The Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling upholding a Kerala High Court judgement declaring Bandhs illegal is applicable to the whole country. Political parties have since subverted the spirit behind the ruling with a twist in nomenclature: they now announce a Hartal instead of a Bandh. The two, Bandh and Hartal, are exactly the same in practice. A distinction has to be made between the right to Bandh and right to strike. The right to strike without disrupting public order is given in all democracies and is a tool that workers use to negotiate terms of work, not to be confused with Bandhs or Hartals, which evolved in late 19th century from the idea of a general strike. The action behind Bandh call is seldom voluntary. Political parties or the organisations who call for a Bandh enforce it ruthlessly. Forced shutdown of social and economic activity backed by the implicit threat of violence is how Bandhs are claimed to be ‘successful’. In most cases, political parties succeed in enforcing their call because people fear for their safety. Voluntarism has been given a quiet burial. Even essential services are not spared during a Bandh or a Hartal. People are forced to undergo hardships like footing the distance to their destination in the absence of public transport and many of them fall victims to coercive action of unscrupulous auto drivers who want to make quick gains out of the situation. The Jammu Bandh called for 27th May for demanding an All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the much touted artificial lake to promote tourism in the region too comes under this category. Calling for Bandh or Hartal is a constitutional right to express resentment or protest but do they have any constitutional obligation towards people? A mass strike is protest against an administration and an attempt to force change. Can a party holding office subscribe to the moral argument in a Hartal without demitting office? But our political parties couldn’t care less. Hopefully, the Supreme Court’s intervention would force them to take a hard look at such disruptive tactics.
