"Break Their Legs": Odisha Police Officer's Instruction At Protest Goes Viral. "Out Of Context," He Says
Bhubaneswar:
A senior police officer's very specific instruction to police personnel guarding a barbed wire barricade outside Odisha Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi's house during a protest by Congress party workers has gone viral on social media.
The Congress workers came to protest against what they called crowd mismanagement and negligence after three people were killed and 50 were injured in a stampede in Puri on Sunday.
The incident happened near Puri's Shree Gundicha temple during a ceremony linked to the ongoing Rath Yatra festival.
A large police force was posted outside the chief minister's house in anticipation of the protest by the Congress workers.
One of the officers who oversaw the deployment was Bhubaneswar Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) Narasingha Bhol.
In the video that went viral, Mr Bhol walked to the last barricade among a row of barricades and gave instructions to police personnel standing there.
His index finger pointing towards a circular barbed wire that went in a loop around the barricade, the ACP said, "If anybody reaches here, break their leg. Don't catch them, just break their legs. We are standing there [some distance away] to catch them. Whoever breaks a leg, come to me and take a reward."
"Yes, sir, yes, sir," the policemen behind the last barricade responded to the instruction given by the Indian Police Service (IPS) officer.
After the video went viral on social media, Mr Bhol told NDTV on phone that his comment was taken out of context.
"There is a place, time and context in everything. Where was it happening, when was it happening... If you see the video, I told the personnel that 'we are there to arrest them'," Mr Bhol said, referring to a spot some distance away from the barricade. "Before reaching the spot where I was standing, there were two barricades. The order was to detain unruly protesters at the first barricade itself. However, if somebody breached the two barricades and went beyond them, then that person has already broken the law. He is part of an unlawful assembly."
The police officer added, "We are free to apply maximum force to stop unlawful assembly."
The Odisha government has launched an administrative investigation into the Puri stampede. State Law Minister Prithiviraj Harichandan said Development Commissioner Anu Garg will submit a report to the chief minister within 30 days.
"The state government will take stern action against those responsible for the tragic incident," the law minister said.
Puri's Chief District Medical Officer Kishore Satapathy told news agency PTI that all injured people were discharged from a government health facility by 8 pm on Sunday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Debate underway in Senate on Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill', estimated to add $3.3 trillion to US debt
The US Senate has started debating over the highly anticipated 'big, beautiful bill' in an all-night session on Sunday, with Republicans wrestling President Donald Trump's big bill over tax breaks, increased spending on immigration enforcement, spending cuts over healthcare to mount over Democratic opposition with a July 4 deadline. The formal debate began in the Senate with Democratic lawmakers demanding the Senate clerks to read the full 940-page bill aloud, in order to highlight their arguments that the public is largely unaware of what President Trump branded 'package' actually contains, and delay the final voting until Monday. Some in Congress are fighting against the One Big Beautiful Bill. The American people don't like that. This bill delivers $10,000 more a year for working families, tax-free tips and overtime, & real border security. You were sent to do your job. Vote YES. Or get out the way. — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 29, 2025 Republicans have been working throughout the weekend, huddling with opposition voices within the party lines to strike a middle ground but the outcome still remains highly uncertain and volatile. The GOP leaders are rushing to meet Trump's July 4 deadline to pass the bill but have been unable to garner enough support to cross the procedural hurdle in a tense scene on Saturday, which required phone calls by Trump and a visit by Vice President JD Vance to the US Capitol to keep the bill on track. Republican Senator from North Carolina, Thom Tillis, announced on Sunday that he was not seeing a reelection, a day after voting against Trump's budget bill on taxes. Tillis had expressed his concerns over the impact Medicaid cuts would have on his constituents. After the debate over the bill gets over, amendments would be brought up for consideration in a marathon session, also known as vote-a-rama. The changes made in the bill are supposed to pile trillions of dollars of national debt in the United States. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, if Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' becomes a law, about 11.8 million Americans would become uninsured by 2034. The package would also increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the decade.
