[This article was prepared much earlier during the Anti-CAA agitations that emerged in a number of places throughout the country from the end of 2019 till the starting months of 2020. Unfortunately due to certain reasons it could not be finally uploaded in time. As till now it has relevance it is being uploaded belatedly—EDB FAPP]
The waves of anti CAA-NRC movement that lashed the major cities of the country in the month of December—January had not been seen for a long time. These agitations were not organized by any established political parties. Most of the protests were spontaneous. Thousands and thousands of people had assembled through a call or announcement via social media. Even if some protests had been organized in the name of any organization any time, they primarily acted as conveners, nothing more. Far from organizing any protests, the established political parties, sensing the spontaneity of the protests and the mood of the protesters to remain independent, more often than not took to the rear end of the assemblies sans their identities and banners. Though seen in other countries previously, these kind of leaderless, independent protests growing spontaneously without the established political parties occurred for the first time here, at least, in this magnitude. The spontaneity, emotions and vivacity perceived in the participants of these demonstrations against the communal conspiracies of the Sangh Parivar, had not been noticed for a long time. Perhaps, it will not be an exaggeration to state that a huge section of India stood up united against the conspiracies of the Sangh Parivar through these agitations.
A notable section of these protestors belonged to the Muslim community. Even the people at the bottom of the Muslim community participated in these agitations in good numbers. This is natural because it is they who are the primary targets of the onslaught of CAA-NRC of the Central Government led by the Sangh Parivar and BJP. Their existence as citizens of India is itself in jeopardy owing to CAA-NRC. This feeling of helplessness has compelled them to participate in these agitations. The onslaught of CAA was the driving force behind mobilizing even the women folk who up till now had remained confined within the four walls of their homes.
But a striking feature of these agitations was the participation of students-youth, intellectuals and middle class section in huge numbers, who took part not as any religious community, but from a democratic consciousness. They resisted the conspiracies of the Sangh Parivar by rising above communal divisiveness and standing for the ideals of secularism and democracy. It is because of this that the conspiracy of Modi and Sangh leaders to label these as protests of a certain community fell flat.
These protest movements of students—youth—intellectuals did not fall from the sky. Since BJP’s ascent to power under Modi in 2014, Sangh Parivar had been constantly trying to exacerbate communal divisions and by stripping the freedom or autonomy of different institutions of the country, strived to bring them under the yoke of aggressive hindutva. The truth is, whatever little resistance had been observed against the communal, fascist expeditions of BJP, it primarily came from amongst the students—youth and intellectuals. But the magnitude of the agitations this time surpassed the previous ones. Prior to these, the agitation movements were confined to some distinguished and famous universities like JNU, Jadavpur, Hyderabad,etc. Apart from the students of these colleges and universities being in the frontline of these protests, this time large scale agitations were witnessed in many colleges and universities which did not have a prior history of protests. More significant is the fact that this time many middle class citizens too, joined the protests. For this reason, some cities saw thousands and thousands and even lakhs of people assembling.
There is no doubt that the magnitude of these protests have given a major jolt to the fascist designs of Sangh Parivar under the leadership of Modi—Shah. After coming to power in 2019 with an even greater majority, Sangh Parivar had begun to advance their fascist mission more aggressively. Revoking Article 370 in Kashmir, handing over the Babri Masjid land for the construction of the temple of RamJanmabhumi as per the orders of Supreme Court, etc was executed without any obstacles. Together with these, sweeping reforms in the interests of national and foreign big capitalists were being carried on. The Labour Laws were completely reformed and replaced with the new Labour Code to enable the capitalists to carry out their exploitation and tyranny at ease. Even the selling of profitable PSU’s like Air India, BSNL, etc were carried out without any hindrance. Only this Anti-CAA stir was the first time that they were facing a resistance.
Another significant aspect of the anti CAA-NRC agitations is that the factor of Hindu-Muslim unity came boldly to the forefront from these movements. This unity was not the hollow, pretentious display of unity or harmony superimposed by the political parties. This unity grew from practical/real movement. For this reason, the foundation of this unity is firm and more capable of countering the divisive politics of Sangh Parivar.
Of course, democratic aspiration was the main cause behind the movements of students and intellectuals. Their confrontations with the Sangh Parivar arose due to this, the manifestations of which began to appear increasingly since the Sangh Parivar under Modi’s leadership, began to target the autonomy of different educational institutions after coming to power. Students also began to raise their voices against the communal polarisation of the country and attacks on the dalits. Problems like gender discriminations along with other social oppressions also came under the ambit of these movements. In short, aspiration for democracy in general and conflicts with aggressive hindutva politics of the Sangh Parivar made them active in the struggles within and outside their campuses. Being more sensitive in comparison to others, the manifestation of student activism was naturally more visible in the so called ‘elite institutions’.
The attacks of CAA-NRC helped expand these movements of students and youth in a wider horizon. Manifestation of continuous student activism shows that their innate aspiration is for general democracy. The inherent driving force behind these movements is primarily democratic aspiration. For this reason they have staged strong protests against the discriminatory, divisive, undemocratic acts of CAA-NRC.
But are they clear about how to realise their aspirations? It is true that the aim of the CAA-NRC protests of the students and intellectuals is to resist the attacks of the Sangh Parivar or to abolish CAA-NRC. They have not put up any positive demands or shown any clear positive directions to that effect. But from some activities of the movements, it appears that the protestors believe the inherent aspiration for democracy in their struggles can be achieved by the democracy that already exists in the country or by the way secularism is already practiced in the country at present. Maybe not consciously, but subconsciously they are manifesting this very direction.
What are the reasons for thinking so? Two activities or forms of the movement may be mentioned in this respect. Firstly, the tri-coloured flag has been used copiously in almost all the agitations. Perhaps, such ample use of the national flag has not been observed previously in any anti-government protests post-independence. Secondly, a very popular and generally acceptable activity of the movement was the reading of the Preamble of Indian Constitution. Why did the protestors embrace such forms of protest? There is no reason to suspect that they were made popular consciously by any particular organization. The fact is, these forms developed from the movement itself and became popular within the movement spontaneously. In the light of this fact, the above question may be framed in a different manner: Why did these activities or forms become popular amongst the demonstrators?
An answer to this is, the demonstrators were intentionally expressing their patriotism by upholding the national flag generously as a tactical means to counter or make ineffective the move of the Sangh Parivar government to repeatedly attack any anti-government protest by labeling them as acts of sedition. The thought of embracing such a tactic is natural, though question may arise whether any protests against the government have to prove in this particular fashion that they may be anti-government but not anti-national. Are the citizens obligated to carry the national flag in all the agitations against the government regarding social problems like unemployment, inflation, etc? Especially when the activities of the government itself is devoid of any love for the country?
Irrespective of the last question, the manner in which the protestors have upheld the national flag and made the reading of the preamble an activity of the movement, it becomes clear that this is not just a tactical move. Instead, the protestors have tried to send a message that they are opposing the move of the Sangh-led Central Government to change the present foundations of the Republic, the move to change the very basis of the constitution. Undoubtedly, this is a correct message. But are they trying to say only this or have they also stood for the constitution of the present Republic? Did they try to send the message that that this constitution and the republic based on this constitution is truly secular and democratic? Herein lies the question.
How much democratic is the Indian Constitution and the democracy present in India which they have tried to upheld with the reading of the Preamble? Let us take an example. Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code deals with sedition. This British era section of the IPC was introduced in the constitution by the British in 1870 to crush the movements of the subjugated Indians against the colonial imperialist rulers. This Act framed by the colonial rulers is still a part of the Indian constitution and is still being used to crush the democratic rights of its citizens. If real democracy existed, would this section still be a part of the constitution? This criticism is brought about even by the newspapers who are representatives of the big bourgeois. Many have even demanded repealing the said Act. The Times Of India, in one of its editorial, had written, “ Hauled to court on the charge of committing sedition on account of three articles he wrote in Young India, Mahatma Gandhi termed the provision “ the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen” That sedition remains the law of the land despite the British exit 72 years ago is an insult to the memory of countless freedom fighters who embraced prison for long years to win us the cherished right to free speech.” {Times of India Editorial, 2nd October, 2019}. Perhaps, it will not be out of context to mention that one of the primary leaders of student activism in the past few years—Kanhaiya Kumar, was arrested by the Central Government by this Act and legal proceedings for the same has recently been approved by the Delhi AAP government.
Some might contend that the character of the constitution should not be judged by one or two remnants of such British era Acts. Perhaps it will not be justified to determine the character of the constitution in this way. But does not the whole Constitution of India carry the legacy of a constitution framed by the colonial British rulers to rule subjugated India? The Indian Constitution guarantees Fundamental Rights to its citizens. These Fundamental Rights constitutes the Right to Equality, the Right to Freedom, the Right to Speech and even Right against Exploitation. It also includes the Right to Freedom of Religion. But how much do these rights actually exist in reality? The rich and the poor do not enjoy the same rights, they cannot. Men and women do not have the same rights. The so called upper and lower castes do not have equal rights. Most importantly, the constitution which has guaranteed these rights on one hand, has also taken away a significant portion of it through Section 124A, Section 144, taking into custody without legal process/trial, etc. This system of detaining without legal process to crush protests and dissent also has its origin in the British era. We know about the infamous Rowlatt Act to arrest or detain without legal proceedings/trials, the movement against which was brutally crushed by the British in Jalianwala Bagh . The British have gone but they have left their legacies like the multiple heads of hydra [or like the hundreds of names and avatars of Vishnu]. Sometimes, in the name of MISA, sometimes as NSA, sometimes TADA, POTA, or at times as UAPA. Names have changed, the essence hasn’t. And not just the continuation of the legacies of British era oppressive acts, even extremely tyrannical, dangerous acts like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act which virtually denies the right to life, has been freshly implemented.
That the Constitution of India has upheld these undemocratic Acts is not the fault or malicious intent of any person or party. In short, though the British had left, India inherently did not change much. The old feudal society was reformed partially from above but not uprooted completely. Remnants of the old feudal social formations prevailed in many aspects. Seventy years of reforms have reduced it to some extent, but it has not been completely abolished. And aren’t we witness to its immense impact in our social life? Even today, Dalits do not possess the right to visit a temple, cannot go to marry riding a horse without vehement attacks from upper caste people. Dalits are deprived of many rights till today, the upper caste Hindus give a fig to what is written in the law books. The State too, sides with them often. Female foeticide, dowry system along with many other discriminatory acts against women were here to stay.
But the most important thing is, whereas the British colonial rulers needed an oppressive state machinery and a constitution to administer that machinery in order to subjugate the Indians under their colonial rule, this undemocratic constitution made by the British for their heinous purposes did not change despite their exit. The state machinery, more or less, functioned similarly as before--the same structure of bureaucracy, police and military. There were some alteration in names – IPS instead of ICS, but there was no change in the fundamental structure.
Why did this happen? How could the rulers of an independent state embrace a state machinery designed by the colonial rulers to subjugate Indians, or its free citizens? It is because the basis of exploitation upon which the society stood when the British left did not change after their egress. National rulers who represented big capitalists and zamindars/big landlords replaced the British rulers. These big capitalists are intrinsically connected with imperialist capital in myriad ways. Consequently, all citizens cannot enjoy equal rights in this oppressor and oppressed divided society owing to imperialist, capitalist and feudal oppression. The rule of oppression cannot be sustained if the oppressed enjoy the same rights. As a result, though equal rights may be granted formally, it is not feasible for a society based on exploitation and oppression to retain itself without curtailing democracy. So, after the exit of the British imperialists, the new national rulers of India required a similar oppressive state in which ceremonial democracy will exist but ultimately, exploitation of millions and millions of people will continue. For this reason, the national rulers inherited the legacy of a British made undemocratic constitution.
