The wreckage in the Bidhan Sabha of West Bengal is a symbol. It is easy to link that symbol with the politics practised by Ms Mamata Banerjee, the numero uno of the Trinamool Congress. Ever since she fashioned herself as the great opponent of the Left Front, she has pursued the politics of disruption and destruction. The destruction she incited within the state legislative assembly on Thursday represents the nadir of this kind of politics. She revealed that she and her party have little or no respect for democracy, its institutions and its practices. She destroyed one of the shrines of democracy. This destruction is a symbol of another emerging trend in the Indian political praxis. This is the tendency to take political and other issues outside the realm and the institutions of democracy. Nobody denies that protest and dissent are integral to democracy. The right to express one’s views that is enshrined in a democracy is what distinguishes it from various forms of despotism. But democracy has also created a space where dissent and protest can be articulated. Democratic institutions like the parliament and the legislative assemblies exist to provide the fora for such articulation. Protests and demonstrations in the streets lie at the limits of this space and are used by political leaders and parties who have no faith in democratic institutions. What is alarming in India is that political leaders wedded to democracy are showing scant respect for the institutions and practices of democracy.

The behaviour of Ms Banerjee, who believes in the democratic process — she and her party regularly fight elections — is an example of this. She has the right to protest against the setting up of an industrial unit on agricultural land. But such protest should be voiced in the form of a discussion within the assembly or parliament. Even before she had exhausted this process, she took to the streets, created a confrontation and reacted to the confrontation by destroying the sanctity and property of the Bidhan Sabha. Ms Banerjee has obviously not learnt from a similar experiment in the past. Mr L.K. Advani, more than a decade ago, took out a rath yatra to rouse the people. He is also the leader of a political party that is committed to democracy. Mr Advani took politics away from democracy and its norms. The result was a heightening of communal feelings that led directly to the destruction of the Babri Masjid in December 1992. Other political leaders, proclaiming themselves to be upholders of democracy, have also implicated themselves in violence that is essentially undemocratic.

India is a proud democracy, and the political system provides many adequate opportunities for the expression of protest and dissent. Violence cannot be admitted as a modality of that expression. Violence is against the spirit of democracy. Leaders like Ms Banerjee have to choose. Perhaps they have chosen.