Delhi: Peaceful Pro-Palestine Protest Met With 'Jai Shree Ram' Chants, Threats in Police Presence
'The police were completely deferential in allowing them (right-wing mob), even as they threatened to push us. It reveals a deep divide,' says activist Harsh Mander, who was at the demonstration.
Protesters hold banners near the HP showroom in Nehru Place as onlookers gather on the first-floor gallery. Photo: Atul Howale
New Delhi: A peaceful demonstration was organised on Saturday, July 19, at the famous computer market in Nehru Place, Delhi, in protest of the genocide being carried out by Israel in Gaza and in solidarity with Palestinians. Around 12:30 PM, while more than 50 people were peacefully protesting, carrying Palestinian flags and banners, a huge group of right-wing people arrived at Nehru Place to oppose it and started threatening the participants.
There was no sloganeering or chanting, nor any other misconduct by the demonstrators, but the protesters still had to face significant opposition.
Demonstrating near the HP Computers store, a mob threw mud at the participants from the first floor. Subsequently, a large number of right-wing people started shouting slogans of " Jai Shri Ram", " Har Har Mahadev" and " Vande Mataram".
After some time, the right-wing mob grew bigger. Many of them started abusing the participants and threatening them with statements like, "If you want to protest, go and do it in Palestine, not here."
A right-wing supporter chants slogans against the demonstrators in presence of Delhi Police. Photo: Atul Howale
Indian economist and social activist Jean Drèze, who was part of the peaceful demonstration, told The Wire, 'We did not raise any slogans and started to protest peacefully, but we were stopped from protesting. We are here not only to oppose the genocide in Gaza and demand an immediate ceasefire, but also to expose the complicity of the Indian government and to affirm the right to protest.'
He said, 'The current situation, whether the government gives you permission or not, we have a duty to speak out.'
'The government is with Israel because it depends on Israel for technology, especially defence and surveillance technology. It has many commercial ties with Israel. The Palestinians are powerless; they have nothing to offer, so naturally, the Indian government is taking the side of Israel. But we are with the Palestinian people, and the sentiment of the Indian public, I think, is also with the Palestinian people," he added.
Many students, university professors, artists, activists, citizens and representatives from other social organisations participated in the Nehru Place demonstration. There was no chanting or any slogans; it was a completely non-violent, peaceful protest.
A protester holds a "Free, Free Palestine" banner. Photo: Atul Howale
Starting from the centrally-located HP Computers showroom in Nehru Place market up to the Nehru Enclave metro station, a right-wing mob pursued the protesters, chanting slogans and threatening the protesters continuously – all in the presence of the Delhi Police.
Around this time, Delhi Police personnel present at the site started asking the people protesting peacefully to leave the area, saying, "You do not have permission to protest here."
Soon, the protesters were removed from the protest site.
Delhi Police officers confront the peaceful demonstrators at Nehru Place. Photo: Atul Howale
Activist Harsh Mander, who participated in the demonstration, criticised the police's double standards. He said, "In India, this protest isn't just about the state's complicit role in supporting Israel. It's also about the silence of ordinary Indians. That is why holding it in an area like Nehru Place was so important.'
'What was remarkable is how our protest was met by a spontaneous, larger crowd chanting ' Jai Shri Ram' and 'Filisteen Murdabad'. (But) the police were completely deferential in allowing them, even as they threatened to push us. It reveals a deep divide."
About half-an-hour later, even as the demonstrators moved to the Nehru Place metro station gate, the police prevented them from even gathering together. The police also stopped the journalists who were reporting on this protest and were not even letting the participants speak with journalists.
Police instructs the demonstrators to disperse from Nehru Enclave metro station. Photo: Atul Howale
Anjali, a participant in this protest, condemned this action of the police. She said, "We didn't take permission because this wasn't a protest with slogans; it was a peaceful demonstration, which is our constitutional right. Our placards had very simple messages: 'Stop the genocide,' and 'Don't arm Israel with weapons that are going to kill children'.'
'When our flags came out at 12:30 PM, a very, very angry crowd came towards us. They started questioning us, asking, 'Where is the Indian flag?' But when the Indian flag was given to them, they seemed not to care about that at all. They just kept tearing all the Palestinian flags and our peaceful placards. This is the state of how much you can dissent in the country," she said.