Therefore, democracy in India is curtailed and limited in more ways than one. True democracy does not only denote the right to elect representatives through votes, democracy means equal rights for all the citizens – not just formal or written laws, but equal rights for all in the true sense. Equal rights for all cannot exist as long as there is oppression in society, as long as the society is divided into classes. True, these rights have a greater expanse in a capitalist society than in a feudal one, but even here the majority remains deprived of democracy. Workers and the toiling people cannot enjoy democracy in the true sense. For them, the measure/criterion of democracy is the freedom of class struggle – and how much of it exists for them in this society. No capitalist society can function without curbing, limiting and constricting this right. The expanse of democracy reaches its zenith when the toiling people under the leadership of the working class appropriates power. Democracy, then, expands for the majority of people. But even then, a section of the society-- the old rulers, remain deprived of rights. That is because the power of the toiling people will not sustain without divesting them of rights. The society, too, cannot advance towards a society free from exploitation. When there will no more be any exploitation, no more any classes, then, there shall be no more any need for a ruling structure, consequently, no need for democracy as a ruling system.
We have veered towards a different question in the course of the discussion. Let’s revert. The Sangh Parivar wants to demolish the present ruling structure of India, strip all rights, and wants to transform the country into a hindu nation, which will be a fascist one. A nation where not only the muslims and minorities lose their rights and be relegated to second class citizens, but the right to speech will be more constricted, religious rule will prevail in the country, unscientific thoughts and ideas will rule the roost, and what is more significant for the working class and toiling people – their right to wage class struggle will be taken away. So, these attacks are not just against a particular community; these attacks are directed against India’s democracy in general, particularly against the exploited and oppressed masses. The attacks of CAA—NRC is a very significant and important step towards the building of a hindu nation. The real significance of CAA—NRC cannot be grasped without understanding this aspect.
Can the different sections of students-youth and intellectuals who have embarked on a fight against CAA—NRC grasp the significance of CAA-NRC? The students and intellectuals of Assam and the North East have hit the streets against it, but for their narrow interests. They are thinking and rightly so, that through this CAA-NRC, Bengali hindu immigrants in Assam and North East will be given legal status. They want NRC to be implemented but want it implemented on the basis of the old Citizenship Act, not on the basis of CAA. They want all the immigrants, irrespective of Hindus or Muslims , who have entered Assam from Bangladesh after 1971 be declared illegal, and leave Assam for good. They are worried about their rights but not worried about those that have made this country their home for the last fifty years, many of whom were born and grew up here and the majority of who are poor toiling masses. Moreover, based on the harrowing experience of Assam, many are of the opinion that irrespective of hindus or muslims, the purpose of NRC is to put people into trouble . They fail to realize the real motive behind CAA-NRC, leave alone their plans for a Hindu nation. And even those that can grasp the communal direction of CAA-NRC, are mainly seeing this as an attack upon the Muslim community. That is, everyone is viewing this aggression on democracy from their fragmented understanding of the issue, not from a realization of a general attack on democracy. This kind of realization is consistent with the class position of the students, youth and intellectuals. Because, being a bourgeois in the era of imperialism, their understanding of democracy is narrow, they are unable to think of democracy for all in general. Especially, if democracy is not expanded to the last oppressed person of the lowest stratum, then it cannot be true democracy—they lack this realization and perhaps, that is how it should be.
There is yet another consequence for failing to see beyond this pseudo-democracy and regarding this limited democracy as democracy for all. They are obligated to see the outcome of their struggles within the present form of democracy in this society, that is, parliamentary democracy. Different political parties channel the anger and dissent of the people, their struggles and movements to a change in governance through elections for their vested interests. We are used to seeing them manipulating us for their vested interests as well as realize that this is not a solution for our problems. The people too, realize from their experience that nothing changes through a change in the government – which is manifested by a popular saying,” whoever goes to Lanka becomes Ravan”. But the leadership developing through the spontaneous movements of the petty bourgeoisie is also unable to see beyond this precinct. The biggest proof of this is AAP party, which was formed through the anti corruption movement under the leadership of Anna Hazare in 2011. Either one has to think about an alternative system beyond this ruling structure where these fundamental problems created by the capitalist society can be resolved, or think about resolving the problems within the precincts of this system, and in the latter case, what better option than parliamentary democracy? As a result, they ultimately have to think about petitioning the different institutions present in this system, like the Supreme Court, High Court, etc, or weigh options of forming a government in this system that will look into their demands.
