aas parliamentprotest 31607

8/12/2019 AAS Parliamentprotest 31607

1/27

Why Dont They Use Just Words?

Accounting for Indian Political Protest on the Streets and in Parliament

By

Dean E. McHenry, Jr.

Claremont Graduate University

A paper prepared for delivery at the Association for Asian Studies Annual Meeting,

Boston, March 22-25, 2007


2/27

2

Abstract

India is faced with countless protests and agitations each dayboth outside and inside itslegislative bodies. The question we address is Why is this occurring? After reviewing

examples of such protests/agitations, their scope and the threat they pose to Indiandemocracy, a variety of explanations is presented and assessed. All seem to capture part

of the reality, but none seems to account for the phenomena generally. The continuing

challenge is to decipher the unique meanings of the protests and agitations out of theindividual contexts within which they occur.


3/27

3

Why Dont They Use Just Words?

Accounting for Indian Political Protest on the Streets and in Parliament

By

Dean E. McHenry, Jr.

Claremont Graduate University

Over the years what has developed is the notion that an issue, demand or agitation is

highly successful if it can lead to stoppages in the House, as if that were the pinnacle of

protest. This is highly unfortunate, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee,

has said. None, no particular party, is totally free from this concept. Once an

adjournment is forced, members go out with the claim that the matter at hand is so

important that even the House could not function. Unfortunately, the confrontationist

attitude in politics outside the House finds a reflection inside it.

1

I. Introduction

There is no democracy in the world where political protest/agitation so extensivelypermeates the polity as it does in India.

2 No day passes without significant street

protests/agitations over some type of issue in many parts of the country. No session of

parliament or state assemblies passes without major disruption caused byprotesting/agitating MPs or MLAs. Protests/agitations take a very wide range of forms

outside parliament including bandhs, hartals, gheraos, yatras, rokos and fasts, whileinside parliament they include shouting, invading the well, symbolic dress and walk-outs.

As protests/agitations moved from outside parliament to inside parliament, scholars

expressed their concerns that the violation of Indias laws and rules of decorum inherentin many protests/agitations are threats to Indian democracy. Although most

commentators refer to India as the worlds largest democracy and a quantitative measure

of democracy like Freedom House rates it as Free and like Polity IV as scoring a 9 outof 10, the concern is that the threat is becoming more serious.

Protests/agitations seem to be displacing words as the medium of political struggle inIndia. The question asked in this paper is: Why has politics taken this form?

We will approach an answer by first describing and assessing the significance of theproblem of protest/agitation inside and outside parliament poses. Then we will describe

and assess a variety of explanations. The major focus will be on protests/agitations

taking place inside legislatures for they seem to be the ones with the greatest potential for

adversely affecting Indian democracy. Our effort will be interpretive because of thecomplexity of the subject matter and the centrality of determining meanings of events and

activities in the pursuit of an answer.


4/27

4

II. Significance

Twenty years ago Marion Weiner pointed out The Indian Paradox where there was

violent social conflict and democratic politics.3 He accounted for this in a variety of

ways: the conflict-managing role of the Congress party, the bureaucrats who have a

vested interest in democracys maintenance, the development of other politicalinstitutions, the balance of power between the states and the center, and the heterogeneity

within states.4

Much of this has changed in the years since, though democracy has persisted. The

Congress party no longer dominates the country the way it used to, liberalization and

privatization has affected the bureaucracy to some extent, the parliament no longerfunctions as it did when he wrote, the balance of power is shifting toward the states. Our

focus is on non-violent protest/agitation, rather than violent social conflict. Nevertheless,

we would argue that essential elements of Weiners explanation should have applied to

such protest/agitation. That these explanations seem to have been undermined by events

over the last twenty years suggests the need for a continuing search.

The search for an explanation for protest/agitation may provide an explanation of theparadoxical existence of the persistence of democracy in the face of what appears to be

behavior that would undermine that democracy. If the causes are not contradictory to

some form of democracy, then protest/agitation may not contradict democracysevolution.

Non-violent protests/agitations were important tools in the struggle for Indianindependence. Gandhis use of them is widely celebrated. Yet, they were not abandoned

in the years following 1947. Writing in the 1960s, A.R. Desai observed,

The movements of public protests not merely continue even after the

establishment of a Parliamentary democracy in India, but as some observers like

Bayley, Kothari, Harrison, Weiner and others have indicated, these movementshave been increasing in number and have been gathering momentum, threatening

even the very existence of the Parliamentary Government which has emerged in

India after the British withdrawal.5

They continue to be an important feature of Indian life. Although they were widely used,

they were not employed in Indian legislatures for many years after independence.

Gradually, though, they became a dominant feature at both the center, in the Lok Sabha

and Rajya Sabha, and in the state assemblies, the Vidhan Sabha. The shift ofprotest/agitation into legislative bodies over the last few decades has been attributed to a

simple cost/benefit calculation by political leaders. The editors of The Hindu,referring to

the disruption of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha by the Opposition over a demand that a

minister resign because of errors committed by his ministry, complained that the partieshad hardly done their mite outside Parliament to organize demonstrations and grass roots

activity in favour of their position. and that, stalling parliamentary proceedings


5/27

5

all that it requires is for a few members to walk into the well of the Houseis indeed an

easy way out.6 That is, the cost/benefit ratio to the disrupters is much greater than

would be protest/agitation outside legislatures.

Parliamentarians themselves may shift the protest/agitation outside parliament itself in

order to increase the cost/benefit ratio further. For example, in the Kerala LegislativeAssembly in August of 2002, the Speaker in his wisdom, decided that the public need

not see the Opposition using placards instead of debating skills in the House.7 He did

not want to give publicity to the position of the Opposition as its members disrupted thesession. But, the Opposition learned from the experience. On the final day of the session

when a Bill they opposed came up for its third reading, they boycotted the Assembly and

gathered outside the building. There they publicly burned the Bill. As noted by areporter, The news bulletins of the visual media carried the event while the visuals of the

historic occasion of passing of the Bill was confined to the closed circuit televisions of

the House, watched mostly by the private staff of the Ministers.8

A. Illustrations of protests/agitations

Hundreds of protests/agitations affect Indian legislatures and thousands affect life outsidesuch legislatures each year. To get a sense of what is involved, consider the three

following cases selected randomly:

1. In Tamil Nadus Legislative Assembly

A DMK member was suspended from the Assembly for the remainder of the budgetsession for tearing up a policy paper on the police department near the Speakers chair in

April of 2003. A press report described what followed:

[T]he DMK deputy leader in the Assembly, Durai Murugan, contended that it was

an accepted form of democratic protest. Mr. Karunanidhi said there were many

such instances in the past, both in Assemblies and in Parliament, but no one wassuspended for an entire session just for that reason.

