See All Articles

A Protest and Its Fractured Narrative: What July 20 Revealed About Power and the People

Namaskar. By the time evening descended on July 20, the question had changed. How much violence? How many injured? This question pushed aside the earlier one: how many had gathered in Delhi that day—one lakh or one-and-a-half lakh? The police kept insisting that no violence came from their side, that the situation was handled professionally, and that no one should pay heed to rumours. Yet social media is flooded with videos that challenge these claims. In this post, we will talk about that. We will also talk about how, because of this very violence, Sonam Wangchuk changed his decision to break his fast. On the evening of July 20, he issued a handwritten statement: seeing the police violence against peaceful protesters, he had decided to continue his fast. In his statement from July 19, there was no mention of a resignation being a condition. It appears the criticism he faced had an impact; that line seems to have been added later—that the Education Minister will certainly have to answer. The Cockroach Janata Party also said the protest would continue. But how? Orders were issued to clear Jantar Mantar. Some images show Jantar Mantar was cleared. If the protest continues, in what form will it continue? The students of AISA broke their fast in the morning—Neha, Ameen, and Manish ended their fast in the presence of Shabana Azmi, Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan, Manoj Jha, Harsh Mander, Anjali Bhardwaj, and Prakash Raj. No decision was taken on giving one crore compensation to the families of those children who staked their lives. No one met Sonam Wangchuk, not even in the hospital. The whole day of July 20 passed. In the morning, it seemed the government was bending under public pressure, that talks would yield an outcome. But by late evening, no outcome came. One thing changed from morning to evening: in the morning, the protest looked peaceful—there were many people. But as evening fell, videos started pouring in of people running from tear gas shells, of people being hit with lathis, of people giving statements. "If there is an election, I regret giving you so much love, Modi government. Giving you my vote was a terrible mistake. Perhaps I have never regretted anything more in my life."

A Storm of Videos and a Standard Police Denial

What exactly happened in Connaught Place? I do not have a factual account. But many videos have emerged of clashes between the police and protesters. I want to show you excerpts from eight videos—with a request and a purpose: how one must watch a video of any violence or protest. You cannot reach a conclusion from a single video, because you do not know what was happening on the other side, or what had taken place before that clip began. The essence is to see who has more power, who has the kind of power that can inflict greater violence, and how that power is used against the less powerful.

Take the video of youths running in a corridor of Connaught Place. Where they are running from and why remains unclear. It is not a sequence of the first video; it is a different location. The police are chasing students. Why they are chasing them also remains unclear from the video. The third video, also from Connaught Place but yet another location, shows police charging with lathis, people fleeing, and even the police hitting those who are running away. A media team is also running—not confronting the police—yet they are beaten. A policeman slips and falls, and later lets a person go. In another reel, you can see people marching and shouting slogans. It is from Connaught Place still, but a different spot, a different moment. We have now shown four videos, and none belongs to the same sequence.

Now a nineteen-second clip: initially, you see tear gas shells falling from behind. People start running. When the camera turns back, thick smoke is visible, people are fleeing. A sixth video, recorded from the roof of the Press Club, about a minute and forty-five seconds long, shows a barricade in front of the club, police standing by, and, on the other side of the road, a crowd. From a vehicle, tear gas shells are fired. Smoke billows behind a tree. A few people stand alone, but the police come and push them away. An eighth video, also near the Press Club, shows people running because of tear gas, and then, speaking to the camera, one person says: "25-30 shells fell on us; some people have become unconscious."

We showed you eight videos, each separate from the others. Why did we do this? No one usually does this. Given the current media environment, no outlet will put in this much effort even in eight lifetimes—their habits are ruined. Showing clips from eight different sequences is to illustrate how a protest should be covered, viewed, and presented. You may be in one place and see only what is happening there; someone else records another spot. Even after both recordings, many things remain unseen.

The Table of Contradictions: Police Words Versus Video Evidence

Police/DCP Statement	What Videos Reveal
"Professionally handled; no wanton violence."	Multiple locations show lathi charges on fleeing crowds, tear gas on stationary gatherings, and unprovoked dispersal.
"Only limited action taken."	Footage of repeated shelling over time; at least eight independent instances documented in one day, indicating a coordinated, extensive crackdown.
"People should not spread rumours on social media."	Police reply to every video on X with a standard denial, refusing to engage with visual evidence.
"Illegal gathering dispersed professionally."	Plainclothes young men with lathis are seen standing alongside the police—a sight even when no crowd is visible. Who are they? Why are they there?
"No major injuries."	MLA Akhilesh Pati Tripathi (three-time MLA) was picked up and thrown onto a barricade; he suffered a brain surgery, as stated by Saurabh Bharadwaj. Many protesters were hit on the chest and legs, some received electric shocks, according to MPs present.

Numerous videos document police violence. Many photos are circulating on social media where, alongside the police, young men in plainclothes stand holding lathis. Who are these people? Why have they been kept with the police? In some frames, no protest crowd is visible, yet on the pavement, several plainclothes men sit with lathis. Their identity is unknown. Many have alleged that these men, in civilian clothes, deliberately escalated the violence. The Rashtriya Janata Dal issued a statement on their presence. The police’s sole response remains: "Limited action taken, no widespread violence, professionally handled." On X, whenever such a video is shared, the police comment below it: "Professionally handled." DCP Rakesh Ranjan released a video advising people not to engage in any unlawful or violent activity and to follow the legal directions given to police personnel on duty.

Political Voices Amid the Tear Gas

After the violence, the political class began reacting. Dimple Yadav, Samajwadi Party MP, joined the protest, met injured youths, boosted their morale, and assisted them. She alleged that the police beat children, that electric shocks were used, that students were hit on the chest instead of the legs, and that police came without batches. She was furious; fellow MP Dharmendra Yadav was also present. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi released a video statement in Hindi, warning the police that the violent officers would have to answer. He tweeted that they would certainly be held accountable.

Yet here lies a critical observation about the leadership of the Sansad March. Even though the call was given by the Cockroach Janata Party, within a few morning hours it became clear that people didn’t care who the leaders were, who would manage them, or who would later join the BJP. The public came to the streets with their own issues; they kept taking lathis and enduring tear gas shells. That was one aspect. But as evening approached, the absence of leadership and organization began to show. The protesters had no one to tell them what to do when, or where to go. Many were injured but received no clear guidance on where to get medical help. In a surge of excitement, some youngsters climbed barricades, unaware that a single fall could trigger a stampede. Efforts were made to stop them, but a glaring inexperience in leadership was visible.

The Cockroach Janata Party’s Short Bio-Data and a Sleeping Public Awakened

By evening, news came that Jantar Mantar had been cleared. A few hours later, CJP leaders issued a message that people were returning to Jantar Mantar and that Sonam Wangchuk would continue his fast. During the protest, the intermittent presence of CJP leaders was noted; there was a clear lack of communication with the crowd. People kept asking questions. It is obvious to anyone that these young leaders suffer from a severe lack of experience. The public too lacks experience in coming to protests. Who would want to take advantage of this deficit? If you think in terms of this question, you will find the answer. The bio-data of the Cockroach Janata Party may be very short, but its one-month-long protest has brought a public that had been asleep for the past 12 years to Jantar Mantar, expanding its own bio-data immeasurably.

Sonam Wangchuk’s Unbroken Resolve

Sonam Wangchuk had initially planned to end his fast on July 20. But the police violence altered everything. In his handwritten evening statement, he wrote that seeing how the police used force on peaceful demonstrators, he decided to continue his fast. The demand for the Education Minister’s resignation was added later, a line likely inserted after the criticism he received for not making it a condition earlier. The CJP echoed that the protest would continue, even as orders to vacate Jantar Mantar were issued. The question remains: if the protest continues, in what form? With the site cleared and the atmosphere charged with tear gas, the movement enters a precarious phase.

The State’s Machinery and the Cult of Denial

At the heart of this crisis is a government that refuses to acknowledge anything outside its script. The Ministry of Home Affairs maintained a calculated silence. The Delhi Police, instead of addressing the visual evidence, deployed a robotic message of "professional handling." This is not a new tactic; it is the hallmark of an administration that treats its citizens as an unruly mob to be disciplined whenever they step out of line. The videos show that the crackdown was not a response to provocation but a pre-decided display of brute force. The presence of plainclothes men with lathis alongside uniformed personnel suggests a deeper design—vigilante elements embedded with the police, a feature seen in other states as well. The police refused to answer why they fired tear gas. When journalists asked, they were met with silence or dismissal.

A government that prides itself on "ease of doing business" and "minimum government, maximum governance" has, on the streets of Delhi, demonstrated maximum brutality with minimum accountability. The injured, the traumatised, the families of those who staked their lives—none received even a gesture of empathy. The compensation of one crore for NEET aspirants who died by suicide remained undecided. No high-level meeting, no ministerial visit to the fasting activist in the hospital. The machinery of the state can be swift when it chooses—the clearance of Jantar Mantar was executed in hours—but when it must respond to human pain, it turns glacial.

Criticisms

• The Modi government is accused of orchestrating a brutal crackdown on peaceful protestors demanding justice for students.
• The Delhi Police's repeated claim of "professional handling" is contradicted by visual evidence of unprovoked lathi charges, tear gas shelling on stationary crowds, and the deployment of unidentified plainclothes agents.
• The lack of a prompt, empathetic response from the Education Minister and the Prime Minister's Office is seen as a sign of callous disregard for youth concerns.
• The use of State power to clear Jantar Mantar overnight, while refusing dialogue with fasting activists, is viewed as an authoritarian template for silencing dissent.
• The role of certain television news channels in either ignoring the police violence or parroting the government's narrative is criticized as journalistic surrender.
• The Congress and other opposition parties are faulted for tardy, performative solidarity that appeared only after violence had escalated, rather than sustained organizational support before the crackdown.
• The Cockroach Janata Party leadership’s inexperience and intermittent presence are noted as factors that left ordinary protesters directionless and vulnerable to police action.
• The home ministry's silence on the police actions and the use of force against elected representatives like MLA Akhilesh Pati Tripathi is condemned as an abdication of constitutional responsibility.
• The NTA (National Testing Agency) and the ministry of education are held responsible for the systemic failures that triggered the protests, yet neither has faced genuine scrutiny or overhaul.
• The BJP's long-standing tactic of branding every protest as "anti-national" or "politically motivated" is condemned for delegitimising legitimate public anger over exam leaks and youth suicides.

This day will not be remembered for the numbers at Jantar Mantar. It will be remembered for the swirl of tear gas, the crack of lathis, and the silence of a government that worships the image of a strong leader while its streets tell a different story. Amid the chaos, one finds a bitter truth: the public was ready to be led by anyone, even a group with a tiny bio-data, because the established opposition had long vacated the space. And those who rule chose, once again, to reply with force to a question they were not willing to hear.

Namaskar.