United News of India
35 minutes ago
- United News of India
Controversy erupts over Defence Attache's remarks on Op Sindoor aircraft losses; Indian Embassy says 'quoted out of context'
New Delhi, June 29 (UNI) The Indian Embassy in Indonesia today sought to clarify the remarks on Operation Sindoor made by the Defence Attache at a seminar, saying that he had been quoted out of context. The controversy arose from media reports quoting a portion of Defence Attache Captain Shiv Kumar's remarks during a 35-minute presentation on Operation Sindoor. To a query that India had lost many aircraft, he said that India 'did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack their (Pakistan's) military establishment or their air defences. But after the loss, we changed our tactics and went for their military installations. So, we first achieved success of destruction of their military air defences, and that is why all our missiles were able to easily go through, our Brahmos, and surface-to-surface missiles,' Indian Defence Attaché to Indonesia Capt Shiv Kumar is quoted as media reports on his remarks, the Indian Embassy in a late evening statement said: 'We have seen media reports regarding a presentation made by the Defence Attache at a Seminar. 'His remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker. 'The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood. 'It was also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure and the Indian response was non-escalatory.'However, the Congress was quick to seize upon the controversy. Congress leader Pawan Khera, posting a picture of a media report on the subject, wrote on X: 'The Modi government has misled the nation from the start - failing to disclose the aircraft losses during Operation Sindoor. 'There were oblique references to losses in air combat on 6/7 May, during a briefing by the DG Air Ops (Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti) when he said - 'we are in a combat situation and losses are a part of combat.' 'Then, it was left to Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan to make the first official admission of our attrition in the air while speaking to Bloomberg TV on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. 'And now, in another shocking revelation by Capt. Shiv Kumar, it has emerged that the Indian Air Force lost fighter jets to Pakistan on the night of May 7, 2025 during its targeting of Pakistan's terror-linked sites 'only because of the constraint given by the political leadership.''This is a direct indictment of the Modi Government, particularly Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. No wonder they are ducking our demand for a Special Session of Parliament like the plague. They know they've compromised national security, and they're terrified of what the Congress Party will expose before the people of India.' His post was reposted by senior party leader Jairam Ramesh. UNI RN
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The myths and utopias of two nationalisms
I have been following the fascinating conversation of ideas between Yogendra Yadav ('The nationalism we forgot', IE, May 27 and 'The rediscovery of nationalism', IE, June 5), Suhas Palshikar ('Who stole my nationalism?', IE, May 31) and Akeel Bilgrami ('An alternative nationalism', IE, June 16). I add here my thoughts as a back-bencher. 'Nation', in its earliest Latin sense, meant 'people', referring to their birth, origin, breed, race, or tribe — somewhat like the Indian kula, gotra and vansha. Its earliest meaning in English was 'a people or an ethnic community with a shared language'. After the emergence of John Locke's political theory, the connotation changed to 'a political society — subjects or citizens — inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised'. That foregrounded the people's identity as citizens and the sovereignty of the political order they adopt, a fundamental shift from the term's original meaning, bringing it quite close to the Indian term rashtra. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) prioritised sovereignty in the arena of international relations. Yet the evolution of the term 'nationalism', based on the root 'nation', had a long wait in store. The League of Nations was established in 1920 and, as a result, the term 'nation' assumed a somewhat defined and universal meaning. 