Why Don’t They Use Just Words?
Accounting for Indian Political Protest on the Streets and in Parliament
By
Dean E. McHenry, Jr.
Claremont Graduate University
A paper prepared for delivery at the Association for Asian Studies Annual Meeting,
Boston, March 22-25, 2007
Abstract
India is faced with countless protests and agitations each day—both outside and inside its
legislative bodies. The question we address is “Why is this occurring?” After reviewing
examples of such protests/agitations, their scope and the threat they pose to Indian
democracy, a variety of explanations is presented and assessed. All seem to capture part
of the reality, but none seems to account for the phenomena generally. The continuing
challenge is to decipher the unique meanings of the protests and agitations out of the
individual contexts within which they occur.
2
Why Don’t They Use Just Words?
Accounting for Indian Political Protest on the Streets and in Parliament
By
Dean E. McHenry, Jr.
Claremont Graduate University
“‘Over the years what has developed is the notion that an issue, demand or agitation is
highly successful if it can lead to stoppages in the House, as if that were the pinnacle of
protest. This is highly unfortunate,’ the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee,
has said. ‘None, no particular party, is totally free from this concept. Once an
adjournment is forced, members go out with the claim that the matter at hand is so
important that even the House could not function. Unfortunately, the confrontationist
attitude in politics outside the House finds a reflection inside it….’”1
I. Introduction
There is no democracy in the world where political protest/agitation so extensively
permeates the polity as it does in India.2 No day passes without significant ‘street’
protests/agitations over some type of issue in many parts of the country. No session of
parliament or state assemblies passes without major disruption caused by
protesting/agitating MPs or MLAs. Protests/agitations take a very wide range of forms
outside parliament including bandhs, hartals, gheraos, yatras, rokos and fasts, while
inside parliament they include shouting, invading the well, symbolic dress and walk-outs.
As protests/agitations moved from outside parliament to inside parliament, scholars
expressed their concerns that the violation of India’s laws and rules of decorum inherent
in many protests/agitations are threats to Indian democracy. Although most
commentators refer to India as the world’s largest democracy and a quantitative measure
of democracy like Freedom House rates it as “Free” and like Polity IV as scoring a 9 out
of 10, the concern is that the threat is becoming more serious.
Protests/agitations seem to be displacing words as the medium of political struggle in
India. The question asked in this paper is: “Why has politics taken this form?”
We will approach an answer by first describing and assessing the significance of the
problem of protest/agitation inside and outside parliament poses. Then we will describe
and assess a variety of explanations. The major focus will be on protests/agitations
taking place inside legislatures for they seem to be the ones with the greatest potential for
adversely affecting Indian democracy. Our effort will be interpretive because of the
complexity of the subject matter and the centrality of determining meanings of events and
activities in the pursuit of an answer.
3
II. Significance
Twenty years ago Marion Weiner pointed out “The Indian Paradox” where there was
violent social conflict and democratic politics.3 He accounted for this in a variety of
ways: the conflict-managing role of the Congress party, the bureaucrats who have a
vested interest in democracy’s maintenance, the development of other political
institutions, the balance of power between the states and the center, and the heterogeneity
within states.4
Much of this has changed in the years since, though democracy has persisted. The
Congress party no longer dominates the country the way it used to, liberalization and
privatization has affected the bureaucracy to some extent, the parliament no longer
functions as it did when he wrote, the balance of power is shifting toward the states. Our
focus is on non-violent protest/agitation, rather than violent social conflict. Nevertheless,
we would argue that essential elements of Weiner’s explanation should have applied to
such protest/agitation. That these explanations seem to have been undermined by events
over the last twenty years suggests the need for a continuing search.
The search for an explanation for protest/agitation may provide an explanation of the
paradoxical existence of the persistence of democracy in the face of what appears to be
behavior that would undermine that democracy. If the causes are not contradictory to
some form of democracy, then protest/agitation may not contradict democracy’s
evolution.
Non-violent protests/agitations were important tools in the struggle for Indian
independence. Gandhi’s use of them is widely celebrated. Yet, they were not abandoned
in the years following 1947. Writing in the 1960s, A.R. Desai observed,
The movements of public protests not merely continue even after the
establishment of a Parliamentary democracy in India, but as some observers like
Bayley, Kothari, Harrison, Weiner and others have indicated, these movements
have been increasing in number and have been gathering momentum, threatening
even the very existence of the Parliamentary Government which has emerged in
India after the British withdrawal.5
They continue to be an important feature of Indian life. Although they were widely used,
they were not employed in Indian legislatures for many years after independence.
Gradually, though, they became a dominant feature at both the center, in the Lok Sabha
and Rajya Sabha, and in the state assemblies, the Vidhan Sabha. The shift of
protest/agitation into legislative bodies over the last few decades has been attributed to a
simple cost/benefit calculation by political leaders. The editors of The Hindu, referring to
the disruption of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha by the Opposition over a demand that a
minister resign because of errors committed by his ministry, complained that “the parties
had hardly done their mite outside Parliament to organize demonstrations and grass roots
activity in favour of their position….” and that, “…stalling parliamentary proceedings—
4
all that it requires is for a few members to walk into the well of the House—is indeed an
easy way out.”6 That is, the cost/benefit ratio to the disrupters is much greater than
would be protest/agitation outside legislatures.
Parliamentarians themselves may shift the protest/agitation outside parliament itself in
order to increase the cost/benefit ratio further. For example, in the Kerala Legislative
Assembly in August of 2002, the Speaker “in his wisdom, decided that the public need
not see the Opposition using placards instead of debating skills in the House.”7 He did
not want to give publicity to the position of the Opposition as its members disrupted the
session. But, the Opposition learned from the experience. On the final day of the session
when a Bill they opposed came up for its third reading, they boycotted the Assembly and
gathered outside the building. There they publicly burned the Bill. As noted by a
reporter, “The news bulletins of the visual media carried the event while the visuals of the
historic occasion of passing of the Bill was confined to the closed circuit televisions of
the House, watched mostly by the private staff of the Ministers.”8
A. Illustrations of protests/agitations
Hundreds of protests/agitations affect Indian legislatures and thousands affect life outside
such legislatures each year. To get a sense of what is involved, consider the three
following cases selected randomly:
1. In Tamil Nadu’s Legislative Assembly
A DMK member was suspended from the Assembly for the remainder of the budget
session for tearing up a policy paper on the police department near the Speaker’s chair in
April of 2003. A press report described what followed:
[T]he DMK deputy leader in the Assembly, Durai Murugan, contended that it was
an accepted form of democratic protest. Mr. Karunanidhi said there were many
such instances in the past, both in Assemblies and in Parliament, but no one was
suspended for an entire session just for that reason. 9
In addition, the DMK withdrew from participation in the Assembly for the rest of the
session. Mr. Karunanidhi said that
He did not consider the DMK decision an extreme step. As the party was
prevented from performing its democratic duty inside the House, it was left with
no choice.10
With the DMK boycotting the Assembly, the remaining opposition brought up an array of
other issues and demanded that the Speaker “adjourn the question time and allow a
debate on issues of ‘survival’ of the government employees and deprivation of the rights
of MLAs.”11 The Opposition continued to argue “and all Congress MLAs rose to launch
into full-throated slogan shouting.”