9

In addition, the DMK withdrew from participation in the Assembly for the rest of thesession. Mr. Karunanidhi said that

He did not consider the DMK decision an extreme step. As the party wasprevented from performing its democratic duty inside the House, it was left with

no choice.10

With the DMK boycotting the Assembly, the remaining opposition brought up an array of

other issues and demanded that the Speaker adjourn the question time and allow a

debate on issues of survival of the government employees and deprivation of the rights

of MLAs.11

The Opposition continued to argue and all Congress MLAs rose to launchinto full-throated slogan shouting.


6/27

6

Dont file false cases against the Opposition, drop vindictive action, dont

deprive government staff of their pension benefits, they screamed, plunging theHouse into bedlam. And, soon CPI and CPI(M) members also joined the

sloganeering.

The Speakers warning to the Opposition MLAs to behave with dignity and not toreduce the House to a roadside public meeting went unheeded. And, the

Opposition MLAs only hit a higher decibel of slogan-shouting.

The Speaker then directed the Leader of the House to move a resolution to evict them and

Treasury benches said yes.

In a few seconds, the watch and ward staff swooped on the Opposition MLAs,

most of whom walked out without much resistance. But C. Gnanasekaran

(Congress), who spread out on the seat, was bodily lifted out.

But the expulsion

was quickly followed by a 10-minute, noisy sit-in protest in the lobby, a five-minute lying-down stir by a few members in the corridor outside the House and a

10 minute-dharna on the middle of Rajaji Salai. The protests in the forenoon

culminated in the arrest of the 43 MLAs from the outgate of the Secretariat andtheir detention in nearby North Beach police station, from where they were let off

at 1 p.m.12

2. In the two houses of parliament in New Delhi

During the visit by President Bush to India in March of 2006, disruptions occurred in the

both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. A press report described it as follows:

Agitated Left MPs as well as those from SP shouted slogans against Mr Bushsvisit in both Houses of Parliament from the moment proceedings began this

morning, forcing adjournments in the first half of the days business. SP

members, wearing red caps, trooped into the Well of Lok Sabha. They werejoined by Left MPs in raising slogans like, Bush go back.

Even before Parliament began its business for the day, MPs of the four Leftparties and the SP staged a sit-in inside Parliament complex to express their

opposition to Mr Bushs trip. Holding placards with slogans such as War

criminal Bush go back, UPA government stop surrendering to US imperialismand Killer bush, the MPs as well as senior leaders from their parties shouted

slogans against the USA.

Describing Mr Bush as the biggest enemy of Humanity and the biggest killerof the 21st century, CPI-M MP Mr Hannan Mollah said: Bush should have no


7/27

7

place in India; he should not be allowed to come and spread his tentacles on our

soil.

The Left leaders later went to Ramlila Ground to participate in a massive

demonstration against the Bush visit.13

3. In Andhra Pradeshs Legislative Assembly

At about the same time in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, following theGovernments decision to countermand a byelection in Visakhapatnam-I constituency, a

press report described the scene as follows:

As soon as the proceedings began, the TDP and five other parties created noisy

scenes by tabling separate adjournment motions. The BJP too alleged failure of

the Government machinery in ensuring a free and fair election. All the six

motions were disallowed by Speaker K.R. Suresh Reddy.

This led to an uproar with TDP members shouting and the Congress countering

them with slogans. This forced the Speaker to adjourn the House for early 90minutes during which time he convened a meeting of the floor leaders to find a

way out of the impasse. However, the TDP did not yield from its demand that the

Chief Minister step down.

When the House reassembled, the TDP members rushed into the well holding

aloft placards. In the din caused by acrimonious exchanges between TDP andCongress members, the Speaker asked Finance and Legislative Affairs Minister

K. Rosaiah to reply to the discussion on the State budget.

As the TDP members disrupted the Ministers speech, the Speaker named them.

Taking the cue, Mr. Rosaiah moved a motion for their suspension from the House

for two days. After the motion was passed by voice vote amid thumping of desksby Congress members, marshals entered the House and forcibly removed TDP

members. Some of them had to be bodily lifted.14

In all, 31 TDP members were suspended. These descriptions of a protest/agitation in the

legislative bodies in Tamil Nadu, at the center, and in Andhra Pradesh are typical of what

has become an almost constant feature of legislative life in India.

B. Scope of protests/agitations

Scholars who are familiar with India know that protests/agitations are daily occurrences.

A.S. Desai, whose observations we have cited above, is not alone in his view that

independence did not put an end to such activitiesindeed, they seemed to have become

more common. David Bayley observed many years ago: The number ofdemonstrations, strikes, hartals, satyagrahas, and fasts held each year is almost beyond

numbering.15

It is very rare that any Indian newspaper on any day will not have reports


8/27

8

of non-violent protests/agitations in several parts of the countries. The University of

Kerala scholar, J. Prabhash, wrote recently about MPs and MLAs:

Today, the specializations of members, both at the Central and State levels,

irrespective of flag and shade, is in the sub-disciplines of pandemonium and

boycott. Both of these arts have been perfected into fine tools for disruptinglegislative proceedings.16

Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta suggest that the increased use of suchtechniques, i.e., the diversification in the nature and proliferation of protest movements

in India, is due to (a) divergence in the targets of attack, that is, political authority,

economic exploitation, cultural domination, and (b) varying perceptions about theimmediate targets of attack.

