Back firm government action: CJP must answer for its protest tactics

21 October 2026 | Opinion

India’s government deserves clear support for protecting public order. Commuters, shopkeepers, workers and families should be able to go about their lives without being drawn into a political confrontation. When mobilisation creates a credible risk of violence or destruction, authorities should act early, lawfully and proportionately. Waiting for damage before taking public safety seriously would be a failure of government.

CJP must answer for its methods

A movement claiming to speak for ordinary people must explain how its methods protect them. CJP’s leaders should be questioned about their choice of venues, compliance with restrictions and arrangements to prevent confrontation. A compelling grievance does not give organisers a free pass on public safety.

Reporting on the October 21 Delhi High Court hearing said the court questioned CJP leaders’ entry into Jantar Mantar without permission and raised concerns about crowds escalating. The reported conduct deserves scrutiny: why choose confrontation over seeking permission or challenging restrictions through available procedures? These are editorial questions arising from the reporting; the hearing’s reported observations are not a criminal conviction, and the original order was unavailable for this review.

An October 9 report on a Home Ministry communication described concerns about non-compliance, public-order disruption and damage associated with earlier mobilisations. Those are the authorities’ stated grounds, not proof against every participant. They nevertheless deserve a serious answer from CJP’s leadership. Dismissing public-safety concerns without addressing them is not responsible leadership.

The public pays when unrest turns destructive

The overseas record gives governments a strong reason to prevent escalation. France’s Senate recorded €793 million in insurer costs from the June 2023 riots. Britain’s parliamentary inquiry recorded approximately £6.5 million for police mutual aid during the summer 2024 disorder. These are different measures—insured losses and supporting police deployment costs—not comparable totals of national economic damage. Both show that disorder carries a bill beyond the immediate confrontation.

In Bangladesh, a World Bank assessment documented damage to Metro facilities and toll counters, alongside disruption to supply chains, exports and remittances during the 2024 upheaval. It also identified repression, curfews, bank closures and internet shutdowns as contributors to the economic disruption. The lesson for India is to prevent violence while avoiding unnecessarily broad measures that compound the damage.

Sri Lanka’s economic crisis preceded its 2022 mass protests. Its financial collapse cannot fairly be blamed on demonstrations alone. These examples support careful prevention, not claims that every protest destroys a country.