5
“Don’t file false cases against the Opposition, drop vindictive action, don’t
deprive government staff of their pension benefits,” they screamed, plunging the
House into bedlam. And, soon CPI and CPI(M) members also joined the
sloganeering.
The Speaker’s warning to the Opposition MLAs to behave with dignity and not to
reduce the House to a roadside public meeting went unheeded. And, the
Opposition MLAs only hit a higher decibel of slogan-shouting.
The Speaker then directed the Leader of the House to move a resolution to evict them and
Treasury benches said “yes.”
In a few seconds, the watch and ward staff swooped on the Opposition MLAs,
most of whom walked out without much resistance. But C. Gnanasekaran
(Congress), who spread out on the seat, was bodily lifted out.
But the expulsion
…was quickly followed by a 10-minute, noisy sit-in protest in the lobby, a fiveminute lying-down stir by a few members in the corridor outside the House and a
10 minute-dharna on the middle of Rajaji Salai. The protests in the forenoon
culminated in the arrest of the 43 MLAs from the outgate of the Secretariat and
their detention in nearby North Beach police station, from where they were let off
at 1 p.m.12
2. In the two houses of parliament in New Delhi
During the visit by President Bush to India in March of 2006, disruptions occurred in the
both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. A press report described it as follows:
Agitated Left MPs as well as those from SP shouted slogans against Mr Bush’s
visit in both Houses of Parliament from the moment proceedings began this
morning, forcing adjournments in the first half of the day’s business. SP
members, wearing red caps, trooped into the Well of Lok Sabha. They were
joined by Left MPs in raising slogans like, “Bush go back.”
Even before Parliament began its business for the day, MPs of the four Left
parties and the SP staged a sit-in inside Parliament complex to express their
opposition to Mr Bush’s trip. Holding placards with slogans such as “War
criminal Bush go back”, “UPA government stop surrendering to US imperialism”
and “Killer bush”, the MPs as well as senior leaders from their parties shouted
slogans against the USA.
Describing Mr Bush as “the biggest enemy of Humanity” and the “biggest killer
of the 21st century,” CPI-M MP Mr Hannan Mollah said: “Bush should have no
6
place in India; he should not be allowed to come and spread his tentacles on our
soil.”…
The Left leaders later went to Ramlila Ground to participate in a massive
demonstration against the Bush visit.13
3. In Andhra Pradesh’s Legislative Assembly
At about the same time in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, following the
Government’s decision to countermand a byelection in Visakhapatnam-I constituency, a
press report described the scene as follows:
As soon as the proceedings began, the TDP and five other parties created noisy
scenes by tabling separate adjournment motions. The BJP too alleged failure of
the Government machinery in ensuring a free and fair election. All the six
motions were disallowed by Speaker K.R. Suresh Reddy.
This led to an uproar with TDP members shouting and the Congress countering
them with slogans. This forced the Speaker to adjourn the House for early 90
minutes during which time he convened a meeting of the floor leaders to find a
way out of the impasse. However, the TDP did not yield from its demand that the
Chief Minister step down….
When the House reassembled, the TDP members rushed into the well holding
aloft placards. In the din caused by acrimonious exchanges between TDP and
Congress members, the Speaker asked Finance and Legislative Affairs Minister
K. Rosaiah to reply to the discussion on the State budget.
As the TDP members disrupted the Minister’s speech, the Speaker named them.
Taking the cue, Mr. Rosaiah moved a motion for their suspension from the House
for two days. After the motion was passed by voice vote amid thumping of desks
by Congress members, marshals entered the House and forcibly removed TDP
members. Some of them had to be bodily lifted.14
In all, 31 TDP members were suspended. These descriptions of a protest/agitation in the
legislative bodies in Tamil Nadu, at the center, and in Andhra Pradesh are typical of what
has become an almost constant feature of legislative life in India.
B. Scope of protests/agitations
Scholars who are familiar with India know that protests/agitations are daily occurrences.
A.S. Desai, whose observations we have cited above, is not alone in his view that
independence did not put an end to such activities—indeed, they seemed to have become
more common. David Bayley observed many years ago: “The number of
demonstrations, strikes, hartals, satyagrahas, and fasts held each year is almost beyond
numbering.”15 It is very rare that any Indian newspaper on any day will not have reports
7
of non-violent protests/agitations in several parts of the countries. The University of
Kerala scholar, J. Prabhash, wrote recently about MPs and MLAs:
Today, the specializations of members, both at the Central and State levels,
irrespective of flag and shade, is in the sub-disciplines of pandemonium and
boycott. Both of these arts have been perfected into fine tools for disrupting
legislative proceedings.16
Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta suggest that the increased use of such
techniques, i.e., the “diversification in the nature and proliferation of protest movements
in India,” is due to “(a) divergence in the targets of attack, that is, political authority,
economic exploitation, cultural domination, and (b) varying perceptions about the
immediate targets of attack.”17 Their spread into legislative bodies, though, became
significant only in the last couple of decades. As a consequence of this change, the Lok
Sabha began to keep track of the time lost by disruptions. Table I indicates the
proportion of the time of the Lok Sabha, the most important legislative body in the
country, taken up by disruptions over the last 15 years:
Table I
Summary of the Proportion of the Sitting Time of the Lok Sabha Lost to Disruptions,
10th through the 8th Session of the 14th Lok Sabha
Lok Sabha Number and Duration
Percent of Sitting Time Lost to
Disruptions
10th (July, 1991-February, 1996)
9.95
11th (May, 1996-December, 1997)
5.26
12th (March, 1998-April, 1999)
10.66
13th (October, 1999-January 2004)
22.40
14th (First 8 Sessions, June., 2004-Aug., 2006)
38.00
Source: For the 10th Lok Sabha, Subhash C. Kashyap, History of the Parliament of
India, Vol. VI (Delhi: Shipra Publications for the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi,
2000), p. 208. For the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Lok Sabha, “Frayed tempers cost
Parliament dear: Report,” Deccan Herald, January 20, 2006. URL:
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan202006/update1027442006120.asp
Accessed February 5, 2007.
A recent cartoon depicted the frustration of members of the Rajya Sabha over the failure
of the press to report the disruptions they had in that body.
8
Figure I
We are equally staging walkouts, creating uproar,
ruckus, stalling proceedings... why this
discrimination? The media is not covering us like
the Lok Sabha!
