Bandhs and politicians

Are bandhs bad for an economy, irrespective of whether it is the national or a State economy? If a bandh means stoppage of economic activity, it is certainly bad for the economy in question because such a stoppage must necessarily mean disrupting the generation of income. And in a poor economy, such disruptions are suicidal for the average citizen.

For those who are in power and in charge of, say, a State economy, such disruptions are unwanted, because they reflect on the general performance of the economy. As Ms Mamata Banerjee, the West Bengal Chief Minister, pointed out on February 27, on the eve of the general strike, “a manday lost means a huge financial setback”. The political fallout of such adverse effects on income generation, generally speaking, isn't welcome, the impact of the fallout being correlated to the proximity of elections.

BAND OF POLITICIANS

Those who wield power are, therefore, generally opposed to

bandhs , particularly to a surfeit of such events. Thus, in West Bengal, when Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee was the Chief Minister, there were occasions when he was forced to adopt a stand on bandhs which went directly against the party line. On one occasion, six years ago, he was quoted as having said that it was “unfortunate that I belong to a political party that has the habit of enforcing shutdowns”. On Monday, Ms Banerjee declared on her part: “Earlier, we did call bandhs once or twice a year. We had made mistakes by resorting to these bandhs , but we rectified ourselves. People will forgive us for it”. On February 17, Mr Bhattacharjee abjectly admitted his mistake regarding his stand on bandhs when in power and said: “That was a mistake. In my life, I will never commit this mistake again”. At some future date, when she is out of power, will Ms Banerjee once again issue an apology for taking a stand, as she has done, against the holding of bandhs while being Chief Minister?

ARMED WITH BANDS

Clearly, the upshot of this game of competitive apologies is the suspicion that politicians are playing with the livelihood of average citizens, particularly the huge majority who find it difficult to make both ends meet, for the sake of pursuing the goal of occupying the seat of power. This is unacceptable in a democracy where the Government is created by the people themselves. Politicians will, of course, argue that the calling of bandhs is actually the wish of the “people” themselves and, therefore, they shouldn't be blamed for organising such events.

Even if this is correct, which it isn't, isn't it the job of politicians to persuade their flock from committing economic harakiri and make sure that protests take the form where, at the very least, the means to a livelihood aren't threatened? Why must life in cities and towns be halted to make a political point? Why can't supporters of a bandh or general strike be given distinctive armbands to wear at work which would publicise their stand on a particular issue? The republic suffers if income generation is disrupted which, come to think of it, is what its enemies would want to engineer. Politicians aren't the republic's enemies; instead, they are a part of its essential props. Perhaps, a new breed of politicians is needed to help the nation to strive ahead and take its rightful place in the comity of nations. The only hope appears to be Young India, which is this nation's still-untapped immense reservoir of strength and resolve.