'Instead of choosing dialogue, the government chose repression... Force ought to be the last resort, not the first.'
Key Points
- 'There's a standard operating procedure for the use of tear gas, water cannon and firearms -- you're meant to start with a lathi charge, then tear gas, then water cannon, and escalate only if the situation truly demands it. I saw no sign that this escalation was followed.'
- 'If public property is being destroyed, or lives are genuinely under threat, then certainly the police can act. But I saw no sign of that here -- no buses set on fire, no state transport vehicles burnt, no shops looted, nobody killed by the protesters.'
- 'No reasonable person can imagine this level of force was warranted by what actually happened on the ground.'
Five weeks of student anger over the leaked NEET-UG papers finally forced Dharmendra Pradhan out of the education ministry on July 25, but the manner in which the protests were policed has left a controversy of its own.
Tens of thousands of students marched towards Parliament in Delhi on July 20 and were met with lathi charges, tear gas and pellet guns.
Days later, in Bihar's Siwan district, a constable was filmed pointing an AK-47 at a group of protesters and opening fire, reportedly injuring three students; he has since been suspended.
Prasanna D Zore/Rediff spoke to Harish Chandra Meena, a 1976 batch Indian Police Service officer who went on to become Rajasthan's director general of police before taking voluntary retirement in 2014 and entering politics.
Now the Congress MP from Tonk-Sawai Madhopur, Meena brings a policeman's eye to a question many Indian are asking: Who authorised this level of force against unarmed students, and why?
'There was no threat that could justify it'
You raised the use of pellet guns and other force-control measures against students in Parliament, including an AK-47 that was fired in Bihar. What convinces you that this was excessive, and that the situation didn't call for such weapons?
Force can be used, but only if the circumstances warrant it. This was a peaceful demonstration, and it was going on peacefully.
Whatever the grievance, the proper thing would have been for someone responsible from the government to go and meet them (the protestors). If the minister concerned couldn't go, the secretary could have. That's a bureaucrat's job.
And remember, we are living in a welfare state -- we have to listen to our people. They weren't criminals, they weren't foreigners, they were nothing but well-educated, decent people, in the capital of India.
Instead of choosing dialogue, the government chose repression. No democracy permits this. The right to protest is a basic right. Force ought to be the last resort, not the first.
So, in your assessment, the use of pellet guns, anti-riot guns or an AK-47 simply wasn't justified here?
It would be justified only if the situation demanded it -- if there were international elements, terrorists, or infiltration from across the border. There's a provision for all of that.
But this was a protest within a city, and force is meant to be the last resort, used once dialogue has failed. So what dialogue actually took place? Who did the authorities even talk to?
Let's turn to Siwan, where an SIT jawan fired an AK-47 during the protest and has since been suspended. Under what circumstances is such a weapon meant to be used, and who could have authorised it?
Let me explain what an AK-47 is. It's a close-quarter weapon, meant for use when you are face to face with an armed threat and your life is in danger -- not like a rifle built for engaging targets hundreds of metres away.
The right of self-defence applies only when those circumstances genuinely exist. Here, there was nothing of the sort. Those students weren't armed. They had no firearms, no lathis, no bombs. I've only seen this on television, so I can't speak to the exact words that were exchanged, but going purely by what's visible, there was no threat that could justify it.
How many rounds does a single burst from an AK-47 release when the trigger is pulled?
That depends on the setting. It can be fired as a single shot, or switched to automatic, where one pull releases several rounds in a burst.
The government could argue that the ground situation, as the police saw it in that moment, justified the response.
An AK-47 fires in bursts, not single shots. If someone throws a stone at you, you cannot respond with a lethal weapon like that. A stone cannot be met with a burst from an AK-47.
'This protest wasn't against the police, it was against the government. Whoever fired that weapon wasn't acting entirely alone'
As a former police officer yourself, how do you view the way this was handled -- should a senior officer have been present?
I was a policeman myself, and we are trained for this. We are trained to absorb abuse -- people don't abuse you personally, they are abusing your position, or the government you represent.
