Strike or Terror Strike?

A hunger strike is a method of non-violent resistance or pressure in which participants fast as an act of political protest, or to provoke feelings of guilt in others, usually with the objective to achieve a specific goal, such as a policy change.

Fasting is a very ancient method of protesting against injustice or trying to attract attention of authorities. In India also, this practice is vey ancient and dates back to around 500 BC with even a mention of a similar attempt by Bharata in Ramayana, to stop Rama from going to exile. However, this method of protest saw its peak in early 20^th century, when Gandhiji’s famous doctrine of non-violence had to be made a strong enough blow to atrocities of British without actually bruising the principle of non-violence. Owing to the stature Gandhiji held internationally and in hearts of Indians, this method of strikes and fasting proved quite successful. Other faces like Bhagat Singh also used hunger strike to mobilise people and shook the foundations of British Raj to prove the importance of their demands.

That was an epoch, which India would never like to see again. It was the time when we were being ruled by a bunch of foreigners, against our will, in our own nation, in our own home. And to make sure that the hard earned fruit of combined efforts of frontiers of Indian nationalist movement is not wasted, we framed a constitution, constitution that ensured a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Recently, there was a strike staged out by the professors of the most elite Institution of India- IIT. This was an attempt to get their demands for a pay-hike for the professors, and giving autonomous power for the promotion procedure of professors to IIT. The HRD ministry turned a defiant face towards the demands condemning the strike as irresponsible on part of laureates of IITs. After this there was again a declaration of strike, this time a hunger strike. There was quite a hustle about this in media to which Mr Kapil Sibal marked the ministry's policy quite firm and well decided. However the day came, and very soon Govt. lied with its knees bend, ready to conform to IIT professors’ demands. There are numerous other examples to a similar turn outs.

So the fact lies within is that strikes, or indefinite fasts come out to be one of the most successful weapons today in making government or institutions agree to one’s demands. Now here I take my pick, and come to the point for which this article was meant.

“What is the difference between one who goes on a strike and a terrorist?”

When a common man strikes there is an instantaneous disruption in whole working machinery of a city, state or nation. Similar are the effects of a terror strike. When a banker strikes, the whole economy goes in danger, there is a loss of lots of funds and interest on money. Bank strike makes public run hither and thither for money, and many companies loose important business deals due to inaccessibility to their accounts. When there is a transport strike, the whole mobility of public gets checked, making life a real hell. When doctor strikes, life of many comes under danger as diseases and emergencies don’t seek an appointment. Quite a similar is the scenario when terrorists attack a building, blast underground railways, kill and wound people and rob bank accounts through cyber-acts of physical bank bangs. Hijack of Air India flight IC 814 was a most dreadful terrorist attack on India. Hundreds of lives were kept hostages and there were demands of releasing dangerous terrorists and lots of money in return. It had really crippled the defence of our nation. But I ask this question, that how was that different from the hunger strike by IIT professors (I am not at all debating the reason of IIT professors strike or if the demands were just or not) recently or any other such fasting, except that the hostages here are none other than the demanders themselves. Attack on Parliament on 13^th December 2001 was a direct attack on our democracy. But even such give away by govt. to the demands of strike proves that strikes are attack of no lesser intensity on parliament. When we alone have chosen a government on written directives of Constitution adopted by all, why don’t we let it work on its own? I urge all the readers to ponder upon that is our democracy still flawed? Are we showing a loss of faith in the system by using such methods of protest?

No doubt that the strikes were justified at the time of freedom movement. Because then we were slaves, and had no say otherwise. But today, India is a free republic and democratic nation. The government is made out of us and works for us. If the aim of Constituent assembly that drafted our constitution is still on accomplishment, it stands justified for the government to use its prerogatives for framing out laws, after a proper discussion and scrutiny by 552 elected and (hopefully) educated representatives. Once we elect our representatives, there lies no reason in interfering in its working by using a cheap way of strikes. If one doubts the integrity of the government, then apply your candidature in next elections, and be the part of the government. Or if you still feel outnumbered, suggest changes in the constitution itself. Still if that does not seem feasible, then one can always put forth its point in front of nation by holding peaceful processions that do not hinder working of any department. One can win the support of whole nation by justifying himself in media, newspapers. No doubt government shall feel the pressure, and decide justly, if whole nation raises its voice for a common purpose. But in no way should strikes be tolerated and I think that the system must devise ways to fortify itself against them.