13

Oct

Oct 12: Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Death Anniversary Civil Liberties, State Power and Shrinking Space for Opposition

image

Dr. M. Iqbal Siddiqui

New Delhi I Tuesday I October 13, 2026


Dr Ram Manohar Lohia’s death anniversary on 12 October invites us to revisit a fundamental question: what happens when a government begins to treat criticism as a threat to its authority? Lohia believed that civil liberties were not privileges granted by rulers but rights secured through the continuing struggle between citizens and the State. His warning remains relevant wherever questioning power invites intimidation, prosecution or imprisonment.
Democracy is not merely the periodic election of representatives. It is the continuing freedom to question those in power, challenge their decisions and demand accountability. An electoral majority confers the authority to govern within constitutional limits; it does not place a government beyond criticism.
Lohia’s Democracy: The Right to Question Power
In The Struggle for Civil Liberties (1936), Lohia argued that civil liberties set limits on State authority and establish the freedoms that governments are obliged to protect. Recognising that those in power may resist such constraints, he stressed the need for citizens to organise and struggle for their rights.
His opposition to preventive detention and his persistent parliamentary scrutiny of the government reflected his conviction that unchecked coercive power threatens democracy and the rule of law. For Lohia, dissent was not democracy’s enemy but one of its essential safeguards. Governments that tolerate criticism can correct mistakes and expose abuses; those that suppress it risk mistaking silence for consent.
Constitutional Rights and State Power
India’s Constitution guarantees equality before the law under Article 14, specified freedoms—including speech, peaceful assembly and association—under Article 19, and life and personal liberty under Article 21.
These rights are not absolute. The State must prevent violence and protect public order. But restrictions must have a lawful basis and be necessary and proportionate. Public order cannot become a convenient pretext for silencing inconvenient opinions. The real test is whether restrictions are imposed fairly, without political discrimination and with due regard for fundamental rights.
Delhi Protests: A Contemporary Warning
Youth-led demonstrations in Delhi on 10 and 11 October 2026 brought these concerns into focus. Protesters associated with the Cockroach Janta Party challenged the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
They alleged that the revision could disenfranchise eligible voters. The Election Commission and the BJP rejected allegations of politically motivated manipulation, maintaining that deletions reflected deaths, migration and unverifiable records. These competing claims require independent scrutiny.
According to news reports, Delhi Police detained more than 2,000 people on 10 October amid extensive security restrictions. Forty-five metro stations were reportedly closed, while movement and internet access were restricted in parts of the capital, affecting ordinary commuters as well as demonstrators.
On 11 October, the Supreme Court directed authorities to facilitate peaceful assembly, prevent unlawful detention and ensure the normal functioning of public transport, subject to lawful public-order requirements. It also issued notice on a contempt petition concerning alleged violations of its earlier directions. The proceedings did not establish contempt but underlined the judiciary’s responsibility to scrutinise executive action.
Further detentions as protests resumed raised questions about the implementation of these safeguards. The UN Human Rights Office expressed concern over mass detentions, prompting India to reject the intervention as unwarranted interference in its internal affairs.
Authorities have a legitimate duty to prevent violence and protect public infrastructure. But could dialogue, designated protest areas and targeted security measures have achieved these objectives with fewer restrictions? Misconduct by some participants cannot automatically justify indiscriminate curbs on peaceful assembly. The issue is not whether the State may maintain order, but whether it does so constitutionally.
When Journalists Become Vulnerable
Press freedom is another test of democratic accountability. Three women journalists alleged that Delhi Police personnel sexually harassed them during a demonstration at Jantar Mantar on 3 October. On 8 October, the National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognisance and sought a report from the Delhi Police Commissioner. The allegations remain subject to investigation.
On 11 October, three Indian Express journalists were reportedly detained while covering the protests and released about 45 minutes later.
Such incidents demand accountability. Journalists must be able to report public events safely, and allegations of police misconduct require impartial investigation. A free press is not an adversary of the State; it enables citizens to scrutinise those who govern them.
When Process Becomes Punishment
Civil liberties can also be eroded without conviction. Arrests, repeated adjournments and prolonged pre-trial detention may deprive individuals of liberty for years before guilt is established.
The cases of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam illustrate this dilemma. On 30 September 2026, the Delhi High Court rejected their bail pleas in the case concerning the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 north-east Delhi riots. The prosecution alleges serious offences, which the accused are entitled to contest through due process.
The challenge is to reconcile the gravity of the allegations with the presumption of innocence, personal liberty and the right to a timely trial. Stringent bail provisions cannot eliminate the need for rigorous judicial scrutiny. Pre-trial detention must not become an indefinite substitute for adjudication.
The Ruler Must Remain Accountable
Islamic political thought also offers principles of accountable governance. The Qur’an calls for justice (4:135) and responsible discharge of public trusts (4:58). Consultation (shura) and justice (adl) provide ethical grounds for questioning authority. No ruler should be beyond scrutiny because of office or religious identity, nor should obedience become an unconditional obligation that shields those in power from criticism.
Who Will Defend the Citizen?
Lohia’s warning resonates wherever governments confuse criticism with disloyalty, protest with conspiracy and disagreement with an attempt to destabilise the nation. Such an approach discourages lawful participation and creates a silence that authorities may mistake for consent.
Civil liberties require more than constitutional guarantees. They depend on independent courts, accountable law-enforcement agencies, a free press and citizens willing to defend the rights of those with whom they disagree. Governments must justify restrictions with evidence, courts must scrutinise executive power, and allegations of misconduct must be investigated impartially.
Lohia’s death anniversary should prompt reflection not merely on his political legacy but on the relationship between the individual and the State. A parliamentary majority cannot substitute for civil liberties, and electoral legitimacy cannot place government action beyond scrutiny.
The fundamental question facing Indian democracy is not whether the State should possess authority, but whether that authority remains accountable to the people from whom it derives its legitimacy.
When a citizen questions the conduct of the State, should the government answer the question—or should the citizen have to answer for asking it?
That is the test of a democracy worthy of the name.

( A medical doctor by training,  Dr Iqbal Siddiqui is a social actuvist and media commentator)

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9910322682
  • mediamapnetwork@gmail.com
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed