Authors –
Shalini Yadav, LLM candidate at Delhi University, and
Swapnil, LLM candidate at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University
Introduction
With unveiling the historic and radical scheme “Agneepath” the society has become a witness of numerous bounds of dissent of the common people. This scheme is for recruiting about 46,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen every year and has been approved by the PM-led cabinet committee on security. This will begin on an “All-India, All-class” basis within 90 days from the announcement. This scheme was announced by the defense minister Rajnath Singh and he stressed that “Under the ‘Agneepath’ scheme, Indian youth will be provided an opportunity to serve in the armed forces as ‘Agni veers.’ This scheme has been brought to strengthen the security of the country”. This transformative scheme shall also provide a youthful profile to the armed forces as it includes the average age of the soldiers gradually being brought down from the 30s to 24–26 years of age, so as to make them well-equipped and tech-savvy. He further claims that it will strengthen national security; hence we must have faith in it.
Although the government has clarified its intention regarding the scheme, the scheme has received a large nation vide violent protests. The major concern of these agitators is fear of unemployment after the completion of tenure which is just four years as per the scheme, Also they are against a one-time pension which consists of a fifty percent deduction from the monthly salary of Agniveer during the four years of service and as they point out when the MLA even when elected for once receives lifetime pension why not a young soldier who has put his life on risk for the country receive more.
Current situation
To stage the dissent against the scheme, protests are going on in many Indian states. With trains in Bihar being set on fire, to violence in Telangana, Punjab, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and many other states, the situation remains tense. Eastern Railway has said that as many as 29 trains have been cancelled. In West Bengal, protestors even reached Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s residence. Uttar Pradesh saw pitched protests with instances of arson and stone-pelting in several eastern districts. As many as 269 protesters have been arrested over the last two days, with 168 of them booked on charges of breach of peace. Some organizations even gave a Bharat Bandh call. Police forces all over the country are also on high alert. Massive traffic jams were reported in several parts of Delhi-NCR, particularly at Delhi-Gurugram and Delhi-Noida borders due to increased security checks by police. Nearly 530 trains were cancelled on June 20.
Right to Dissent
In a democratic country, like ours, why the right of dissent is important for its proper functioning is self-explanatory. It is evident that the right of dissent is not to be granted only if they fall in line with the majoritarian view; the dissenter may very well be in the minority. These ongoing protests are a form of dissent and dissent is imperative for functioning of a democracy. The constitution specifically mentions the right to dissent and the manner it has to be exercised, that is to be done peacefully. When one talks about right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution, it also includes within it the right to freely express their views, whether or not they are in tandem with the majoritarian view or not. Thus, right to protest and right to dissent are available to all. Dissent is not something that has occurred in recent times only. If we were to look to our pre independence era, the protests that the freedom fighters did were also a kind of dissent. The current uproar regarding right to dissent is because in the recent times we have seen that it is often not just a peaceful protest but is accompanied by provocative statements or acts which sometimes amount to sedition or waging war against the government. Even though sedition is in abeyance currently, yet the protests are far from being peaceful.
To have the right to dissent is important in any democracy, but at the same time it is important to understand the limits of the right. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Leela Maidan v Home Secretary in 2012 held that the citizens can assemble peacefully and can also protest and that these rights are not to be taken away by any arbitrary executive or legislative action. Now, what is important is to understand that the reasonable restriction over the right to protest is that it should be peaceful in nature. It shouldn’t create a situation of harm for the citizens or the government. Taking in consideration the kinds of protest against the Agnipath scheme, one can conclusively deduce that they are in no way peaceful.
Curbing the Dissent
This is not the first time such violent protest where vandalism of public and private property happened in past few years. A similar aggressive disagreement regarding CAA, Farm Bill, Hijab Ban, etc., was witnessed. Whenever there is riotous disapproval of government measures, there is the mass destruction of public and private property. While the agitators point to their fundamental right to protest, the plight of people affected by agitations and their right to continue with normal activity often get ignored. Generally, there is no recovery of damages from the loss, and in few cases where recovery can be made, it is a slow and tedious process. At present, action against rioters is limited to the toothless Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, which prescribes a jail term and fine for convicts but has no provision for recovery for damages. Despite a law against the destruction of property, incidents of rioting, vandalism, and arson have been common during protests across the country. However lately Uttar Pradesh and Haryana governments have passed legislation for the recovery of damages due to the destruction of property caused by a person during disturbances to public order by an assembly, lawful or unlawful, including riots and public disorder. This might be a good change considering the present situation
Conclusion
Despite the law being very clear on protests, many people opt for such an extreme and brutal mode of disapproval. This puts forth many questions, whether there is a lack of trust in legal machinery; the government is lacking to properly communicate its intentions to citizens, or one of the main reasons for the protests could be the flow of misinformation throughout the social media which ultimately makes every issue politically motivated.
Any of the above stated reasons could be the reason behind the uproar amongst the citizens. But all the discussed reasons have the same foundation on which they lie, that is little to no discussion of the schemes or laws that government imposes upon the citizens. If the government were to conduct adequate discussions in the parliament or request comments from the general public, it can be deduced that there shall be no misinformation to be spread on social media nor shall there be any lack of communication between the government and citizens. This shall in turn decrease the chances of protests and dissents, as the dissent can be very well put at decision making stage rather than the implementation stage. Having prior discussions would also decrease the chances of reoccurring of the ‘farm bill’ situation. The government did not implement the bill, as after the discussions, the government did not find them feasible. But those discussions were the result of the protests. Had the discussions had happened at an earlier stage, the need of protests could have been mitigated. Thus, the government should encourage discussions and transparency at decision making stage. Moreover, the judiciary should also take on a more pro-active role. This might act as a healthy medium for people to showcase their dissent instead of unlawful means. Another thing that needs immediate attention is to strengthen the laws relating to curbing the violence. It is true that prevention is better than cure, but if the violence has already taken place, as in the present case, the government needs to implement stricter laws so as to create deterrence.
Thus, it can be deduced that the holistic growth of a country in all spheres, which is economic rights as well as civil rights, can be achieved only when dissent and disagreement are in tandem with support and allegiance towards the rules. But this dissent should not lead to violence and mayhem in the society. It is therefore important to curb it at the grass-root level.
References
- Bare Act – The Constitution of India, 1950
- Bare Act – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
- Bare Act – The Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act, 2020
- Bare Act – The Haryana Recovery of Damages to Property During Disturbance to Public Order Act, 2021