Brutality and Accountability of the Excessive Force used by Delhi Police at Jantar Mantar

 

Brutality and Accountability of the Excessive Force used by Delhi Police at Jantar Mantar

S.R. Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

                

The events surrounding the police action against protesters at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on 20 July 2026 have generated one of the most significant debates in contemporary India concerning the relationship between state power, civil liberties, and democratic governance. Allegations of indiscriminate use of force by the Delhi Police against demonstrators—including students, women, social activists, and political workers—have prompted widespread criticism from civil society organizations, lawyers' associations, human rights groups, and sections of the media. At the same time, the Delhi Police has defended its actions, asserting that the protesters attempted to violate lawful restrictions, breached police barricades, and endangered public order by attempting to march towards Parliament without authorization.

The controversy raises fundamental constitutional questions. What are the limits of police powers in controlling public demonstrations? Under what circumstances can force be legally employed against citizens exercising their democratic rights? What constitutes "minimum necessary force" or "proportionate force" under Indian constitutional law and international human rights standards?

Here we critically examine the legality and proportionality of the Delhi Police's actions at Jantar Mantar by analysing the constitutional framework governing peaceful protest, statutory provisions regulating police powers, judicial precedents, international human rights standards, and the competing narratives surrounding the incident. Rather than presuming guilt or innocence, the discussion evaluates the legal principles that should guide any objective assessment of police conduct in a democratic society.

The Constitution of India guarantees several fundamental rights that collectively protect the democratic right to protest. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. These provisions recognize that democracy is sustained not only through periodic elections but also through continuous public participation in political life.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that peaceful protest is an indispensable feature of constitutional democracy. Citizens possess the right to express disagreement with governmental policies, mobilize public opinion, and demand accountability through peaceful demonstrations. Public spaces such as Jantar Mantar have historically served as symbolic forums where diverse social groups have voiced grievances and sought governmental attention.

Nevertheless, these freedoms are not absolute. Articles 19(2) and 19(3) authorize the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, public order, morality, and security. The crucial constitutional requirement, however, is that restrictions must satisfy the test of reasonableness. Administrative convenience or political discomfort cannot justify arbitrary suppression of peaceful assembly.

The doctrine of proportionality, now firmly embedded in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, requires that any restriction on a fundamental right must pursue a legitimate objective, employ the least restrictive means available, and maintain a reasonable balance between public interest and individual liberty. Consequently, police intervention against demonstrators must always be evaluated through the lens of constitutional proportionality rather than administrative expediency.

The Delhi Police possess statutory authority to regulate assemblies and maintain public order under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Delhi Police Act, and other applicable laws. Police officers may impose restrictions, regulate traffic, establish security cordons, and disperse unlawful assemblies where genuine threats to public safety exist.

However, these powers are accompanied by corresponding legal limitations.

Indian law does not authorize unlimited or arbitrary use of force. Even where an assembly becomes unlawful, police action must comply with established principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability. Force should always represent the last available option after persuasion, negotiation, warnings, and less intrusive measures have failed.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the State cannot extinguish constitutional freedoms merely because exercising those freedoms creates administrative inconvenience. Democratic governments are expected to accommodate peaceful dissent rather than suppress it.

The legal principle governing police action may therefore be summarized in four requirements: Legality: Force must be expressly authorized by law. Necessity: No less restrictive alternative should be available. Proportionality: The degree of force must correspond to the actual threat. Accountability: Every use of force should remain subject to judicial and public scrutiny.

Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements raises serious constitutional concerns.

India is a party to several international human rights instruments that recognize freedom of peaceful assembly as a fundamental democratic right. Although international conventions are not automatically enforceable domestically, Indian courts have frequently relied upon them while interpreting constitutional rights.

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provide internationally accepted standards governing police conduct. These principles require law enforcement agencies to employ force only when strictly necessary, to minimize injury, to distinguish between peaceful and violent participants, and to ensure prompt medical assistance to injured persons.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has similarly emphasized that restrictions on peaceful assembly must remain exceptional rather than routine. The burden rests upon the State to demonstrate that restrictions are necessary in a democratic society.

These standards reinforce India's own constitutional commitment to protecting civil liberties while maintaining public order.

