Beyond the Baton: Why the Jantar Mantar episode demands a policy review, not political polarisation

Democracies are tested not when protests are peaceful, but when they become contentious. The recent confrontation between protesters and Delhi Police near Jantar Mantar has once again triggered a familiar debate. Images of tear gas, lathi charges and injured demonstrators have dominated headlines, while questions about police conduct have understandably attracted public attention. Yet reducing the episode to a binary contest of “state repression” versus “law and order” misses the larger policy challenge confronting every democracy.

There is little doubt that any use of force by the police must be subject to scrutiny. In a constitutional democracy, law enforcement agencies derive legitimacy not merely from legal authority but from public confidence. Every allegation of excessive force deserves an impartial examination, and officers found to have acted outside established procedures must be held accountable. Accountability strengthens policing; it does not weaken it.

However, accountability cannot be selective. If the conduct of the police is to be investigated, so too must the circumstances that led to the deployment of force.

Democracies cannot evaluate only the final minutes of a confrontation while ignoring the hours or even weeks that preceded it.

According to available accounts, the protest itself had been permitted at Jantar Mantar, but permission did not extend to an onward march toward Parliament during an active session. The distinction is significant. Public authorities are expected to facilitate peaceful assembly while simultaneously protecting high security institutions and ensuring continuity of governance. Reports indicate that repeated announcements were made requesting protesters to remain within the sanctioned area before attempts were made to move toward restricted zones. Barricades were reportedly breached and police personnel sustained injuries before force was escalated.

Whether every aspect of the police response was proportionate remains a legitimate question. But so too is whether organisers retained effective control over the gathering, whether disruptive elements exploited the protest, and whether established protocols for negotiations broke down before confrontation became inevitable. These questions deserve the same seriousness as inquiries into police actions.

This is not merely an Indian dilemma. Liberal democracies across the world continue to grapple with balancing the right to protest against the responsibility to safeguard public institutions. In London, Paris, Washington and Berlin, governments have repeatedly faced criticism both for acting too forcefully and for acting too late. The lesson from these experiences is that simplistic narratives rarely improve public policy.

The conversation, therefore, should move beyond assigning blame and instead focus on institutional learning.

First, India would benefit from clearer operational protocols governing escalatory protests. Protest permissions should include transparent communication regarding routes, security perimeters and the legal consequences of breaching agreed conditions. Such clarity protects both citizens and law enforcement by reducing ambiguity during fast moving situations.

Second, independent post incident reviews should become standard practice after major public order operations. These reviews must examine the complete sequence of events, from planning and crowd management to communication failures and the proportionality of force used. Importantly, they should also distinguish peaceful protesters from individuals who may have engaged in violence, vandalism or attempts to provoke confrontation. Such reviews enhance public trust by demonstrating that accountability applies across the board. The ongoing review reportedly seeks to assess both police conduct and the role of disruptive elements within the crowd.

Third, India should continue investing in modern crowd management techniques that reduce dependence on physical force. Better surveillance, real time dialogue with protest organisers, trained negotiators, body worn cameras and evidence based documentation can significantly reduce both violence and disputes over what actually occurred. Technology cannot replace judgment, but it can improve transparency and accountability for all parties.

Fourth, public discourse itself requires greater responsibility. Viral videos often capture only the climactic moments of confrontation. They rarely show the warnings, negotiations or provocations that preceded them. Equally, official narratives should not rely solely on operational justifications without acknowledging the human impact of force on peaceful participants. A mature democracy must be willing to examine the entire sequence rather than selectively highlighting the evidence that reinforces pre existing political positions.

The broader lesson from Jantar Mantar is that India’s democratic institutions must resist both complacency and sensationalism. Police cannot be placed beyond criticism merely because they face difficult operational environments. Equally, protests cannot be insulated from scrutiny simply because they invoke democratic rights. Rights and responsibilities are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, the objective of public order policing should not be to “win” confrontations but to prevent them. Success is measured not by the number of arrests or the dispersal of crowds, but by the preservation of both constitutional freedoms and public safety.

The Jantar Mantar episode should therefore become less about political point scoring and more about policy reform. If the inquiry examines not only whether force was justified, but also why circumstances deteriorated to that point, India will emerge with stronger institutions, better policing practices and a more resilient democratic framework.

In a democracy, accountability must never be one sided. It must illuminate the actions of every stakeholder, from the police to protest organisers and disruptive actors alike. Only then can difficult lessons translate into durable reforms rather than recurring cycles of outrage.