Public protests have long served as a catalyst for social and policy change in India, allowing individuals, classes and communities to voice their grievances and advocate for their rights. Over the past few years, protests have risen with bewildering rapidity. Protests had opened up space for a new era of social activism in the decade that the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government was in power. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government too has faced considerable opposition from a range of groups but has treated it very differently from previous governments.
Editorial | Wrestling for justice: On the protest by the wrestlers
From Nirbhaya to the present
In December 2012, people around the world watched as thousands took to the streets in the Central Vista of New Delhi following the brutal gang rape of a 23-year-old physiotherapy student (Nirbhaya). The protests became so intense and the public outrage was so great that the UPA government was compelled to address issues of sexual violence at the policy level, through the introduction of the new Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 to bring stricter punishments and broaden the scope of offences.
Fast forward to May 2023. Medal-winning wrestlers, who have brought honour to the country, have been on the streets for nearly four months to demand the arrest of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and Kaiserganj Member of Parliament (MP), Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, of the BJP, who they have accused of sexually harassing women wrestlers and a minor. But the authorities did not respond for weeks. It took the Supreme Court of India’s intervention for Delhi Police to file two first information reports (FIRs).
The wrestlers have held negotiations with the Home Minister and Sports Minister, but no agreement was reached on the key demand of arresting him. That the ruling party MP faces no political censure in the face of serious allegations recorded in FIRs, clearly indicates that the institutional system has failed these remarkably brave wrestlers fighting for justice in the face of tremendous state pressure.
But what about civil society and the public at large? The protest has found some support from civil society, especially organisations representing workers, farmers, women, students, and youth, but it is very small when compared to the public support for other protests under this regime or previous ones. There have been no rallies, no demonstrations or marches that defined protests against sexual violence in the UPA era. People have not been stirred by the images of wrestlers being dragged by the police. Despite the potential for mass mobilisation, these protests have failed to garner significant support from the middle classes and women’s groups, which were in the forefront of the Nirbhaya protests in 2012.
Protests under the current regime are, no doubt, difficult as they are immediately branded as ‘anti-national’. Also, activists might feel the futility of protests against a government that does not listen; but the fact is that this regime has been forced to respond to some protests even if it has done so for reasons of political expediency. The withdrawal of the controversial farm laws and the back-tracking over the contentious National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) are two recent examples where the government had to back down.
The context of class politics
The Indian women’s movement has had a long history of organising around sexual violence against women. They have in the past organised direct action on the streets. But this time, except for Left groups and the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), women’s groups have been largely missing in action, even though it is an issue of gender justice. But it is not just about gender justice; it is about the wider issues of dissent, dignity and social justice. Moreover, in the Nirbhaya case, it was not only women who were mobilising but also a broader swathe of civil society that included men. The massive public mobilisation had virtually blocked the India Gate area for weeks, but this time, nothing of the kind has happened.
Wrestling is deeply ingrained in Indian culture and has a long history, particularly in the rural areas. However, traditional wrestling has not received the same level of attention and support as other sport in India, such as cricket. The protesting wrestlers mostly come from modest economic backgrounds; sports has helped them to achieve a measure of social and economic mobility. The lack of interest in this agitation must be seen in the broader context of class politics.
The active participation of the middle classes in the Anna Hazare Andolan (2011) and Nirbhaya protests presents a contrasting picture that highlights the importance given to social activism by this class. Their participation in the two movements catapulted them to the centre stage of the political discourse. The anti-corruption campaign was not averse to Hindutva politics; in fact, adopting its symbols and slogans added to its widening support. The urban middle class is also very well disposed to neo-liberalism; it has benefited from the opportunities available to it from the neo-liberal economy in the past three decades. Indeed, middle-class expansion has occurred since economic reforms through the private sector boom powered by economic liberalisation. This is the class that was enamoured by ‘India Shining’, and then shifted support to the then Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, before turning against him, as the UPA went on to introduce rights-based legislations and other broad-based social policies. Their shifting political loyalties, however, reflect an ideological consistency that characterises the middle class in its combined devotion to neo-liberalism and Hindutva. The middle-class opposition to the UPA played a crucial role in discrediting it; now, these very classes strongly back the current dispensation and see no reason to go against it, even on issues of sexual violence.
A form of polarisation
The support extended by khap panchayats underlines the complexities and challenges facing this protest. Their support highlights the social identity of the wrestlers but the identity issue could have been superseded had the wrestlers received greater support from civil society. Even so, this is not about caste politics but majoritarian politics that has encouraged a ready acceptance of ‘law will take its own course’ rhetoric, even when it is abundantly clear that the law does not take its own course when dealing with the powerful, unless they cannot and will not interfere with due process. Nonetheless, this rhetorical device facilitates an approval of the government’s narrative, including police mistreatment of grapplers. This is yet another indication of polarisation being reinforced by majoritarian politics in the country today.
Middle-class activism tends to prioritise the issues and concerns that directly impact them, often overlooking the needs and struggles of the disadvantaged classes and communities. This self-focus can perpetuate inequalities and hinders efforts to address broader social issues. Failing to consider the intersections of class, caste, gender, and other factors can result in a narrow understanding of social reality and marginalised voices. In the event, there is a sense of suspicion towards mass politics and egalitarian ideas and movements.
This tendency contributes to an unprecedented quiescence among the middle classes and even among the oppressed classes. Above all, it means inadequate public pressure is exerted on the government to penalise an infamous history-sheeter. It is emblematic of society’s normalisation of patriarchy and sexual harassment.
Zoya Hasan is Professor Emerita, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