17 Their spread into legislative bodies, though, became

significant only in the last couple of decades. As a consequence of this change, the Lok

Sabha began to keep track of the time lost by disruptions. Table I indicates the

proportion of the time of the Lok Sabha, the most important legislative body in the

country, taken up by disruptions over the last 15 years:

Table I

Summary of the Proportion of the Sitting Time of the Lok Sabha Lost to Disruptions,

10th through the 8th Session of the 14th Lok Sabha

Lok Sabha Number and Duration Percent of Sitting Time Lost to

Disruptions

10th (July, 1991-February, 1996) 9.95

11th (May, 1996-December, 1997) 5.26

12th (March, 1998-April, 1999) 10.66

13th (October, 1999-January 2004) 22.4014th (First 8 Sessions, June., 2004-Aug., 2006) 38.00

Source:For the 10th Lok Sabha, Subhash C. Kashyap,History of the Parliament of

India, Vol. VI(Delhi: Shipra Publications for the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi,2000), p. 208. For the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Lok Sabha, Frayed tempers cost

Parliament dear: Report,Deccan Herald, January 20, 2006. URL:

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan202006/update1027442006120.asp

Accessed February 5, 2007.

A recent cartoon depicted the frustration of members of the Rajya Sabha over the failure

of the press to report the disruptions they had in that body.


9/27


10/27


11/27

11

Leslie Calman, writing about the Maharashtra Shramik Sanghatana and BhoomiSena movements in the 1970s and early 1980s, contended that, at the time, the

protests/agitations seemed unlikely to harm Indias democracy, but warned that

The demands, eventually, could outstrip governments capacity to respond.

The government might then cease to be legitimate in the eyes of many of itscitizens and would rest more heavily on force. While a government relying

primarily on force to maintain itself in power is possible, it is a much shakier

pedestal on which to rest.28

The list could go on and on for there is widespread concern that the protests/agitations,

especially in the legislatures, threaten Indian democracy.

III. Explanations

We consider six general explanations, though these do not exhaust those that have been

proposed. They concern the setting of the protest/agitation, the people affected, thelegislators involved, the failure of alternative means, the goal of representation, and the

goal of power. Most of the more complete explanations involve combinations of these.The six were selected because they encompass the most widely postulated reasons for

protest/agitation.

A. The setting: cultural explanations

That the cultural tolerance for protest/agitation is higher in India than in many other

countries is a widely accepted observation. As David Bayley observed nearly 40 yearsago:

Public protest is a habit.Demonstrators are as much a part of the scene aroundlegislative buildings as cornices and arches.Politics feeds upon drama; since the

requirements of drama are higher in India than in the West, it is more imperative

for the Indian political party to get out into the streets than it would be for a

Western party.29

Leslie Calman, commenting on two movements in the 1970s and 1980s in Maharashtra,

observed that Bhoomi Sena and Shramik Ssanghatana have utilized tactics that echo alegitimate Indian political tradition: nonviolent direct action against intransigent

government.30

What made protest a habit or a legitimate Indian political tradition normally is

attributed to Gandhis use of satyagraha during the independence struggle. Suman

Kwatra has noted that Gandhi believed that satyagraha could

be used for resisting any injusticelarge or small, for bringing about reform in aninstitution or society, fir the repeal of any unjust or bad laws for the removal of

any grievances; for the prevention of communal riots or disturbances; for bringing


12/27

12

about change in the existing system of government; for resisting an invasion or

for replacing one government or another.31

Yet, according to some observers, politicians have used the cultural acceptance of

Gandhian techniques of protest/agitation for their own purposes. David Cortright

observes that

The goal of political struggleis to reach agreement for the sake of social

betterment. Political power is not an end in itself but a means of enabling peopleto better their conditionThe notion of obtaining political power for personal

gain was completely alien to him.32

Pawan Kumar Bansal writes in a similar vein:

It is a common experience that today many protests are launched in the name of

Satyagraha. That is a travesty of truth. In the real sense, such actions cannot be

called Satyagraha because those who take to such protests are not fit or trainedand disciplined to do so. Therein lies the danger of such make-belief or self-

serving Satyagrahisdegenerating into Duragrahis.33

Thus, part of the legitimacy of protest/agitations was the ends for which they were used,

e.g., independence, ending exploitation, blocking government policy detrimental to largesegments of the population, were beneficial to a significant group of people. The means

became a part of the culturethey were viewed as a legitimate, and often effective, way

of articulating a political position. Many of those concerned about their use inside andoutside legislatures in India today contend that means legitimated because of their use for

ends that widely benefited the people are now often being used for ends which benefitprimarily the politicians that use them. In the long run, their popular legitimacy may be

undermined for this reason. At present, though, one of the reasons for their frequent use

appears to be their cultural legitimacy.

B. The people: deprivation explanations

According to Yasin and Dasgupta, the most common explanation for the use ofprotests/agitations is the discontent of the masses. Although they do not address

parliamentary disruptions by protests/agitations, the justifications given by participants in

parliament normally reference the demands of the public. They observe:

In all these theories what is common is the prime emphasis on the participants of

a movement. The assumption is that if the people feel deprived of, or are understrain due to malfunctioning of the system, or feel the necessity for cultural

revitalization, the movement will emanate, as if other factors and conditions of the

movement will automatically follow.34

Although they do not accept the primacy of such explanations, they seem to accept that

popular frustration may be a contributing factor.


13/27

13

Implicit in these explanations is the idea that the normal procedures of voting andverbally urging representatives to act dont work well in Indiaat least for those who

resort to protests/agitations.

Marxist observers tend to agree with the impetus for protest/agitation, i.e., a systemwhich is not solving peoples problems, but contend that repairs of the liberal democratic

system will not resolve the problems. Thus, popular frustration with their situation is

compounded by frustration with the system of governance itself in producingprotest/agitation. A.R. Desai articulates this point of view in his criticisms of Rajni

Kotharis work. He says,

Kothari, while recognizing that parliamentary government has failed, and

therefore compels people to takes to Direct Action, still glorifies freedom of

speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of press, which he feels are its essential

features. He does not point out the truth that these freedoms in the context of a

capitalist framework are accessible only to a small group of capitalists, landlords,exploiters and profiteers.35

And, he criticizes Bayley because he does not see the deeper social forces which are

transforming parliamentary democratic form into a shell inadequate to preserve and

protect concrete democratic rights.36

Desai argues,

Public protests will continue till people have ended the rule of capital in those

countries where it still persists.