According to numerous protesters, civil society organizations, and human rights defenders, the police resorted to excessive force despite the predominantly peaceful character of the demonstration. They alleged indiscriminate lathi charges, physical assaults upon students and women, use of tear gas, arbitrary detentions, and unnecessary violence after protesters had already been dispersed. Several legal associations demanded an independent judicial inquiry into the incident, arguing that police conduct violated constitutional guarantees and established principles governing crowd control.

The Delhi Police has rejected these allegations. According to official statements, no permission had been granted for the proposed march towards Parliament, protesters attempted to breach police barricades, some participants allegedly resorted to stone-pelting, and a significant number of police personnel sustained injuries while attempting to maintain public order. The police therefore maintain that the use of force became unavoidable to prevent further escalation.

The central legal question is not whether force was used but whether the force employed exceeded constitutional limits. To judge it we have to see whether the gathering was peaceful before police intervention? Were adequate warnings issued? Were negotiations attempted? Did protesters possess realistic opportunities to disperse voluntarily? Was force graduated from minimal to greater levels only as circumstances required? Were women, elderly persons, journalists, and bystanders protected? Was medical assistance promptly provided to the injured? Did police distinguish between violent individuals and peaceful participants?

From the videos available on social media, it is seen that the gathering was mostly peaceful.  There is no video available on social media which shows that adequate warnings were given. Had adequate warnings been given it is likely that the protesters would have dispersed voluntarily. The Modi government made a half-hearted effort to negotiate on 19^th July but no assurance was given to the protesters. AS seen from the videos on social media the force used by Delhi Police was excessive. A single protester was canned/lathi charged by more than one police man. The protesters were hit on head and chest as against to hit below the waist as mandated by rules. 

As seen from the videos Delhi police men are seen molesting women, hit the journalists, bystanders and peaceful agitators. The people just passing by or standing on roadside were also hit mercilessly. The videos show that the protesters caught the police men holding canes with long nails which can cause very grievous injuries.  It is also seen that the police men were wielding 6 ft long lathis which give a very heavy blow when hit with it. It is shocking that when police in the whole country have replaced the lathis with short canes, Delhi police continue to arm itself with British time lathis.

The shocking thing seen in the videos is that most of the police men were not putting on name plates and other badges as required by uniform rules. As such the identity of the police men using force cannot be ascertained if required at any stage. When objected to it by the protesters the concerned persons or their officers could not reply. One woman RAF officer said that the police men had taken off the name plates due to hot weather. Quite funny!

Apart from it many videos show that there were many men in plain clothes wielding canes and using them against the protesters along with the uniformed men. When asked about their identity by the protesters they could not reply.  It is very suspicious as to who were they and who put them on this duty.  Some persons on the social media have said that these are members of the Modi-Shah Force (MSF) which is a force like SS of Hitler. They are recruited from BJP/RSS cadre. These plain clothes men were seen lathi charging and pelting stones at the protesters. Even some uniformed men were also seen pelting stones at the agitators. It is necessary to point out that the protesters had found a truck load of stones parked near Jantar Mantar. One broken car was also parked there. Some police men were photographed by protesters who were breaking the glasses of a police car parked there.

It is shocking that Pallet Gun was used by Delhi police but it has been denied by them. To counter it there is a video where RAF man is seen firing a Pallet Gun while protesters are requesting him not to fire. In another video protesters are seen picking up red coloured shells of Pallet Gun rounds. So far four persons have been traced who have been hit by Pallet Gun pallets and are under going treatment at RML hospital. The use of Pallet Gun is restricted as it can cause loss of eyesight but it has been used by Delhi Police with impunity. Not only this Shock Batons, which give a severe electric shock, were also used.

From the above details it transpires that the force used by Delhi police at Jantar Mantar on 20^th July was excessive and brutal. The protestors were charged with canes, lathis, tear gas, Pellet guns, Shock Batons and iron rods. The women were molested and misbehaved with by both uniformed and plain clothes men. The police seem to be less interested in dispersing them but teach them a lesson. It has resulted in injury to a large number of protesters who are hospitalised. The police has arrested a large number of protesters.

