If the Tamil Nadu government does indeed persist with its call for a bandh today, do spare a thought for policemen on the beat. Imagine if a person is intent upon getting on with her business, and supporters of the bandh are equally serious about enforcing the strike. Morally, which of the two should law enforcement personnel assist? The woman seeking the cover of law to get by, as is her entitlement as a citizen of a democracy? Or the bandh supporter citing to the policeman the fact that the call has come from their high executive, M. Karunanidhi, the chief minister of the state? This is the kind of bizarre situation the Tamil Nadu government has threatened to foment as part of its passionate protest against Supreme Court’s stay on a 27 per cent quota for OBCs in higher education.

Karunanidhi’s background would naturally predispose him to take the court order in more than political terms. Reservation-based affirmative action is part of the DNA of progressive movements for socio-economic empowerment in Tamil Nadu. But on this occasion the DMK leader has got the architecture of protest hopelessly wrong. It is not just that the bandh call betrays misappreciation of his constitutional responsibility to ensure the rule of law. More significantly, by taking the issue to the streets, he could be setting up a confrontation between the executive and the judiciary.

This practice of calling of bandhs by ruling chief ministers is of course nothing new; but it had thus far been limited to Left ruled states. And Karunanidhi need only look at Nandigram to gauge the tragic consequences of mobilising state machinery for political programmes of the party cadres. But Karunanidhi is doing more than just choreograph a political agenda. His party is a member of the ruling UPA at the Centre, and the protest is an unsubtle suggestion to New Delhi to take on the judiciary. The Centre, for its part, must take cognisance. It is the Centre’s responsibility to nudge states to heed their responsibility to maintain normalcy. Karunanidhi must be unequivocally told that chief ministers simply cannot disrupt life in states they rule.