The movements and protests of people will continue till adequate political

institutional forms for the realization and exercise of concrete democratic rights

are found.37

Underlying both types of explanation for protests/agitation is the view that the people are

unhappy with their situation, whatever its causes, and see redemption in governmentalaction. The liberal democratic scholars seem to see protest/agitation as a means for

redress within the existing system of governance, while the Marxist scholars seem to see

protest/agitation as a means for changing the system of governance into one which maybring them redress. Both seem to see the protests/agitations as a consequence of the

inability of the political system to satisfy popular discontent through the existing liberal

democratic procedures.

C. The legislators: interests/characteristics explanations

There are two types of explanations for the extensive use of protests/agitations that focuson the legislators, one having to do with their motivation and the other with their

characteristics.


14/27

14

Although Yasin and Dasgupta acknowledge that the most widespread explanation is thatof a discontented population, they argue that the best explanation is not popular

depravation but leadership depravation:

the movements under the garb of peoples movement seek to redress thedeprivation of the leadership deprivation of his share in the power center.In

all these movements even though the cause of peoples powerlessness, injustice

and deprivation was highlighted, the real motive behind the movements have beenthe desire of the leaders to enjoy power who could not enjoy it through the

accepted legitimate means.38

We will examine this issue of power as a separate explanation because of the breadth of

its application, but its relevance to the specific case of the behavior of legislators seems to

fit much of what happens both inside and outside legislatures.

There is frequent discussion about the criminalization of political leadership. That is, ahigh proportion of candidates for legislative bodies have various criminal charges levied

against them. In recent years, sting operations by private internet and televisionnetworks have proof of legislative bribe-taking. The argument made is that the character

trait which led to the criminal behavior of legislators has led legislators to disregard

appropriate political behavior inside and outside legislative bodies. According to thecolumnist, S. Viswam, The criminalization of politics has impacted so adversely on

parliamentary conduct that disorderly behaviour and the display of lung power inside

Parliament has now come to be the accepted phenomenon.39

Thus, the aspirations and/or character of legislators is a third form of explanation for theuse of protests/agitations in Indian politics.

D. The means: failure explanation

Associated with other explanations for the extensive use of protest/agitation is the idea

that existing liberal democratic mechanisms are not working properly. They dont

overcome the hardships of many people; they do not keep politicians from self-servingbehaviors; they do not work as they should in a democratic society. And, other

institutions are not performing appropriately. Protest/agitation arises as a result of the

failure of some of the normal mechanisms of liberal democracy.

1. Of governmental institutions

Illustrative of the failures of the polity are the conclusions of two scholars:

First, Ghanshyam Shah, in his study of the cause of the 1974 Gujarat agitations,

determined that the cause involved frustration with the existing democratic institutions:


15/27

15

With their faith in the electoral system shaken, many persons advocated the need

for direct action. Of the respondents of Surat, 67 per cent considered strikes,gheraos, dharnas, etc. legitimate and necessary to secure their demands.The

above evidence suggests that an overwhelming proportion of the people were

frustrated, found themselves helpless, and were losing faith in the present political

system. They opted for direct action to solve their problems.

40

Shah argued that the urban and rural poor from the early 1970s became more hopeful of

bettering their lives, but big businessmen and rich peasants.organized themselves andpressurized the government to look after their interests. The party in power, dominated

by the rich, succumbed to their pressures, both at the policy and implementation levels.41

Frustrated, they turned to direct action.

Second, Leslie Calman observed more than twenty years ago that a local leadership

loyal to the institutions of party politics and democratic governmentfailed to provide

economic growth and political power for many of Indias poor. As a result, increasing

numbers are finding their political voice through movements that operate outside thechannels of government and parties, and that constitute a challenge to this institutional

framework.42

Illustrative of problems or failures of institutions that might support the mechanisms of

liberal democracy and may foster the use of protests/agitations are the courts and media:

2. Of the courts

The courts have before them 25-30 million cases that have not been resolved. Part of the

problem stems from the failure of other parts of the government to make neededdecisions. For a variety of reasons, cases against current politicians may date from

decades ago. A recent case was that of Shibu Soren, the Union Minister for Coal. He

was convicted at the end of November and sentenced in early December of 2006 for a

murder that occurred 12 years before. One observer contended in actual practice thehierarchy and judicial leadership are too fragile to induce a uniform code of ethical

behaviour, especially when it comes to arbitrating disputes in the political sphere. It is

part of a judge's occupational hazard that demands will be made on his or her objectivityand disinterestedness.andsome of the judges allow personal likes and dislikes to

over-ride judicial equanimity.43

3. Of the media

There has been considerable criticism of the role of the media in the protests/agitations inlegislative bodies, claiming that reporters encourage protests/agitations. When, in

December of 2004, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha proposed to have parliamentary

proceedings telecast, an editorial in theHinduasked: Will this have a salutary effect on

all MPs? Will they be more decorous knowing they are being watched? Or will they betempted to play to the gallery?

44Subsequent events suggested the outcome was more the

latter than the former. The reason seemed to be media economics and popular interests.


16/27

16

The normal conduct of legislative bodies draws the attention of few potential buyers,

watchers or listeners, so they the media want disruptions.

One observer said the media manufactured controversy as an end in itself and as a

market-approved device to grab eyeballs. Investigations, probes, exposes, bombshells,

special reports, and other tools in a reporter's repertoire are used to draw attention to theherald and not to his message.45

Similarly, Mani Shankar Aiyar has suggested, with

a mixture of humor and seriousness, that

The only way to induce parliamentary reporters to stop their idle gossip in thecorridors and actually enter the house is to tip them off about an impending

disruption of proceedings. Then they swarm into the gallery, signaling with ill-

disguised gestures their friends on the floor, Yoo-hoo, here I am, so get as

outrageous as you can and I assure you a box on the front page tomorrow.46

These two observations characterize those of many others.

E. The goal of representation: democratic explanations

A variety of scholars suggest that much of the protest/agitation, especially that which

takes place outside legislatures, is spurred by a desire for democracy. That is, the causeof protest/agitation is the desire for democracy. Although the explanation is not applied

to all forms of protest/agitation, it resonates in many of them.

Protests/agitations may perform the democratic function of aggregating interests.