Source: Deccan Chronicle on the Web, March 16, 2007. URL: http://www.deccan.com
Accessed March 15, 2007
The growth of legislative disruptions due to protests/agitations has been described by
Inder Malhotra, who has observed parliament from the first session of the “provisional
Parliament” in February 1950 to the present. Writing in 2004, he asserts “the unimpeded
decline in the standards of parliamentary behaviour that – combined with a relentless
confrontation between the ruling party or combination and the Opposition – has
inevitably taken a heavy toll.”18 He said it started in the mid-1960s, “But even in my
worst nightmares I had never thought that things would descend to the lowest depths that
they have.”19 He concludes:
In Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and sundry other countries, Parliaments have
been locked up by military dictators, often more than once. Must it be the
ignominy of the world’s largest democracy that parliament here is being shut
down by eminent parliamentarians themselves?20
The trend was the subject of an editorial in the Deccan Herald which contended that
“…it is unfortunate that political parties always consider disruption of Parliament and
state legislatures to be the best and most effective forms of expressing protest and over
the years it has become the most preferred form of agitation against governments.”21 The
editorial addressed, too, the reasons for the trend: “This may be partly because
blockading is easy to do, does not require any special organizational efforts and is
assured of good publicity. It may also be because the regard and respect for Parliament
and other democratic institutions has diminished over the years and the nature of politics
has changed.”22
9
In summary, the scope of Indian protests/agitations inside and outside legislative bodies
is great—certainly greater than that in any other country in the world rated as a
democracy.
C. Threat posed by protests/agitations
The threat to democracy posed by these protests/agitations has been the subject of many
warnings by numerous observers. The concerns expressed were either because of the
contemporary situation or the trajectory of what protests/agitations sought.
•
In early March of 2005, in both Houses of Parliament, the BJP protested against
political events in Jharkhand and Goa and demanded the recall of the Governors.
In the Lok Sabha, the Opposition “trooped into the well, shouting slogans.”
“Through the din,” the Speaker adjourned the House, but before doing so he
pleaded in anguish:
Today is another very sad day for Indian Parliament. Our democracy is under
challenge now. I appeal to all sections of the House not to liquidate
democracy. We should not participate in the liquidation of democracy and
denigrate Parliament any further.23
•
Najma Heptulla, the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha in 2001, noted that
the lack of decorum and discipline in Parliament “is almost endangering our
democratic institutions….”24
•
According to G.M.C. Balayogi, Speaker of the 13th Lok Sabha,
The orderly conduct of Legislatures is conducive to the growth of democracy.
To serve and survive, Legislatures must function effectively so as to instill
faith and confidence among the people. This is possible only if they function
smoothly and meaningfully in the larger interest of the people. The growing
incidents of indiscipline being witnessed in recent times in our Legislatures do
not augur well for democracy.25
•
Former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, has argued similarly. He observed,
“If the proceedings of the Parliament and the State Legislatures are not conducted
in a disciplined and dignified manner, a bad example is set before the country. A
sense of disregard is created for the parliamentary democracy.”26
•
Krishan Kant, the Vice President of India and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha,
observed in 2001 that “Each time the Parliament and the legislatures are plunged
in anarchic chaos, the edifice of democracy is a little weakened.”27
10
•
Leslie Calman, writing about the Maharashtra Shramik Sanghatana and Bhoomi
Sena movements in the 1970s and early 1980s, contended that, at the time, the
protests/agitations seemed unlikely to harm India’s democracy, but warned that
The demands, eventually, could outstrip government’s capacity to respond.
The government might then cease to be legitimate in the eyes of many of its
citizens and would rest more heavily on force. While a government relying
primarily on force to maintain itself in power is possible, it is a much shakier
pedestal on which to rest.28
The list could go on and on for there is widespread concern that the protests/agitations,
especially in the legislatures, threaten Indian democracy.
III. Explanations
We consider six general explanations, though these do not exhaust those that have been
proposed. They concern the setting of the protest/agitation, the people affected, the
legislators involved, the failure of alternative means, the goal of representation, and the
goal of power. Most of the more complete explanations involve combinations of these.
The six were selected because they encompass the most widely postulated reasons for
protest/agitation.
A. The setting: cultural explanations
That the cultural tolerance for protest/agitation is higher in India than in many other
countries is a widely accepted observation. As David Bayley observed nearly 40 years
ago:
Public protest is a habit….Demonstrators are as much a part of the scene around
legislative buildings as cornices and arches….Politics feeds upon drama; since the
requirements of drama are higher in India than in the West, it is more imperative
for the Indian political party to get out into the streets than it would be for a
Western party.29
Leslie Calman, commenting on two movements in the 1970s and 1980s in Maharashtra,
observed that “Bhoomi Sena and Shramik Ssanghatana have utilized tactics that echo a
legitimate Indian political tradition: nonviolent direct action against intransigent
government.”30
What made protest a “habit” or a “legitimate Indian political tradition” normally is
attributed to Gandhi’s use of satyagraha during the independence struggle. Suman
Kwatra has noted that Gandhi believed that satyagraha could
be used for resisting any injustice—large or small, for bringing about reform in an
institution or society, fir the repeal of any unjust or bad laws for the removal of
any grievances; for the prevention of communal riots or disturbances; for bringing
11
about change in the existing system of government; for resisting an invasion or
for replacing one government or another.31
Yet, according to some observers, politicians have used the cultural acceptance of
Gandhian techniques of protest/agitation for their own purposes. David Cortright
observes that
The goal of political struggle…is to reach agreement for the sake of social
betterment. Political power is not an end in itself but a means of enabling people
to better their condition…The notion of obtaining political power for personal
gain was completely alien to him.32
Pawan Kumar Bansal writes in a similar vein:
It is a common experience that today many protests are launched in the name of
Satyagraha. That is a travesty of truth. In the real sense, such actions cannot be
called “Satyagraha” because those who take to such protests are not fit or trained
and disciplined to do so. Therein lies the danger of such make-belief or selfserving Satyagrahis degenerating into ‘Duragrahis’.33
Thus, part of the legitimacy of protest/agitations was the ends for which they were used,
e.g., independence, ending exploitation, blocking government policy detrimental to large
segments of the population, were beneficial to a significant group of people. The means
became a part of the culture—they were viewed as a legitimate, and often effective, way
of articulating a political position. Many of those concerned about their use inside and
outside legislatures in India today contend that means legitimated because of their use for
ends that widely benefited the people are now often being used for ends which benefit
primarily the politicians that use them. In the long run, their popular legitimacy may be
undermined for this reason. At present, though, one of the reasons for their frequent use
appears to be their cultural legitimacy.
B. The people: deprivation explanations
According to Yasin and Dasgupta, the most common explanation for the use of
protests/agitations is the discontent of the masses. Although they do not address
parliamentary disruptions by protests/agitations, the justifications given by participants in
parliament normally reference the demands of the public. They observe:
In all these theories what is common is the prime emphasis on the participants of
a movement. The assumption is that if the people feel deprived of, or are under
strain due to malfunctioning of the system, or feel the necessity for cultural
revitalization, the movement will emanate, as if other factors and conditions of the
movement will automatically follow.34
Although they do not accept the primacy of such explanations, they seem to accept that
popular frustration may be a contributing factor.
