Dissent is a democratic right. Quality of life in a democracy is measured by the way people express dissent; the nature and type of response by those in authority and the efficacy of institutional arrangements to deal with dissent without generating conflict and hatred. Even after 47 years of independence, we are yet to learn to express dissent with decorum and decency; respond to the same with civility and composure; and to establish effective systems and institutional arrangements to process dissent in a humane manner. This lacuna has cost us loss of crores worth of properties and of innocent lives in civil strife. It is time that we evolved a National consensus to make the political parties to adopt a Code of Conduct to express dissent with decorum and decency and abjure violence as a political weapon; enhance the respect for parliament and legislatures; establish institutional arrangements to deal with dissent; repeal archaic and pre-independent colonial laws and practices stifling dissent; and change restrictive police procedures and practices to deal with dissent in a humane manner with full regard and respect to Human Rights.

In the political arena, much of our problems are due to the historical fact that during the struggle for independence, defiance of authority and disobedience of law were used as potent weapons to drive out the British. We carried the ‘Defiance Syndrome’ into post-independent era. We have developed the disdain, disrespect and utter contempt for the rule of law, lack of faith in expressing dissent with decency; criminalisation of politics and political processes; and the philosophy of might is right. Even since independence, all political parties have mobilised masses for organised lawlessness, violence and destruction to achieve their political objectives like dismissal of an elected State Government in Kerala; creation of linguistic States, anti-Hindi agitation; banning cow slaughter; ‘total revolution’; foreigners issue; etc. The common man had been conditioned to believe that no goal is beyond his reach in Indian polity if he resorts to violence and destruction of life and property as his tools.

In the larger national interest, all recognised political parties should agree to:

1. Adopt a Code of Conduct to express dissent with decorum and decency and abjure violence as a political weapon;
2. Enhance the prestige of Parliament and State Legislatures by settling all political disputes in these fora;
3. Encourage the affected parties to settle their non-political disputes through direct negotiations; and
4. To preserve the sanctity of Supreme Court/High Court by not enacting enabling legislations to circumvent judicial decisions.

All political parties should seriously reconsider the need for organising bandhs, Rasta / Rail Roko agitations; gherao etc. as they generally result in causing inconvenience to the public. Organised groups like Trade Unions, student bodies, white collar employees associations etc. should also seriously examine whether their frequent strikes/actions, have resulted in any tangible gains other than causing problems for the general public. The ridiculous spectacle of State Governments sponsoring bundhs etc. should be given up.

To reestablish the supremacy and credibility of the Parliament and the legislatures, sufficient opportunities are to be provided to people’s representatives to raise the issues agitating the public and the ruling party should respect such mentions and provide all the details, facts and proposed course of action for the information of the general public.

The institution of ‘Petition to the Parliament / Legislature’ should be revived and made effective. Whenever the Speakers of these august bodies receive petitions from the public, they are to be dealt with in all seriousness and the action taken should be widely publicised. What is more important is that the people should know that they have been heard and action has been taken. There is no need for us to follow the Westminster; we can develop our own procedures to deal with these petitions to create public confidence.

Not all sensitive and controversial issues can be referred to Judiciary for opinion and decision. There are many procedural difficulties in doing so. To take the sting off the controversies and contentions, all sensitive issues should be referred to the Supreme National Arbitration Council (SNAC) for arbitration and decision. SNAC will be a five-member body of eminent apolitical jurists to be elected jointly by the Parliament and all State Legislatures for a tenure of five years, enjoying the status, privileges and powers of the Supreme Court. It will take up matters for arbitration when requested to do so by a resolution of Parliament or a State Legislature. Once a dispute is taken up by SNAC for consideration, all legal proceedings on the disputes will be frozen and its findings will be binding on all parties and have the sanctity of an order of the Supreme Court and can not be challenged in any judicial forum.

Decentralisation of authority and power of decision making at District level will enable many a simmering discontent to disappear. While there may be reluctance on the part of the political dispensation to clothe the district magistrate or Collector with decision making authority, it should be possible to create a collegial body to exercise the same. In such an eventuality, the need to carry the problems over to State capital or Delhi, would disappear. In a democracy, responsiveness to people’s demands is the main criterion. People want access to authorities and they know well, that all demands are not amenable to solution. A comprehensive review of law governing peaceful assemblies, freedom to air dissent and freedom of expression and propagation of counter views is to be done to make the rights guaranteed under the Constitution more meaningful.

There is need to educate and sensitise the police to tolerate expression of dissent to the party in power. The ferocity with which police deal with anti-government agitations and black-flag demonstrations against Ruling elite, is highly disproportionate to the needs on many occasions. The police should identify themselves as servants of the public and upholders of the Constitution and not as the protectors of establishment and upholders of status quo. Police attitude to Human Rights, of which Right to Dissent is an important one, should be changed for the better.

The procedures and practices of police to deal with assemblies of unarmed people require to be reviewed and changed. At present, police have very limited choice. They can only sue tear gas, lathi charge and open fire. Since the matters agitating the public are beyond the jurisdiction of police, they are unable to give any assurances and persuade the people to disperse. Refusal to disperse, automatically makes the assembly an unlawful one and police use force to disperse them. The present drill is to use tear gas, lathi charge and then open fire. Often, both the tear gas and lathi charge are ineffective and they turn people violent. Mounted police and water canons are usually not available to the police, except in Metropolitan Cities. Rubber bullets are also not available all over the country and police use regular arms and ammunition to disperse the unlawful assembly, resulting in grievous injury and deaths. This further aggravates the situation and the infuriated mob indulges in widespread arson, loot and destruction. Thus, a vicious circle is established resulting in unending violence.

Often, in ticklish and tense situations, concerned authorities follow the shavian dictum that Tact is ‘Presence of Mind and absence of body’ and do a disappearing act and leave the police to deal with the mobs. Since force is usually responded with violence and destruction, an unending vicious circle gets established and the people’s wrath is turned against the police.

It is, therefore, necessary to provide the police with less lethal means of dealing with unarmed crowds. Use of high decibel ‘Crudlers’; slippery foam on the road to make the crowds lose confidence and courage due to loss of stability; coloured/indelible dye in water sprays to enable the police to identify later the rioters for purposes of prosecution, thereby removing the shield of anonymity and use of shock batons; shot guns with rubber/plastic/non-lethal pellets are some measures worthy of adoption.

It is time, Indian Police gave up the colonial drill of crowd control and adopt the more effective. ‘Japanese method’ of crowd control.

Since fright has to be induced to make the crowds disperse, Mounted Police and Trained Dogs have very useful role to play. Armoured Riot Control Vehicles would enable the police to get very close to the crowds and effect dispersal and arrests.

In short, a comprehensive review of Police Procedures and practices is to be undertaken to reduce fatalities and serious injuries to the public and the police.

Our endeavour should be to enable people to air their dissent in a peaceable, dignified and decent manner. The measures suggested, if implemented, will go a long way in making India in the Twenty-first Century, a vibrant, active and liberal democracy.