As regards the accountability of the brutality and use of excessive force by Delhi Police, it falls squarely on Union Home Minister Amit Shah because Delhi Police is directly under his command. Hence the credit for police excesses, violation of uniform rules, use of canes with nails and lathis, use of Pallet guns and shock batons goes to Amit Shah. The officers responsible for excessive use of force, violation of rules regarding use of force and molestation of women and deploying plain clothes men should also be punished. A judicial enquiry about this dreadful episode should also be ordered.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's Critique of Communism and His Relations with Communists

 

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's Critique of Communism and His Relations with Communists

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

Introduction

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar occupies a unique place in the intellectual and political history of modern India. A jurist, economist, social philosopher, constitutionalist, and leader of the oppressed, Ambedkar developed a comprehensive theory of social justice that sought to eradicate both economic exploitation and social oppression. Throughout his life, he engaged critically with the major ideological currents of his time, including liberalism, socialism, communism, nationalism, and Buddhism. Among these, his engagement with Marxism and communism remains one of the most significant and intellectually rich.

Ambedkar's relationship with communism was neither one of outright hostility nor uncritical acceptance. He admired Karl Marx's penetrating critique of capitalism and agreed that economic exploitation was a central problem confronting modern societies. He also shared with socialists and communists a commitment to eliminating poverty, inequality, landlordism, and the concentration of wealth. However, he fundamentally disagreed with orthodox Marxism on its understanding of Indian society, its theory of historical change, its reliance on violent revolution, and its acceptance of the dictatorship of the proletariat. More importantly, Ambedkar believed that Indian communists had failed to understand the decisive role of caste in structuring social, economic, and political life in India.

For Ambedkar, caste was not merely a cultural phenomenon or a superstructure resting upon economic relations; it was an autonomous and deeply entrenched system of graded inequality that shaped access to labour, property, education, political power, and human dignity. Consequently, he argued that any revolutionary movement that ignored caste would fail to transform Indian society. His critique of communism was therefore rooted not in a defence of capitalism but in a broader conception of democracy, liberty, fraternity, and social justice.

Ambedkar's Appreciation of Marx's Critique of Capitalism

Ambedkar never dismissed Karl Marx as an intellectual opponent. On the contrary, he acknowledged Marx's profound contribution to understanding capitalism and its exploitative tendencies. Marx's analysis of surplus value, concentration of capital, alienation of labour, and class exploitation impressed Ambedkar as an important contribution to political economy.

In his celebrated essay Buddha or Karl Marx (1956), Ambedkar observed that both Buddha and Marx sought to eliminate human suffering. He recognised that capitalism created enormous inequalities by allowing wealth to accumulate in the hands of a small minority while the working classes remained impoverished. Industrial workers often experienced long hours, poor wages, insecure employment, and degrading living conditions. Ambedkar's own experience in Bombay's industrial environment strengthened his appreciation of the exploitative nature of industrial capitalism.

However, Ambedkar argued that identifying exploitation correctly did not necessarily justify every proposed remedy. Marx's diagnosis, in his opinion, was often insightful, but his prescription raised serious moral and political questions.

Democracy versus Violent Revolution

Perhaps Ambedkar's strongest criticism of communism concerned its revolutionary strategy. Orthodox Marxism regarded violent revolution as historically inevitable. According to Marxist theory, the capitalist state serves the interests of the ruling class and therefore cannot be transformed peacefully. Consequently, revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat become necessary stages in the transition to socialism.

Ambedkar firmly rejected this proposition. He believed that constitutional democracy provided legitimate means for achieving radical social and economic change. Throughout his political career, he insisted that democratic institutions should not be abandoned even when they appeared slow or imperfect.

In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Ambedkar warned against abandoning constitutional methods:

"If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives."

For Ambedkar, violence could overthrow governments but could not establish enduring justice. Revolutions frequently replaced one form of tyranny with another. The suppression of dissent, concentration of political power, and erosion of civil liberties that characterised several twentieth-century communist regimes reinforced his scepticism regarding revolutionary dictatorship.

Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity as an Indivisible Trinity

Ambedkar regarded liberty, equality, and fraternity as inseparable principles. Unlike Marxists who often prioritised economic equality above all else, Ambedkar insisted that freedom and equality must develop together.

He argued that political systems sacrificing liberty in pursuit of equality inevitably degenerated into authoritarianism. Conversely, societies protecting liberty without ensuring equality produced oligarchy and exploitation.

Drawing inspiration from both the French Revolution and Buddhist ethics, Ambedkar maintained that fraternity—the recognition of the equal moral worth of every human being—was the essential condition for sustaining both liberty and equality. Democracy, therefore, was not merely a constitutional arrangement but a moral order founded upon mutual respect.

Ambedkar's Critique of Historical Materialism

Marxist historical materialism explains historical development primarily through changes in economic relations and modes of production. Economic structure determines political institutions, legal systems, religious beliefs, and cultural practices.

Ambedkar considered this explanation inadequate for understanding Indian society. He argued that caste could not simply be treated as a by-product of economic relations. Instead, caste possessed an independent historical and ideological existence.

In India, social hierarchy often determined economic opportunity rather than the reverse. Occupation, education, access to land, and political authority were mediated by caste status. A person's economic position could not be understood independently of the caste order into which they were born.

Thus, Ambedkar challenged the economic reductionism of orthodox Marxism by demonstrating that social domination could exist independently of ownership of the means of production.

The Centrality of Caste

Ambedkar's most enduring criticism of Indian communists concerned their neglect of caste.

Indian Marxists generally interpreted caste as a secondary manifestation of class relations that would disappear following socialist revolution. Ambedkar rejected this assumption.

He argued that caste divided Indian society into thousands of hereditary groups organised through the principles of purity and pollution. These divisions regulated marriage, occupation, residence, social interaction, education, and political participation. Even workers belonging to different castes often refused to dine together or intermarry.

His famous observation in Annihilation of Caste remains one of the most powerful critiques of caste society:

"Caste is not merely a division of labour; it is a division of labourers."

Unlike the capitalist division of labour, caste permanently assigns occupations according to birth while simultaneously creating a hierarchy of human worth. Consequently, caste fragments working-class solidarity itself.

For Ambedkar, the destruction of capitalism without the annihilation of caste would leave intact one of India's deepest systems of oppression.

Class and Caste: Two Distinct Structures of Exploitation

Ambedkar insisted that India contained two interrelated but distinct systems of domination: economic exploitation and caste oppression.

A poor Brahmin and a poor Dalit might occupy similar economic positions, yet their social experiences differed fundamentally. The Brahmin retained ritual status, cultural authority, and social acceptance, whereas the Dalit faced untouchability, humiliation, segregation, and exclusion regardless of economic condition.

Similarly, wealthy members of oppressed castes continued to experience caste discrimination despite economic advancement.

This insight anticipated later sociological approaches that recognise multiple and intersecting forms of inequality rather than reducing all social relations to class alone.

Religion: Marx and Ambedkar

Marx famously described religion as "the opium of the people," arguing that it legitimised exploitation by promising rewards in the afterlife while discouraging resistance in the present.

Ambedkar accepted that certain religious traditions had justified oppression. His critique of Hinduism focused precisely on its sanctioning of caste hierarchy through scriptural authority.

However, unlike Marx, Ambedkar did not reject religion itself. He believed that religion could either reinforce oppression or inspire liberation depending upon its ethical foundations.

His eventual acceptance of Buddhism reflected this conviction. He interpreted Buddhism as a rational, ethical, and egalitarian religion promoting compassion, liberty, equality, and fraternity rather than ritual hierarchy or priestly domination.

In Buddha or Karl Marx, Ambedkar argued that while both Buddha and Marx sought justice, Buddha's path relied upon moral transformation rather than coercion and violence.

Ambedkar's Democratic Socialism

Although Ambedkar criticised communism, he cannot be described as a defender of laissez-faire capitalism.

His economic proposals were remarkably radical. In States and Minorities (1947), he advocated:

Nationalisation of agriculture land and collective farming ( influenced by Leninn’s Land Decree Policy), nationalisation of key industries; state ownership of insurance; protection of labour rights; economic planning; social security and constitutional safeguards against economic inequality.

These proposals reflected a commitment to democratic socialism rather than orthodox Marxism. Ambedkar envisioned a welfare state capable of reducing inequality while preserving democracy and individual freedoms.

Ambedkar's Relations with Indian Communists

Ambedkar's practical relationship with Indian communists reflected both cooperation and conflict.