12
Implicit in these explanations is the idea that the normal procedures of voting and
verbally urging representatives to act don’t work well in India—at least for those who
resort to protests/agitations.
Marxist observers tend to agree with the impetus for protest/agitation, i.e., a system
which is not solving people’s problems, but contend that repairs of the liberal democratic
system will not resolve the problems. Thus, popular frustration with their situation is
compounded by frustration with the system of governance itself in producing
protest/agitation. A.R. Desai articulates this point of view in his criticisms of Rajni
Kothari’s work. He says,
Kothari, while recognizing that parliamentary government has failed, and
therefore compels people to takes to Direct Action, still glorifies freedom of
speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of press, which he feels are its essential
features. He does not point out the truth that these freedoms in the context of a
capitalist framework are accessible only to a small group of capitalists, landlords,
exploiters and profiteers.35
And, he criticizes Bayley because he does not see “the deeper social forces which are
transforming parliamentary democratic form into a shell inadequate to preserve and
protect concrete democratic rights.”36
Desai argues,
Public protests will continue till people have ended the rule of capital in those
countries where it still persists….
The movements and protests of people will continue till adequate political
institutional forms for the realization and exercise of concrete democratic rights
are found….37
Underlying both types of explanation for protests/agitation is the view that the people are
unhappy with their situation, whatever its causes, and see redemption in governmental
action. The liberal democratic scholars seem to see protest/agitation as a means for
redress within the existing system of governance, while the Marxist scholars seem to see
protest/agitation as a means for changing the system of governance into one which may
bring them redress. Both seem to see the protests/agitations as a consequence of the
inability of the political system to satisfy popular discontent through the existing liberal
democratic procedures.
C. The legislators: interests/characteristics explanations
There are two types of explanations for the extensive use of protests/agitations that focus
on the legislators, one having to do with their motivation and the other with their
characteristics.
13
Although Yasin and Dasgupta acknowledge that the most widespread explanation is that
of a discontented population, they argue that the best explanation is not popular
depravation but “leadership depravation:”
…the movements under the garb of peoples’ movement seek to redress the
deprivation of the leadership – deprivation of his share in the power center….In
all these movements even though the cause of people’s powerlessness, injustice
and deprivation was highlighted, the real motive behind the movements have been
the desire of the leaders to enjoy power who could not enjoy it through the
accepted legitimate means.38
We will examine this issue of power as a separate explanation because of the breadth of
its application, but its relevance to the specific case of the behavior of legislators seems to
fit much of what happens both inside and outside legislatures.
There is frequent discussion about the “criminalization” of political leadership. That is, a
high proportion of candidates for legislative bodies have various criminal charges levied
against them. In recent years, “sting” operations by private internet and television
networks have proof of legislative bribe-taking. The argument made is that the character
trait which led to the criminal behavior of legislators has led legislators to disregard
appropriate political behavior inside and outside legislative bodies. According to the
columnist, S. Viswam, “The criminalization of politics has impacted so adversely on
parliamentary conduct that disorderly behaviour and the display of lung power inside
Parliament has now come to be the accepted phenomenon.”39
Thus, the aspirations and/or character of legislators is a third form of explanation for the
use of protests/agitations in Indian politics.
D. The means: “failure” explanation
Associated with other explanations for the extensive use of protest/agitation is the idea
that existing liberal democratic mechanisms are not working properly. They don’t
overcome the hardships of many people; they do not keep politicians from self-serving
behaviors; they do not work as they “should” in a democratic society. And, other
institutions are not performing appropriately. Protest/agitation arises as a result of the
“failure” of some of the normal mechanisms of liberal democracy.
1. Of governmental institutions
Illustrative of the “failures” of the polity are the conclusions of two scholars:
First, Ghanshyam Shah, in his study of the cause of the 1974 Gujarat agitations,
determined that the cause involved frustration with the existing democratic institutions:
14
With their faith in the electoral system shaken, many persons advocated the need
for direct action. Of the respondents of Surat, 67 per cent considered strikes,
gheraos, dharnas, etc. legitimate and necessary to secure their demands….The
above evidence suggests that an overwhelming proportion of the people were
frustrated, found themselves helpless, and were losing faith in the present political
system. They opted for direct action to solve their problems.40
Shah argued that the urban and rural poor from the early 1970s became more hopeful of
bettering their lives, but “big businessmen and rich peasants….organized themselves and
pressurized the government to look after their interests. The party in power, dominated
by the rich, succumbed to their pressures, both at the policy and implementation levels.”41
Frustrated, they turned to direct action.
Second, Leslie Calman observed more than twenty years ago that “a local leadership
loyal to the institutions of party politics and democratic government…failed to provide
economic growth and political power for many of India’s poor. As a result, increasing
numbers are finding their political voice through movements that operate outside the
channels of government and parties, and that constitute a challenge to this institutional
framework.”42
Illustrative of problems or “failures” of institutions that might support the mechanisms of
liberal democracy and may foster the use of protests/agitations are the courts and media:
2. Of the courts
The courts have before them 25-30 million cases that have not been resolved. Part of the
problem stems from the failure of other parts of the government to make needed
decisions. For a variety of reasons, cases against current politicians may date from
decades ago. A recent case was that of Shibu Soren, the Union Minister for Coal. He
was convicted at the end of November and sentenced in early December of 2006 for a
murder that occurred 12 years before. One observer contended “in actual practice the
hierarchy and judicial leadership are too fragile to induce a uniform code of ethical
behaviour, especially when it comes to arbitrating disputes in the political sphere. It is
part of a judge's occupational hazard that demands will be made on his or her objectivity
and disinterestedness….and…some of the judges allow personal likes and dislikes to
over-ride judicial equanimity.”43
3. Of the media
There has been considerable criticism of the role of the media in the protests/agitations in
legislative bodies, claiming that reporters encourage protests/agitations. When, in
December of 2004, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha proposed to have parliamentary
proceedings telecast, an editorial in the Hindu asked: “Will this have a salutary effect on
all MPs? Will they be more decorous knowing they are being watched? Or will they be
tempted to play to the gallery?”44 Subsequent events suggested the outcome was more the
latter than the former. The reason seemed to be media economics and popular interests.
15
The normal conduct of legislative bodies draws the attention of few potential buyers,
watchers or listeners, so they the media want disruptions.
