Are Strikes and Demonstrations right way to seek rights?
Are strikes and
agitations the right ways to seek rights?
How will the people protest if their rights are taken away?
How will they show anger towards the decisions of their
representative?
By coming on the streets having demonstrations? OK.
By blocking highways and causing distress to the people?
Maybe.
By burning public vehicles and destroying anything in there
vicinity? Absolutely not.
But this is what is currently happening everywhere.
The government won’t take any action until and unless the
matter is out of the hand or becomes violent enough, but violence is not the
solution or a part of strike.
The term ‘strike’, is
a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal by employees to perform work. A
strike usually takes place in response to grievances that employees feel
management are ignoring.
Strikes and demonstrations does not usually mean violence.
But a strike which is successful usually involves violence.
Compare two strike
one which has been successful to that which is not. Like the freedom struggle
to that of doctors strike.
Why was the first one successful, because it involved
violence? Think for yourself.
If coupled with violence, strikes roll back the nation's
economic progress, spelling hardship for one and all.
Fortunately we have some alternative methods-
- People can file court cases or PIL’s, where their complains are heard by an unbiased judge.
- Unions or groups can present a memorandum to any public authority like a district collector.
- With the advancement in the technology one can directly mail their complains and also share their problems on social media sites to the government.
- Is it not why there are UNIONS in place? To avoid STRIKES,INTIMIDATION and VIOLENCE in the streets. Let the unions take the demands to the employers or authorities, negotiate amicably until both parties are satisfied without resorting to striking!
Generally Strikes are used as the last resort, when all
other alternative methods like complaint filing and negotiation fails. But
there’s been teachers strike even writer’s strike.
Conclusion:
Strike are the basic essence of democracy. Strikes and
demonstrations are constitutionally granted and come under freedom of
expression. They are the most effective weapon.
Strikes have become a recurring phenomenon, a popular method
used by those who are blind to everything other than their own selfish
interests.
What does a strike achieve? How do they benefit the economy
and the society?
Who actually suffers when the supply of electricity or food
stops?
Who pleads when the lawyers go on strike?
Who bleeds if the doctors strike in hospitals?
It is the society as
a whole who loses every time.
Throughout history, strikes and protest have caused real change: votes for women, 1990 UK Poll Tax protest, US Civil Rights movement. Society did not suffer as a whole, quite the contrary, the only ones who suffered were those who profited from the then status quo, and a few sections of people who put their own selfish needs above the collective.
ReplyDeleteViolence is a reactionary symptom, as is protest, but your post seems skewed towards suggesting that the protesters cause the violence. There are some that do, but police at these events are often more culpable. The UK miner's strikes are an example of this , and more recently: Spanish police actions during the Catalonia referendum.
I would say that if you removed the right to protest, or even remove the possibility of violence, there would never be change. In fact it could be a road to the shanigans you see in Africa (machine guns at polling stations). We're not hanging monarchs anymore so I think modern protest is nothing to worry about.