Enforced Bandhs – violation of fundamental rights

There is a difference between strikes and bandhs. Strikes are undertaken by employees who have genuine grievance against their employers – maybe on grounds of inadequate salary/bonus, bad/unsafe work environment, injustice to a member of the trade union etc. What are bandhs? Loosely defined “bandh” means closed in Hindi. Bandh in the Indian context means a form of political protest wherein the aggrieved political party declares a strike for a day, either in a city, State or the entire country. It could be a “Mumbai bandh”, “Maharashtra bandh” or “Bharat bandh” for whatever grounds the party maybe protesting. When a “bandh” is declared by a political party, the public is expected to sit at home and offices, business establishments, shops and public transport are supposed to be shut an inoperative. “Bandhs” are supposed to be a powerful means of civil disobedience. Because this form of protest has a huge impact on the local community, bandhs as a form of political protest are feared by the general public.

“Bandhs” normally let the goons and anti-social elements loose on the streets to enforce bandhs, leading to violence and in many cases destruction of public property. The police normally play a passive role during the bandhs. In 1998 the Supreme Court had banned bandhs as a form of political protest though parties still proceeded with organizing them. In 2004 the Supreme Court fined the BJP and Shiv Sena for organizing a Mumbai bandh in protest against the bomb blasts in the city.

The reason I am putting up this blog, is that the Supreme Court has gone back on its 1998 decision and now says that bandh is a legitimate form of political protest. The bench headed by the CJI and comprising of Justices P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal observed that in a democratic country everyone had a right to express their feelings. But what about the people who live on daily wages – where do their rights go during a bandh. If a daily wage earner or a poor vegetable vendor does not make money in a day his family goes hungry. Or do these people not have rights. What if a shopkeeper does not want to participate in the bandh – does that give the political party the right to thrash the shop owner and vandalise and loot the shop in the name of enforcing a bandh? What about public transport? People work in shifts – they need to go home the next day morning only to find that trains, buses, autos and taxis are off the street – what happens to these peoples rights? Are they not a part of the democratic set-up? The right to live peacefully and earn a livelihood are fundamental rights of every individual – will not this decision trample on these peoples rights? Trains are stopped and burnt, buses, taxis and autos are stoned and the drivers thrashed – who gives these goons the right to destroy public/private property and get away with it?

The counter argument will always be “the bandh is announced in advance so you should stay at home”. Ya, right! But what about my fundamental rights? Suppose there is a medical emergency, how do I get the person to hospital?

A bandh has to be out of choice and never by force. This is one of the most backward and retrograde decisions taken by the Supreme Court. I sincerely hope they come out with a final ruling which takes into account the fundamental rights of all the persons affected by a bandh. Hopefully the Supreme Court will frame rules for holding a bandh which will be fair to all the citizens of the country.