Editorial: Hallmarks of tyranny

It’s the hallmark of a tyrant to be frightened by an assembly of four. From the frequency of use of Section 144 in recent years—in situations ranging from the violence in Manipur to protests by ex-servicemen demanding OROP—it is obvious we have a frightened regime in power. This character of the government in New Delhi has been brought home to us by the manner in which it has forced Sonam Wangchuk and his associates to withdraw their Pashmina march in Ladakh on Sunday. The march, organised by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and led by the climate activist, was supposed to proceed to Changthang on the LAC with China. Its aim was to draw attention to loss of grazing lands used by Changpa nomadic tribes due to encroachment by China in the north and Indian corporates in the south.

Although there was nothing to indicate the march would turn violent or it would compromise India’s control of the area, the administration cranked up its law and order machinery to prevent any assembly of marchers and to avoid drawing national, global attention to this protest and to the wider question of the Modi government’s handling of Chinese incursions since 2018.

Apart from invoking Section 144, all roads leading to Leh were blocked, troops mobilised, and internet services curtailed. This response was disproportionate to any possibility of violence or challenge to Indian authority. As Wangchuk tweeted, why treat Ladakh like a war-zone when the marchers’ intent was peaceful? Why make a show of policemen in full riot gear when not a single stone has been cast in anger? Why barricade highways to discourage movement and enfeeble a fragile tourism-dependent economy?

The fact that the organisers called off the march to spare residents any discomfort and to offer no scope for the administration to label them anti-national shows how Section 144 and internet shutdowns have become weapons to quell peace- ful protests, be it by farmers demanding MSP or female wrestlers demanding protection from sexual harassment. However, this does not prove the muscularity of a regime. When a strongman government quakes at the fall of a leaf, it does not signal strength— especially in a border area.

What this repression of the Ladakh protest underscores is that the Centre is wary of any public attention being drawn to Chinese encroachment in Ladakh, especially during the election season. The incursions of Beijing deserve to be an issue in this election. The Modi regime must come clean on what is the situation on the ground and how it intends to retrieve lost territory. By paying no heed to Wangchuk’s 21-day fast to demand climate action in Ladakh and promised statehood for the region, and by coercing the withdrawal of the Pashmina march, the Modi government has shown it has no stomach for facing up to the issue in the elections. What a contrast this makes with the BJP’s eagerness to stir up the Katchatheevu issue in the south.

The Ladakh protests in recent weeks and the Modi administration’s response point to an important character of this regime: It has no faculty for a dialogue with equanimous dissent, no middle path to engage and win over. Instead, it has the policeman’s instinct. It brandishes the lathi but is nonplussed when the response is peaceable. Another hallmark of tyranny.