We are aware that our ruling system is known as democracy because the country’s legislatures are formed by electing representatives through universal franchise and the government of the country is formed through these elected representatives. But the oppressive system of administration—justice—police military, upon whom lies the main responsibility of administering, is completely beyond the control of the people. That is why, what is upheld as democracy is not really so. We have seen earlier that in any oppressive system, there is no democracy for the oppressed. And in comparison to a feudal society, whatever little democracy is available in a capitalist society is further lacking in our country because the remnants of a feudal society still exists in our country and the little changes that have occurred is through reforms. For this reason, democracy in our country is very much limited and constricted in comparison to other developed capitalist countries. The little democracy that exists in our country is often prone to be destroyed due to its weak and narrow foundation. Once upon a time, this minimum democracy was suspended through emergency. Today, it again stands the chance of being seized away from us in the face of aggressive attacks of the Sangh Parivar.
The execution of these fascist attacks of Sangh Parivar is founded upon the ever increasing influence of aggressive hindutva ideology on a significant portion of the population and all this is going on outside the precincts of this parliamentary system. That is why, by replacing one government with another within this parliamentary system could not stop the rise and aggression of BJP and Sangh Parivar earler, and will also fail to stop hereafter. Instead it is being observed that with time, the more aggressive hindutva is gaining ground, especially among the majority hindu masses and the more hindu identity is strengthening, the more the established so called secular parties are inclining towards hindutva. In the last Loksabha elections, Congress had embraced this path. Rahul Gandhi himself had tried to advertise his hindu identity with much fanfare. Delhi’s AAP party followed the same footsteps in this year’s Delhi elections. Arvind Kejriwal proved how big a hindu he is by reciting the Hanuman Chalisa by rote and the first thing that he did after winning elections was to pay a visit to Hanuman mandir. Rahul Gandhi or Arvind Kejriwal can obviously practice their hindu faith, no one has any objections to that. But what they did was to utilise their religion for their narrow political gains. This is not new. All the parties connected with parliamentary politics have more or less utilised different religions for their narrow political interests to gain power. What is worrisome is that a section of intellectuals who are against BJP or Sangh Parivar are in favour of this politics of soft hindutva against aggressive hindutva because they feel that this is the only option to stall BJP. Perhaps, it will be possible to stop BJP from ascending to power at some point of time, but impossible to halt their politics of aggressive hindutva. The bourgeoisie had once upon a time waged a struggle to separate religion from education and the state, religion was relegated to a personal level and separated from politics. Today, their successors are impregnating politics with religion.
They, of course have no option other than this. One path to awaken crores of toiling people is the path of class struggle. But this path is beyond the capacity of these bourgeoisie parties. They are obligated to execute anti-people policies when in power. They have no means left to gain people’s support other than to offer benefits in dribs and drabs on one hand and on the other hand utilize their backward/retrograde thoughts and ideas. So their attempt to attract the population on the basis of religion, caste, etc doesn’t come as a surprise at all.
Only the united revolutionary struggle of the workers-peasants-toiling masses under the leadership of the working class can halt the fascist expeditions of the Sangh Parivar. It is only they who, with their alternative of true democracy, can counter the politics of Sangh Parivar. The objective of that struggle is not just retaining the present remains of whatever semblance of democracy is left, but to establish true democracy. While the rest are articulating to counter the fascist campaign of the Sangh Parivar by sustaining whatever residual democracy we have, that constricted democracy which itself is creating the foundations of fascist aggression; only the working class can counter the fascist campaign with their ideals of true democracy.
Not just ideals, it is impossible to counter the fascist expeditions of Sangh Parivar without the strength of the working class. Irrespective of how significant these protests of the petty bourgeoisie may seem, they do not possess the power to stop the fascist aggression.
It is true that in the present scattered condition of the working class, that strength is far from visible. But they are the only force who can provide the required strength and leadership in the struggle of true democracy. Consequently, if the petty bourgeoisie intellectuals sincerely want to advance towards the aim of realizing true democracy and want to counter the fascist campaigns of Sangh Parivar in that direction, then they have to entrench and dedicate themselves in the task of awakening the working class.
Comments:
No Comments for View