'Nationalism', which until then was confined mostly to Western Europe's politics and history, acquired global currency as a dominant political philosophy during the 1920s. In the India of the 1920s, the Indian term rashtra and the European 'nation' jointly formed the semantic ground for India's nationalism. What had until then been the 'freedom struggle' became India's national freedom movement. It was around the same time that Essentials of Hindutva (1923) by V D Savarkar was published, defining the Hindutva brand of nationalism. It brought together the concepts of pitrubhumi (fatherland) and punyabhumi (sacred geography). Hindutva nationalism primarily drew upon 19th-century European developments that had led to the unification of Italy and the formation of a German-speaking nation. The term pitrubhumi, for instance, shows the deep imprint of the European unification movements on Hindutva nationalism. The national independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and others had a different orientation. It equated nationalism with freedom. It, too, was inspired by various movements outside India such as the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, the Irish struggle for independence and even the Russian Revolution, but its understanding of how India as a 'nation' was to be constituted differed radically from the Hindutva idea of the nation. In the 1920s, Congress established Prantik Samitis, region-specific committees, and articulated the idea of India as a federation of people speaking many different languages. During the years of World War II, Rabindranath Tagore, Sri Aurobindo and Gandhi alerted the world to the dangers of self-engrossed nationalism. The Constitution of India was shaped in light of that vision of India. It described India, that is Bharat, as a 'union of states'. All through the 1950s and 1960s, Indian territories were reorganised as linguistic states, collectively forming the Indian federation. The nationalism inscribed in the Constitution and Hindutva nationalism have remained at variance from their very inception. The main points of difference between the two were neither patriotism nor sovereignty. It has been the affiliation of citizens to the nation on an equal footing. The ideology of Hindutva nationalism is deeply suspicious of the patriotic loyalties of citizens whose punyabhumi is not geographically part of India. The constitutional notion of nationalism accepts all those who live in India as entirely legitimate and equal citizens. Owing to its peculiar reconstruction of history, Hindutva nationalism puts forward a narrative of Indian society in terms of the 'original' and the 'subsequent' citizens. In that view of history, Sanskrit is depicted as the 'mother' of Indian civilisation and its genealogy is stretched to the pre-Indus Valley civilisation. Many professional historians do not accept the Hindutva historiography as the overwhelming bulk of available archaeological, genetic, linguistic and historical evidence points to its deeply tendentious nature. Hindutva nationalism has, therefore, depended more on propaganda and conversion of the gullible to its vision of history. It has attempted to claim all that was in ancient, proto-historic and prehistoric times as a single and continuous efflorescence of 'Hindu' theology and philosophy, flattening all ancient debates and disagreements and all social tensions in India's past. Similarly, in order to push the thesis about the 'suspected loyalty' of those whose cultural geography does not overlap with India's physical geography, Hindutva nationalism depicts the entire post-Sanskrit mediaeval period as an era of darkness. History shows that both these claims are factually untenable. Archaeology and linguistics tell us that some of the earliest parts of the Vedas were composed in present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan. Similarly, medieval India produced a powerful Bhakti Movement that challenged the varna system and social inequality. In fact, the cultural residues of the Bhakti Movement, which had spread in mediaeval centuries across most languages of India, inspired many leaders of the freedom struggle, such as Tagore and Gandhi. Any mention of that historical fact infuriates proponents of Hindutva nationalism. The nation, not as a people but in its subsequent ideological forms, gradually came to include the past of a people as well as their future. The past, when imagined as being spread over a very long span of time, becomes a challenge to memory and begins acquiring the form of myth, really an irrationally compressed and transformed version of the past. The future, spread over an endless time, becomes a challenge to the imagination and acquires the form of fantasy or utopia. Every brand of nationalism in every part of the world has attempted to generate its myths and its utopias. In India, both versions of nationalism have shaped their own myths and utopias. Constitutional nationalism is based on the idea of a past that was culturally and philosophically diverse, while also being wounded by caste and gender discrimination. The Hindutva version is that of a once-upon-a-time vishwaguru, deeply hurt and humiliated by outsiders who came here. Constitutional nationalism aims at correction; Hindutva nationalism seeks revenge and retribution. Can one of the two be obliterated forever? Can the two versions ever meet? Perhaps India will have a secure future when the nation — the people — manages to go beyond nationalism. Devy is the author of India: A Linguistic Civilization (2024)
