As Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike enters its 19th day, critics question why the government has remained silent despite mounting concerns over student welfare, observes Harishchandra.
Key Points
- Sonam Wangchuk is on an 18-day hunger strike, demanding Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation.
- Wangchuk's protest at Jantar Mantar highlights the NEET examination paper leak and CBSE On-Screen Marking irregularities.
- Protestors and citizens are shocked by the Narendra Modi government's perceived insensitivity and apathy towards the hunger strike.
Renowned Ladakhi activist Sonam Wangchuk has been on a hunger strike since June 28. That's 19 days and counting. His demand is simple.
Dharmendra Pradhan, the Union minister for education, should resign, taking responsibility for the leak of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) examination papers, and for the CBSE On-Screen Marking irregularity (wherein, as per a new process, the exam papers of CBSE Class 12 students had to be scanned for marking; in the scan, pages were found blurred or missing or answers unmarked, leading to students receiving much lower marks).
Both the NEET leak and the CBSE irregularity caused immense distress to tens of thousands of students, including causing some of them to commit suicide.
The Protest at Jantar Mantar
Wangchuk is fasting at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, the site where the Cockroach Janata Party, a party that was formed just a few months ago, is holding its own protest since June 6, demanding the resignation of Pradhan for the NEET fiasco. Wangchuk joined them three weeks later, and began his hunger fast.
What has shocked the protestors and many citizens is the Narendra Modi government's insensitivity and apathy for Wangchuk and the CJP protests for what seems a perfectly legitimate demand in a democracy -- that the minister responsible for causing so much difficulties and grief to students be held accountable.
The Mahatma Fasted 18 Times
India is not new to hunger strikes. It has been used for a long time, but became a weapon of persuasion ever since Mahatma Gandhi fasted 18 times.
Some of the fasts were penitential (one meal a day for a week or a fixed number of days) to atone for a moral lapse, while most were against the actions of fellow Indians for a variety of reasons.
What might surprise many is that only once did Gandhi go on a hunger strike directly against the British per se, in 1943.
Another, in 1932, needed Dr B R Ambedkar's consent before the British revoked the award of separate electorates to the 'depressed' (Dalit) classes.
In 1943, Gandhi fasted to protest against his detention by the British. It was one of his longest fasts, lasting 21 days, though Gandhi would sip water, and occasionally, lime juice, during his fast.
The Indian National Congress had, in August 1942, proclaimed the Quit India Movement, demanding that the British leave India immediately. To the supporters, the cry for freedom was Karo ya maro (Do or die).
Gandhi's 1943 Fast and British Response
With World War 2 raging across Europe and Asia, the British rulers wasted little time arresting the top leaders, including Gandhi, citing the Defence of India rules.
Protesting against his arbitrary detention and the British claim that the Quit India Movement disturbances were the responsibility of the Congress party, Gandhi went on a hunger strike.
Initially, the British acted like they didn't care, but the rulers, at least those in India, were aware that if anything were to happen to Gandhi, the repercussions would be immense.
British prime minister Winston Churchill certainly did not care; he would have been happy to see Gandhi dead.
As Gandhi's health deteriorated (he was 73 years old), the British in India grew nervous and even made penicillin, much needed for the war effort and difficult to get back then, available in case Gandhi needed it.
Outside, on the streets, concerned about the health of the Mahatma, people held rallies calling for his release.
Initially, the British resisted these demands. Then British prime minister Winston Churchill was unrelenting. But as Gandhi's condition worsened, and fears mounted that Gandhi might die in British custody, the British rulers buckled and agreed to release Gandhi, who then broke his fast.
Gandhi eventually left jail in 1944. From London, Churchill sent a letter to Viceroy Linlithgow, asking why Gandhi had not died.
The answer is self-evident: Linlithgow had no desire to be the person responsible for the death of the Mahatma. He cared sufficiently to disobey his boss.
Modern Parallels: Anna Hazare and Modi Government
A more recent hunger strike, that many youngsters might recognise, was when Kisan Baburao 'Anna' Hazare went on hunger strike in New Delhi in 2011, demanding the implementation of the Lokpal bill, which would hold politicians and officials accountable for corruption.
Though the then Manmohan Singh government saw the movement as a political rally, his government chose to send senior ministers to meet Hazare.
After deliberations, the government agreed to set up Lokpals, and Hazare called off his fast. Then prime minister Manmohan Singh was clearly sensitive to the authenticity of Hazare's demand and was not going to let an Indian citizen die from a hunger strike.
The Narendra Modi government, by contrast, appears to have little conscience.
Till date (July 15), neither the prime minister nor any of his ministers have spoken about Wangchuk's hunger strike, or made any attempt to contact Wangchuk or the students protesting at Jantar Mantar, if only to urge them to call of the hunger strike and simply promising to look into their demands (one of the oldest political tactics!).
It would appear that Viceroy Linlithgow, a British citizen, was more concerned about the plight of an Indian on a hunger strike than the Indian rulers elected by Indian citizens.
Feature Presentation: Rajesh Alva/Rediff