One observer said the media manufactured “controversy as an end in itself and as a
market-approved device to grab eyeballs. Investigations, probes, exposes, bombshells,
special reports, and other tools in a reporter's repertoire are used to draw attention to the
herald — and not to his message.”45 Similarly, Mani Shankar Aiyar has suggested, with
a mixture of humor and seriousness, that
The only way to induce parliamentary reporters to stop their idle gossip in the
corridors and actually enter the house is to tip them off about an impending
disruption of proceedings. Then they swarm into the gallery, signaling with illdisguised gestures their friends on the floor, “Yoo-hoo, here I am, so get as
outrageous as you can and I assure you a box on the front page tomorrow.” 46
These two observations characterize those of many others.
E. The goal of representation: democratic explanations
A variety of scholars suggest that much of the protest/agitation, especially that which
takes place outside legislatures, is spurred by a desire for democracy. That is, the cause
of protest/agitation is the desire for democracy. Although the explanation is not applied
to all forms of protest/agitation, it resonates in many of them.
Protests/agitations may perform the democratic function of aggregating interests.
Ghanshyam Shah in his study of the 1974 Gujarat agitations found that
Different socio-economic and political groups participated in the agitation for
different purposes, raising issues like corruption, blackmarketing, price rise,
denationalization, rationing, civil liberties, injustice to Gujaratis and Gujarat, etc.
But finally all the purposes converged on two common demands, resignation of
the Chief Minister and, later, dissolution of the State Assembly. The reasons for
making these demands differed from group to group. For the majority of the
agitators, it was to overthrow ‘corrupt’ politicians.47
Other scholars have found a more direct democratic representation in protest/agitation.
David Bayley says that the protests/agitations “if they do not fall altogether outside the
bounds of democratic permissibility, at least constitute the development—or continued
development—of a supplementary system of representation and redress.”48 His survey
indicated that “As a general rule, the public continues to believe that demonstrations are a
useful way of compelling official attention.”49 His survey showed that “when they were
asked whether demonstrations were useful in getting the authorities to do the right thing
or correct some wrongs, approximately half of the urban samples said they were
useful….In urban areas, about one out of six people have participated in a
demonstration.”50
16
Similarly, Leslie Calman, writing about the Maharashtra Shramik Sanghatana and
Bhoomi Sena movements in the 1970s and early 1980s, says that the movements
through strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of agitational activities, first
attempt to influence the passage of laws that are beneficial to the socio-economic
well-being of the tribals who predominantly make up their constituency. Once
those laws are in place, the movements agitate to obtain the implementation of
those laws. None of this activity, viewed narrowly, is revolutionary or
illegitimate….
Because the movements’ goals for the creation of better economic conditions
through the passage and implementation of improved laws are within the
legitimate boundaries of political demands, and because their methods, although
extra-constitutional, are also within a legitimate tradition, the movements cannot
be suppressed by government without considerable political cost.51
As we have noted, many critics deny the democratic impact, though generally they do not
focus on the intent or what spurred those who protest/agitate to action.
F. The goal of power: political explanations
The explanation for the use of protest/agitation that is most widely articulated is that
which asserts that the driving force is individual and group desire for power. According
to Pavan Varma contends the pursuit of power is the key to understanding political
behavior in India. While Gandhi gave precedence to means, Varma argues, the Indian
“social consensus” gave precedence to the end. “The end was power, and the rewards it
could yield in terms of personal benefit and access to the resources of the state. All the
rest were instrumentalities, of importance only in reaching that end.”52 Ironically, Varma
contends, this drive fosters the pursuit of democracy.
The truth…is that democracy has survived in India not because Indians are
democratic, but because democracy has proved to be the most effective
instrument for the cherished pursuit of power. A people stifling in the pressure
cooker of a hierarchically sealed society embraced the machinery of democratic
politics for the promise it held of upward mobility within the inherited framework
of an undemocratic society.53
Many scholars have contended that the impetus for protest/agitation lies in the drive for
power.
Yasin and Dasgupta have posited what they call the “Theory of the Relative Deprivation
of Elites of the Deprived.”54 They argue,
the movements under the garb of peoples’ movement seek to redress the
deprivation of the leadership – deprivation of his share in the power center….In
all these movements even though the cause of people’s powerlessness, injustice
17
and deprivation was highlighted, the real motive behind the movements have been
the desire of the leaders to enjoy power who could not enjoy it through the
accepted legitimate means.55
In other words,
protests do not originate; they are made to originate and are imposed on the
passive, ignorant masses….consciousness is created, mobilized and imposed by
the few on their own narrow interest but garbed as universal interest for
legitimacy. Political elites exploit situation of regional deprivation and unrest and
convert them into movements to forge and strengthen their individual and
factional support bases. In other words, political leaders excite regional or
nativist sentiments for their political ends.56
That power is a key motivating factor in protests/disruptions is implicit in much that
transpires in India’s legislatures. A few examples are illustrative.
•
In late 2006, in New Delhi: “The main Opposition BJP attacked Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh on his remarks at the National Development Council that the
minorities, particularly Muslims, must have first claim to the country’s resources,
leading to pandemonium in both Houses of Parliament. The Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha were adjourned repeatedly without transacting any business. The BJP and
Shiv Sena wanted the Prime Minister to apologise for his remarks, but the
government turned it down.”57 The act of apologizing is viewed as an act of
submission, a portrayal of the power of those who demanded it. Often legislative
bodies are disrupted in support of demands for apologies.
•
At about the same time, in Andhra Pradesh: “The winter session of the Legislative
Assembly began on stormy note on Monday, with members of the Telangana
Rashtra Samiti, Telugu Desam and CPI (M) stalling the proceedings for an hour
by staging a dharna at the podium, seeking a discussion on the Centre’s
notification making it mandatory to print the skull and cross-bones sign on beedi
bundles.”58 “Beedi bundles” refer to packets of cigarettes. Workers feared that
they would lose their jobs if people realized that their product was deadly. The
Opposition wanted to demonstrate their solidarity with the workers in an effort to
solicit their support in future elections.
•
Demands for resignations of ministers function like demands for apologies, i.e.,
they are Opposition challenges to the power of the Government. An example is
the “angry” Opposition’s call for the resignation of the Minister of Petroleum,
Ram Naik, over the allotment of petrol pumps and LPG dealerships in August,
2002. The pandemonium resulted in the adjournment sine die of the Lok Sabha
and Vidhan Sabha.59
•
On August 25, 2002, in Karnataka, a former Minister of Social Welfare, H.
Nagappa, was kidnapped by the brigand Veerappan and found dead on December
18
8 of that year. The issue was raised by the Opposition in the Legislative
Assembly in a way that totally disrupted the body, leading to the suspension of
MLAs, and, the security staff having to carry out recalcitrant members. An
observer noted that the pandemonium was not so much an effort to find out what
happened, rather, it was “the cold calculation of the ruling party’s opponents to
draw political mileage out of this unmitigated human tragedy.”60 Gaining
“political mileage” meant enhancing their power.