Ghanshyam Shah in his study of the 1974 Gujarat agitations found that

Different socio-economic and political groups participated in the agitation fordifferent purposes, raising issues like corruption, blackmarketing, price rise,

denationalization, rationing, civil liberties, injustice to Gujaratis and Gujarat, etc.

But finally all the purposes converged on two common demands, resignation ofthe Chief Minister and, later, dissolution of the State Assembly. The reasons for

making these demands differed from group to group. For the majority of the

agitators, it was to overthrow corrupt politicians.47

Other scholars have found a more direct democratic representation in protest/agitation.

David Bayley says that the protests/agitations if they do not fall altogether outside thebounds of democratic permissibility, at least constitute the developmentor continued

developmentof a supplementary system of representation and redress.48

His survey

indicated that As a general rule, the public continues to believe that demonstrations are a

useful way of compelling official attention.49

His survey showed that when they wereasked whether demonstrations were useful in getting the authorities to do the right thing

or correct some wrongs, approximately half of the urban samples said they were

useful.In urban areas, about one out of six people have participated in ademonstration.

50


17/27

17

Similarly, Leslie Calman, writing about the Maharashtra Shramik Sanghatana and

Bhoomi Sena movements in the 1970s and early 1980s, says that the movements

through strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of agitational activities, first

attempt to influence the passage of laws that are beneficial to the socio-economic

well-being of the tribals who predominantly make up their constituency. Oncethose laws are in place, the movements agitate to obtain the implementation of

those laws. None of this activity, viewed narrowly, is revolutionary or

illegitimate.

Because the movements goals for the creation of better economic conditions

through the passage and implementation of improved laws are within thelegitimate boundaries of political demands, and because their methods, although

extra-constitutional, are also within a legitimate tradition, the movements cannot

be suppressed by government without considerable political cost.51

As we have noted, many critics deny the democratic impact, though generally they do notfocus on the intent or what spurred those who protest/agitate to action.

F. The goal of power: political explanations

The explanation for the use of protest/agitation that is most widely articulated is thatwhich asserts that the driving force is individual and group desire for power. According

to Pavan Varma contends the pursuit of power is the key to understanding political

behavior in India. While Gandhi gave precedence to means, Varma argues, the Indiansocial consensus gave precedence to the end. The end was power, and the rewards it

could yield in terms of personal benefit and access to the resources of the state. All therest were instrumentalities, of importance only in reaching that end.

52 Ironically, Varma

contends, this drive fosters the pursuit of democracy.

The truthis that democracy has survived in India not because Indians aredemocratic, but because democracy has proved to be the most effective

instrument for the cherished pursuit of power. A people stifling in the pressure

cooker of a hierarchically sealed society embraced the machinery of democraticpolitics for the promise it held of upward mobility within the inherited framework

of an undemocratic society.53

Many scholars have contended that the impetus for protest/agitation lies in the drive for

power.

Yasin and Dasgupta have posited what they call the Theory of the Relative Deprivation

of Elites of the Deprived.54

They argue,

the movements under the garb of peoples movement seek to redress thedeprivation of the leadership deprivation of his share in the power center.In

all these movements even though the cause of peoples powerlessness, injustice


18/27

18

and deprivation was highlighted, the real motive behind the movements have been

the desire of the leaders to enjoy power who could not enjoy it through theaccepted legitimate means.

55

In other words,

protests do not originate; they are made to originate and are imposed on the

passive, ignorant masses.consciousness is created, mobilized and imposed by

the few on their own narrow interest but garbed as universal interest forlegitimacy. Political elites exploit situation of regional deprivation and unrest and

convert them into movements to forge and strengthen their individual and

factional support bases. In other words, political leaders excite regional ornativist sentiments for their political ends.

56

That power is a key motivating factor in protests/disruptions is implicit in much that

transpires in Indias legislatures. A few examples are illustrative.

In late 2006, in New Delhi: The main Opposition BJP attacked Prime MinisterManmohan Singh on his remarks at the National Development Council that theminorities, particularly Muslims, must have first claim to the countrys resources,

leading to pandemonium in both Houses of Parliament. The Lok Sabha and Rajya

Sabha were adjourned repeatedly without transacting any business. The BJP and

Shiv Sena wanted the Prime Minister to apologise for his remarks, but thegovernment turned it down.

57 The act of apologizing is viewed as an act of

submission, a portrayal of the power of those who demanded it. Often legislative

bodies are disrupted in support of demands for apologies.

At about the same time, in Andhra Pradesh: The winter session of the LegislativeAssembly began on stormy note on Monday, with members of the Telangana

Rashtra Samiti, Telugu Desam and CPI (M) stalling the proceedings for an hourby staging a dharna at the podium, seeking a discussion on the Centres

notification making it mandatory to print the skull and cross-bones sign on beedi

bundles.58

Beedi bundles refer to packets of cigarettes. Workers feared thatthey would lose their jobs if people realized that their product was deadly. The

Opposition wanted to demonstrate their solidarity with the workers in an effort to

solicit their support in future elections.

Demands for resignations of ministers function like demands for apologies, i.e.,they are Opposition challenges to the power of the Government. An example isthe angry Oppositions call for the resignation of the Minister of Petroleum,Ram Naik, over the allotment of petrol pumps and LPG dealerships in August,

2002. The pandemonium resulted in the adjournment sine die of the Lok Sabha

and Vidhan Sabha.59

On August 25, 2002, in Karnataka, a former Minister of Social Welfare, H.Nagappa, was kidnapped by the brigand Veerappan and found dead on December


19/27

19

8 of that year. The issue was raised by the Opposition in the Legislative

Assembly in a way that totally disrupted the body, leading to the suspension ofMLAs, and, the security staff having to carry out recalcitrant members. An

observer noted that the pandemonium was not so much an effort to find out what

happened, rather, it was the cold calculation of the ruling partys opponents to

draw political mileage out of this unmitigated human tragedy.

60

Gainingpolitical mileage meant enhancing their power.

In the Uttaranchal Vidhan Sabha during March of 2005, dissidents withinCongress forced repeated adjournments over the refusal of the government todiscuss the forced resignation a couple of years ago of Revenue Minister Harak

Singh Rawat on the grounds that it was sub judice. According to TheHindu,

Congress observers feel that the entire drama of forcing adjournments in theAssembly was being stage-managed by supporters of the State Congress

president, Harish Rawat, who wanted to become Chief Minister by dislodging

Narain Dutt Tiwari.61

The cessation of work caused by disruptions connoted a weakness on the part ofGovernment. The Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman, V.K. Malhotra, started the

debate saying that apart from repeal of some legislation and a couple of Bills toreplace ordinances, the Government has been unable to ready new legislation Is

this Government working, we wonder. Two days ago, the BJP deputy leader in

the Rajya Sabha, Sushma Swaraj, made a similar charge saying that on some daysthe Rajya Sabha was adjourned early for want of adequate business.

62

The battle for press coverage also is a battle for power: A Mock Assembly wasorganized by Telugu Desam Party MLAs who had been suspended from the LA.

It was being televised and broadcast when the Chief Marshall Ashok GajapathiRaju and his staff pulled out the cables and stopped the broadcasts.

Members of the Media Advisory Committee and other journalists who met theSpeaker pointed out that the mock Assembly was being held at the Media

Point, an area designated by the Speaker outside the main building for

conducting television interviews and live telecasts since video cameras werebarred inside.

Mr. Suresh Reddy explained that he had neither ordered the mock Assemblyto stop nor prevented the live telecast initially in a spirit of democracy. But,

members complained that some channels were showing only the mock and notthe real Assembly.

As this amounted to wrong use of the facility by the media, he had ordered the

live telecast to be discontinued. He, however, assusred that the media would

be allowed to work unhindered in the future.63


20/27

20

Protests/agitations outside parliament tend to be used as surrogate measures ofpower. When a bandh is called, it is graded by observers as total or partial,

indicating the relative power of the instigators. Similarly, when a disruptionoccurs in parliament, it is rated by the press according to whether it forces

adjournment. If such disruptions can prevent the Government from acting then

the disrupters have demonstrated their power.

Political scientists tend to stress the centrality of the struggle for power over other

possible causes. Often, the contention is made that alternative explanation are

camouflage or rationalizations. Yet, as this brief review of six explanations forprotest/agitation in India indicates, the interpretive task of determining the explanatory

pre-eminence of one over the other is not as simple as simply accepting the perspective of

ones own discipline.

IV. Assessment of the Explanations

Each of the six explanations provided by observers has substantive merit. There is wideagreement among scholars that India is affected by a very high level of protest/agitation

and this high level has become an accepted, and legitimate, part of Indias culture.Aspects of it are decried, but toleration is much greater than would be toleration in many

other societies. Judging from the comments of many observers, there are limits to this

toleration but they vary from place to place, individual to individual, situation to

situation, and so on. Another way of saying the same thing might be to contend that thereare sub-cultures in the country with varying levels of toleration for protest/agitation. It is

apparent that many political leaders sense the limits, so that, for example, critical budget

legislation will not be blocked by disruptions in legislatures. And, whenprotests/agitations become violent, most political leaders will decry their violence.

A supporting culture does not provide an explanation for the spark which initiatesprotest/agitation or for the driving force that may be tapped by the protest/agitationfor

that we must look elsewhere. A discontented population may be an essential requirement

for protest/agitation, though the level of discontent and other circumstances that permit

that discontent to be ignited are likely to vary greatly from situation to situation. Someyears ago an associate was taking me around Hyderabad on his scooter and we were

delayed by a protest that blocked all traffic. He posed a question: Do you know why

there are never protests by the same political party at the same time? His answer wasbecause they have to hire the same people. One would have to stretch the notion of a

discontented population for it to be a requisite of such a protest. Yet, I doubt if hiring

is a more significant engine for participation than discontent in most protests/agitations.

The Theory of Relative Deprivation of Elites of the Deprived, proposed by Yasin and

Dasgupta, directs attention to leaders who seem to be requisites of virtually allprotests/agitations, but the narrowing of motivation of this group to power alone appears

to simplify reality unreasonably. In legislatures, protests/agitations are undertaken bylegislators. It is only reasonable that some are motivated by a desire for greater power

within their parties or in other arenas. Outside legislatures, similar motivations may drive


21/27

21

some but to attribute to insincerity and selfishness the only motivations and/or the

motivations of all is unreasonable. Likewise, the claim that the increase in the number oflegislators who have criminal backgrounds can be said to be the cause of parliamentary

disruptions is to confuse correlation and causation. The level of education of members of

the Lok Sabha has risen with the din in that body. It would be a similar confusion

between correlation and causation to attribute the disruptions to the criminalization oflegislators and to attribute it to their increasing education.

Like most of the other explanations, that which accounts for protest/agitation in terms ofthe failure of alternative means, including institutions like the courts and the media, may

capture accurately some of the Indian reality. The presence of both a Third World and

a First World in one country is bound to raise expectations among those living in theformer beyond what the social and political institutions can deliver. The gap on a variety

of measures between segments of the population in older democracies is less than that in

newer democracies. The failure to deliver might reasonably result in the use of different

tools than those that seem to perpetuate a status quo. Much of the protest/agitation comes

from those who are not among those at the low end of the gap. Suicide and othermechanisms may be responses to the frustrations of a political system that does not

improve livelihood sufficiently fast. And, since most protests/agitations lead tofrustration, too, one might expect alienation from that means, too.

Protest/agitation may be interpreted as symbolic or non-verbal communication, though itmay be accompanied by loud noise. That is, the actions may be interpreted as equivalent

to words. Indeed, most are justified by a political objective. Leaders interpret them as

saying something, as a mode of expression. They tend to portray the actions as a moremeaningful expression of the popular will than the simple words in a parliamentary

debate. What is being said by protests/agitations requires interpretation. Actions maycombine many messages. In the process of deciphering meaning, misrepresentation may

occur. Nevertheless, participation in protest/agitation may be motivated by a sense that

such action was, in the context of India, a means of expressing the wishes of the people.

That the sole motivation of leaders, whether they be legislators, party leaders or leaders

of other organizations, is power seems too simplistic an explanation to accurately reflect

reality. That leaders might fool so many followers time and time again into thinking thatthe protests/agitations in which they were involved were for something that they were not

seems unlikely. That power was the sole reason motivating leaders to carry out

protests/agitations is similarly unreasonable. Mixed motives are common in drivingpeople to action. That altruism is never one of these spurs to action is a criticism of

Indian leaders that seems unfair.

None of these explanations of protest/agitation leads by itself to a satisfactory accounting

of the phenomena for which they claim to account. All seem to account for aspects of

the reality, but a very complete explanation requires a much more complex accounting.


22/27

22

V. Conclusion

The question we have sought to answer in this paper is Why is not political discourse in

India simply through words? It is true that politics in no country is conducted simply

through verbal exchanges. In India, though, active political protest and agitation, bothoutside and inside legislatures, constitute a much more significant proportion of political

discourse than they do in any other democracy. To answer the question, we have

examined a range of explanations for protest/agitation in India. Our conclusion is thatnone of the explanations adequately answers the question, though each seems to address

an aspect of it. The challenge an observer of Indian politics faces is to determine the

immensely complex mix of meanings conveyed by the myriad of protests and agitationswhich characterize the Indian legislatures and countryside.

These protests/agitations speak in a language that is difficult to decipher. Each of the

explanations we have reviewed provides hints about how they might be translated into

words, but each is too general to provide a very accurate accounting of their meaning.That they are political expressions can not be denied. Interpreting their meaning will

require a kind of contextual evaluation that is likely to defy generalization. Seeking tounderstand the language of protest and agitation will be an unending taskmuch like that

of understanding the broad progression of politics in India.

W.H. Morris-Jones wrote more than 35 years ago that the modern language of politics

in India

is the language of the Indian Constitution and the courts; of parliamentary debate;

of the higher administration; of the upper levels of all the main political parties; ofthe entire English Press and much of the Indian language Press. It is a language

which speaks of policies and interests, programmes and plans. It expresses itself

in arguments and representations, discussions and demonstrations, deliberations

and decisions.64

The challenge to understand politics is much like the challenge to understand the

meaning of protest and agitation today.


23/27

23

Endnotes

Note: The dates for some of the sources accessed on the internet precede the dates of the

sources themselves. The reason is the time difference between California, where the

sources were accessed, and India, where the sources were published.

1Marcus Dam, Confrontations Must Not Spill into House: Somnath, The Hindu, November 28, 2004.

URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2004/11/28/stories/2004112802931000.htm Accessed November 28,2004.

2The term protest/agitation refers to a wide variety of actions taken by individuals and/or groups to

dramatize a concern usually by disruption of the normal processes in society, such as by blocking traffic on

a road or rail line, or in its institutions, such by interrupting the work of legislative bodies. Mohammad

Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta include in a list of protest techniques small public meetings, leaf letting,postering, submitting memorandum, press conference, press statements, mobile announcements, street

corner meetings, long marches on foot, holding meeting at public places, mass rallies, processions,

celebrating protest days, political drama, mass deputation, torch light procession, demonstrations, hartals,

strikes, picketing, satyagraha, dharna, fasting including chair fast, fast unto death, sympathetic fast, self-

immolation, destruction of public property, holding up of transport, uprooting of railway tracks, damagingof control boxes, dislocating telephone and telegraph wires, burning of police stations and other

government buildings, disturbing the public meetings of the opponents, go slow, mass casual leave, sit in

demonstrations, looting pf public and private property, riot, localized attempts to throw off state authorityand run parallel administration, declared or undeclared warfare in a region, etc. And, they define protest

as those collective actionslegal and/or illegal, violent and/or non-violentwhich seek to bring about a

desired state of affairs either by bringing about change or resisting any change in the existing order. See

Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta,Indian Politics, Protests and Movements(New Delhi: AnmolPublications, 2003), pp. 8- 9.

3Marion Weiner, The Indian Paradox: Violent Social Conflict and Democratic Politics, a paper

presented at the International Colloquium on Democracy and Modernity on the occasion of David BenGurions hundredth birthday, January 4-6, 1987, Jerusalem, published in Ashutosh Varshney, ed., The

Indian Paradox, Essays in Indian Politics(New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1989), pp. 21-37.

4Marion Weiner, The Indian Paradox: Violent Social Conflict and Democratic Politics, a paper

presented at the International Colloquium on Democracy and Modernity on the occasion of David Ben

Gurions hundredth birthday, January 4-6, 1987, Jerusalem, published in Ashutosh Varshney, ed., TheIndian Paradox, Essays in Indian Politics(New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1989), pp. 33-34.

5A.R. Desai, Public Protest and Parliamentary Democracy, in S.P. Aiyar and R. Srinivasan, eds.,

Studies in Indian Democracy (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1965), p. 299.

6Editors, A Disturbing Tend, The Hindu, August 14, 2002. URL:http://www.thehindu.com/2002/08/14/stories/2002081400061000.htm Accessed August 13, 2002.

7Roy Mathew, Declining Importance of Assembly, The Hindu, August 5, 2002. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2002/08/05/stories/2002080502760400.htm Accessed August 4, 2002.

8Roy Mathew, Declining Importance of Assembly, The Hindu, August 5, 2002. URL:


9DMK Will Keep Off Session if Suspensions are not Revoked, The Hindu, April 9, 2003. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2003/04/09/stories/2003040904730400.htm Accessed April 8, 2003.

10DMK Will Keep Off Session if Suspensions are not Revoked, The Hindu, April 9, 2003. URL:



24/27

24

11Opposition MLAs Evicted En Masse, Arrested, The Hindu, April 11, 2003. URL:


12Opposition MLAs Evicted En Masse, Arrested, The Hindu, April 11, 2003. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2003/04/11/stories/2003041105040400.htm Accessed April 10, 2003.13Protests Rock Parliament, The Statesman, March 2, 2006. URL:http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=2&id=136267&date=2006-03-03&usrsess=1

Accessed March 2, 2006.

14Furore in Assembly Over Visakhapatnam Bypoll, The Hindu, March 2, 2006. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2006/0302/stories/2006030209210100.htm Accessed March 1, 2006.

15David H. Bayley, The Police and Political Development in India(Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1969), pp. 258-259.

16J. Prabash, Where are the Giants? The New Sunday Express, May 22, 2005. URL:

http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?id=SEV20050520045522&eTitle=Focus&rLink=0Accessed March 3, 2007.

17Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta,Indian Politics, Protests and Movements(New Delhi: AnmolPublications, 2003), p. 130.

