Editorial: Why isn’t the minister home?

Having brought about the ouster of Dharmendra Pradhan, the fallout of the nationwide student agitation last week is now raining down on Amit Shah. Indeed, as he is Union Home Minister, heads will naturally turn to him for an explanation why the Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF), both agencies reporting to him, unleashed unprecedented brutality upon peaceful young protesters in the national capital last week.

However, in Parliament on Wednesday, the Home Minister was not at hand to answer the Opposition’s questions, and so, it fell to Dr Jitendra Singh, a junior minister whose remit does not concern the matter, to offer the government’s defence. The minister said there was no question of pinning responsibility on Amit Shah for police personnel opening pellet gun fire on protesters because no pellet gun fire was used in the first place.

This is textbook evasion. There is a ton of evidence that RAF personnel did use pellet guns against nonviolent agitators. We have victim testimony from at least four protesters who suffered grave upper body injuries; the doctors who treated them signed medical legal certificates (MLCs) attesting that the injuries were due to gunshot; media investigations have published official documents recording the release of pellet guns to RAF personnel and orders authorising their use.

In addition, there is an abundance of social media and independent media livestreaming footage showing police personnel using shock batons and brute force, wickedly and wantonly, against protesters, especially women. There is verified footage of unidentified men participating in baton charges alongside uniformed police officers, and of riot-control personnel operating without name tags. Moreover, belying the false claim that the protesters came with intent to be violent, media reports have traced the origin of a truckload of stones found parked near the protest site; the vehicle and its cargo had been seized by the police a few days prior and had remained in their custody until the night before the march on Parliament.

Given the weight of such evidence, it is the duty of the Home Minister to field the queries being levelled at agencies in his charge, and indeed himself, lest he was the one who expressly ordered the use of pellet guns, as Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi alleged in the Lok Sabha. Why was force used at all against non-violent youngsters? Why did the police use illegal methods? What purpose was brute force meant to serve? What action will be taken against officers who used the protest as cover to molest young women?

While these questions await Amit Shah's attention, there is some promise that the Supreme Court will set up an independent, court-monitored special investigation into police brutality at Jantar Mantar. The court would also do well to give a nudge to the government to honour, in letter and spirit, its pledge to students that all cases filed against protesters will be withdrawn. A week hence, however, the government is introducing conditions to its promise, that only cases against minors, or those without “criminal antecedents”, will be withdrawn. The latter term is in fact police shorthand designed to keep left-wing students within their dragnet on the ruse that they have a minor Section 144 kind of charge against them. The promise was made to all and must be fulfilled to all.