"Violent policing" methods are fostered by France’s almost unique culture of street protest.
A legacy of insurrection dating back to the 1789 revolution means protesters know the street can, and generally does, force governments to back down.
Some lessons leave their mark. And certainly so.
In France children are taught about the revolutionary roots of their nation and what the 'state' owes its citizens.
Unlike in Germany or the Netherlands, French unions, while they may strike often, are not formal government negotiating partners. The top-heavy, presidential structure of the Fifth Republic marginalises institutional consultation.
That means a heavily centralised state often passes laws with little popular agreement, making the “power of the street” one of citizens’ few viable means of forcing concessions. Protest here is regarded as a civic duty and a legitimate democratic tool.
While most of its western European neighbours generally favour police tactics that prioritise crowd containment and de-escalation,
France has long responded to social movements that take to the streets with, at times, shocking physical force.
The reasons why are a complex mix of history, politics, state organisation and a particular security culture that has become deeply ingrained over decades, if not centuries, and whose limits continue to be pushed today.
French policing policy is rooted in Napoleon’s ultra-centralised state and in the political philosophy of the Republic. In France, the police are an instrument of the state. Their core task is to protect it, enforce its laws, and maintain public order.
France is unique. Young British people or in several other countries have plenty to be angry about.
But unlike their French counterparts, other youngsters have very negligible tradition of turning that frustration into collective action.
Nepal may get some marks for that. But what happened in Bangladesh in 2024 is something different. It was not as much as youth matter as much it was pro-Islamic radical.
Sheikh Hasina was hated by Muslim fundamentalists and also by a country called Pakistan.
Let us focus on France.
Of course there’s the history. But it is also linked to what is taught to the children and youngsters.
The French Revolution appears in the curriculum twice, for pupils aged 12 and then again at 16; the student protests of 1968 are taught at age 14 and again at 17.
Debating is encouraged in schools from as early as collège, or at about 11 years old. Young people are expected to have an opinion and not be afraid to defend it.
France’s republic was born of insurrection. People and the 'nation' too have never forgotten it.
French pupils learn that protest, uprising and rioting are the origin story of their freedoms.
** These methods are championed in promoting change.
Students seem to believe if they 'don’t like something', they have the power to change it.
The language of rights, citizenship and collective power is woven into French education.
Let us take the examples of Britons.
** Experts would say they have more of "an American-style individualism".
*** 'Live and let live' produce different cultures in Britain and the US.
In India - for long the Left dominated the student politics. Hence, largely they remained anti-Hindu and even anti-Indian concept of nationhood.
In the 1970s and 1980s -- the student organisations affiliated to communist parties would clash in the streets of Calcutta (Kolkata) for what was happening in Vietnam. This was purely a subject which did not matter Indians. At the same time - this was a clever way of keeping Indian issues - like joblessness or irrational power failures and industry shutdown in West Bengal - out of discussion box of the youths.
In many countries - unlike France - and that includes India as well as Britain - there is less collective spirit.
"Britain has an extraordinary history of protest, spanning Peterloo, the Chartists, the suffragettes and the poll tax riots, but there is arguably a different cultural relationship to these events," ran an article in 'The Guardian' (London).
Observers say the Thatcher era in the UK did permanent damage to unions, contributing to the British public being a grumbling but compliant one, lacking in organising power.
In France - the story is different. Parents joined their children in protesting, and have called on other parents to do the same for the planned general strike on October 17.
This was also a response to the police brutality. Many parents were themselves ex-students and marched against education reforms. Now in July protest against NEET irregularities; such glimpses were visible and it was only then the BJP leadership decided to make Dharmendra Pradhan a sacrificial goat.
The French state - as such - technically encourages 'protest' through the curriculum, but at the same time the force and violence with which it has met its students actually gives a different story.
Why France is different ?
* French authorities see large crowds as an existential threat.
** Hence, they send in large police force.
*** Cops have specialised "military-style tactics" and this results in alienating even peaceful demonstrators.
$$ This prompts the more radical groups to opt for more violent tactics.
But rather than isolating those elements, police respond with baton charges. So what started as protests end turn into battles.
Hence, the restrains shown by Delhi police is worth appreciating.
 |
| Wheels within Wheels |
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment