Lutyens’ Delhi is replete with hoardings that carry the prime minister’s beaming face, being congratulated for one thing or another. That grin is particularly incongruous in the aftermath of the brutal police attack on protesting students: injured youth flailing below and a conceited smile overhead. He might cry too in due course, moved belatedly by the treatment of students, who were assaulted by police under the command of his trusty home minister.

But he’ll more likely focus on how the moment was politicised by the Opposition and other ‘anti-nationals’. In any case, in that moment, the visual discordance of that smiling face amidst the chilling reminders of the day was too evident.

I wondered why he wouldn’t just stroll into the protest site. A man with that degree of residual popular support, he could own the space. The dynamic of power would be such that he could even talk down to protesters and they might still listen. Demands for resignation would likely dissolve. Nehru, the apparent constant challenger, is known to have walked into agitated crowds and addressed them directly. So, it wouldn’t be a climbdown.

Why then does the leadership not engage directly with the people? Do they seriously fear personal risk in crowds?

I feel that even more than the slippery-slope argument — if the government concedes one demand, it will look weak and will have to cede more space — it is the shift in popular expectations that is significant. In a democracy, common sense dictates deference to the will of the people. The ‘will of the people’ can be manipulated but still requires engagement.

However, present-day discourse begins by first questioning the legitimacy of people. ‘Do you represent the majority view? No? Does that not make you anti-national, not-legitimate people?’ The burden of proof is on........

© National Herald