Two cups of civil discontent, filled to the brim for years, finally overflowed recently in two different places around the world, with very different results.
One of the instances was in London, where widely-publicized riots occurred for several nights in August. Rioters filled the streets, attacking people, looting stores and burning buildings and cars.
Sympathizers say that the riots were simply a response to unbearable austerity measures by the British government, coupled with incredibly high youth unemployment and social inequality. The shooting of a police suspect was supposedly the spark that set alight the dry kindle.
Fast forward two weeks and four thousand miles.
In India, a man named Anna Hazare begins a hunger strike against government corruption. Millions around the country are inspired to strike and march peacefully in support.
It’s easy to say that the Indians’ method was better simply because it was peaceful. Instead, let’s look at results:
- In London, police presence was stepped up, hundreds of rioters were arrested, private property of civilians was destroyed, and not much has really changed since then. If anything, people are worse off than they were before, unless they were among the lucky few that were able to get away with a new flatscreen.
- In India, a country where two bucks or a cold beer are more than enough to bribe the cops to let you get away with almost anything (trust me, I know from experience), a change occurred that could revolutionize Indian politics and society. There were no riots, no arsons, no mass lootings or flash mobs.
I'll let you be the judge on which is the more efficient. In the mean time, I only ask; when, if ever, is violent protest justified?
No comments:
Post a Comment