I have a question: if teachers face disciplinary action for hitting students in school, why is no action taken against the police officers in Delhi who beat students, or against those who issued such orders? During the ongoing student protests in Delhi, the police have been indiscriminately using lathi-charges against the students. While a mild lathi-charge to disperse a crowd might be understandable in some contexts, the force used here appears to be an act of vendetta. The videos surfacing show not only protesting students but also bystanders being ruthlessly trampled upon. Such actions by the police could not possibly occur without specific orders from above. What triggered the protest in the first place? It stemmed from the chaos surrounding the NEET exam, which adversely affected lakhs of students; out of anger, these students took to the streets, joined by others in solidarity. In short, the students initiated and sustained this movement. So, what was the justification for assaulting them? And who authorized the police to do so? Just as teachers are not permitted to hit students, neither are the police. Yet, why did this happen? In the past, teachers frequently used to hit students (I, too, have often received such ‘punishment’), a practice that was eventually restricted because, no one has the right to inflict corporal punishment on students aside from the judiciary. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to the police? I have often said, and I say again today, that whether it is the Maharashtra police or any other force, officers often have no choice but to carry out the actions they are ordered to perform; therefore, they cannot be held solely responsible. But who gave the authority to the system that issues orders for such ruthless beatings? Do they consider themselves above the Constitution? There are certain key United Nations principles, also adhered to by Amnesty International, dictating that whenever the use of force becomes necessary, the action taken must be constitutional, essential, and proportionate, and must entail accountability. Today, in countries like Norway, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand, any use of police force is subject to rigorous inquiry. An inquiry that focuses heavily on those who issued the orders. We need to see this happen here as well. The question remains: who will ensure this happens? On one hand, the Chief Justice of the country dismissively refers to these young people as "cockroaches," while on the other, the Supreme Court itself states it has no time to view videos of the beatings. It is baffling. What do they have time for then? Young men and women are forced to take to the streets because they no longer have any expectations left from the current government. Civil society must reflect on this issue. It needs to be debated. Members of Parliament must insist on a discussion regarding this matter in the House. The issue is not whether the State possesses the authority to use force against its citizens; almost every State holds that power. The real question is whether a constitutional democracy demonstrates the capacity to exercise restraint in the use of its authority. A democracy’s maturity is not measured by how harshly dissent is suppressed, but rather by how it handles dissenting voices, with restraint and due consideration for the consequences. Raj Thackeray