Time for International Law to Define Protest?

 

 

 

India is observing repeated protests. In two consecutive years, India observed anti-CAA protest & Farmers’ Protest both being of huge magnitude in terms of expenses & turnover of people. While the left-wing cabal is glorifying protests calling them PEOPLE’S VOICE AGAINST THE DICTATOR etc, such protests are apparently raised by a minuscule fraction of Indian populace & protesters do not form a representation of India. Farmers’ Protest is attended by how many? 10K, 20K, 50K, 70K? India has 130 crores. While building PM Kisan Samman Nidhi database, India has documented to have more than 9 crores farmer families which excludes farmers of West Bengal. Hence, India, in reality, would approximately be having around 10/12 crores of them. How many of these crores of families have protested? Is it statistically correct to declare these protests to be PEOPLE’S VOICE?

 

 

Prodigious preparedness of protests suggests these events are orchestrated & not spontaneous. While there’s no legal bar in orchestrating events, detailed ginormous arrangements of food, drink & stay at the protest sites incurring astronomical expenses raises questions about the source of funding thereof. As intel-sources revealed international funding of such events (reports of which have already been in the public domain) & after Greta Thunberg’s tweet indicated call for international participation in such protest on the land of India, there’s no reason not to feel apprehensive about the real intentions behind such protests. Why should international figures enter into India’s internal matters is a legitimate question. As raising voice is a human right, expressing doubt whether international protesters are challenging India’s sovereignty too falls within the periphery of the same. While the right to protest is a Human Right, the right to challenge sovereignty is NOT. Farm Laws are India’s internal matter. Parliament of India passed them following due procedure. Hadn’t due protocol been followed, opposition parties would have knocked Supreme Court against violation of procedure. They didn’t.

 

 

As all such protests are predisposed with meticulous & detail-oriented pre-planning, may these be termed as PROTESTS? Or are they CONSPIRACIES? Shall Human Civilization legitimize conspiracy? An ethical question. Right to protest is a Human Right as protests bring out man’s spontaneous frustrations. Such professionally managed protests lack spontaneity by all means & are contrived. Greta Thunberg’s tweets have proven the extent of hatching. She eventually revealed TRACTOR RALLY of January 26 had speculated outcomes ready & consorted reactions to such outcomes were also kept chalked out. Can events of such cold-blooded planning be termed as protests? This is a question of ethics that the Human Race must raise at this point in time.

 

 

Those who’d think there are no ethics in war must also have to admit that a war had been waged by means of such protests. Who waged a war against India? Outsiders using India’s internal enemies? Or internal enemies using outsiders? Either way, it’s administrative right & responsibility of the Government of India to defend the country. Strong & stable barricading of Farmers’ Protest sites at Singhu & Ghazipur Borders of Delhi is a part of India’s self-defence. Isn’t right to self-defence a fundamental right? Why are left-wing cabal and likes of Mehbooba Mufti lamenting barb wiring of protest sites?

 

 

Arguments may be raised that self-defence is to be practised by those who are ruled. Is being a ruler in a democracy a vice? Doesn’t the ruler have right to self-defence? After the DEMOS of the land elect the ruling party, doesn’t the ruler be the condensed self of DEMOS? Those who deny this argument are against democracy—say some. So be it, why don’t they formulate & suggest more unbiased alternatives to the present system? Farmers want repeal of Farm Laws. They need to draft & present alternative legislations aiming at doubling of 10/12 crores farmer families’ income before wanting repeal. Denial & defiance would pay only after the alternative has been presented to the DEMOS. Is Democracy right to set anarchy? Another question the present world needs to address.

 

 

All the above arguments are people’s arguments which the present time must fairly address. It’s time for international law to define protest. Should the protest of a group be allowed to cause suffering to others? Does one group’s protest necessarily mean protest of silent groups too? Does silence always mean congruence? Should commencement of protests need to have pre-requisite paraphernalia barring which protests may be declared illegitimate & punishable? Time to think.