Change the dynamics of 'protesters-police'
state machinery but also among many within civil society. 'Police', in the context of protests, has a similar effect, with notions of 'needful' acts of aggression jostling with those of 'needless' rampage.
Both descriptions, as the Supreme Court on Tuesday reminded us in the context of 'police action' taken during peaceful protests in Kolkata against the RG Kar Hospital rape-murder case, are caricatures. The 'power of the state must not be unleashed on peaceful protesters', the court stated, urging law enforcement agencies to handle such situations 'with sensitivity'.
The home ministry's 1985 Code of Conduct for Indian Police mandates that while enforcing the law, 'methods of persuasion, advice, and warning' should be used as much as possible, and if force is unavoidable, it should be the 'irreducible minimum'.
But 'paper' deviates from practice, on far too many occasions — during the latest protests, earlier ones against farm laws, or wrestlers' agitation against sexual harassment. The problem stems from the protesters-police dynamic still being seen through a British India colonial 'control-command' lens where protesters, non-violent or not, need to be 'broken up', rather than be allowed to air their grouses in a democratic free space.
Despite legal protections, lathi-charging, water-cannoning and using force to remove agitators is considered kosher as primary course of action for the police.
Protests can — and do — go violent. But cracking down can't be the first port of call for law enforcement.
Yes, this isn't as easy as it sounds. But, then, the difference between, say, a China and a non-police state should remain as stark as possible.
