Opinion | The Tale Of Two Protests: Why Is Disorder Democracy In India, But Public Order In France?

As protesters prepare to blockade the streets of Delhi over ECI and SIR of electoral rolls, the international and domestic narrative abruptly shifts.

Got Question about the News?

There is something deeply revealing, and remarkably hypocritical, about how street protests are interpreted across the world’s democracies.

When protests erupt in France—with schools violently blockaded, public property torched, and thousands of demonstrators arrested—the global vocabulary deployed is one of “unrest," “public disorder," and “clashes." The French state routinely deploys tear gas and water cannons, preemptively bans demonstrations deemed security risks, and has arrested over 6,000 people during recent student unrest alone. Hundreds of police officers have been severely injured. Crucially, however, France’s foundational democratic credentials do not suddenly become the central casualty of these clashes. The West understands that the French state is simply maintaining order.

‘How Do We Balance It?’: SC On Curbs In Delhi Ahead Of Oct 10 CJP Protest

Delhi Protester’s Bus-Stopping 'Stunt' Goes Viral As Internet Mocks ‘Model Pose': 'Everyone Wants A Ticket To Bigg Boss'

Delhi Police Check Hotels, Hostels Ahead Of CJP's Oct 10 Protest; Occupants, Staff Members Being Questioned

CJP Oct 10 Protest: Delhi Police Step Up Vigil, Track 2,800 'Criminals', Monitor Buses, Borders

As protesters prepare to blockade the streets of Delhi over the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the international and domestic narrative abruptly shifts. Peaceful protest is an undeniable constitutional right. Citizens can and should question the ECI, demand absolute transparency, and seek judicial intervention. But the democratic argument becomes deliberately distorted when violent disruption is elevated into “dissent," and necessary state action to maintain order is immediately weaponised as evidence of democratic collapse.

That is the first lesson from this tale of two protests: a democracy can, and must, protect the right to protest without surrendering the right to maintain public order.

Recent protests in New Delhi have produced serious allegations of confrontations, including injuries to women police personnel and targeted physical assault by demonstrators. Conversely, there are also allegations of police excesses. Both deserve rigorous, impartial investigation. However, an allegation is not a conviction. Individual responsibility must be established through hard evidence, and this principle must cut both ways.

If a protester assaults an officer, obstructs a vital public artery, or damages taxpayer property, cloaking the act in the sanctity of “democratic dissent" does not magically make it so. Political leaders cannot lazily use the moral legitimacy of peaceful protest as a shield for mob disorder. The right to dissent is fundamental. The right to hold a nation’s capital hostage is not.

This distinction is particularly vital in the manufactured controversy currently surrounding the ECI and the SIR process.

To be clear, there is nothing undemocratic about scrutinising the Election Commission. Challenging procedures in court or verifying electoral-roll revisions is how a constitutional republic........

© News18