BANNING BANDHS?

Nepal’s political parties both in power and in the opposition have after long last come to an agreement of sorts that frequently called Nepal Bandhs by some political party or the other have proved to be a nuisance and moreover, a harassment that the general public have patiently borne for more than a decade. They have therefore, in principle agreed to ban bandhs as a form of street agitation. Why this sudden concern for the hardships that the people face and have faced almost on a daily basis for the last decade? The answer is not hard to find. The spate of recent Nepal bandhs has not only doubly obstructed traffic in several parts of the country but also the functioning of the government and the overall state machinery as well.

However, the million-rupee question is whether such a law can really be formed or accepted by the general populace, as it would certainly go against democratic norms and values. Even if such a provision is made, whether in the constitution or elsewhere, would the political party/parties in power in the future have the political will to implement it and take stern action against the political parties or other groups defying the ban as a form of protest to fulfill certain demands? The moot question arises from the fact that bandhs and chakka jams in this country, at least till now, seem to be the only means effective enough to have demands fulfilled. The political parties whether in power or in the opposition know this very well and so do other groups.

Lest we forget, it was the major political parties, the Nepali Congress, UML and Maoists who pioneered this ‘effective’ and ‘ingenious’ form of agitation in the country’s not so distant/democratic past. In a way, it is a fact that bandhs are by default an effective means of making the government sit up, listen and fulfill demands made by the agitators by using the plight and difficulties of people at such times and holding them to ransom.

The callers of bandhs, whether political parties or other such groups, without mincing words have this to say: "though we are in principle against bandhs, holding up traffic and causing difficulties and hardships to the people at large, we are compelled to resort to such tactics and forms of protest as it is the only language those in power understand. Sad to say, but it is the only way to make them listen and seriously look into our demands." As a recent chakka jam supporter put it: "If we agitate peacefully and in non-violent fashion, the government will not pay heed and just ignore us and our demands as well. In fact, they will just dismiss our protest/demands as ‘democratic rights of groups and individuals’ and turn the other way. This has happened in the past and is bound to happen again if we resort to peaceful and non-violent means."

In a way, the argument does carry some weight in the sense that peaceful demands in the past have not proved fruitful. Only when people are held to ransom and used as human shields do those in power sit up, listen, call the agitators to the negotiating table and come to an understanding by fulfilling at least some of the demands. This has been the trend if not a strategy employed especially, by political parties, their sister wings/organizations, whether by students or labour unions and other politically affiliated groups to exert pressure on governments. Against such a backdrop, it is somewhat hard to imagine that just by passing a law against bandhs and chakka jams that political parties/agitating groups in the opposition will be cowed into reverence and meekly resort to non-violence and peaceful means in future to achieve their ends.

Moreover, if such a law against bandhs is to be formed and come into effect, there should also be some kind of requirement, condition or guarantee on the part of the political parties or government(s) in power that a non-violent protest will be looked into with equal and immediate urgency. Whether the major political parties, the architects of bandhs in this god-forsaken country will be ready to fulfill this part of the obligation on their part is a question that is making the rounds. "If they do so for now as part of the deal, and turn the other way when the crunch comes, which is quite likely, would it not compel us the agitators in turn to resort to violence and start the cycle of bandhs/chakka jams/ and holding the people to ransom begin all over again" put in a bandh supporter?

Though these are hypothetical questions and possible scenarios as of now, should there be a law passed against bandhs/chakka jams, the fast eroding reputation, and double standards of major political parties, their petty bickering, one-upmanship, indulgence in power politics etc. will almost certainly bring it to naught the moment it comes into effect. Before passing such a law, those striding the corridors of power as of now ought to realize that the crippling culture of bandhs that this unfortunate country experiences and has experienced almost on a daily basis is not only an outrage to humanity but a direct outcome of the failure and non-performance of successive democratic governments that this country has seen to date.

It might be somewhat naïve on the part of those in power to think that a law banning bandhs and hoping against hope that disgruntled, determined and violent groups taking to the streets to fulfill just demands will in future suddenly turn docile and readily comply. It will as a matter of fact be tantamount to or as wishful as the disillusioned people of Nepal asking, if not pleading with politicians/ leaders of political parties to perform and deliver for once, give the people a better deal, bring in peace and ban bad governance once and for all!