By Conrad Pinto : Mahatma Gandhi, the father of our nation, was a true leader and inspired many minds with his ideologies. He also is regarded as the sole person because of whom our country was freed, and hence, regarded as the father of our nation. One of the most important contributions of his was his method of protesting. His non-violent form of protesting has broad appeal in today’s world, where violence is largely constrained by world governments and has stringent rules to curtail any such form by punishment.
Bundhs are most commonly used today, among the other forms of Gandhian protests. A bundh simply means shutting down the entire economy for a particular amount of time, mostly for a day or two. This is mainly done, to draw the government’s attention forcefully, towards a cause, and enable a possible action to be taken by the government, in favor of the cause. By shutting down the economy though, i.e. by enforcing a bundh, it is not mandatory for businesses to shut down, it is only a voluntary participation according to the opinion of the respective persons concerned. Bundhs are hence, very ineffective, in comparison to the other Gandhian forms of protests, especially one that was popularized by social activist Anna Hazare, that is a hunger-strike.
The Kaveri water dispute has been a very vastly debated issue, over the decades, even as Tamil Nadu and Karnataka battle for its water. Recently though, the matter was escalated in Karnataka with the Supreme Court ordering 9,000 cusecs of water to be released within a stipulated time frame into Tamil Nadu, from the Krishnaraja Sagar Dam. The problem here was that, the farmers who got affected from this, from Maddur and Mandya, were already going through a serious drought problem, for this decision to further add to their woes. This decision of the Supreme Court was opposed by the farmers, who took it to road blocks, and road rallies to Bangalore – to strengthen their protests. Noticing the woes of the farmers, the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike (KRV), a linguistic social activist group, called a state-wide bundh, to make their voices heard. Adding to this bench-strength of protesters, the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) and the Janata Dal (Secular) joined the agitation to make the bundh more effective, and by effective, they meant taking the bundh to a whole new level. This whole new level is not ‘new’ in any sense to us, as we already know and are very synonymous with this level of bundhs. We’ve already seen political parties sending their workers out on bikes and locomotives, convincing by words, or at times by force, only to ensure their bundhs are effective. And this ‘new’ level was experienced in Karnataka, especially in Bangalore.
Now, national sentimentalists may debate and say that this is a very sensible way to make their point through to the government. But it again draws attention towards Gandhian principles, and that the deviative ways of this form of protest draws away from the Gandhian principles. So is this, in any ways, Gandhian? No! Rowdiism, it may be called, but in no ways can it be Gandhiism.
Economically as well, this form of protest has very negative effect on the economy. The 20th September Bharat Bundh that was called by the opposition this year, reported a loss of Rs.12,500 crore to the exchequer. Clearly, this was a very unconstructive form of protesting, as it did very little to the fuel prices – the sole reason for which it was held in the first place, and in turn, costed the economy, a whopping Rs. 12,500 crore loss! Now, how responsible could you call the opposition parties to have called the bundh?
Universally, there are three bodies that are involved in a bundh. The ‘against’, the ‘by’, and the ‘for’. The ‘against’ is the government, against whom a bundh is organized. The ‘by’ is the organizers, by whom the bundh is being organized. The ‘for’ is the common man, usually farmers, tax payers, etc, for whom the bundh is organized.
Firstly, let us consider the ‘for’. These bundhs not only affects the economy, it also affects the common man as well, socially. Talk about social effects, and the opposition parties feel that they have our social interests protected by organizing these bundhs, but in reality, they aren’t. For these bundhs don’t guarantee us of a particular positive outcome of the concerned issues, and to add more wounds, these bundhs end up paralising lives of the common men, as I have stated.
- A school-going child, who has his exams on the day the bundh is called, has been compromised with, in the name of a national interest.
- A daily wage earner, say a tiller, loses out on his daily bread and has to let his family starve for the day.
- Passengers who have to travel to some place, are left stranded for the duration of the bundh, and have to suffer.
Secondly, let us consider the ‘against’. This is a party, which in the entire set-up is a mere spectator. All that the government does is merely observing on what has been happening. It really doesn’t count much to them or doesn’t hurt them, as long as it is kept out of the courts. Hence, we can consider this party as invalid, or null. And that is why, a bundh usually goes ineffective.
Thirdly, and mainly, let us consider the ‘by’. These are the people who claim to have much more nationalistic views than the present government itself, and hence take the voices of the ‘for’ to a bigger stage, for a wider appeal. Bundhs, as you may notice, is usually hoisted by opposition parties, and not social activists. Social activists are much bolder in resorting to hunger-strikes and other self-damaging forms of protests, but Bundhs are unfortunately only the talk of opposition parties and a few outfits, who are again sponsored by political parties. And clearly, now, as you may suspect, or a few others may even know, Bundhs are clear ways to gain political momentum for these opposition parties, which all counts in their election campaigns.
So, in the end, what shall we conclude to? Are Bundhs the real way out from a social crisis? I’ll let you decide, keeping bias away.
Firstly it is entirely wrong to suggest that only Mahatma Gandhi, got the independece for this nation, which was literally slained with partition.
Secondly the role of other Martyrs viz. mainly Sardar Bhagat Singh & Associates coupled with normally unknown Mr.B.C. Dutt, who started Mutiny in Royal Navy & around other thousands of persons given sacrifices to get this nation butchered with division in the name of Independence, not Liberty, which is yet to come.
In Independence & or so called Swarajaya,which is; off course;being ruled under British Laws, it is altogether & undoubtedly most illogical to resort to Buhdhs, Rail Roko, Raasta Roko, Strikes etc. etc.,because these all actsivities have worstly told upon the economy of this nation.
But being there is no option; as the The Judiciary, though the most important 3rd Organ of Governance of this nation, has no mechanism, to get implemented its orders & is soley dependant on Administarive Organ, which is dancing on the tune of Legislative.
Thus the aggrieved ones prefer to resort to above said activities viz. Bundhs etc., whereas all such acts ought to be totally banned in the interest of the general public & the natio at large, under strict orders of The Apex Court Of Country & whosoever political party & or NGO & or person/s shall reosrt to such acts must be subjected to punishment, as a TRAITOR & Anti National indeed, if this nation is to be savd from an evident collapse under the load of said antinational activities without any doubt—dr.amritgaur