Note: The views expressed here are of some famous thinkers and I do not support or endorse them. This piece is a fictional narration of a protest site and has no ground for reality.
A hypothetical conversation between a direct activist and a policeman at National Movement against CAA and NRC protest site.
The scene is a peaceful sit-down blockade of a highway by women in the national capital. A policeman, under orders to clear the road, walks towards an activist, stick in his hand. The policeman clarifies that, by sitting in the middle of a public highway and obstructing the way of others, the activist is causing a public nuisance and is liable to be detained. If she refuses to cooperate, the policeman continues, he will have to use force to remove the activist from the road.
At that point, under usual situations, the conversation would have ceased and activists would have inflicted with pain. But let us assume, that both the activists and policemen are somewhat philosophically willing and ready to reach a considered judgment on the legitimacy of their actions.
‘So, tell me, ‘ says the policeman, ‘Why are you sitting on the road obstructing traffic?’ In response, the activist explains her notion that the government brings and implements unjust laws and policies on us, ‘the public’. They are divisive, discriminatory and against our secular ethos.
With a sympathetic, yet strict, smile, the police officer replies that, be that as it may, it is not the activist’s job to tell everyone else how this country should be run. ‘We have elected leaders for that purpose,’ he argues, and while the activist is quite welcome to lobby those leaders by writing letters, she is not at liberty to force her opinion on society by her illegal protest means.
At this point, the activist reels off impressive arguments……..… ……….….. Concluding, she asks the policeman why, if he is entitled to use force to stop offenses being committed around this small area, she should not be similarly entitled to use force to stop this offense being committed on the national stage.
‘Well,’ says the policeman, ‘that’s easy: I am a representative of an elected government, enforcing rules chosen by them. You are not. So my use of force is legal, whereas yours is not.’
The activist is unmoved: ‘Why should I care what the government says? I didn’t ask the government to make a rule for me. I never licensed the government to run me and my land, tacitly or otherwise. I didn’t vote for the government or anyone else for that matter. And I didn’t invite them to run my country. As far as I recall they were already here when I was born. I would have thought to leave, but then I’d have to leave my land, family, and friends behind and I’d only have to end up with some other government.
‘The bottom line is that where there is an injustice taking place, whether perpetrated by a private citizen or by the government, anyone has the right to use force to stop that injustice. I’m not saying that we have the right to take to the streets and cause disruption for the sake of any old complaint, but if we give up our right to use force to hold governments accountable when they commit serious wrongs and cause serious suffering, then we would live in a very dangerous world indeed.’
The police officer looked confused, He agrees with the activist that we would not want to live in a country in which the only people allowed to use force were those directed by the government to do so. After all, he thinks, surely people living in fascist regimes had a right to use force against their government? But where can the line be drawn? As the activist herself said, we would not want to let people take to the streets with any old complaint, so when does a complaint become serious enough to justify direct actions? And what about if people disagree about how serious a complaint actually is?
‘OK,’ says the policeman thoughtfully, ‘let’s move a little back from here. Do you think that the government does not have any chance of obedience from you? Or do you agree that most of the time, we should obey the law, except perhaps when the government does something absolutely terrible, which needs to be stopped? Don’t you think of being egoistic by undermining the government’s authority in this way when the government brings so many privileges to so many people? After all, your fellow citizens might not submit with everything their government does, but they obey the law nevertheless so that the government can carry on doing its job.’
The activist hangs back to think for a second and then tries to provide precisely the policeman’s requests: ‘Let me get you right here: are you saying that, if I disobey the law here, then I’ll stop the government from doing all the great stuff? The development will hit hard with a breaker and the nation will fall upside down. Well, I’m ready to accept that the government has some utility, but I can’t accept that my dissent of government’s discriminatory laws and policies will anyhow hinder the government’s ability to perform in a usual manner.
‘And what about humanity, how can I silently saw the biggest stateless crisis through my eyes and show no sign of retaliation? Don’t I owe humanity anything?
I realize your concerns but need to be clear about what it is to obey the laws and when to disobey them. I’m breaking the law to stand up for justice, ‘tears in her eyes’ and ‘Justice is the sole purpose of the law.’
It is evident, that this debate can go on for a long time but what comes out of it are big question marks. When one can justifiably break the law. The answer is a reflection on the limitations of Political authority. None of the above characters are absolutely right but it’s up to you to use your own conscience to reach some conclusions.