Comments on: Strikes not the answer

By: Patrix

Patrix — Sun, 21 May 2006 18:31:43 +0000

Confused, yup…you may be hypocritical here. You are arguing for a dangerous precedent here that any dialogue with the government is possible only by inconveniencing people that you serve.

By: confused

confused — Sun, 21 May 2006 16:58:30 +0000

mmm, I told you I was being hypocritical here.

But the basic point is, which is unfortunate I agree, without the strikes the government would not have even pretended to listen.

Also, Da Vinci Code did not come from the government, so it was not obliged to listen, reservations did. Just like after Medha Patkar sat on a strike, the government did send a fact finding team.

I know this is not perfect logic but this is the best I can come up with on a lazy sunday morning. :)

By: Patrix

Patrix — Sun, 21 May 2006 16:16:27 +0000

Confused, by your logic, protestors can use any tactic if it succeeds in bringing attention. Heck, the Christian protestors threat of violence if the Da Vinci Code was released was, in that case, valid because it succeeded in getting the government to review the movie. We cannot ignore the means for the end. In this case, the government may simply be addressing the symptoms by trying to quell the strikes but not address the question of reservations at all. Strikes leave a dangerous precendent of bringing attention to your cause.

By: confused

confused — Sun, 21 May 2006 12:59:03 +0000

The problem as I see is that the government policy making does not seem to care for contrarion opinion. An ideal would have been that government floated this proposal, invited discussion and then went about it. They you can talk about lobbying and stuff. Here the government action is by virtue of a fiat.

Only because the medicos have striked, the government is talking about increasing seats and stuff, though in my oinion that is even worse.

I know the patients suffer for no fault of theirs, but look at our PM. After almost a month, today he issued a statement. Are, he should have been talking to strikers or people who are opposed to it, trying to allay their concern.

Till the government learns that voices do matter in a democracy, nothing will change. I know you guys have a point but do you think government would have even talked without a strike?

By: Patrix

Patrix — Sun, 21 May 2006 04:19:15 +0000

Confused, I am not opposed to strikes per se althoug it may seem so in my post. But lately the abusive manner in which strikes are used to intimidate and literally blackmail the other parties is what gets to me. The doctors on strike are not engaging the government in any debate but merely putting the patients at risk and we all agree that they aren’t to blame for reservations.

You ask, what is the alternative? I am not sure what would be appropriate AND effective but raking up the issue in the media, taking it up to policy makers, lobbying for your interests might be few options. Of course, they do not have the immediacy of strikes which simply seems like taking a direct action but eventually achieve nothing.

By: confused

confused — Sun, 21 May 2006 00:16:09 +0000

I am not sure I agree with you.

What is the answer then? Strikes happen only because we have a government which is insensitive and where policy making is whimiscal. Did the government try explaining to the nation as to why this policy is needed? The hard data which justifies it? Whether you are pro or anti reservations, one has to agree that this issue has shown our government in a very bad light.

Frankly, I know I am being a little hypocritical here, because I am the first to curse when political parties organize bandhs/protests. But there is a difference between organizing a bandh against a terrorist attack-meaningless and against such a policy which has huge implications.

Its not the best way, but what is the alternative?