Ban is not the solution, better crowd management is
BY ANJUMAN ARA BEGUM
Public protests have always been a
symbol of democratic and informed societies that represent people’s
engagement into affairs that affect their lives. On most part, protests
speak volumes of the people’s participation in national public affairs.
More over, they help enable an environment where accountability and good
governance can be promoted thereby allowing rightful spaces for
peoples’ grievances and dissent. For the marginalized sections of the
society, protesting is the only solution that ensures State attention
towards mainstreaming their issues. Yet we all know that in reality,
there is a high prevalence among government and non-state actors to
undermine the culture of protests and treat it as a matter of
inconvenient or threat.
Locally, there is an effort by certain
sections of the citizens that have demanded the “banning of protests” at
the site of Dighali Pukhuri, which is approximately 60 bigha pond and
considered one of the most iconic sites of Guwahati. It is no secret
that demonstrations or famously known “Dharnas” are viewed with much
disdain in conflict-ridden places like Guwahati. Currently there is a
struggle between two contrary narratives. The first which deems that
cultural and tourist sites should not be used for non tourist like
activities like peoples’ dharnas and demos. The second narrative
recognizes expressing public dissent through protests as democratic
right however proposes that it should be carried out at a State owned
site.
Dispur Last Gate has been named as an
alterative location for such activities. This has created buzz in people
who have expressed mixed opinions. For instance a ban supporter says,
“I don’t support public protest in Dighali Pukhuri. Let it remain a
place of serenity and beauty.” Another supporter of ban on public
protests muses that “It has become routine for the ‘professional
agitationists’ that results to nothing except traffic congestion.”
Such statements raise many concerns
particularly if we have to consider the right based perspective.
‘Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly’ is a constitutional right
and any expression is not required to be popular to be promoted or
restricted if unpopular. It can only be restricted under conditions
prescribed in the Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The Indian
State cites that “reasonable restrictions” includes issues like public
order, national security, friendly relations with a foreign country,
public morality matters and hate speech. Please note that here even
sedition is not a ‘reasonable ground’ to restrict freedom of expression
and for peaceful assembly. The right to freedom of expression and the
right to peaceful protest are crucial in a participatory democracy like
India to foster a culture of political debate among the common people
and are absolutely necessary for the promotion of public accountability
as well as transparency in administration. Therefore, this right must be
provided safeguards and should definitely be prioritized over the
assumed public inconvenience.
In other countries, protests are
regulated through advance permission or notice requirements, content
restrictions and in certain instances protests of political natures are
completely banned.
In countries like USA, excessive
noise pollution or disruption, obstructions of sidewalks or doorways,
or harassment of unwilling passers-by are the grounds for police to
intervene for the event closure. Obviously, any incitement of violence
or lawlessness forced an immediate police intervention and police
authorities may impose traffic rules, reasonable timing, place and
manner restrictions. However, officials should not be directing a route
that doesn’t reach out to the targeted audience of the protestors. In
the UK, no permission or notice is required if the protests are static
in nature however, in cases of march and moving demonstrations, notices
are required. And extended time frame protests are banned in specific
location like the Parliament Square.
The restriction of a public space would
definitely violate freedom as alone inconvenience cannot be considered a
sensible and reasonable ground. The public inconveniences can be
minimised or eliminated through efficient management and enforcement of
the local traffic rules. And for that we must learn from some best
practices. On 15-16, February, 2003, worldwide protests were organized
in 800 cities in the wake of US war on Iraq. In Rome alone there was a
protest of three million people on 15th February, 2003 which became a
Guinness record. Madrid witnessed a protest of some one and a half
million people, while London saw one of its largest protests in face of
one million protestors. Not to forget the protests in Istanbul’s Taksim
Square, the occupation of Zuccotti Park in New York, the Umbrella
revolution in the streets of Hong Kong and the Nuit Debout protests in
Paris’ Place de la République, all examples which paved the path for
enriched public opinion and encouragement of informed, engaged and
inclusive societies on a global scale.
There is a need for awareness about the
dos and the donts for both the protesters and the administrations.
Excessive noise pollution, hooliganism, road obstructions, harassment of
pedestrians or passersby, property vandalizing and setting people and
public sites on fires are all offences that should provide zero grounds
for impunity of the violators. Remember that for long Guwahati has been a
vibrant and active society where democratic practices such as like
protest meetings and dharnas have affirmed its informed citizenry. Let us take immense pride in ourselves for being such a people.
And this ever growing city is lacking in
efficient crowd and traffic management strategies. Therefore efforts
must be made for improving these issues, rather than resorting to
banning protest spaces. The protests against public affairs are carried
out with an aim to reach a target audience and Dighali Pukhuri over a
period of time has become a strategic space that provides an ambience of
concerned people. Having the presence of institutions like the local
High Court, Guwahati Press Club, Rabindra Bhavan as well as educational
institutions like Cotton College too in the vicinity has added advantage
to the protesters.
The key factor is that our local civil
society must not be deprived from accessing “Dighali Pukhuri site”
whenever needed for registering protests and it must be seen in the
light as a matter of right. Transferring the protest site to Dispur Last
Gate, in reality, amounts to the restriction of constitutional freedom
of expression and right to peaceful assembly.
Anjuman Ara Begum works with FORUM-ASIA (www.forum-asia.org) and can be reach at anju.azad@gmail.com
Original article appeared at http://www.thethumbprintmag.com/ban-is-not-the-solution-better-crowd-management-is/
Comments
Post a Comment