Labour Politics in Bombay

Bombay during the 1930s and 1940s was one of India's major industrial centres. Both Ambedkar and communist organisations worked among textile workers, industrial labourers, and mill employees. Ambedkar joined hands with the communists to lead massive working-class strikes, such as the 1938 strike against the Industrial Disputes Act.

While they shared concerns regarding wages, working conditions, and labour rights, their political priorities often diverged. Communist leaders emphasised class unity, whereas Ambedkar argued that caste divisions prevented genuine working-class solidarity.

He repeatedly criticised communist organisers for ignoring caste discrimination within factories, trade unions, and workers' communities.

The Independent Labour Party

In 1936 Ambedkar founded the Independent Labour Party (ILP), a remarkable experiment that sought to unite workers, peasants, and oppressed castes under a democratic programme.

The ILP opposed landlordism, defended labour rights, demanded land reforms, and challenged caste oppression simultaneously. It represented one of the earliest attempts in India to integrate class politics with anti-caste politics.

Its emergence also brought Ambedkar into direct political competition with communist organisations for the support of industrial workers.

Criticism of Communist Leadership

Ambedkar believed that many communist leaders came from socially privileged backgrounds and underestimated the significance of caste in everyday life.

He argued that communist organisations often expected Dalits to postpone struggles against caste until after the socialist revolution. Ambedkar rejected such sequencing.

For him, social equality could not wait upon economic transformation.

Electoral Rivalry

Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Ambedkar's organisations and communist parties frequently contested elections in Bombay and other industrial regions. Although both appealed to workers, they represented different ideological traditions and frequently criticised one another's political strategies.

Buddha or Karl Marx

Ambedkar's final philosophical statement on communism appears in his essay Buddha or Karl Marx.

He argued that Buddha and Marx shared several objectives: elimination of exploitation; establishment of equality; concern for the poor and opposition to injustice.

Yet they differed fundamentally in their methods.

Marx advocated class struggle, revolution, dictatorship, and coercion.

Buddha advocated compassion, persuasion, ethical self-transformation, and democratic coexistence.

Ambedkar concluded that while Marxism sought justice through force, Buddhism sought justice through moral revolution.

For him, only the latter could preserve liberty while establishing equality.

Contemporary Relevance

The dialogue between Ambedkar and Marx continues to influence contemporary scholarship. Many social scientists now acknowledge that neither class analysis nor caste analysis alone is sufficient to explain Indian society.

Ambedkar's critique encouraged later scholars to recognise caste as an autonomous axis of power intersecting with class, gender, religion, and ethnicity. His work has profoundly influenced Dalit studies, constitutional theory, democratic thought, and human rights scholarship.

Meanwhile, Marxist analyses continue to illuminate processes of capitalist accumulation, labour exploitation, and economic inequality.

Rather than viewing Ambedkar and Marx as mutually exclusive, many contemporary scholars seek productive dialogue between the two traditions while recognising Ambedkar's insistence that the annihilation of caste is indispensable to any emancipatory politics in India.

Conclusion

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's critique of communism was one of the most original contributions to modern political thought. He accepted Marx's analysis of capitalist exploitation but rejected the authoritarian tendencies of communist politics, its acceptance of violent revolution, and its neglect of liberty and democracy. More fundamentally, he argued that Marxist theory failed to understand the distinctive character of Indian society because it reduced all forms of domination to class while overlooking the autonomous power of caste.

Ambedkar maintained that genuine social transformation required the simultaneous destruction of both economic exploitation and caste hierarchy. Democracy, constitutionalism, social equality, liberty, fraternity, and moral transformation formed the pillars of his vision. His advocacy of democratic socialism demonstrated that opposition to communism did not imply support for capitalism but reflected a commitment to a more humane and democratic path towards social justice.

His relationship with Indian communists remained complex—marked by cooperation in struggles for labour rights and land reforms, yet characterised by profound disagreements over theory, strategy, and the nature of Indian society. More than six decades after his death, Ambedkar's critique continues to challenge scholars and activists to develop a politics capable of addressing both class exploitation and caste oppression. His insistence that democracy must combine political freedom with social and economic justice remains one of the most enduring legacies of modern Indian political thought.