The recent police action against student protesters has shocked many across India. To countless viewers, the images evoke memories of the British Raj, when peaceful freedom fighters were subjected to brutal lathi charges in an attempt to suppress dissent. For many, the scenes witnessed today appear disturbingly similar.
Videos circulating widely show police officers using force against student protesters. The footage appears to show students bleeding from head injuries, some lying unconscious on the ground after being beaten, and others being pushed, shoved, and struck with batons while attempting to flee. One video appears to show an officer tripping a student as he runs, while another appears to show a senior police officer slapping a woman standing away from the main confrontation.
Other videos and reports have fuelled allegations of even more disturbing conduct, including the use of nail-studded lathis, pellet rounds, and electric shock batons, as well as women protesters being beaten and allegedly subjected to sexual misconduct by some personnel. If these videos accurately depict what occurred, they represent conduct that deserves an immediate, transparent, and independent investigation.
Additional videos circulating online have also prompted allegations that bricks were brought to the protest site by persons other than the students, allegedly to portray the protesters as violent. Another clip appears to show a police constable damaging a vehicle. Such footage has intensified demands for a full investigation into the events surrounding the protest.
These images raise an unavoidable question: what instructions were given to the police? The degree of force seen in the videos has led many observers to question whether the objective was merely to disperse a crowd or to inflict severe physical harm. If unlawful force was used, accountability should extend beyond those who wielded the lathis to those responsible for directing the operation.
Many critics argue that governments resort to excessive force when they become intolerant of dissent. They see the events as reflecting an administration more interested in suppressing criticism than engaging with citizens exercising their democratic right to peaceful protest.
Critics have also questioned sections of the media, arguing that they have failed to hold the government adequately accountable and have instead focused on narratives favourable to those in power. They contend that independent journalism is essential in ensuring transparency and protecting democratic institutions.
If investigations establish that excessive or unlawful force was used, those responsible—whether individual officers or those in the chain of command—must be held accountable. Critics also argue that political responsibility should not stop with the police hierarchy and have called upon the Union Home Minister to answer questions regarding the conduct of the police operation.
Some critics go further, arguing that the Prime Minister should accept political responsibility for the actions of his government. They contend that democratic accountability requires leaders to answer for major failures occurring under their administration rather than distancing themselves from them.
Whatever one’s political views, the videos have generated profound public concern. They have reignited debate over the right to peaceful protest, the limits of state power, police accountability, and the health of India’s democratic institutions. Those questions deserve answers through transparency, due process, and public accountability.
Barrister M A Siddiqui