Media reports suggest that the Bharat Bandh ordered by most opposition political parties, cutting across ideological divides, cost the country several thousand crores of rupees in lost incomes and output, and contributed to lost daily wages for millions of poor. This was the direct cost. Also, disruption of public transport and vandalisation of public property heaped suffering on millions.
...
If Naxalites and extremists disrupt normal life, destroy public property, inject fear into people and make them retreat into their homes and away from public places, we call that terrorism. What is a state-sponsored bandh?
Opposition parties organising the bandh claimed that this was a peaceful protest to enforce accountability. Surely, if there is to be accountability in our democracy, elections in various states are not far away and that should give ample opportunity to test the popularity of the decision to decontrol the price of petrol and the proposal to decontrol diesel in future.
Politicians claim that since they are submitting themselves to the people’s court (the elections), they should not be prevented from standing for elections till their final appeal is disposed of in criminal cases. Is it not a derogation of democracy to let violence rule the streets in the name of protest, without waiting for the people to give their verdict on the decontrol of petrol?
The right to protest is inherent in a democracy, but not the resort to violence.
... ...
Suppose those who do not want their work to be disrupted and the normal life of the city to be affected exercise their democratic right of protest at the same time. What will be the result? Do they not have the right to the same type of ‘peaceful protest’ to keep shops open and transport running, and daily wage labourers to their livelihood?
What some of these political parties and leaders do not realise is the impact of such ‘peaceful’ stone-throwing and bus-burning protests on national security in this age of terrorism.
...
Bandhs enforced by political parties fit in with this definition of terrorism. Those organised stone-throwers in Kashmir invoke the analogy of ‘peaceful’ stone-throwing and bus-burning protests in the rest of India to justify their perpetual stone-throwing and daily bus-burning.
It is the height of hypocrisy to claim that those who called the bandh and directed its enforcement did not anticipate the violence and that it was a spontaneous protest.
... ...
After having had the experience of years of most ‘peaceful’ protests turning into ‘non-violent’ stone-throwing and bus-burning, the politician has no excuse to plead that he is calling for a peaceful bandh.
...
The government claims decontrol is necessary to stop the subsidising of petrol, which is used only by a minority of the popualtion. If the subsidy continues it will lead to a higher fiscal deficit, resulting in inflation, which affects everybody. Whether one agrees with them or not, the government’s arguments also emphasise the long-term interest of the aam aadmi.
....
Should not the opposition parties reflect on this and dispute this with facts, figures and strategies in Parliament — which is to open in a few weeks — instead of resorting to this terroristic disruption? The people are bound to come up with their answer. As it happened in May 2009, it may be different from the traditional street agitators’ approach.
...