‘Moment you overcome fear, you frighten the opponent’: Aruna Roy on CJP protests

As the debate rages on around the student and youth protests over examination irregularities, The Federal spoke to veteran civil society activist Aruna Roy, co-founder of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), about the changing nature of protests, the legacy of the Right to Information (RTI) movement, the role of humour and social media in contemporary dissent, and whether India’s youth-led movements can evolve into sustained campaigns.

Is there a philosophical difference between the recent youth-led protests and the painstakingly-built people’s movements you have been associated with?

I think there are dramatic differences. If you look at the Right to Information (RTI) protest, we had piles of reportage in Rajasthan and all the Hindi papers. We had the chief minister react. But unless protests take place in Delhi, we don’t catch the eyeballs of the (national) press.

I would say what happened with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has been phenomenal. In Delhi, you have the ability to get people together. But when you are in a rural area or even in provincial cities, the spread is far too wide. So even to congregate at one place takes time.

Also Read: CJP will keep trying, but can’t solve all problems: Abhijeet Dipke | Interview

The difference between the RTI campaign and the CJP campaign is that the former began with an understanding of the implications of the demand, not only in terms of the Constitution and what we demanded from the government, but also tremendous political education. People had to understand how transparency and RTI had a link with them. It took us days of protest only to communicate the message.

Our songs became an extremely important tool for us. The protest in Jantar Mantar was extremely creative too, and it brought in so many different kinds of expression. The songs, the short videos, and so many other things that have come out are extraordinary.

[The students] were not scared. They didn’t run away. In a sense, they have given great space to the whole country to be able to oppose whatever is unjust.

What do you make of the new political language emerging from these protests?

The language of the CJP campaign has been, for me, an important political gain.

We were trapped in a political language in which there were only binaries, pre-decided by a certain political ideology with which you couldn’t quarrel. There was polarisation on religion, less on caste but very much on gender, ideology, and whatever you said.

Also Read: CJP launches ‘School Thik Karo’ campaign, demands private school fee cap

What these young people have done is break that language. This language that they spoke is the language of a modern generation which has no compunction in using language that is abusive or literal or colourful. The language of the protest included mockery of the prime minister.

The government tried to issue diktats to social media platforms to take down these protests, but if one was taken down, 35 or 40 more came up.

And mind you, these young people are not actually believed to have been politicised the way previous generations of students were. We do not have a vibrant student movement any longer like it used to be in the 1970s, 1980s, or even the 1990s.

What has prevented student movements from remaining as vibrant as they once were?

The student movements have been suppressed because of the use of incarceration, jail, and threats that have been universally applied in the subcontinent. You are really afraid of saying anything lest you should be in jail.

What this movement really has contributed phenomenally to modern-day India and to politics is the removal of the fear of speaking out. Before this, some of us kept speaking out, but we were always targeted. We were called “andolan jeevis”, for instance. Before this, we were called “urban Naxals” because you had the temerity to speak. Now you are “dimagi Naxals”.

The “dimagi Naxal” has got a signature tune which is so wonderful. I was listening to it. The song says, if you ask for food, you are a dimagi Naxal. If you ask for clothing, you are a dimagi Naxal. If you ask for education, you are a dimagi Naxal. If you open your mouth, you are a dimagi Naxal.

Also Read: ‘Use Rs 8,500 cr PM CARES Fund to improve rural schools’: CJP’s Dipke

These protests exposed many first-time protesters to state force. What kind of memories will they carry, and could the violence deter them from protesting again?

I really admire the young because they have been extraordinary. Students have just not been bothered about the use of tear gas or even batons, and they marched and overcame the fear. And the moment you overcome fear, you frighten the opponent.

Of course, I have been in smaller groups of people asking for justice. We have faced the police, faced lathi charges and done all of that, but we were smaller groups.

When you have so many thousands of people just facing the lathi, facing tear gas, facing things that are totally unjustified, they were not scared. They didn’t run away. In a sense, they have given great space to the whole country to be able to oppose whatever is unjust.

