do you agree to Strike, is that necessary?

India
July 5, 2010 8:10pm CST
Hi Friends, It was a contry bandh/strike in India. I was reading news and saw some pictures where shops were closed. Disrupted normalcy across the nation. Suspended public transport. These are the salient features of a bandh often called by our political parties to protest or oppose certain sensitive, and often populist, issues. The question before us is: is a bandh/strike really that necessary? Does a bandh/strike ever change anything? I have seen quite a few strikes that did not change things but country lost some money that could have been used for public welfare. Or they are a powerful populist tool in the hands of out politicians who use it with no discretion or debate, often leading to chaos? Doesn't a forced bandh on people run the risk of antagonizing the same people the political parties claim to represent, and speak for? Are cynics wrong in looking at bandhs as mere token gestures to oppose the party in power rather than radical acts of protest? The economic cost of the Bharat bandh/strike today is yet to be calculated, but it is bound to be substantial. Who bears that loss? Can a growing India afford to halt its work for a day, and be held ransom to a political bandh? I do not agree to this way of protest to raise our voice against goverment's decision on anything.
2 people like this
4 responses
• United States
7 Jul 10
I think non violent protests are the best way to have your voice be heard Legally. If it weren't for this type of protest here in the 60's We wouldn't have the president we have now. The whites would be separated from the non whites and the U.S. would be less of a free nation! I am all for striking. It is the best way to show the higher ups what the regular people do and How it is missed when they Don't work. The best way to get big business's attention is to hit them in the pocketbook. If what they were about to do will cost them money , they Will stop. Back in the 50's Black Americans in the south stopped riding buses because of a stupid law and the law was repelled because the bus company lost too much money.
1 person likes this
• India
7 Jul 10
There were no voilence incidences as such but peoples suffered because of this bandh which was called for the benefit of comman man. It was just political agenda and India lost too much money because of this bandh. Thank You for sharing.
1 person likes this
• India
6 Jul 10
As we, all know Ajay, strikes, bandhs, and agitations of this sort are politically motivated. They do not have interest of public in their mind. Yesterday's bundh was imposed on public. They stoned buses, with people sitting in it. They stopped trains with passengers traveling in it. They did not allow taxi drivers to run their taxi though they very much wanted to. They even said the bund is preventing them from earning their living. The desire for bundh must come forth from their heart. What is the use of this sort of bundh in which some hired hooligans forced the bundh to become success and took credit for it? If India is facing the price rise it is, same opposition's doing; who today are crying hoarse against it. Didn't power cut begin during their regime. If they had to sign the nuclear deal at that time, they were ruling India would not have faced power crisis. What more they were preventing UPA government from signing the deal, and if Congress had to yield to their pressure, it would have catapulted India into a disastrous situation worse than India is facing today. Incessant power cut for past six years is one of the main reasons for price rise. All Industries are dependent on it. The present bundh has caused a loss to the tune of crores of Rupees. It would only go to aggravate the price rise. Worst course of anomaly is opposition hopes to capitalize on this because they want to return to power to cause more damage to the country.
• India
6 Jul 10
Well said, this is all politics and not helping common man or anybode else but politicians who are desprate for power. These politicians are doin gno good to country, they will not attend house and if at all attend will talk useless issues and waste our money, this is another way (Bandh) when they are wasting money indirectly. Thank You for sharing.
@Sreekala (34312)
• India
6 Jul 10
Hi Ajay, I agree with you, strikes/bandh only creating problems among common people. It can’t produce any results. In fact the opposition who called for a bandh/strike is not expecting a good result. They just do it for getting attention from the public; they want to show that they are doing something against the price hikes of essential commodities. In Kerala state, people are already tired up with the strikes. They don’t need any reason for calling a strike. Any vehicles won’t run and it will affect badly for common people who are traveling much distance for work/study etc. They caught in the middle of road just because of the sudden strike. Politicians never think about the plight of common people. They need attention from media and public.
@defcon505 (919)
• United States
6 Jul 10
I say neither. If you use strike you get the attention of your bosses. Then they take you seriously (maybe). But sometimes strike does not work. Strike cost not only the company money but also the customers that relies on the services the company provides to the masses.
• India
6 Jul 10
It's about country level strike where most of the common man is affected for day to day activities and necessities. I may choose to go on strike in a company but does not support a nation BANDH at all. Thank You.