“Reserving the liberty to the petitioner, the petition is disposed of considering the fact that all the 83 persons have been released. It is made clear that if any person is still under illegal detention of the local police, he/she be released forthwith.”

– Delhi High Court – Hindustan Times – August 11, 2015

Yes, we can now legally use the term ‘illegal’ for yet another midnight crackdown by the Delhi Police on ‘farmers’ who were protesting at Jantar Mantar and since the Delhi High Court thinks the ‘detention’ was illegal, we can safely say there was no provocation from the protesters’ side.

And since they were, the protesters, led by Yogendra Yadav, who had organized a day earlier a tractor protest at Delhi’s border, protesting peacefully, all we can say the Delhi Police once again acted in haste – and acted wrongly.

Yogendra Yadav and his supporters were arrested around 1 AM but Yadav, along with some protesters, were presented in the High Court only after 4 PM – the inordinate delay that irritated the court, like it did with many others.

Also, Yogendra Yadav’s tweets and photographs of the moment put the Delhi Police in the dock irrespective of whatever is the truth. Public, in Delhi and across the country, saw a manhandled and roughed up Yogendra Yadav in tweeted pictures. Then, the police did not allow Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer, to meet Yogendra Yadav and others while they were in police station.

Irrespective of the debates over intentions of Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan, irrespective of the intents of the ongoing protest rally – the Delhi Police crackdown was morally, politically and ‘socially’ wrong. When the tractor protest a day was okay, then a Hal Satyagraha (Hal=Ploughshare) a day later should have been no problem for the Delhi Police.

Instead of manhandling and detaining Yogendra Yadav and other protesters (as alleged), the police could have contained them easily at Jantar Mantar if at all they tried to move towards 7RCR – without their leader Yogendra Yadav. After all, they were just some 80 odd protesters.

Being in Delhi, the Delhi Police crushing a peaceful protest didn’t reflect well on the Ministry of Home Affairs, the controlling authority of the Delhi Police, and therefore, on the government of India, the BJP led National Progressive Alliance government.

Narendra Modi should be cautious of such developments and should try to rein in such movements because such developments add to negative public sentiments in a connected society.

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey –


So, Mr. Kejriwal is going to do it again.

Chances are and as he has threatened, tomorrow morning, a Monday morning, when the third week of the first month of 2014 begins, he (with his ministers and MLAs) is going to sit on dharna/sit-in (let’s see if turns out to be a fast protest) demanding suspension for four officers of the Delhi Police, who allegedly, according to them (AAP), didn’t carry out the duty they were supposed to do.

Delhi, being the National Capital City of India is an interesting case study on parameters of administrative governance. It is if of the Union Government and it is of the Delhi Government. But, the way policy matters have been worked out for the city-state, the balance is tilted in favor of the Union Government.

The Union Government handles the ‘law and order’. The Delhi Development Authority is under the control of the Lieutenant-Governor and not the chief minister. All the three municipal corporations of Delhi are not under the Delhi chief minister. Then there are other sticky issues.

This distribution of power may be debatable but one thing is sure about it that it hurts the ego of every chief minister of Delhi, irrespective of the political affiliation.

And Arvind Kejriwal is no exception. He could have been, given by his promise of introducing a ‘politics of change’, but he is proving it fast that he is just yet another routine politician.

And to change that, he needs to show us he meant to walk the talk, and that has to happen soon.

Anyway, about his ‘dharna’ beginning tomorrow, in North Block, outside the office of the Union Home Minister – he is demanding heads of four policemen – and he is demanding the Delhi Police be placed under the Delhi Government.

Now, that cannot be done.

Delhi, being the capital city, houses the most important installations of the nation, the President Estate, the Parliament, the prime-minister’s house, embassies and high commissions, offices of the international organization including the United Nations, central commands of the security forces and many others.

The Union Government has to take care of it directly, and to do that effectively and efficiently, it needs the direct control of the civic interface of the security apparatus in the city, the Delhi Police. This cannot be expected from the specialized agencies like the NSG or the CISF. And for a better coordination, that is a must, the Delhi Police must remain under the Union Government control.

Sheila Dikshit, a veteran politician of Congress and the three-term chief minister was on a warpath to wrest the control of the Delhi Police from her own party government in Centre but she could not get it. Her politically motivated demand was rightly refused.

