The recent agitations in Delhi, particularly those associated with the Cockroach Janata Party and student organisations such as the All India Students’ Association (AISA), is pointing towards an emerging incongruity.
The principal objective of the agitation now seems to be the dodging detention or securing judicial relief.
The Delhi High Court’s recent dismissal of AISA chief Neha Bora’s plea against a peace-bond notice issued in connection with a protest against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) brings this evolving relationship between street politics and judicial intervention into focus. The courtroomsare now becoming an alternative arena of political contest, with legal proceedings competing with the original cause for public attention.
This approach marks a departure from the dominant grammar of political agitation in the decades preceding the present times. For much of the freedom struggle, and even during the Emergency, the political choice for agitators was to either evade arrest by going underground or openly defy the law and court arrest. The inspiration for this tradition came from Mahatma Gandhi, for whom civil disobedience was much more than a political tactic. By surrendering personal liberty, the protester sought to expose the moral limitations of a law or government perceived to be unjust.
Gandhi’s trial for sedition in Ahmedabad on March 18, 1922, remains among the most compelling illustrations of this philosophy. Charged under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code for articles published in Young India, Gandhi pleaded guilty, declaring that affection could not be manufactured by law and described the sedition provision as the foremost instrument for suppressing citizens’ liberty.
Gandhi argued that if opposing an unjust system was an offence under its laws, he was prepared to accept the punishment.Judge CN Broomfieldacknowledged Gandhi’s extraordinary moral stature while maintaining that his judicial oath required him to administer the law andhe sentenced Gandhi to six years’ imprisonment.
Gandhi accepted the verdict with dignitywithout denying the court’s authority to pronounce judgment.The distinction is crucial. Gandhi did not consider every arrest an injustice or every judicial proceeding an opportunity to escape accountability.
Contemporary protest politics presents a more complicated picture. Today’s agitators argue that the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The government counters that when restrictions are in place, assembly, even peaceful, is violation of law. Which the agitators rebut saying peaceful protest cannot be reduced to a privilege granted by the executive.
However, frequently going to court to challenge this ‘privilege’ could be self-defeating for agitators.Their rivals wouldalso point that since the charges against the CEC are under legal adjudication, there could be no justification in public protest demanding his resignation.This does create a question of political strategy.
When the legal battle begins to substitute for the political one, the movement loses steam. An agitation that initially draws energy from public anger must eventually demonstrate that it possesses a coherent programme, clearly articulated demands and the capacity to sustain public engagement. Otherwise, repeated confrontations with police and legal challenges risk trapping it in a cycle of protest and litigation.
The ongoing movement seeking to extend its relevance beyond the initial outburst of public anger last summer, faces a serious strategic challenge. Gandhi’s method demands willingness to accept the consequences of deliberate civil disobedience, not merely a readiness to invoke constitutional protections when the state intervenes.
Adopting Gandhian methods is therefore easier said than done. A protest survives not because its organisers successfully avoid arrest but because they persuade society that their cause deserves support.
Gandhi understood that the willingness to face punishment could sometimes strengthen a movement more than the ability to escape it. Today’s agitators must decide whether their principal objective is to challenge the state, challenge its actions in court or build a compelling public case that can withstand both political opposition and judicial scrutiny.
Sidharth Mishra
Author and president, Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice