Can protest be dialogue?
The article explores RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat's assertion that protests can be a form of dialogue, contrasting it with traditional liberal democratic views and Dr. Ambedkar's emphasis on constitutional methods. It delves into the complex relationship between protests, especially those violating the law, and the legitimacy of a democratic state in India.
Why it matters
This analysis is crucial for understanding the evolving discourse on civil liberties and the role of dissent within India's constitutional democracy, impacting how citizens' grievances are addressed and the state's response to public movements.
During his interaction at an event organised by the Indian International Movement to United Nations, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said protests can also be a form of dialogue. He claimed that Indian tradition fostered a culture of debate which allowed for multiple views to interact to arrive at the truth.
The question of how to address differences of opinion in a modern democracy has for long been a matter of controversy. The standard liberal response is to build a system of institutional checks and balances that will ensure the minority is not overpowered and rights are not violated. At the foundation of these checks and balances is supposed to be democracy or the right to choose representatives who make decisions. This democratic process lends legitimacy to the state on the assumption that peoples’ consent is accounted for.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in