CJP Jantar Mantar protest: How MHA can manage agitations with less intervention and more dialogue

The impasse over the October 10 protests in New Delhi has put the role of the Union Home Ministry in the spotlight once again. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) finds itself at the centre of controversy, facing criticism for its law enforcement measures and coming under pressure from agitating groups to address the political allegations.

With prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in force across New Delhi District and the Delhi Police denying permission for the demonstration at Jantar Mantar on Saturday, a sense of unease has gripped the capital. But was it necessary to deny permission and deploy a large contingent of paramilitary forces? Moreover, was there a need for the MHA to intervene directly?

The basic question has a simpler answer. It goes back to the role of the Delhi police to engage the protestors, negotiate a suitable location and agree on the duration and conditions of the demonstration.

Security experts say that the responsibility for managing a public protest rests with the Delhi Police, and a simple meeting between the Delhi Police commissioner and the protestors - the CJP-led student agitators and the Opposition leaders- could have avoided the anxiety gripping citizens today. The windows for such meetings can be opened anytime, they say.

In 2012, anger erupted on the streets of New Delhi over the rape and murder of a young woman, with protestors marching up to the doorstep of the Union Home Ministry housed in North Block on Raisina Hill. But the 'babus' handled it well. They huddled with the Union Home Secretary, who dialled the Delhi Police Commissioner and put him on the job to handle the situation.

While the policymakers sat down to draft the anti-rape ordinance overnight, which eventually translated into an act of Parliament, the street protests were left to the police to handle. The outcome was that one evening the Delhi Police commissioner himself sat in North Block to relay a public message assuring the public of the steps being taken to protect them against such violent crimes. Not only did the protests end, but the Union Home Ministry had safely distanced itself from actively interfering and turning the agitation into a political slugfest.

The BJP, in opposition at that time, had to bite the dust.

“I am surprised that here the Home Secretary is taking the lead, writing to the states and assessing the next steps,” said a senior security official. “Whatever may be the reason for the protests, the statutory authority is the Delhi police," said a security official.

Senior security officials said that while the Nirbhaya agitation was not “political” in nature like the ongoing protests against the ECI and ruling BJP, the MHA still does not need to take into consideration the “nature” of the protests, instead relying on the experience of officers tasked to handle such agitations.

But if the MHA’s directions come before the police have an opportunity to negotiate, then the scope of dialogue shrinks, resulting in a deadlock. That’s because the protestors are left wondering where to protest or gather, and the police are left to enforce restrictions.

Yashovardhan Azad, former special director of the Intelligence Bureau, cited the example of Sir Mark Rowley, the London Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who allowed a pro- Palestinian demonstration in London despite objections from politicians. He insisted there was insufficient intelligence of a risk to public order.

The role of Intelligence Bureau

While the Delhi police is under the administrative control of the Union Home Ministry, the Intelligence Bureau, which primarily deals with internal security threats, operates under the jurisdiction of the MHA. Its job is to assess the ground situation and potential threat to national security. "The IB has to report what is happening on the ground. It is up to the home minister how to interpret it,” explains Azad.

As if the CJP’s mobilisations were not enough, the opposition manoeuvres, especially by the Congress, have perplexed intelligence officials who are waking up to newer challenges every day. “ If Congress leaders and cadres themselves do not know what their next plan will be, how can the IB know?” quipped a senior security official.

Experts say the mandate of the IB isn’t to be intrusive by gathering information on political opponents, but to use it for their professional assessment of internal security threats. In this case , the information flow itself becoming a problem seems to have opened space for law enforcement of an exaggerated kind.

Plugging the gap

The gap, therefore, can be fixed when both the Delhi police and IB perform their tasks, and the MHA does not proactively respond to protests reaching its doorstep. The common lesson that may emerge from October 10 can be moving beyond preventing protests to building a robust strategy of managing them.