Protest politics: Can dissent coexist with public convenience

New Delhi: The Opposition’s intensified campaign against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, alleging irregularities in electoral roll revisions and claiming that the exercise has disproportionately benefited the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has revived the debate over the right to protest in a parliamentary democracy and the responsibility to safeguard public convenience.

The agitation has spread across several cities and has again brought the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) onto the streets along with Opposition leaders, activists, and student organisations.

In a constitutional democracy, citizens and political parties have the right to protest against government policies, public institutions, and administrative officials.

Protestors thus argue that raising concerns over the conduct of elections is not only political, but a democratic obligation. In fact, many landmark reforms in India have come after pressure from civil society movements, parliamentary resistance, judicial intervention, and public demonstrations, furthering the right to dissent as indispensable.

However, questions arise when the exercise of one’s right infringes upon the rights of others. With demonstrations intensifying, authorities have responded with large-scale security arrangements.

Earlier protests in central Delhi led to the closure of several major Metro stations, including Rajiv Chowk, Central Secretariat, Janpath and New Delhi, while large sections of the city faced traffic restrictions and barricading.

For any demonstration planned or anticipated, especially over Friday and Saturday, security agencies have now proposed heightened strictures.

The Delhi Police recommended closure of entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations beginning Friday night, citing concerns about crowd mobilisation and attempts to enter high-security zones. Train frequency at affected stations was also proposed to be reduced.

Meanwhile, the Railways announced cancellation of trains as a precaution against anticipated congestion or trouble around the capital’s railway hubs.

Authorities justified the move by referring to earlier disruptions in which thousands of passengers reportedly struggled to reach stations because of road blockades and crowding.

Such traffic snarls also put commuters at a disadvantage on roads. On the other hand, protestors argue that governments rarely respond to peaceful petitions, memoranda, or symbolic protests; they even cancel assemblies at designated locations.

According to this view, public disruption becomes necessary because authorities act only when the political cost of ignoring grievances becomes too high. There are indeed examples that lend some support to this argument. However, the counterargument is equally compelling.

Rights and duties are often described as two sides of the same coin. The right to assemble peacefully exists alongside the duty to respect the rights of fellow ci

Freedom of expression does not eliminate responsibility. The constitutional promise of liberty is accompanied by an expectation of civic restraint. If a protest disrupts public transport, prevents citizens from commuting, or imposes costs on people who have no direct role in the dispute, the balance between democratic dissent and public responsibility becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.

Sometimes, the inconvenience may be indirect, coming as security restrictions imposed by authorities. Yet, the outcome remains the same for the common citizen.

Protests should occur in a democracy; criticism of public institutions should be allowed; but what matters are the methods by which dissent is expressed. While governments need to avoid dismissing criticism until demonstrations become impossible to ignore, protest organisers must recognise that, with intensity, they also need to mobilise public support without imposing high costs on the common people.

As the confrontation over the Election Commission continues, the dispute is likely to remain politically charged. The right to protest is fundamental; but so is the right of millions of citizens to go about their daily lives without avoidable disruption. The challenge is not about choosing one over the other, but ensuring that both can coexist.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IANS

[email protected]