•
In the Uttaranchal Vidhan Sabha during March of 2005, dissidents within
Congress forced repeated adjournments over the refusal of the government to
discuss the forced resignation a couple of years ago of Revenue Minister Harak
Singh Rawat on the grounds that it was sub judice. According to The Hindu,
“Congress observers feel that the entire drama of forcing adjournments in the
Assembly was being stage-managed by supporters of the State Congress
president, Harish Rawat, who wanted to become Chief Minister by dislodging
Narain Dutt Tiwari.”61
•
The cessation of work caused by disruptions connoted a weakness on the part of
Government. The Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman, V.K. Malhotra, started the
debate saying that “apart from repeal of some legislation and a couple of Bills to
replace ordinances, the Government has been unable to ready new legislation… Is
this Government working, we wonder.” Two days ago, the BJP deputy leader in
the Rajya Sabha, Sushma Swaraj, made a similar charge saying that on some days
the Rajya Sabha was adjourned early for want of adequate business.62
•
The battle for press coverage also is a battle for power: A “Mock Assembly” was
organized by Telugu Desam Party MLAs who had been suspended from the LA.
It was being televised and broadcast when the Chief Marshall Ashok Gajapathi
Raju and his staff pulled out the cables and stopped the broadcasts.
Members of the Media Advisory Committee and other journalists who met the
Speaker pointed out that the ‘mock Assembly’ was being held at the ‘Media
Point’, an area designated by the Speaker outside the main building for
conducting television interviews and live telecasts since video cameras were
barred inside.
Mr. Suresh Reddy explained that he had neither ordered the ‘mock Assembly
to stop nor prevented the live telecast initially in a spirit of democracy. But,
members complained that some channels were showing only the mock and not
the real Assembly.
As this amounted to wrong use of the facility by the media, he had ordered the
live telecast to be discontinued. He, however, assusred that the media would
be allowed to work unhindered in the future.63
19
•
Protests/agitations outside parliament tend to be used as surrogate measures of
power. When a bandh is called, it is “graded” by observers as total or partial,
indicating the relative power of the instigators. Similarly, when a disruption
occurs in parliament, it is rated by the press according to whether it forces
adjournment. If such disruptions can prevent the Government from acting then
the disrupters have demonstrated their power.
Political scientists tend to stress the centrality of the struggle for power over other
possible causes. Often, the contention is made that alternative explanation are
camouflage or rationalizations. Yet, as this brief review of six explanations for
protest/agitation in India indicates, the interpretive task of determining the explanatory
pre-eminence of one over the other is not as simple as simply accepting the perspective of
one’s own discipline.
IV. Assessment of the Explanations
Each of the six explanations provided by observers has substantive merit. There is wide
agreement among scholars that India is affected by a very high level of protest/agitation
and this high level has become an accepted, and legitimate, part of India’s culture.
Aspects of it are decried, but toleration is much greater than would be toleration in many
other societies. Judging from the comments of many observers, there are limits to this
toleration but they vary from place to place, individual to individual, situation to
situation, and so on. Another way of saying the same thing might be to contend that there
are sub-cultures in the country with varying levels of toleration for protest/agitation. It is
apparent that many political leaders sense the limits, so that, for example, critical budget
legislation will not be blocked by disruptions in legislatures. And, when
protests/agitations become violent, most political leaders will decry their violence.
A supporting culture does not provide an explanation for the spark which initiates
protest/agitation or for the driving force that may be tapped by the protest/agitation—for
that we must look elsewhere. A discontented population may be an essential requirement
for protest/agitation, though the level of discontent and other circumstances that permit
that discontent to be ignited are likely to vary greatly from situation to situation. Some
years ago an associate was taking me around Hyderabad on his scooter and we were
delayed by a protest that blocked all traffic. He posed a question: “Do you know why
there are never protests by the same political party at the same time?” His answer was
“because they have to hire the same people.” One would have to stretch the notion of “a
discontented population” for it to be a requisite of such a protest. Yet, I doubt if “hiring”
is a more significant engine for participation than discontent in most protests/agitations.
The “Theory of Relative Deprivation of Elites of the Deprived,” proposed by Yasin and
Dasgupta, directs attention to leaders who seem to be requisites of virtually all
protests/agitations, but the narrowing of motivation of this group to power alone appears
to simplify reality unreasonably. In legislatures, protests/agitations are undertaken by
legislators. It is only reasonable that some are motivated by a desire for greater power
within their parties or in other arenas. Outside legislatures, similar motivations may drive
20
some but to attribute to insincerity and selfishness the only motivations and/or the
motivations of all is unreasonable. Likewise, the claim that the increase in the number of
legislators who have criminal backgrounds can be said to be the cause of parliamentary
disruptions is to confuse correlation and causation. The level of education of members of
the Lok Sabha has risen with the din in that body. It would be a similar confusion
between correlation and causation to attribute the disruptions to the “criminalization” of
legislators and to attribute it to their increasing education.
Like most of the other explanations, that which accounts for protest/agitation in terms of
the failure of alternative means, including institutions like the courts and the media, may
capture accurately some of the Indian reality. The presence of both a “Third World” and
a “First World” in one country is bound to raise expectations among those living in the
former beyond what the social and political institutions can deliver. The gap on a variety
of measures between segments of the population in older democracies is less than that in
newer democracies. The failure to deliver might reasonably result in the use of different
tools than those that seem to perpetuate a status quo. Much of the protest/agitation comes
from those who are not among those at the low end of the gap. Suicide and other
mechanisms may be responses to the frustrations of a political system that does not
improve livelihood sufficiently fast. And, since most protests/agitations lead to
frustration, too, one might expect alienation from that means, too.
Protest/agitation may be interpreted as symbolic or non-verbal communication, though it
may be accompanied by loud noise. That is, the actions may be interpreted as equivalent
to words. Indeed, most are justified by a political objective. Leaders interpret them as
“saying” something, as a mode of expression. They tend to portray the actions as a more
meaningful expression of the popular will than the simple words in a parliamentary
debate. What is being “said” by protests/agitations requires interpretation. Actions may
combine many messages. In the process of deciphering meaning, misrepresentation may
occur. Nevertheless, participation in protest/agitation may be motivated by a sense that
such action was, in the context of India, a means of expressing the wishes of the people.
That the sole motivation of leaders, whether they be legislators, party leaders or leaders
of other organizations, is power seems too simplistic an explanation to accurately reflect
reality. That leaders might fool so many followers time and time again into thinking that
the protests/agitations in which they were involved were for something that they were not
seems unlikely. That power was the sole reason motivating leaders to carry out
protests/agitations is similarly unreasonable. Mixed motives are common in driving
people to action. That altruism is never one of these spurs to action is a criticism of
Indian leaders that seems unfair.
None of these explanations of protest/agitation leads by itself to a satisfactory accounting
of the phenomena for which they claim to account. All seem to account for aspects of
the reality, but a very complete explanation requires a much more complex accounting.
