Haryana BJP state president Dr Archana Gupta has clarified her earlier remarks about the Jantar Mantar protest, saying she never called the protesters terrorists. The clarification comes after her previous statement sparked confusion and debate.
"I never said there were terrorists at the protest site," Gupta said, according to The Tribune. She added that the issue concerns the right to peaceful protest in a democratic country.
Haryana BJP Chief Clarifies Jantar Mantar Protest Remarks
Gupta made the statement while in the city to lead a Tiranga Yatra, which began at Nehru Place Market and concluded near Bhagwan Parshuram Chowk. Speaking to mediapersons, she emphasized that India is a democratic nation and every citizen has the right to stage a peaceful protest.
However, citing a Delhi Police report, Gupta claimed that more than 2,000 "miscreants" were present during the protest. According to the report she referenced, cases have been registered against some of them under various sections of the law.
Peaceful Protest Rights vs. Police Report Findings
The clarification draws a clear line between the right to protest and the actions of certain individuals at the site. Gupta's statement acknowledges the democratic right to peaceful demonstration while pointing to police findings about disruptive elements.
The distinction matters because it separates the legitimate act of protest from the alleged misconduct of a smaller group. The Delhi Police report, as cited by Gupta, suggests that while many protesters were exercising their democratic rights, a significant number of "miscreants" were also present and face legal action.
"I never said there were terrorists at the protest site." — Dr Archana Gupta, as reported by The Tribune
Our Take: Why This Clarification Matters
To put it plainly, this clarification is important for two reasons. First, it corrects a potentially damaging narrative that could have painted all protesters as terrorists. In a democracy, the right to protest is fundamental, and labeling protesters as terrorists would undermine that right.
Second, the reference to the Delhi Police report shows that authorities are distinguishing between peaceful protesters and those who may have crossed legal lines. The fact that cases were registered against some individuals — not all — suggests a measured approach to maintaining law and order.
What readers should take from this is that the democratic space for protest remains intact, but it comes with responsibility. The law applies to everyone, including protesters, and those who break it will face consequences. The clarification from the Haryana BJP chief reinforces that peaceful protest is protected, while unlawful behavior is not.
This balanced position — protecting democratic rights while acknowledging police findings — is the right approach. It keeps the focus on the issue at hand rather than allowing the conversation to be derailed by extreme labels.