Like Anjali, activist and academic Nandita Narain also participated in this demonstration. Speaking to The Wire, she said, 'It's very shocking that the Indian government has completely lost its moral stature in the world. We are the country of Gandhi, and Gandhi is held up in such high esteem all over the world, not only for his stand on peaceful resistance but also to stand with the oppressed all over the world.'
A protester holds a 'Free, Free Palestine' banner. Photo: Atul Howale
'You can't push the Palestinians out and occupy that land. That is ethnic cleansing. We never imagined that in this day and age, something like this will happen and it will be applauded by so many Western countries, with their eyes shut to the kind of crimes that are going on,' she added.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Will you ask Pahalgam attack victims' families to watch India-Pakistan cricket match?': Owaisi to Centre in Lok Sabha
Asaduddin Owaisi of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) on Monday questioned the government's policy on the upcoming India-Pakistan cricket match in the 2025 Asia Cup. AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi speaks in Lok Sabha during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Monday.(Sansad TV) During a debate on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor in Lok Sabha during Parliament's Monsoon Session, Asaduddin Owaisi asked whether the Centre would 'call the 26 people who died in Jammu and Kashmir's Baisaran in Pahalgam during the terror attack' and say that they conducted an operation, and now it's time to watch the cricket match. He also lashed out at the government over the 'accountability' of the Pahalgam terror attack, saying that the Centre should hold someone responsible – even if it is the lieutenant governor or police officials. "Does your conscience allow you to ask the family members of the people who were killed in Baisaran to watch India's cricket match with Pakistan?... We are stopping 80% of Pakistan's water, saying that water and blood will not flow together. Will you play a cricket match? My conscience does not allow me to watch that match. Does this government have the courage to call the 26 dead people and say we have taken revenge in Operation Sindoor, now you watch the match with Pakistan. It is a matter of great regret," he said. Owaisi also demanded accountability for the Pahalgam terror attack, questioning the government's security framework despite heavy deployment in the region. "Who did Pahalgam? We have a 7.5 lakh army and a central paramilitary forces. From where did these four rats enter and kill our Indian citizens? On whom will accountability be fixed?" he asked. Highlighting post-Article 370 security concerns in the Union Territory, Owaisi added, "If lieutenant governor is responsible, remove him; if it is police, then take action. But then you think you conducted one operation and people will forget. You should fix the accountability. What is your deterrence? And deterrence policy. You removed Article 370 and made a state into union territory – even after that, terrorists were able to reach the area." His remarks came after Asian Cricket Council (ACC) President and PCB Chairman Mohsin Naqvi announced that the 2025 Men's Asia Cup will be held in the UAE from September 9 to 28. India, Pakistan, UAE, and Oman are placed in Group A, while Group B includes Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong. 'Indian cricket team will give fitting reply': RLD MP Sangwan Reacting to AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi's comments on the upcoming India-Pakistan match in the Asia Cup 2025, Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) MP Dr Rajkumar Sangwan said the Indian cricket team would give a strong response on the field, just like the armed forces have dealt with terrorism. Speaking to ANI, Sangwan said, "Just how our army taught a lesson to those who shelter terrorists, our Indian Cricket team will teach them a lesson too if a match is played at an international level." The remarks came as the Lok Sabha on Monday afternoon began a discussion on India's strong, successful and decisive Operation Sindoor, launched in response to the recent terror attack in Pahalgam. The debate was opened by defence minister Rajnath Singh.


Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
Delhi HC seeks police response on Asif Iqbal's plea
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the police's response on a plea filed by student activist Asif Iqbal Tanha challenging framing of charges against him in a case of violence during the 2019 anti-CAA protests in Jamia Nagar area. Justice Sanjeev Narula issued notice to Delhi Police on the plea and posted the hearing for October 30 along with similar pleas filed by Sharjeel Imam and other co-accused in the case. 'Issue notice. Club with others,' the court said. Tanha and others were booked by New Friends Colony Police Station under provisions of the IPC, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP) and Arms Act. The trial court in March framed charges, observing Imam's December 13, 2019 speech near the Jamia University was a 'venomous', 'pitted one religion against another' and was 'indeed a hate speech'. It framed charges against Tanha, Imam and nine others, saying 'accused Ashu Khan, Chandan Kumar and Aasif Iqbal Tanha committed abetment by prior conspiracy as well as by instigating violent mob activity at the spot, for which penal provision of Section 109 (abetment) of the IPC is justifiably invoked against them'. Section 109 deals with abetment of an offence and attracting the same punishment given to the offender. The case stems from 2019-2020 protests at Jamia Millia Islamia and Shaheen Bagh following passage of Citizenship Amendment Act in Parliament on December 11, 2019.


Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The milestone ICJ opinion on climate obligations is not just a verdict from afar, but a compass
For once, a ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague is making waves in Hyderabad. In a rare instance of policy resonance, the advisory opinion on climate change delivered by the 15-judge panel of the ICJ on July 23 has sparked conversation far beyond decision-makers in India. The ICJ's unanimous declaration of climate change as an existential threat is being discussed not only in think tanks in Delhi and boardrooms in Mumbai, but also among environmentally conscious students in Patancheru, Telangana, where I teach public policy. The case was initiated by Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation with a population of just 3,00,000. In March 2023, it led a coalition of small island states to secure consensual approval from the United Nations General Assembly to ask the ICJ two questions: What are states legally required to do to address climate change, and what are the consequences if they do not fulfil these duties? Over 130 countries joined as co-sponsors. India did not join, but it did not oppose it either. This cautious posture reflects India's complex position in global climate diplomacy. India's hesitation did not stem from disinterest. Rather, it reflected clear-eyed realism. As a developing nation still working to ensure universal access to electricity, healthcare, and employment, India undertakes a difficult balancing act. Unlike industrialised countries, India has not benefited from centuries of fossil fuel-powered growth. Although its total emissions are rising, per capita emissions remain among the lowest globally. Many households still rely on biomass for cooking and face irregular power supply. Despite these constraints, India has taken ambitious climate actions. By 2030, it aims for half its electricity to come from renewables. Emissions intensity has declined, afforestation has expanded, and electric buses now run in several Indian cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. India leads the International Solar Alliance and the Mission LiFE campaign promoting sustainable consumption. During its G20 presidency, it ensured that climate finance remained in the global spotlight. These are not peripheral gestures. They are structural shifts. By any fair measure, India has done more with less. By contrast, Canada emits seven times more per capita and continues to expand its oil sands production. Australia, a major coal exporter, sets modest domestic targets while profiting from global emissions. Considering historical responsibility, economic capacity, and present-day ambition, India's efforts stand out. Yet, the sweeping ICJ opinion, though not legally binding, will have consequences for India. It draws not only on climate treaties but also on the United Nations Charter, customary international law, the law of the sea, and human rights law. The Court affirms that states have obligations to prevent environmental harm, reduce emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and cooperate internationally. These duties are no longer moral appeals. They carry legal weight. The Court also ruled that climate change violates rights to life, health, and housing. States must act based on the best available science, adopt ambitious national plans, and may be legally compelled to strengthen them. Failure to act could invite claims for climate damage. Subsidies for polluting fuels are now within legal scrutiny. The opinion does not just outline obligations, it opens the door to legal consequences. For communities that have long suffered without recourse, this is a potential game changer. It affirms the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. India has long argued that those who contributed most to climate change must do more to address it. The ICJ has now given that argument legal grounding. It will bolster developing countries in global negotiations. Yet, the new legal terrain raises at least three public policy challenges for India. First is legal preparedness. Indian courts already interpret the right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life. The ICJ ruling may spur a wave of litigation demanding stronger climate action or even compensation. The Indian state could also face lawsuits from within or from affected neighbouring island states. Anticipating such claims will be vital for legal and policy stability. Otherwise, a torrent of litigation could emerge without clear legal standards. Second is enforcement. India's environmental laws are strong on paper but patchy in practice. Pollution control agencies remain underfunded and compliance varies widely across different states and sectors. The ICJ has reinforced the importance of due diligence. Strengthening regulatory capacity must now become a national priority. Third is the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. These remain crucial for economically vulnerable households, especially for cooking gas and kerosene. But they also delay the shift to cleaner alternatives. The ICJ opinion, including the separate declaration appended by Judge Dalveer Bhandari of India, makes clear that subsidies have legal as well as fiscal implications. India must rethink how it provides support to the poor without locking them into polluting fuels. That will demand both financial resources and policy innovation. The diplomatic challenge lies in aligning climate ambition with fairness. India must continue taking climate action while defending the context of its development needs. Climate justice must not become a new form of injustice. The milestone ICJ opinion is not just a verdict from afar, but a compass. It signals the end of voluntary climate ambition and invites all countries to chart a harder, but fairer course. For India, the challenge now is to align duty with dignity and ambition with justice. The writer is former permanent representative of India to the United Nations, and dean, Kautilya School of Public Policy, Hyderabad