Amit Shah and Delhi Police: Can the Use of Force Stop the Movement or Turn It into a Nationwide Revolt? – 7

# Prem Sagar Poudel

Police action in India’s capital cannot be understood merely as a decision made by officers at the protest site.

Delhi Police functions under the Union Home Ministry. Its political responsibility is therefore connected to the security establishment led by Home Minister Amit Shah.

The Delhi Police Commissioner assumed office only days before facing a major student demonstration, a march towards Parliament, the protection of sensitive government areas and intense media pressure.

The government would naturally expect firm management of security and intelligence under such circumstances.

According to the police, protesters violated restrictions, attempted to break through barricades, threw stones, damaged public property and injured security personnel.

Protesters and human-rights groups, however, have alleged that police used unnecessary force, tear gas and batons.

The casualty figures and detailed claims from both sides require independent verification.

Legally, the police have a duty to protect Parliament, the prime minister’s residence and other sensitive locations.

However, the use of force must be necessary, proportionate and a measure of last resort.

If authorities fail to distinguish among peaceful participants, violent individuals, minors, journalists and medical volunteers, the legitimacy of the entire operation comes into question.

The political consequences of police violence can be the opposite of what the state intends.

Before the crackdown, the controversy was largely viewed as an education issue. After images of injured students, detained opposition leaders and hospitalised protesters circulated, it became a question of civil liberties and state repression.

Amit Shah faces the difficult task of balancing public order with political sensitivity.

An excessively restrained response may invite accusations that the government has lost control. Excessive force, however, could unite a generation of young people against the state.

Deploying additional central security forces may restore short-term control, but it could also send the message that students are being treated as an internal-security threat.

If the movement remains overwhelmingly peaceful, a heavy security presence may damage the government more than the protesters.

Police leadership should take five immediate steps.

It should preserve all visual evidence, submit the chain of command behind the use of force to independent examination, issue a verified list of the injured, guarantee access for journalists and medical workers, and prosecute violent individuals only on the basis of specific evidence.

Broadly framed criminal complaints, vague accusations and the use of severe security laws may create temporary fear.

But if thousands of students and families begin to feel that they have been criminalised, long-term trust in the police will decline.

Judicial scrutiny of police conduct is an important institutional safeguard.

The purpose of the courts is not to prevent the police from maintaining order, but to determine whether the methods used were lawful and proportionate.

The performance of the Delhi Police leadership should not be measured by the number of protesters arrested.

It should be judged by whether the capital remained secure while the constitutional right to dissent was protected.

Amit Shah’s political maturity will similarly be assessed not by the amount of force deployed, but by whether he can identify the correct moment for dialogue.

The state possesses far greater power than the protesters. It therefore carries a greater responsibility to exercise restraint.

About the Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has conducted in-depth studies on Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues.