The author is most likely to disagree with the statement that

1. democracy provides the right to follow a particular view point and by this very definition, it also provides a legitimate existence to a contrary viewpoint, thereby creating paradoxes.
2. the use of force to propagate a viewpoint in a democratic nation is not only illegal but also restrictive in the sense that it disallows the basic rights to the opponents of the viewpoint.
3. direct action these days consists of non-violent gherao and bandhs.

While we have forgotten much of what Gandhi ji recommended regarding the use of Satyagraha against a foreign ruler, we see instances of it, day in and day out, in support of some cause or issue a group of people advocates. And this is happening 60 years after our country has had a fully democratic system with adult franchise. Whereas Satyagraha was intended to be peaceful, today's direct action is accompanied by threats and violence.

There have also been cases of direct action directed at private individuals or groups. Such action as practised today is openly coercive. A boycott of a play thought to be anti-Hindu or of a film thought to be obscene prevents those who disagree, from attending the performance and exposes the organisers to stone-throwing and arson, and, of course, financial loss. Gandhi ji was justified in breaking the salt law as it was passed by the British and we were powerless to rescind it. If we have a bad law today, the correct remedy can never be satyagraha or civil disobedience. The proper democratic course of action would be to campaign for its repeal. Similarly, if there is some evil which is rampant, the democratic course of action is to campaign for the enforcement of the law against it or, if there is no satisfactory law, for its enactment.

The right which democracy confers is to propound a particular view point; inherent in the right is the right of its opponents to disagree. The moment the proponents of a viewpoint adopt coercive tactics, not only are they acting unlawfully, they are also denying their opponents their democratic right to disagree. Every so often the morchas are organised by groups which either want disturbances or at least do not mind them. A morchais in these cases is accompanied by shattered windows, looted shops and smashed buses and cars. A more extreme form of such agitation is a bandh.  Even a peaceful bandh results in lakhs of people losing money.

No doubt the government ought to prevent such acts. But it is unsure of public support and afraid of the violence that often erupts if morchas or bandhs are sought to be prevented. It takes the easy path of inaction. At times, it is in sympathy with the cause and actively supports the agitation.

It is high time we woke up to what these pressure groups are doing and make them stop bullying the common man. If we keep on permitting interest groups to carry on as they have been doing, a day will come when we will witness the end of both the rule of law and democracy.