Moderation the key to tackle citizen protests
The imperceptible fear that the people’s voice is being blanked out across the country gained some degree of validity in Bengaluru, where activists who took out a silent protest to save the city’s iconic Sankey Tank were slapped with criminal cases. Seventy citizens who had turned up for the march in February to protest the felling of around 60 trees to build a flyover, face charges for wrongful confinement, unlawful assembly, and obstruction of public way. Police frequently summoned a functionary of the NGO ‘Jhatkaa.org’ and other citizens for questioning, and allegedly also issued veiled threats to make them give up their activities. Citizens met the police commissioner to protest against such high-handed behaviour, and the case has now been moved to another police station for a fair probe. The project is now on the back burner but will be revived once the Assembly elections are done.
The legal team of the Sankey Tank campaigners who claim they are concerned that the project would jeopardise the environment and biodiversity of Sankey Tank is looking to the Karnataka High Court for relief. They are bolstered by a similar case in which the Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR against Jhatkaa.org, which was engaged in the ‘Save Aarey’ protests in Mumbai, again on the felling of trees. The court cited the “democratic right of a citizen of this country to put forth his viewpoint, to object, to protest, to persuade...”. It said that attempts to book criminal offences amount to invading citizens’ rights. It should come as a relief to Bengaluru’s citizen activists, who have termed the police action as an “abuse of law”.
Increasingly and disturbingly, the common citizen has to turn to the courts to redress grievances on democratic rights, with the authorities quickly cracking down on dissent. This is especially so when the issue is political, as in the crackdown on student activists, the incarceration of journalists, or the bulldozing of dissenters’ homes. This is certainly not expected in a country which calls itself the “biggest democracy” and even the “mother of democracy”. The government, which prides itself on strong action, should adopt moderation in such matters, for the country belongs to everyone. Sadly, such swift suo motu action is not visible regarding hate speeches. The continuous suppression of dissent is bound to lead to self-censorship and, consequently, will imperil democracy.