21
V. Conclusion
The question we have sought to answer in this paper is “Why is not political discourse in
India simply through words?” It is true that politics in no country is conducted simply
through verbal exchanges. In India, though, active political protest and agitation, both
outside and inside legislatures, constitute a much more significant proportion of political
discourse than they do in any other democracy. To answer the question, we have
examined a range of explanations for protest/agitation in India. Our conclusion is that
none of the explanations adequately answers the question, though each seems to address
an aspect of it. The challenge an observer of Indian politics faces is to determine the
immensely complex mix of meanings conveyed by the myriad of protests and agitations
which characterize the Indian legislatures and countryside.
These protests/agitations speak in a language that is difficult to decipher. Each of the
explanations we have reviewed provides hints about how they might be translated into
words, but each is too general to provide a very accurate accounting of their meaning.
That they are political expressions can not be denied. Interpreting their meaning will
require a kind of contextual evaluation that is likely to defy generalization. Seeking to
understand the language of protest and agitation will be an unending task—much like that
of understanding the broad progression of politics in India.
W.H. Morris-Jones wrote more than 35 years ago that the “modern language” of politics
in India
is the language of the Indian Constitution and the courts; of parliamentary debate;
of the higher administration; of the upper levels of all the main political parties; of
the entire English Press and much of the Indian language Press. It is a language
which speaks of policies and interests, programmes and plans. It expresses itself
in arguments and representations, discussions and demonstrations, deliberations
and decisions.64
The challenge to understand politics is much like the challenge to understand the
meaning of protest and agitation today.
22
Endnotes
Note: The dates for some of the sources accessed on the internet precede the dates of the
sources themselves. The reason is the time difference between California, where the
sources were accessed, and India, where the sources were published.
1
Marcus Dam, “Confrontations Must Not Spill into House: Somnath,” The Hindu, November 28, 2004.
URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2004/11/28/stories/2004112802931000.htm Accessed November 28,
2004.
2
The term “protest/agitation” refers to a wide variety of actions taken by individuals and/or groups to
dramatize a concern usually by disruption of the normal processes in society, such as by blocking traffic on
a road or rail line, or in its institutions, such by interrupting the work of legislative bodies. Mohammad
Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta include in a list of protest techniques “…small public meetings, leaf letting,
postering, submitting memorandum, press conference, press statements, mobile announcements, street
corner meetings, long marches on foot, holding meeting at public places, mass rallies, processions,
celebrating protest days, political drama, mass deputation, torch light procession, demonstrations, hartals,
strikes, picketing, satyagraha, dharna, fasting including chair fast, fast unto death, sympathetic fast, selfimmolation, destruction of public property, holding up of transport, uprooting of railway tracks, damaging
of control boxes, dislocating telephone and telegraph wires, burning of police stations and other
government buildings, disturbing the public meetings of the opponents, go slow, mass casual leave, sit in
demonstrations, looting pf public and private property, riot, localized attempts to throw off state authority
and run parallel administration, declared or undeclared warfare in a region, etc.” And, they define protest
“as those collective actions—legal and/or illegal, violent and/or non-violent—which seek to bring about a
desired state of affairs either by bringing about change or resisting any change in the existing order.” See
Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta, Indian Politics, Protests and Movements (New Delhi: Anmol
Publications, 2003), pp. 8- 9.
3
Marion Weiner, “The Indian Paradox: Violent Social Conflict and Democratic Politics,” a paper
presented at the International Colloquium on ‘Democracy and Modernity’ on the occasion of David Ben
Gurion’s hundredth birthday, January 4-6, 1987, Jerusalem, published in Ashutosh Varshney, ed., The
Indian Paradox, Essays in Indian Politics (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1989), pp. 21-37.
4
Marion Weiner, “The Indian Paradox: Violent Social Conflict and Democratic Politics,” a paper
presented at the International Colloquium on ‘Democracy and Modernity’ on the occasion of David Ben
Gurion’s hundredth birthday, January 4-6, 1987, Jerusalem, published in Ashutosh Varshney, ed., The
Indian Paradox, Essays in Indian Politics (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1989), pp. 33-34.
5
A.R. Desai, “‘Public Protest’ and Parliamentary Democracy,” in S.P. Aiyar and R. Srinivasan, eds.,
Studies in Indian Democracy (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1965), p. 299.
6
Editors, “A Disturbing Tend,” The Hindu, August 14, 2002. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2002/08/14/stories/2002081400061000.htm Accessed August 13, 2002.
7
Roy Mathew, “Declining Importance of Assembly,” The Hindu, August 5, 2002. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2002/08/05/stories/2002080502760400.htm Accessed August 4, 2002.
8
Roy Mathew, “Declining Importance of Assembly,” The Hindu, August 5, 2002. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2002/08/05/stories/2002080502760400.htm Accessed August 4, 2002.
9
“DMK Will Keep Off Session if Suspensions are not Revoked,” The Hindu, April 9, 2003. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/04/09/stories/2003040904730400.htm Accessed April 8, 2003.
10
“DMK Will Keep Off Session if Suspensions are not Revoked,” The Hindu, April 9, 2003. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/04/09/stories/2003040904730400.htm Accessed April 8, 2003.
23
11
“Opposition MLAs Evicted En Masse, Arrested,” The Hindu, April 11, 2003. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/04/11/stories/2003041105040400.htm Accessed April 10, 2003.
12
“Opposition MLAs Evicted En Masse, Arrested,” The Hindu, April 11, 2003. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/04/11/stories/2003041105040400.htm Accessed April 10, 2003.
13
“Protests Rock Parliament,” The Statesman, March 2, 2006. URL:
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=2&id=136267&date=2006-03-03&usrsess=1
Accessed March 2, 2006.
14
“Furore in Assembly Over Visakhapatnam Bypoll,” The Hindu, March 2, 2006. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/0302/stories/2006030209210100.htm Accessed March 1, 2006.
15
David H. Bayley, The Police and Political Development in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1969), pp. 258-259.
16
J. Prabash, “Where are the Giants?” The New Sunday Express, May 22, 2005. URL:
http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?id=SEV20050520045522&eTitle=Focus&rLink=0
Accessed March 3, 2007.
17
Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta, Indian Politics, Protests and Movements (New Delhi: Anmol
Publications, 2003), p. 130.
18
Inder Malhotra, “Is Stoppage of Parliament the Only Answer?” The Hindu, August 29, 2004. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2004/08/29/stories/2004082904241000.htm Accessed August 31, 2004.
19
Inder Malhotra, “Is Stoppage of Parliament the Only Answer?” The Hindu, August 29, 2004. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2004/08/29/stories/2004082904241000.htm Accessed August 31, 2004
20
Inder Malhotra, “Is Stoppage of Parliament the Only Answer?” The Hindu, August 29, 2004. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2004/08/29/stories/2004082904241000.htm Accessed August 31, 2004
21
“Sign of Sanity,” Deccan Herald, July 12, 2004. URL:
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july122004/edit1.asp Accessed July 11, 2004.