This protest wasn't against the police, it was against the government. Whoever fired that weapon wasn't acting entirely alone; there should have been a senior officer present, giving direction. On camera, this man appears to be acting alone, which itself raises questions about supervision.
Under what circumstances can a firearm actually be used against a crowd, then?
Only in genuine self-defence -- if a policeman honestly believes his life is in danger, and if he doesn't act, he'll be shot himself. That is the only justification for pulling the trigger. Anything short of that has to be explained and justified up the chain of command.
Pellet guns were used quite liberally in Jammu and Kashmir in the past without triggering protests of this scale. What's different this time?
In 38 years of service -- I joined the IPS in the 1976 batch -- I never came across this. Rajasthan is a fairly peaceful state, and I've never seen our police use such a weapon there. I can only go by what I've seen elsewhere.
Any weapon given to the police by the government has to be used judiciously, only if the situation genuinely warrants it. I don't know what provoked that individual officer in Bihar to use it.
Who should be held accountable for the use of such force -- does responsibility travel up the chain of command?
It would be far too simplistic to say the constable alone is responsible. How did he arrive at that decision on his own? There's a hierarchy. There's a chain of command, and beyond the police itself, a home department that oversees these things.
There's a standard operating procedure for the use of tear gas, water cannon and firearms -- you're meant to start with a lathi charge, then tear gas, then water cannon, and escalate only if the situation truly demands it. I saw no sign that this escalation was followed.
'No reasonable person can imagine this level of force was warranted by what actually happened on the ground.'
What message do you think this sends to young Indians about their democratic right to protest?
It's most repressive, most anti-democratic -- that's the mildest way I can put it. This has no place in a democratic society. I've watched protests on television in London, over the Palestinian issue, that turned violent, and in New York too -- but I haven't seen the police open fire on anyone.
That's the beauty of democracy: it gives you the right to protest, to vent your anger and go home. I was jailed once myself, at the age of 72, simply for protesting.
Where should the line be drawn between legitimate crowd control and excessive force?
If public property is being destroyed, or lives are genuinely under threat, then certainly the police can act. But I saw no sign of that here -- no buses set on fire, no state transport vehicles burnt, no shops looted, nobody killed by the protesters.
No reasonable person can imagine this level of force was warranted by what actually happened on the ground.
Is the Congress demanding a judicial inquiry into who authorised the use of these weapons?
Our leader, Rahul Gandhi, demanded a debate on the floor of the House -- I was present when he did. He was asking exactly this: Who is responsible? Delhi police doesn't report to the Delhi government, remember, it comes directly under the Government of India. He was asking who authorised this, and they switched off his microphone. They wouldn't let him speak.
Since that question remains unanswered in Parliament, will you be demanding a judicial probe?
We need accountability, and an independent inquiry. People need to have faith that the government is listening -- and it should listen.
Dharmendra Pradhan resigned following the protests. Do you see that as accountability being fixed, and should responsibility extend to officials in the home ministry and law enforcement as well?
There was no real demand forcing that resignation in the sense of accountability being established. Resigning to save one's own position is a different thing altogether from actually owning responsibility for what happened.
Several students reportedly suffered serious injuries, including eye damage from pellets. Should the government announce compensation and medical support, regardless of the politics around the protests?
Of course. Even in an ordinary accident -- a railway accident, a road accident -- the government compensates the dead and the injured, and covers their treatment. This is no different; the authorities owe these students the same, alongside a proper inquiry into what happened.
What alternative methods could have been used to manage these protests without escalating to weapons like pellet guns?
Any weapon issued to the police can be used only if the situation genuinely warrants it, and only once someone in authority orders and justifies it. Yet nobody has come forward -- not the inspector who was supervising that constable, not the home minister, not the home secretary in Bihar.
I don't know what the chain of command even looks like there. Why should we shy away from answering our own people? They are our people. What happened was, to put it plainly, deeply irresponsible.
