stall to sell newspapers and magazines, that he is liable to be thrashed? Is opening of his stall so big an offence? Or is that we think: "if you are not with me, then you are against me". If that is how we are then we commit two grave sins: (a) we over simplify; and (b) we abuse our right and space to protest. Why? Simply because our space to protest and voice dissent stems from the roots of tolerance, acceptance and plurality. It is what makes a democracy effective.
Heck, protest by all means. Call for a bandh or picketing. I may or may not agree with the issue, the reading of an issue or the solution proposed to an issue. I still want to be able to walk to Police Bazar, pick up my newspaper, buy tea from the little boy sitting in the corner with his kettle and watch people live. Maybe i will read Civil Society group X's position in the newspaper and agree with it and walk up to join their protest march. Maybe. As long as i am not co-erced, as long as i am not told what it is that i must believe, as long as i arrive at the conclusion myself having considered and weighed other possibilities.
Perhaps, we need to start looking at dialogue. Protests underscores an issue. The elephant in the room has been pointed at, its the subject of conversation. We need to move to converse, to dialogue. As long as we argue, as long as we claim the rightness and sanctity of the narrative that we peddle, we will never reach a meeting of minds. We will stand apart, pelting stones from our glass houses because we don't dialogue, don't find grounds to meet and are too lazy too look for other options or alternatives. Effective dialogue demands that we shed the narrowness of our vision, the self-serving nature of our actions. Are we in a position to do that? Is it in the actors/stakeholders interests to do that?
Post Script: Oh, and if i believe in something with all of my heart, i will die for it. In a way that will shame you, taint you, undermine you forever with its moral force. Something like a fast to death. I won't kill you, maim you or break you if i deeply believe in something. After all, if all of you were to die, who would be left who believes? It would be only me and frankly, that'd be lonely.
Musical Notes for These Times (blog's theme etc....):