22
“Sign of Sanity,” Deccan Herald, July 12, 2004. URL:
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july122004/edit1.asp Accessed July 11, 2004.
23
“Parliament in Tumult on Day Four Too,” The Hindu, March 5, 2005. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2005/03/05/stories/2005030508531100.htm Accessed March 4, 2005.
24
Sajma Heptulla, “Address,” in G.C. Malhortra, ed., Discipline and Decorum in Parliament and State
Legislatures, All-India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of Parliamentary
Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties, New Delhi, 25 November 2001 (New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat,
2003), p. 28.
25
G.M.C. Balayogi, “Welcome Address,” in G.C. Malhortra, ed., Discipline and Decorum in Parliament
and State Legislatures, All-India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of
Parliamentary Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties, New Delhi, 25 November 2001 (New Delhi: Lok
Sabha Secretariat, 2003), p. 11.
26
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, “Address,” in G.C. Malhortra, ed., Discipline and Decorum in Parliament and
State Legislatures, All-India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of Parliamentary
24
Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties, New Delhi, 25 November 2001 (New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat,
2003), p. 14.
27
Krishan Kant, “Inaugural Address,” in G.C. Malhortra, ed., Discipline and Decorum in Parliament and
State Legislatures, All-India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of Parliamentary
Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties, New Delhi, 25 November 2001 (New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat,
2003), p. 18.
28
Leslie J. Calman, Protest in Democratic India, Authority’s Response to Challenge (Boulder: Westview
Press, 1985), p. 13.
29
David H. Bayley, The Police and Political Development in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1969), pp. 258-259.
30
Leslie J. Calman, Protest in Democratic India, Authority’s Response to Challenge (Boulder: Westview
Press, 1985), p. 237.
31
Suman Kwatra, Satyagraha and Social Change (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 2001), p. xii
and, also, p. 3.
32
David Cortright, Gandhi and Beyond, Nonviolence for an Age of Terrorism (Boulder: Paradigm
Publishers, 2006), p. 22.
33
Suman Kwatra, Satyagraha and Social Change (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 2001), pp. viiviii.
34
Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta, Indian Politics, Protests and Movements (New Delhi: Anmol
Publications, 2003), p. 14.
35
A.R. Desai, “‘Public Protest’ and Parliamentary Democracy,” in S.P. Aiyar and R. Srinivasan, eds.,
Studies in Indian Democracy (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1965), p. 317.
36
A.R. Desai, “‘Public Protest’ and Parliamentary Democracy,” in S.P. Aiyar and R. Srinivasan, eds.,
Studies in Indian Democracy (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1965), p. 310.
37
A.R. Desai, “‘Public Protest’ and Parliamentary Democracy,” in S.P. Aiyar and R. Srinivasan, eds.,
Studies in Indian Democracy (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1965), p. 323.
38
Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta, Indian Politics, Protests and Movements (New Delhi: Anmol
Publications, 2003), p. 180.
39
S. Viswam, “The Decline in House Norms,” Deccan Chronicle on the Web, July 8, 2004. URL:
http://www.decan.com/Columnists/Columnists.asp Accessed July 7, 2004.
40
Ghanshyam Shah, Protest Movements in Two Indian States, A Study of the Gujarat and Bihar
Movements (Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1977), p. 10.
41
Ghanshyam Shah, Protest Movements in Two Indian States, A Study of the Gujarat and Bihar
Movements (Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1977), pp. 29-30.
42
Leslie J. Calman, Protest in Democratic India, Authority’s Response to Challenge (Boulder: Westview
Press, 1985), p. 235.
43
Harish Khare, “Reclaiming the Power of Disapproval,” The Hindu, March 15, 2007. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2007/03/15/stories/2007031503651000.htm Accessed March 14, 2007
25
44
Editors, “Parliament Live,” The Hindu, December 11, 2004. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2004/12/11/storoies/2004121101301000.htm Accessed December 10, 2004.
45
Harish Khare, “Reclaiming the Power of Disapproval,” The Hindu, March 15, 2007. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2007/03/15/stories/2007031503651000.htm Accessed March 14, 2007.
46
Mani Shankar Aiyar, “Making Parliament More Meaningful,” The Telegraph, n.d. URL:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1000829/editoria.htm Accessed March 3, 2007.
47
Ghanshyam Shah, Protest Movements in Two Indian States, A Study of the Gujarat and Bihar
Movements (Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1977), p. 3.
48
David H. Bayley, “The Pedagogy of Democracy: Coercive Public Protest in India,” The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (September 1962), p. 663.
49
David H. Bayley, The Police and Political Development in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1969), p. 275.
50
David H. Bayley, The Police and Political Development in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1969), p. 275.
51
Leslie J. Calman, Protest in Democratic India, Authority’s Response to Challenge (Boulder: Westview
Press, 1985), p. 11.
52
Pavan K. Varma, Being Indian, The truth about why the 21st century will be India’s (New Delhi:
Penguin, 2004), p. 43.
53
Pavan K. Varma, Being Indian, The truth about why the 21st century will be India’s (New Delhi:
Penguin, 2004), p. 54.
54
Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta, Indian Politics, Protests and Movements (New Delhi: Anmol
Publications, 2003), pp. 11-12.
55
Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta, Indian Politics, Protests and Movements (New Delhi: Anmol
Publications, 2003), p. 180.
56
Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta, Indian Politics, Protests and Movements (New Delhi: Anmol
Publications, 2003), pp. 14-15.
57
“BJP Stops House Again,” Deccan Chronicle on the Web, December 12, 2006. URL:
http://www.deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp#BJP%20stops%20House%20again Accessed December
11, 2006.
58
“Stormy Start to Winter Session,” The Hindu, December 12, 2006. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/12/stories/2006121209460400.htm Accessed December 11, 2006.
59
Editors, “A Disturbing Tend,” The Hindu, August 14, 2002. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2002/08/14/stories/2002081400061000.htm Accessed August 13, 2002.
60
N.C. Gundu Rao, “Unruly Conduct of Legislators Dwarfs Democratic Decorum,” Deccan Herald,
December 31, 2002. URL: http://www.decccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec31/top.asp Accessed
December 30, 2002.
26
61
“Ruling MLAs Force Uttaranchal Assembly Adjournment,” The Hindu, March 23, 2005. URL:
http://www.theshindu.com/2005/03/23/stories/2005032303950500.htm Accessed March 22, 2005.
62
Neena Vyas, “Opposition, Government Trade Charges Over Legislative Business,” The Hindu,
December 11, 2004. http://www.thehindu.com/2004/12/11/storoies/2004121101301000.htm Accessed
December 10, 2004.
63
“Mediapersons Lodge Protest with Speaker,” The Hindu, March 24, 2006. URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/03/24/stories/2006032412390400.htm Accessed March 23, 2006.
64
W.H. Morris-Jones, The Government and Politics of India (London: Hutchinson University Library,
1971), p. 54.
27