18Inder Malhotra, Is Stoppage of Parliament the Only Answer? The Hindu, August 29, 2004. URL:



http://www.thehindu.com/2004/08/29/stories/2004082904241000.htm Accessed August 31, 2004


http://www.thehindu.com/2004/08/29/stories/2004082904241000.htm Accessed August 31, 2004

21Sign of Sanity,Deccan Herald, July 12, 2004. URL:

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july122004/edit1.asp Accessed July 11, 2004.

22Sign of Sanity,Deccan Herald, July 12, 2004. URL:

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july122004/edit1.asp Accessed July 11, 2004.

23Parliament in Tumult on Day Four Too, The Hindu, March 5, 2005. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2005/03/05/stories/2005030508531100.htm Accessed March 4, 2005.

24Sajma Heptulla, Address, in G.C. Malhortra, ed.,Discipline and Decorum in Parliament and State

Legislatures, All-India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of Parliamentary

Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties, New Delhi, 25 November 2001(New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat,

2003), p. 28.

25G.M.C. Balayogi, Welcome Address, in G.C. Malhortra, ed.,Discipline and Decorum in Parliamentand State Legislatures, All-India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of

Parliamentary Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties, New Delhi, 25 November 2001(New Delhi: Lok

Sabha Secretariat, 2003), p. 11.

26Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Address, in G.C. Malhortra, ed.,Discipline and Decorum in Parliament andState Legislatures, All-India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of Parliamentary


25/27

25

Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties, New Delhi, 25 November 2001(New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat,

2003), p. 14.

27Krishan Kant, Inaugural Address, in G.C. Malhortra, ed.,Discipline and Decorum in Parliament and

State Legislatures, All-India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of Parliamentary

Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties, New Delhi, 25 November 2001(New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat,2003), p. 18.

28Leslie J. Calman, Protest in Democratic India, Authoritys Response to Challenge(Boulder: Westview

Press, 1985), p. 13.


1969), pp. 258-259.


Press, 1985), p. 237.

31Suman Kwatra, Satyagraha and Social Change(New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 2001), p. xii

and, also, p. 3.

32David Cortright, Gandhi and Beyond, Nonviolence for an Age of Terrorism(Boulder: Paradigm

Publishers, 2006), p. 22.

33Suman Kwatra, Satyagraha and Social Change(New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 2001), pp. vii-

viii.

34Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta,Indian Politics, Protests and Movements(New Delhi: Anmol

Publications, 2003), p. 14.

35A.R. Desai, Public Protest and Parliamentary Democracy, in S.P. Aiyar and R. Srinivasan, eds.,Studies in Indian Democracy(Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1965), p. 317.





39S. Viswam, The Decline in House Norms,Deccan Chronicle on the Web, July 8, 2004. URL:http://www.decan.com/Columnists/Columnists.asp Accessed July 7, 2004.

40Ghanshyam Shah, Protest Movements in Two Indian States, A Study of the Gujarat and Bihar

Movements(Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1977), p. 10.

41Ghanshyam Shah, Protest Movements in Two Indian States, A Study of the Gujarat and BiharMovements(Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1977), pp. 29-30.


Press, 1985), p. 235.

43Harish Khare, Reclaiming the Power of Disapproval, The Hindu, March 15, 2007. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2007/03/15/stories/2007031503651000.htm Accessed March 14, 2007


26/27

26

44Editors, Parliament Live, The Hindu, December 11, 2004. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2004/12/11/storoies/2004121101301000.htm Accessed December 10, 2004.

45Harish Khare, Reclaiming the Power of Disapproval, The Hindu, March 15, 2007. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2007/03/15/stories/2007031503651000.htm Accessed March 14, 2007.

46Mani Shankar Aiyar, Making Parliament More Meaningful, The Telegraph, n.d. URL:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1000829/editoria.htm Accessed March 3, 2007.

47Ghanshyam Shah, Protest Movements in Two Indian States, A Study of the Gujarat and Bihar

Movements(Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1977), p. 3.

48David H. Bayley, The Pedagogy of Democracy: Coercive Public Protest in India, The AmericanPolitical Science Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (September 1962), p. 663.

49David H. Bayley, The Police and Political Development in India(Princeton: Princeton University Press,1969), p. 275.


1969), p. 275.


Press, 1985), p. 11.

52Pavan K. Varma,Being Indian, The truth about why the 21st century will be Indias(New Delhi:Penguin, 2004), p. 43.

53Pavan K. Varma,Being Indian, The truth about why the 21st century will be Indias(New Delhi:Penguin, 2004), p. 54.

54

Mohammad Yasin and Srinanda Dasgupta,Indian Politics, Protests and Movements(New Delhi: AnmolPublications, 2003), pp. 11-12.




Publications, 2003), pp. 14-15.

57BJP Stops House Again,Deccan Chronicle on the Web, December 12, 2006. URL:

http://www.deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp#BJP%20stops%20House%20again Accessed December

11, 2006.

58Stormy Start to Winter Session, The Hindu, December 12, 2006. URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/12/stories/2006121209460400.htm Accessed December 11, 2006.

59Editors, A Disturbing Tend, The Hindu, August 14, 2002. URL:


60N.C. Gundu Rao, Unruly Conduct of Legislators Dwarfs Democratic Decorum,Deccan Herald,

December 31, 2002. URL: http://www.decccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec31/top.asp AccessedDecember 30, 2002.


27/27

61Ruling MLAs Force Uttaranchal Assembly Adjournment, The Hindu, March 23, 2005. URL:

http://www.theshindu.com/2005/03/23/stories/2005032303950500.htm Accessed March 22, 2005.

62Neena Vyas, Opposition, Government Trade Charges Over Legislative Business, The Hindu,

December 11, 2004. http://www.thehindu.com/2004/12/11/storoies/2004121101301000.htm Accessed

December 10, 2004.63Mediapersons Lodge Protest with Speaker, The Hindu, March 24, 2006. URL:http://www.thehindu.com/2006/03/24/stories/2006032412390400.htm Accessed March 23, 2006.

64W.H. Morris-Jones, The Government and Politics of India(London: Hutchinson University Library,

1971), p. 54.

aas parliamentprotest 31607

Documents