THE NUMERATION OF EVENTS 193Andhra Pradesh–Karnataka protests over the Paragodu dam. Yet, government-sponsored protests
are not distinguished from non-government-sponsored protests in the Banks data set.
In some protests the police have joined with the government or protested on their own. An
example of the former is the UP bandh, noted previously. There, the Allahabad High Court, the
highest court in UP, was attacked by leaders of the ruling Samajwadi Party–Bahujan Samaj Party
alliance aided by the police. The High Court chief justice’s office was trashed; he called the chief
justice of India; and the chief justice of India approached the Defence Ministry for protection of
the UP High Court justice. According to an observer, “When lawyers protested against the hooli-
ganism of the pro-bandh activists, they were assaulted by the policemen with lathis [long sticks]....
There were many reports of forcible closure of shops by the police who were reported to have
accompanied the bandh supporters on Tuesday. Those defying the bandh were beaten up by the
police.” The next day traders in about ten districts of UP observed a hartal in protest against the
police excesses.^22 An example of the latter is a case in early 2003 where the state of Jharkhand
Men’s Police Association called a stir over a variety of work-related issues. It was reported to
have involved 20,000 to 30,000 officers who took five days of leave to join the agitation.^23 Fol-
lowing Banks’s definitions, it is unclear whether this action and the UP action would be catego-
rized as strikes, demonstrations, or riots—or a combination of two or more of these. Yet, their
potential impacts are likely to be quite different than would those of strikes or demonstrations
composed of individuals not involved in law enforcement.
Opposition and the Power to Overcome It
Whether or not a protest action occurs depends in part upon the sanctions likely to be faced by
those who protest. A measure of the frequency of protest ignores such a contextual factor. For
example, in early 2003 when the state of Kerala teachers and government employees proposed a
strike, the government responded by making clear to those contemplating the strike that (1) if
they were regular employees, they would not be paid for the days they did not work; (2) if they
were temporary workers, they would be fired; and (3) if they decided to “report for duty,” they
would be promised protection.^24 The impact of the Tamil Nadu government’s use of TESMA
against public employees and the consequent Supreme Court decision against strikes by public
employees is very likely to radically change the frequency of strikes.
Earlier in 2003, the Tamil Nadu government faced a variety of other protest actions, one of
which was by government medical and dental students starting in late April. The purpose of the
action was to seek recognition of a variety of medical courses not recognized, a ban on the open-
ing of private medical colleges, and an increase in the stipend paid, among other things.^25 They
went on “strike,” though they continued to care for patients in need; they held dharnas, rasta
rokos, and fasts; and they courted arrest. The Tamil Nadu Government Doctors Association sup-
ported the students’ demand for a ban on the opening of private medical colleges by threatening
a series of protests starting with a cessation of selective surgeries, then a one day token strike,
then a “needle and knife down” protest where all but emergency surgeries would be stopped, and
finally an indefinite strike.^26 The Tamil Nadu government argued that it was the national, not the
state, government that had the authority to allow or disallow private medical colleges. The gov-
ernment suspended 5,000 striking medical students, yet the threatened dismissals that accompa-
nied the strike by government employees a month and a half later were not imposed. The medical
and dental student strike may not have occurred had the participants known of the government’s
response to the public employees’ strike in July. Furthermore, it may not have been counted as a
strike at all if, in fact, it was directed at the state rather than the national government.