What will the youth movement need to do to preserve its unity as it moves forward?

To continue the struggle, they will have to keep their unity. And that unity will require them to take a position very strongly about multiplicity of religions, caste, and gender, all the issues of the Constitution that they raised. They will have to now protect them.

They are afraid that the moment you go into the school and activate rural kids, your cause is lost. No party in power anywhere in India can last if all the students get together.

I think what they will try and do is bring in fissures and divisions. Are they going to be able to withstand the kind of pressure the state can put on you by dividing and ruling you? Can you actually stand up for that kind of unity? That is a very critical thing.

Can the CJP’s proposed audit of government schools become a more sustained, grassroots movement?

In 2015, MKSS did a statewide audit of the schools in a campaign called Shiksha Ka Sawal. Rajasthan Patrika, one of the major newspapers in Rajasthan, agreed to collaborate with us. We got 500 university students from Delhi and from the metropolises in western and central India to come.

We trained them and set them up with certain minimum demands and an investigation. Does the school have toilets? Does the school have a blackboard? Does the school have basic facilities? Whatever the audit said came out in the local paper, and as a result of this, there were many student agitations that followed.

So, the whole issue of schooling and what they are doing, we absolutely endorse as MKSS. This is going to be something that you take to the grassroots immediately.

Also Read: How CJP protest spread to UK, USA, Europe, got Indian diaspora's support

After all, how many qualify for the NEET? Our children go to ordinary schools where teachers don’t come, subjects are not taught, classes are not held, and they cannot ever imagine clearing the NEET.

So, unless we start with government schools at the bottom and talk about delivery of proper education and quality education for children, they cannot take the school issue further. So, it’s very laudable, very important, and politically can produce a lot of extraordinary results.

Does the government’s attempt to restrict access to schools show that it is worried about the campaign?

In Rajasthan, there has been a government order saying no one can enter schools without permission. Which means that they are afraid. They are afraid that the moment you go into the school and activate rural kids, your cause is lost. No party in power anywhere in India can last if all the students get together.

When did you realise that the state apparatus was incapable of delivering radical structural justice, prompting you to leave the civil services?

I knew that it would be a real battle even within the service to get things working.

But when I went into the service, I realised that every institution, whether it was the judiciary, bureaucracy, or politicians, none of them really wanted to respond to issues of real social injustice or economic injustice. They didn’t want to set anything right. Their main issue was how to retain power and how to protect impunity.

And transparency — they were just so totally scared of it. Secrecy was so much a part of the mind set of the government at that time. It was impossible to detach them from that, even for the benefit of people. They could not understand it or they were scared.

So I decided in late 1974 to leave the service.

Also Read: Rajasthan villagers stop CJP team from inspecting school, ‘push’ them out

Has anything fundamentally changed in the government’s approach to transparency since the 1970s, particularly after the RTI Act?

I wouldn’t say that after the RTI Act, it’s a completely different scenario. They don’t like the RTI Act. The RTI Act has been undermined in the last few years in a very concerted manner.

But if you have the RTI in your hand, the legitimacy of asking questions is established. And they can’t put you in jail for asking a question. I think what this cockroach movement has brought into focus again is the right to ask questions and demand answers. In a democracy, those in power have to answer.

Should social movements eventually enter electoral politics to bring about policy change?

Ideology has been systematically dismantled and ruined by an international global debate which says everything is post-ideology. If you have post-truth and post-ideological debates at the centre of your politics, then how can you expect to have an ethical compass? Unless you have public ethical compasses, there can be no question of a decent political system.

I think to enter Parliament and enter a legislative assembly is a good thing and we should try. And to say that policy will be made only by government? Yes, policy should be made only by government. But what we are saying is: What kind of government? And what kind of process?

The dilemma of democracy is that you have to have political parties. We have not been able to find another paradigm, so we will have representative democracy. The question is how far representative democracy will be transparent and accountable to its electors. The big problem now is they simply do not want either transparency or accountability, because they know the moment they say that, all the ill-gotten gains, all the investments, everything will go kaput.