Editorial-25/07/2026
Caught on camera: on the use of force at Jantar Mantar
Caught on camera
A camera does more than record an event; it changes the public meaning of the event. Once images of baton use, tear gas, detentions, injuries, or alleged stone-pelting circulate, the dispute is no longer only about what happened at Jantar Mantar, but about whether state power was exercised within lawful limits. In such moments, a visual record can strengthen accountability, but it can also fragment the truth if short clips are stripped of context. That is why the central question is not simply whether force was seen on camera, but whether the force was justified, measured, and reviewable.
Jantar Mantar has symbolic weight in India’s democratic life because it is one of the most visible protest spaces in the capital. If a protest there becomes a spectacle of confrontation, it reflects a deeper failure of civic trust. A peaceful gathering should not be met with reflexive coercion, but neither should public protest be allowed to become an arena for intimidation, property damage, or attacks on police personnel. The test of a mature state is not the absence of unrest, but the restraint with which it responds.
Policing and proportionality
The principle of proportionality is simple: police action must be the minimum necessary to restore order. If crowd control begins with escalation rather than warning, if force is used before negotiation is exhausted, or if indiscriminate lathi-charge replaces targeted intervention, the line between policing and punishment blurs. Democratic policing depends on a ladder of response: communication, persuasion, containment, dispersal, and only then calibrated force when unavoidable. At every rung, documentation and supervisory review matter.
What makes camera evidence important is that it can show whether that ladder was followed. Did officers issue warnings? Were women, students, or bystanders treated with due care? Were injuries caused by excess force or by chaotic crowd movement? These are not minor questions, because each determines whether the State acted as guardian of order or as an agent of fear. The answer affects not only one incident, but public confidence in every future protest.
Right to dissent
The right to assemble peacefully is not a concession from the State; it is part of democratic citizenship. Protest exists precisely because lawmaking and governance do not always reflect the urgency of public grievance. When police action appears heavy-handed, it risks turning a manageable mobilization into a larger political crisis. People then begin to suspect that the State is policing dissent itself rather than violence.
That suspicion is corrosive. It weakens faith in institutions, especially among students, workers, activists, and marginal groups who already feel excluded from formal channels of influence. India’s constitutional promise requires that dissent be inconvenient at times, but never criminalized by default. The State can regulate the time, place, and manner of protest; it cannot dilute the substance of the right by making peaceful assembly feel dangerous.
Accountability gap
A recurring problem in such episodes is the gap between immediate action and later accountability. In the moment, authorities often defend force as necessary to prevent escalation. Later, protesters allege brutality, and both sides present competing narratives. This is exactly where independent inquiry, CCTV preservation, medical documentation, and prompt release of verified facts become essential. Without that, the public is left with video fragments, slogans, and speculation.
Accountability is not anti-police; it is pro-legitimacy. Officers who act lawfully should have nothing to fear from review. Conversely, when excess is ignored, even justified policing becomes suspect in the public mind. That is why visible discipline, clear command responsibility, and transparent reporting are indispensable. A police force that can explain itself earns authority; a force that only asserts authority invites distrust.
The larger lesson
The deeper issue at Jantar Mantar is not one clash, but the democratic habit we want to normalise. Do we want protests governed by dialogue and restraint, or by pre-emptive force and post-facto justification? Do we want citizens to believe that public space remains open to dissent, or that it becomes closed the moment demands grow politically uncomfortable? These are questions about the quality of the republic, not merely about crowd management.
The editorial answer should be firm. The State must protect public order without appearing to fear public speech. Protesters must preserve the non-violent moral basis of their cause. And when force is caught on camera, the image should not be used merely to score a partisan point; it should trigger a disciplined inquiry into legality, necessity, and proportion. That is how a democracy converts a controversy into institutional learning.
Download Pdf
