Protest, protest, protest!

Jaswant Singh visited Berkeley about a month back. This is what happened. Find some pics here.

In recent times, Jaswant is the only Indian politician to be on the receiving end of such a humiliating protest. I was pleasantly surprised that this happened in my backyard. Surprised, and proud. Nevertheless, it bothered me that a senior Indian politician was insulted in this manner, outside his homeland. I was not sure if such a forceful and violent protest was in need.

Was a more restrained protest called for? What is the boundary which a protest shouldn't cross? What factors determine this boundary?

Gandhi once noted that it is important to register your protest even in the face of obvious loss. That registering a protest makes the authority feel that their move hasn't gone down as well accepted. He would have stood against the BJP, but not in this way.


There are different ways to protest. The contrast, however, is nowhere as stark as in India's freedom struggle. The two ways were those of the revolutionaries and Gandhi. Both set their boundaries. Both seeked to achieve some aim. In Gandhi's case, however, the aim determined the methods. As he himself put it, an India ruled by a few Indians is no better than an India ruled by a few Englishmen. The power had to come from the people themselves, and not a small fraction of the population.

Therefore, the methods are not arbitrary. The aim classifies the methods as legitimate and illegitimate. So, were the means used in Berkeley legitimate? Or, were they merely justified?