Kumar Krishnan,
political commentator
The biggest power of democracy is not power, but dialogue. When dialogue is replaced by barricades, police forces and detention, then the question is no longer just about one movement or one political party, it becomes a question of the entire democratic character. Recent developments from Shambhu Border to Jantar Mantar and from Kisan Ghat to the Prime Minister’s residence indicate whether the space for dissent is continuously shrinking in Indian democracy?
The real test of any democratic system is when citizens ask questions of the government, when students take to the streets, farmers express concern about their future and the opposition demands answers from the government on public issues. At such a time, it is important to see whether the government chooses the path of dialogue or barricades, police force and detention.
Farmers from Punjab and Haryana wanted to express their apprehensions regarding the proposed India-US trade agreement. He said that if free trade is implemented without giving adequate protection to the agriculture and dairy sector, then Indian farmers may face an existential crisis. The government’s view was that the trade agreement would strengthen the country’s economy and national interests would be protected. This difference of opinion is natural in a democracy.
The real question is not who is right and who is wrong. The question is, has the government taken into sufficient confidence those whose lives will be most impacted by this policy? The success of a policy in a democracy is determined not only by economic benefits but also by social acceptance.
India’s agriculture is not just a sector of the economy, it is the basis of life, culture and social structure of crores of families. In such a situation, if farmers express concern, their answer should not be barricades, but facts and dialogue. In a democracy, the biggest strength of the government is trust, not the police, but this crisis is not limited to farmers only.
The incidents that unfolded in and around Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 21 raised serious questions on democratic accountability. Amidst the student movement, the opposition demonstration and the subsequent police action, a question echoed across the country – after all, who were those people present in civil dress (plain clothes) at the protest site, whose identity was not clearly visible?
In a democratic governance, the power of the police comes not only from its authority, but from its identity and accountability. Name plates and badges on the uniform give the citizen the assurance that if an officer uses force outside the law, it will be possible to identify him and hold him accountable, but if the people using force are in normal clothes and their identity is not clear, then many questions naturally arise.
Were they Delhi Police officers? Were they employees of a particular unit? Were they members of any intelligence agency? Or were they present there under some other arrangement? These questions should not be answered by any political party but by the state. In several videos circulated on social media, some people in plain clothes are seen among the protesters. In some videos, he was accused of pushing and grabbing. It is equally true that these videos have not yet been independently and officially verified publicly, so it is too early to reach any conclusions, but that is why transparency becomes all the more necessary.
If they were authorized policemen, the government should clarify which unit they were attached to and what their role was. If they were not policemen, then what was the basis for their presence in a sensitive operation like crowd control? In a democracy, this is not a question of any party, but of the rule of law. The UN Code of Conduct and Basic Principles also emphasize identification and accountability of officials who use force. Even in India, the Supreme Court has been emphasizing from time to time the need for police reforms and accountability system.
Deploying plainclothes police may be legitimate in many circumstances, especially for surveillance or intelligence operations, but if the same officers directly use force, their identity must be clearly visible, as the state cannot be an invisible force. There should be a responsible face for his every action. This is why the question of Jantar Mantar is no longer a question of only students or opposition. It becomes a question of that democratic culture in which the citizen wants to know who used force against him.
If any protestor was assaulted, if anyone got hurt or if a woman alleged misbehavior, there should be a fair investigation into these allegations. If the allegations are false, the government should clarify this with facts. If the allegations are true, action should be taken against those responsible. This is the basic spirit of the rule of law. Unfortunately, today political polarization has increased so much that every incident is being seen only through the prism of power and opposition. This weakens trust in democratic institutions. In a democracy, the power of the government is not seen in suppressing criticism, but in responding to criticism. (These are the personal views of the author)
Comments are closed.