top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Capital Chaos

The shocking violence that occurred during the protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), which left 118 policemen injured in Delhi, raises an uncomfortable question: why does the national capital repeatedly become the stage for protest movements that cross the line from dissent into disorder? When a demonstration against educational reforms results in scores of injured policemen, the issue becomes a serious question of public order and accountability. The geography of this violence is...

Capital Chaos

The shocking violence that occurred during the protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), which left 118 policemen injured in Delhi, raises an uncomfortable question: why does the national capital repeatedly become the stage for protest movements that cross the line from dissent into disorder? When a demonstration against educational reforms results in scores of injured policemen, the issue becomes a serious question of public order and accountability. The geography of this violence is hardly accidental. Delhi has long served as the grand amphitheatre for India’s political performative class - the ‘Cadillac left-liberals’ who despise Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with an intensity that outstrips their electoral relevance. In the capital, protests are not merely expressions of grievance but are status symbols. Supported by a sympathising ecosystem of urban intellectuals, activist-lawyers, and media enablers, these movements operate under an implicit guarantee of soft handling. Outrage that would draw harsh crackdowns in any state capital is treated in Delhi as a vibrant exercise in civil society. By dithering on firm legal action against key conspirators and their shadowy handlers and focusing instead on standard, low-level FIRs against the front-line stone-pelters, the government hands an ideological victory to the agitators. It broadcasts a message of vulnerability. The troubling question is why protests in Delhi repeatedly escalate into such clashes. The responsibility cannot end with statements of regret after violence has occurred. Those who organise, finance or encourage unlawful actions must face scrutiny under the law. The government’s response matters enormously here. If it appears hesitant to pursue those who may have planned, encouraged or financed unlawful actions, it creates the perception that political pressure can dilute legal consequences and that disorder in the capital can be an effective instrument of mobilisation. That perception is corrosive. A state that hesitates to enforce the law consistently eventually encourages those willing to test its limits. The police, meanwhile, cannot be treated as expendable symbols of state authority. The 118 personnel injured during the clashes were not faceless instruments of power. They were citizens carrying out one of the most difficult constitutional responsibilities of maintaining order amid political conflict. Assaulting them is an attack on the very institution responsible for protecting democratic freedoms. India’s democracy is robust enough to accommodate fierce disagreement. But democracy does not mean a permanent licence for street confrontation. Delhi has witnessed too many moments of such anarchist protests under the garb of liberality. The capital of the Indian Republic cannot become the capital of impunity. The rule of law must apply equally to politicians as well as ‘activists’ who break the law in seeking to garner public attention.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page