And Mr. Kejriwal is doing the same thing. His ‘politics of change’ is talking the same politics that we have become so frustrated with.

The issue of going on ‘dharna’ to demand suspension of four police officers and the demand of control over the Delhi Police is just yet another questionable aspect on his ‘political conduct’ in the 23 days of his government in Delhi.

Questions are being raised, rightly, on his promises and the way he is trying to deliver them.

And instead of addressing that, he is planning yet another show that will add to the quantum of the ‘questions’ only.

Yes, the Delhi Police has been notoriously insensitive, but this time, the immediate cause of this sit-in is not their insensitivity but it looks more of reactive measures on ego-satisfaction of AAP ministers. We all saw it on television, AAP ministers trying to dominate the Delhi Police officers.

And that is not good, for Delhi, for India, and for its aspirations of a ‘politics of change’.

While joining the politics, Mr. Kejriwal said the System could only be cleaned by being in it. Absolutely right.

Then why is he trying to act ‘above the System’, ‘out of the System’, putting his party, his vision of the System, first?

We don’t need his political exclusivity. We need a culture of the political discourse where ‘healthy dissent’ is at the core of the System.

Be in sync, Mr. Kejriwal.

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey –


Any democracy needs to perform the tasks that will make it a just and fair society. But an overpopulated country, burdened with poverty, illiteracy and medieval social thinking prevalent in larger swathes, that India is, finds it in a deadlock in the political and bureaucratic class lording over it; overloading over it.

Again, a Sushil Kumar Shinde development, who had compared the young protesters of Delhi with Maoists and had justified the brutal police crackdown during the human surge of December 2013 protesting the gangrape of the 23-year old brave-heart, puts it in legible and understandable terms.

After this recent Delhi rape where a 5-year old girl was abducted, raped and was left to die by her neighbour and where Shinde’s Delhi Police tried to cover-up the case as it had tried to do in the December 2013 gangrape case, reports say that Neeraj Kumar, the Delhi Police Commissioner, might face the heat finally.

On questions of the Delhi Police Commissioner’s removal, Shinde replied, “I have ordered an inquiry into the two recent incidents- what happened to Mamata Banerjee at the Planning Commission and the case of some people entering my house. Action will be taken against those found responsible for it.”

How pathetic is that statement in the context of the larger issue – police failure in providing security, police cover-ups in rape cases like this!

Sad it is!

Shinde did not name Neeraj Kumar here. But that is not the question. The big and doomed irony is in Shinde’s statement.

Why couldn’t he say that the government was serious in the overhauling the police machinery after increasing reports of police apathy in handling rape cases and other women related crimes?

Why couldn’t he say that the government was serious for an overhaul after reports of cover-up attempts by the Delhi Police emerged?

Why couldn’t he say that the government was serious for an overhaul as he, like us, the Manmohan’s aam aadmi, was equally shocked by the police mindset reflected in a senior Delhi Police official slapping an innocent protesting girl?

Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and their loyal junior colleague Sushil Kumar Shinde could not find ‘worthy’ reasons to sack Neeraj Kumar when the huge protests swept the country in December last year.

They could not see the reason when the Delhi Police brutally charged and manhandled many protesters using force.

They could not see the light when the Delhi Police was left naked in the courtroom after it tried to frame some innocent youngsters for murder of one of its officials but faced the court ire on silly premises of the case.

They have chosen to fail to understand that why, even after the surge of human emotions, a national debate, and the subsequent demand to toughen the legal system, the rape cases have increased significantly with the national capital of India registering 393 cases in just three months.

But haven’t we left expecting sensitivity from the politicians?

So, Mr. Shinde, entrusted to secure us without discriminating on any factor (as the father of the Indian Constitution had envisioned), finds that Mamata Banarjee being heckled or his house being breached by some three-four protesters are reasons enough for big shake-up in the Delhi Police.

What the Congress party’s common man, a dying soul, a mutilated existence, an erupted nation and a watchful world could not do was done by a small incident of political rivalry between two politically belligerent groups and by a ‘harmless’ security breach at Shinde’s house.

See! We elect them!

When would we start thinking on ‘WHAT FOR’?

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey –