On October 16, young protesters opposing the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR), backed by the Cockroach Janata Party, organised a Tiranga March from Town Hall in Bengaluru to the Quit India Memorial, nearly two kilometres away. The Bengaluru City Police faced a strange dilemma. Four days earlier, the police had been criticised on the social media for detaining the same activists while they were protesting outside the Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer’s office on Sheshadri Road.
The protesters had accused the Congress-led government in Karnataka of hypocrisy, pointing out that Chief Minister D. K. Shivakumar had himself staged a protest outside the state election office and participated in a march called by national leaders towards the Supreme Court.
For the October 16 Tiranga March, the police granted permission at the eleventh hour, imposing several conditions on the organisers. These included a ban on sloganeering and placards, a prohibition on disrupting traffic, and instructions to follow the prescribed route.
The police could have denied permission, as the Karnataka High Court had, in a 2022 order, restricted demonstrations and rallies in Bengaluru to a designated protest site, which is Freedom Park. Violating the order could invite the court’s displeasure and force the police to initiate action against those breaking the restrictions.
Yet, the authorities found a way to accommodate the march, treating it as a Tricolour march rather than a protest march. For the Karnataka government, which had faced criticism over the arrests of anti-SIR protesters, this was a bitter pill to swallow. Denying permission risked inviting further criticism, while allowing an unrestricted demonstration could put the police in conflict with the High Court’s directions.
The organisers who secured permission were happy with the arrangement. But the younger protesters were in high spirits. They displayed placards and shouted slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Central government. Some even questioned plainclothes policemen recording the protesters on their mobile phones and camcorders.
“Sir, who are you? Where is your name badge?” they asked.
Today, the Bengaluru Police faced an even more difficult situation.
The Anti-SIR Alliance, supported by the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, a farmers’ organisation, and several Dalit groups, had called a protest in solidarity with the Samyukta Kisan Morcha, which had called for a nationwide demonstration. Dalit and labour organisations in Karnataka had also extended their support.
Having experienced protesters violating the conditions agreed upon during the previous march, the police initially withheld permission. After negotiations with leaders of various organisations, they finally granted approval, reiterating that there could be no sloganeering or placards. Participants could carry the national flag and had to follow the designated route.
The Gen Z protesters gathered at Town Hall once again, bringing the same energy as before. But this time, they had brought guitars and handwritten posters expressing their opposition to the Central government, Gyanesh Kumar and SIR. Some had also written slogans against CM Shivakumar and the Bengaluru Police for restricting their freedom to protest.
The police, meanwhile, were prepared. Buses and platoons of personnel were deployed to detain anyone violating the agreed conditions. Through loudspeakers, officers repeatedly announced that assembling for a protest at Town Hall was against the law. They warned the organisers to remove the placards.
But the Gen Z protesters refused to budge. They continued to display their posters and shout slogans against SIR. The police leadership remained adamant: the march would not begin until the placards were removed and collected by the organisers.
For the organisers, who were fighting for the same cause as the young protesters, this became a bitter pill to swallow. They repeatedly requested the youngsters to roll up their posters and put them inside their bags.
“We will fight for our freedom to protest, but we had a hard time getting permission for this march. Please keep the placards in your bags. We can open them when we reach Freedom Park,” they pleaded.
The youngsters did not give in. Instead, they turned against the organisers, shouting that they were uneducated and calling them dallals ( dealers), or brokers.
The confrontation escalated as senior leaders forcibly snatched placards from the younger protesters, triggering a clash between people who were ostensibly fighting for the same cause.
The police were pressuring the organisers. The organisers were pressuring the youngsters. And the youngsters were confronting both the police and the senior leaders.
The triangular conflict had put the police in a fix. They had to enforce the conditions imposed on the march while dealing with protesters who refused to comply and organisers who were desperate to prevent the event from being called off. The organisers, in turn, were caught between the authorities whose permission they needed and a younger generation unwilling to compromise on how it expressed its dissent.
After a prolonged and dramatic standoff, most of the placards were torn or confiscated, some by the organisers and others by the police. Only then did the march begin.
The protesters proceeded towards Freedom Park along the designated route, passing near the state election office, which was secured by a heavy police deployment.
By the time the march reached Freedom Park, the designated site for public protests, most of the placards had been torn or damaged. Only a few that had survived the confrontation were finally unfurled.
The march had begun as a show of solidarity against SIR. But before it could reach its destination, it had turned into a struggle within the groups fighting against SIR.
For the Karnataka government, allowing the march to proceed under restrictive conditions offered a way to accommodate the protest without openly disregarding the High Court’s directions.
And for the organisers, the bitterest moment came not from a confrontation with the police, but from being forced to confront their own young comrades who were repeatedly saying, ‘ we have the right to protest’.
