Gandhi’s India Cannot Be Afraid of Peaceful Protest. Why BJP is afraid of dissent?

India’s democracy did not begin with the Constitution in 1950. Its democratic conscience was forged much earlier, through public meetings, marches, boycotts, satyagraha and civil disobedience against colonial authority. No Indian is more closely associated with that tradition than Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi demonstrated that disagreement with the State need not become violence or rebellion. Citizens could confront enormous political power peacefully, publicly and morally. That idea remains remarkably relevant today. The real legacy of Gandhi is therefore not merely the garland placed before his photograph every October 2. It lives whenever an ordinary Indian believes that power can be questioned without violence, and that questioning those who govern is not an act of disloyalty.

The Constitution transformed this democratic instinct into enforceable freedoms. It does not explicitly contain a provision called the "right to protest", but Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression and Article 19(1)(b) guarantees citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Together, these freedoms form the constitutional foundation for peaceful demonstrations. At the same time, the Constitution does not make these rights unlimited. Articles 19(2) and 19(3) permit reasonable restrictions on specified grounds, including public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India. Authorities can therefore regulate demonstrations, including aspects concerning their place and manner, where legitimate public-order considerations require it.

This distinction is particularly important when examining what happened in Delhi on July 20, 2026. Serious allegations were subsequently made about excessive force against protesting students, including allegations involving pellets and serious injuries. Rahul Gandhi wrote to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, alleging indiscriminate force against protesters and asking whether the Home Minister had approved the alleged use of pellet guns.

Indeed, the aftermath itself illustrates why constitutional institutions matter. The Supreme Court has allowed a five-member high-powered inquiry committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy to investigate allegations of excessive force during the July 20 demonstration. Petitioners subsequently sought a broader examination that would include the alleged roles of Amit Shah and senior government and police officials. The Supreme Court said the committee should first be allowed to conduct its work and indicated that the matter remained under the Court's supervision. There was also a subsequent FIR concerning injuries allegedly suffered by student Sahil Lochab, but only after several hours of Dharna by Rahul Gandhi at Parliament Street Police Station, who said pellets caused him to lose vision in his right eye.

Yet one does not need to prejudge that investigation to articulate the constitutional principle at stake. If an independent investigation establishes that disproportionate force was deliberately used against peaceful and unarmed demonstrators without sufficient necessity, it would represent far more than a policing failure. It would conflict with the constitutional ethos that requires State power to remain constrained even when citizens are angry, inconvenient or deeply critical of those governing them. The stronger the State is, the greater its responsibility to demonstrate restraint.

That debate acquired extraordinary symbolism on October 2, 2026, the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. A protest planned at Jantar Mantar in Delhi demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged manipulation and deletion of electoral rolls and the alleged misuse of Special Intensive Revision process to make BJP win. The mobilisation was associated with figures and organisations including AISA, RJD MP Manoj Jha and advocate Prashant Bhushan. Delhi Police denied permission and strengthened security arrangements in New Delhi.

Despite the restrictions, protesters attempted to gather. Reporting from October 2 described hundreds of detentions involving opposition politicians, activists and student organisations. Atishi was among those reported detained, while another report identified participants or detainees connected with organisations including AISA, SFI, NSUI and DYFI, alongside opposition political figures. Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita had reportedly been imposed in parts of New Delhi, while restrictions were placed on gatherings and demonstrations, which was alleged to be shame on part of Delhi Police, since it was a peaceful protest.

October 2 also produced an illuminating contrast in Mumbai. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) organised a demonstration at Shivaji Park demanding the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar with slogan 'Gyanu, its done bro'. Mumbai Police had earlier refused permission. Yet thousands ultimately gathered at Shivaji Park. It was also said that 'Did Gandhi ji took permission from British to peacefully protest?' The Indian Express reported approximately 4,000 protesters based on police figures, and also reported that CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke praised Mumbai Police while criticising Delhi Police. Another report said Abhijeet Dipke declared that the movement would remain peaceful and follow the path shown by Mahatma Gandhi.

Now, question is that Police powers cannot mean that every detention, prohibition or use of force automatically becomes constitutional once the words "law and order" are invoked. The Constitution deliberately uses the concept of a "reasonable restriction". Reasonableness requires the State to justify why interference with liberty was necessary.

There is also profound irony in Indians confronting these questions on Gandhi Jayanti. Mahatma Gandhi's legacy should not be reduced to statues, official ceremonies and carefully selected quotations. Gandhi's political significance lies precisely in the uncomfortable proposition that citizens may peacefully confront the authority of the State. His method demanded enormous discipline from protesters, but it also exposed the moral consequences when overwhelming State power was deployed against nonviolent citizens.

That is why the events of July 20, Jantar Mantar and Shivaji Park matter beyond the personalities immediately involved. They are not ultimately just about Amit Shah, Gyanesh Kumar, Rahul Gandhi, CJP, AISA, the Left, AAP, Congress or the present government. They pose a much larger question: does India see peaceful dissent merely as a problem to be controlled, or as a democratic activity that the State has a positive constitutional obligation to make possible while reasonably regulating it?

The Supreme Court-supervised process should establish what actually happened on July 20 rather than allowing competing political narratives to decide responsibility in advance. Equally, restrictions and detentions surrounding October 2 deserve assessment according to constitutional standards, irrespective of whether one agrees with the protesters' demands concerning the Election Commission. Rights matter most precisely when those exercising them are saying something the government, or perhaps even the majority, would rather not hear.

India does not honour Mahatma Gandhi by agreeing with every person carrying a placard. Nor does democracy require the State to surrender its responsibility for public order. India honours Gandhi when a citizen can stand peacefully before enormous State power, disagree with it fearlessly and still expect the Constitution to protect the space in which that disagreement occurs. That may be the most enduring meaning of ahimsa in a constitutional republic: restraint not only from those who challenge power, but also, and especially, from those who possess it.

Get membership to feature your article. Check here.