Civil Disobedience in Indian Tradition, with Some Early Nineteenth Century Documents c5.s3.19

c5.s3.19

What acts of state destroy a state? What constitutes denial of fundamental rights? Answers to these cannot be determined by recourse to mere legality. To take one glaring example: large scale hunger and insecurity are both fast corroding the foundations of the Indian state and its constitution, as well as constituting a denial of the most fundamental human right. Hunger, impossible living conditions and insecurity amongst about 40 per cent of the people of India, of course, is not a creation of the present Indian state and its constitution. It is a product of the past two centuries. Nevertheless, the inability or insensitivity of the state in eliminating them, if by no other means, by a distribution of some poverty amongst all, is fast leading India to a subversion of the constitution and state structure. The practice of non-cooperation and civil disobedience for eliminating hunger and insecurity (by demanding “effective provision for securing the right of work” and “public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want” as provided in the constitution itself)³⁶ could have, and may yet if initiated in time, make such subversion much more difficult, if not impossible. (*According to even someone as responsible and law-abiding as Vinoba Bhave: “In the situation where an act is advocated by law and favoured by public opinion and yet it is not being put into practice, satyagraha for its implementation should be deemed appropriate.” (*Satyagraha Vichar* p.65) There is nothing less controversial in India than the immediate elimination of widespread hunger and insecurity. Its legal approval and advocacy arises from the constitution of the republic itself.)