The recent protests at JNU have been occupying quite a lot of space on mainstream media, as well as social media. Here is what has been going on, briefly :

~ Students of the JNU student union conducted a protest meeting on the third anniversary of the execution of Afzal Guru.

~ Some of the protesting students, and other outsiders who joined the protest shouted anti India slogans, and were heard calling Afzal Guru a martyr.

~ ABVP (another student union affiliated to another national party) protested against the JNUSU(which had distanced itself from the alleged slogans), leading to clashes between the two groups.

~ Delhi police arrested JNUSU president.

Meanwhile,

~Social media has witnessed a lot of voices of support, and opposition to the JNU protests.

~Some people opposing them(including a couple of popular pages) have conflated the issue with the recent Pathankot attacks

This is hardly unique. Similar protests have been held (during the hanging of Yakub Memon), student union clashes are quite commonplace, and social media has always been the guardian of morality and/or nationalism. However, this is an interesting issue to review because all the related issues which form a part of the underlying narrative have a pivotal role to play in reaching a general consensus of what we want our society to look like. How tolerant we want it to be. And how much responsibility we would put on ourselves to safeguard this society, and it’s associated values.

When evaluating the incidents unfolding at JNU, four underlying issues ought to be discussed: The value and role of dissent/protests in a democracy; The responsibility of these protest movements.

When most of us look at protests and marches, there is a tendency to evaluate it with a degree of disdain. This is largely because they are largely viewed as disruptions to normal order. More importantly though, there is a certain disconnect between the views on issues which many protests raise (JNU being a perfect case), and public opinions on the same. This is largely why protests are important in a democracy. Protests such as the march for Nirbhaya hardly come under the purview of this, largely because public opinion largely overlapped with the views of the protesters, thus leading to an implicit understanding that the cause was objectively good. However, this isn’t the unique role most protests stem from, largely because they are often born from the lack of alignment with what society thinks.

An example of this is the recent protests over the death penalty, following the Yakub Memon case. Many of the protesters were arguing against the death penalty. Other issues which form a part of protest movements often include minority rights and progressive legislation. These are issues which rarely become mainstream voting issues, even in cases where there is passive support for the same. People who passively support these issues, often choose to prioritise issues more important to them (which party provides them more social security, for example) often at the expense of these issues. This often means that these issues rarely become voting issues, which is hardly a representation of a lack of support for the same. The outlier, in this regard is the success of the AAP on an anti corruption agenda, but even that serves to show the level of disillusionment it takes for these issues to replace more traditional mainstream issues.

In these cases, the only other outlet to ensure that these issues become a part of the political space, is to exert pressure in the form of protests and movements. This is important, because the voice of a minority shouldn’t always be drowned out by a majority which prioritises differently. In this case, protests often act as the great equaliser. Yet, this is where there is a need to remain focused towards the end goals of the protest. Often, it is easy to paint anybody who opposes the death penalty as ‘anti national’, treating any dissent as sedition. This often crowds out many valid and genuinely productive arguments regarding how we view death as a retributive mechanism. These are discussions which shouldn’t be limited to the judiciary alone(burdened as it is), but needs to become a part of our discussion as a society on what are values are. This is often a path to progress as a society, and we really need to give these issues more thought. To merely brand anybody who protests a death sentence as being ‘anti national’ is reductionist and simplistic. It also falsely paints protesters who believe that it is the nature of punishment which should be questioned,not the punishment itself.

If you have to some extent begun to respect the unique role protest movements can play in a democracy, then that in itself is a sign of progress. Democracies are evaluated best on the basis of how they treat those who want to deviate from the norm, rather than those who conform. To put it simply, if we only validates those who conformed to state lines (often drawn from nationalism) would we be that different from an autocracy? The infallibility of nationalism should never be the norm for decision making, because it inherently robs society of the ability to be dynamic.

When viewed in this manner, it might seem like the state is the proverbial bad cop here. However, it is important to establish the responsibility movements have towards society, given that it is that society which they wish to reflect change.

It is important to note that quite a few (by no means all) protesters are often disillusioned, and are easily influenced by the mob mentality that slowly begins to pervade. It is in these instances outsiders, and other disgruntled people often influence the crowd in a manner anti thetical to their ends (chants of martyrdom etc.). It is quite obvious that these aren’t attempts to lead to sensitised societal discourse, and in some cases can spur violence from communities. It is in these cases, that members of protest movements should remain true to their end goal, and consistent with their principles. This responsibility should be viewed in terms of the wider responsibility they take upon themselves to be agents of social change. Given this is a burden they take on themselves willingly, attempts to instigate harm (chanting of anti India slogans etc.) should be viewed as unacceptable transgressions which cause more harm than benefit to the discourse they wish to incorporate into their message.

It is at the point when these movements, which play a pivotal role (established in the former half of this article), and have a certain degree of responsibility for their actions (latter half), transgress and tend to focus on disruption to no end goal, that it is acceptable for the government to step in to ensure that this essential tool to further our understanding of democracy isn’t abused.

I plan to do a follow up on this in a few days. A huge shout out to Amrit Daswaney, who has been a great source of feedback and a great person to bounce ideas off. There are so many more interesting issues which surround this!