What Next After the Protests?
The protestors have to decide how they want to engage with the political process: normative certitude delinked from political outcomes can lead to alienation from the democratic process itself
Published in the Hindustan Times
The widespread and sustained protests against the discriminatory CAA have altered the political landscape in multiple ways, not least by dispelling the gloom and doom which had descended upon the opposition (political and civil society) after the Lok Sabha elections. The lakhs of demonstrators, waving the tricolour and reciting the preamble, have been able to infuse a sense of freshness and idealism in a foundational value – secularism – which had seemingly lost all meaning and resonance in our polity. And in protests after protests, we have witnessed the potential of new leadership, both assertive and articulate, which has been very heartening.
However, we are at an impasse. The logic of protests requires a receptive government, to acknowledge dissent and open dialogue to build fresh consensus. However, the Government has not only chosen to disregard the protests, it has chosen to use the protests as a counterpoint to consolidate majority on the other side. Throughout the last month, there was a sense of build up for the Supreme Court hearing; but the business as usual SC hearing, which refused to stay the CAA law in the interim has belied those hopes as well. With the series of Supreme Court hearings where procedural delays have been used to de facto support the Government – be it demonetisation, habeas corpus and communications shut down petitions in Kashmir, and now CAA - it is evident that the Supreme Court cannot be relied upon to act as a bulwark of democracy.
Hence the question, which kept recurring in the background of the protests - what next – has acquired some urgency. The protests have some key characteristics which bear discussion as we think about what next. First, the protests have been avowedly leaderless. The protests used social media to "announce" venues wherein people spontaneously showed up. In places where the protests have been continuous, such as Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, a local organising committee has come up to manage logistics etc. However, if the crowds don't show up tomorrow in response to social media calls, there is no organisation structure in place to mobilise crowds. Second, while the language and manner of protests across the country may be similar, the protests themselves are separate and autonomous. Over time, a collective platform has been attempted but the platform has at best given a calendar of events, and not necessarily leadership or organisation. This leaderless and organisation-less “strategy” may have been necessitated in the early days because there is no leader or group of leaders who have the ability or legitimacy to exert authority over the expanse of the protests, in part because the bulk of the numbers have come from Muslims while the language and narrative has been led by left liberals. Third, now that the protests are completing two months, there’s the sense that the positive outreach has not been able to go beyond their initial constituency.
It would be presumptuous for anyone who has not faced the brunt of the mainstreamed hate and bigotry to nudge the protestors in any direction but it is perhaps time to ask whether the protests will remain an expression of a section of citizen's dissent or will the protests evolve into a political movement. While both choices are valid, the way forward is different for both. The protests have achieved considerable normative success; but without change of tack, it is difficult to see this translate into political victory because the constituency of supporters remains limited, the government adamant and countervailing institutional forces ambivalent. There are indications too of counter mobilisation and consolidation. It is unclear if this counter mobilisation will be electorally significant in upcoming Delhi assembly elections but we have repeatedly seen that opposition movements lose even normative traction when defeated electorally.
On the other hand, for the protests to evolve into a viable political movement, the open-ended creative anarchy will have to be forged into something more enduring and expansive but also *routine* with organisation, decision-making structures, alliances and compromise. There will need to be clarity on the purpose of the movement: whether it is to preserve the secular liberal nature of our country, whether it is to oust the BJP Govt from the Center, which is using State power to remake our plural democratic country into a majoritarian authoritarian State or is it in this instance limited to the repeal of CAA and stopping the NPR and NRC. The three objectives are connected but different and entail different methods and strategy. If the purpose is to preserve the secular, liberal foundations of our country, then attempts have to be made to convert larger public opinion in favour of secularism and pluralism. It will require mainstreaming democratic mores in our society so that exclusionary and authoritarian forces are unable to use democratic processes to come to power. Ousting BJP requires something more tactical and short-term, where interim normative victories may be subsumed in favour of electoral victory. The last option is important but perhaps may find greater political traction by shifting focus away from religion (CAA) to the larger exclusionary process of documentation of citizenship (NRC) of the populace as a whole if not linkage with other more immediate issues. The second open question is on methods: protests are an assertion of strength of those who are already on our side of the debate but it is not clear that the current balance of power is favourably inclined towards the protestors. Clarity is required on the methods to change this balance of power; wherein outreach more than continuous protests may be more effective in converting larger public opinion. The question of leadership and organisation and alliances will follow from the responses that the protestors decide on these questions.
The protestors have to decide how they want to engage with the political process. Protests are democratic and constitutional and for the average citizens who may have felt beleaguered, empowering. At the same time, normative certitude delinked from political outcomes can lead to alienation from the democratic process itself. Ultimately, in a democracy, sustaining normative victories too requires engagement with institutional processes.