All Occasions are Fit for Protest: What's the Objection to Being Shirtless?

Outrageous, shameful, obscene, tasteless, pathetic, stupid, foolish, embarrassing, avoidable: this is how the protest by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) activists at the Artificial Intelligence summit in Delhi is being described. Critics of the protest include even those who are uncompromising critics of the current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. The IYC activists had taken off their shirts in a pavilion, waving T-shirts bearing the protest message: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi is compromised.” They also shouted slogans criticising the prime minister.

The protest took people by surprise. Given its theatrical nature, it quickly gained traction on social media and became the talk of the town. Immediately, the IYC and the Congress party began receiving condemnation. It was expected that the government and the BJP would lash out at the protesters. But it was intriguing to see some opposition leaders and consistent critics of the BJP government also lambasting the protesters. They felt that an occasion of such international importance should not have been besmirched by a protest like this. After all, what would our international guests think when they saw shirtless people shouting slogans against their own prime minister?

We might have a thousand complaints against the government, but there is always the question of an appropriate occasion and platform, our sensible friends tell the protesters. After all, this is our own government. One can see that they do not disagree with the protesters about the content of the protest; all they are concerned with is its form. They argue that this was an international forum, an opportunity for our local talents to showcase their achievements and find collaborators from abroad. This was a solemn occasion, completely above politics. It should not have been maligned by local political grudges.

This view holds that we should not take our internal squabbles to international forums. When we stand before the world, we are one nation. But is that really true?

Which protest is a nice and proper protest? The government of the day seems to think that people lose their right to protest once they have elected a government. Have they not themselves given it the mandate to rule the country for at least five years? This mandate, we are told, is for enacting laws like the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), issuing orders such as making the singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, conducting exercises like Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and so on. You should not protest against the actions of the government, whether legislative or executive. It is said to be tantamount to insulting the popular mandate. It is also treated as an insult to the nation – for what is a government, we are asked, if not the sole voice of the nation?

We have heard a ruling party MP claim that the prime minister is above all criticism. He who has dedicated his life to the nation must not be criticised. Such people say that since the Prime Minister or the ruling party represents the popular mandate, there can be no question of anyone entertaining dissenting thoughts about them. Any sign of dissent must therefore be a conspiracy: a plot to defame the prime minister and hence the nation itself.

The nation, we are told, is on the path of progress and transformation, and protests are nothing but obstacles. All protests thus become untimely. According to this view, there should be a moratorium on protests till 2047, at the very least. People should not question the government, since it is motivated by noble intent. You should look at the intent behind demonetisation or the farm laws, the CAA or the nationwide lockdown announced at four hours’ notice during the first phase of the COVID pandemic, or Operation Sindoor, or the Indo-US trade deal. Questioning the government on these issues is treated as nothing short of blasphemy. It is also said to play into the hands of enemies who are waiting for an opportunity to run down the country.

Thus, the leader of the opposition cannot criticise the government on the floor of the House, because it is seen as a humiliation of the prime minister. The opposition cannot raise issues it considers crucial for the people, but must speak only on topics and in a manner approved by the government. The opposition is told repeatedly that it must remember who won the elections. It has lost the right to dissent because it was defeated by the people. The House, we are told, should speak in one voice.

So we are reduced to voting animals – voting, that too, according to the rules set by the government. The government knows best and wishes us well.

There is another view which is not quite so uncritical of the government. It is believed that there are issues that must be discussed publicly. But it insists that everything has its place and its time. Events like the AI summit are international events and should not be used for partisan politics. Such people are therefore disturbed by the sight of shirtless youth displaying and shouting anti-government slogans.

There is also a feeling that the protest by the IYC activists actually played into the hands of the government, which had been struggling to salvage its image, already damaged by the Galgotias University fraud and managerial mess. The protest gave the government a convenient handle to shift attention to the supposedly unsavoury behaviour of the IYC protesters.

There are people – well-meaning again – who say that this protest reveals the frustration of the opposition party. It demonstrates its desperation. But they should ask themselves: are they not frustrated? Are they not desperate in the face of the darkness they see ahead, with no sign of light?

Talk to people in the industry, and they whisper their fears of raids if they do not toe the government line. I have heard editors talking about the constraints they work in. Heads of educational institutions explain why they cannot allow certain kinds of talks or events or speakers, or why they are compelled to introduce measures against which their scholarship revolts.

Talk to small businesspeople about the dismal state of the market and their inability to do anything about it. Talk to lawyers, and they will tell you that it is foolish to expect justice from the courts today. If forced to choose between the rights of citizens and the powers of the state, the courts, they say, have already made their choice.

I am not even speaking of the sense of total disenfranchisement that Muslims and Christians are experiencing. Their feeling of loneliness cannot easily be shared by Hindus.

This sense of utter helplessness, frustration and desperation is all-pervasive. What option remains then but to scream? Or, to shout? One should be honest about one’s helplessness. The government is not nice to us, and we have no obligation to be nice to the government.

All occasions are fit for protest. Imagine a scene at the Olympics organised by Nazi Germany. Imagine some Germans running into the field carrying an anti-Hitler banner. Would it have been inappropriate or indecent to shame the Führer before the world? Was Nazism merely an internal matter between the Jews and the Nazis?

We have seen art exhibitions vandalised, sports events interrupted, and huge banners appearing in football stadiums for different causes. Recently, we saw filmmakers withdraw from the Berlin Film Festival when the jury refused to condemn the massacre of the Palestinian people and said that this was an occasion to celebrate the art of filmmaking and not for partisan politics. Was the jury right, or were those who protested and withdrew from the festival right?

There is nothing decent about trying to appear as loyal subjects of a government when that government does not treat you as rights-bearing citizens. It is in fact, deeply demeaning not to protest when you know that a fraud is being played upon you.

We should be thankful to the IYC activists that they shouted on our behalf. Now, five of the protestors have been arrested by the Delhi Police. But as their leader Nehru once said, to be in prison and feel free is better than to walk in the open with one’s lips sealed.

Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.