New Delhi, Oct 12 — What Delhi’s Jantar Mantar signifies today was once the domain of Boat Club: to symbolise managed dissent, but with mass movements fast turning into “unplanned”, unscheduled, “dance of anarchy”, the national capital may soon be without a fixed centre for such a show of protest, which will largely inconvenience those seeking attention to a cause.
As the emerging movement against alleged manipulation of the electoral machinery seeks to mobilise public opinion, it finds itself confronting a new reality: the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and the state's determination to prevent large assemblies in the heart of the capital.
For decades, the Boat Club lawns on Rajpath, now called Kartavya Path, till the early 1990s served as the country's most visited venue for political mobilisations. Located between India Gate and Vijay Chowk, the site provided protesters with direct symbolic proximity to Parliament, the Prime Minister's Office, among the highest institutions of the state in the vicinity.
Perhaps the turning point can be cited as October 1988, when Bharatiya Kisan Union leader Mahendra Singh Tikait led an enormous farmers’ mobilisation at the Boat Club.
Eyewitness accounts and reports estimate that around five lakh farmers occupied the area for nearly a week, effectively transforming the ceremonial heart of the capital into a rural setting, complete with tractors, livestock, and community kitchens.
The demonstration showcased the capacity of mass movements to physically seize national political space and compel a response from government.
Rakesh Tikait, a farmer-leader himself today, remembers watching as an 18-year-old as the site turned into a village set, with his father organising the protest to demand higher remunerative prices for sugarcane produce, waiver of water and electricity dues, and concessions in their tariff.
Later, the 2020-2021 protest against three agriculture laws was spearheaded by the younger Tikait among other farmer-leaders. However, they chose to lay siege to the capital, sitting at Delhi's borders.
An attempt to storm the city with a “tractor march” on Independence Day proved a disaster, with widespread rampage and anarchy, leading to a death.
Meanwhile, such protests of large dimensions, where huge crowds gathered close to the seat of power, proved difficult to manage and posed a possible threat to safety and security.
Earlier, restrictions arising from such concerns over gatherings at the Boat Club gradually pushed organised protests toward Jantar Mantar, a narrower and more controllable site near Parliament Street.
It became synonymous with democratic dissent, with farmers, students, pensioners, anti-corruption activists, government employees, and social movements all using the site.
But as some campaigns peaked, organisers eventually sought larger venues, with the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement among notable examples.
While its activity initially centred on Jantar Mantar, the scale of public participation soon made the site inadequate, prompting a move to Ramlila Maidan, where larger crowds could be accommodated.
But emotions, sometimes instigation, more often the sheer numbers of protestors, force change in the course and image of demonstrations, leading to the state sometimes enforcing physical force.
Critics, however, claim that prohibiting venues, or relocating protest activity, increases the physical and psychological distance between citizens and political authority, terming such moves “authoritarian”.
Authorities argue that such a move is driven by concerns over public order, congestion, and safety. This July, the restrictive move turned contentious after the Cockroach Janta Party's protests over alleged examination irregularities and NEET-related issues, drawing large crowds, spilt onto the streets and threatened to storm the Parliament.
Such marches earlier too have been dealt with iron hands, considering the possible infiltration of rogue elements and in light of the earlier Parliament attack.
Yet, for the protesting marchers, the act remains “repression”.