Sharing is Caring: How the State gives Goons the Nod of Approval

The past year has brought forth widespread state violence for all eyes to see, right in the centre of the national capital. Batons to the bodies of students, pellets in the flesh of those seeking justice, and bodies dragged across the streets with utter apathy. The conventional, Weberian definition of the state grants it a “monopoly over legitimate use of physical force.” Who, then, is permitted to exert legitimate violence in the India that we see today, and who has this monopoly been shared with? Thousands of police personnel and Rapid Action Forces (RAF) were placed in New Delhi to ensure that Gyanesh Kumar, holding office in a constitutionally independent institution, is protected from allegations of electoral malpractice in favour of the incumbent. The state gave itself complete freedom to coerce and suppress those asserting democratic rights by whatever means necessary. Amidst the khaki-clad state employees were men in civilian clothing, donning saffron scarves, tilak on their foreheads, furthering the violence. While the excesses of police brutality have been pointed out, it is essential to look at the presence of these actors. These non-state, fringe actors — members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and related organisations — have been repeatedly given a greenlight to indulge in violence. In New India, violence gains legitimacy through its affinity to a certain ideology; the ideology of Hindutva, which brings together the fringe and the state.

In the early 1990s, renowned psychologist Ashis Nandy, interviewed Narendra Modi back when he was an RSS pracharak (propagator) and a small-time Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) functionary. Amongst a host of diagnoses, Nandy pointed out a peculiar mix of “puritanical rigidity” and “fantasies of violence”. This diagnosis materialised in the events of Gujarat 2002. Since assuming power at the centre, these features seem to run torrentially through the veins of the dispensation and the Sangh Parivar as a whole. Not only has violence erupted, but it has also been legitimised and justified. These are not novel developments. For years now, members of the Sangh Parivar and those with similar ideologies have acted on these fantasies — be it the Bajrang Dal threatening the youth, attacks against minorities and marginalised communities, or silencing individual dissenters at every turn.

Gauri Lankesh, a journalist and trenchant critic of Hindutva was murdered in broad daylight by a right-wing group. Nearly 9 years later, all of the accused are out on bail. More recently, in an interview, Hindutva influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj admitted to cracking the skull of a student activist’s father during the 23rd June, 2026 protest and boasted of escaping arrest through political connections. He, too, was soon granted bail by a Delhi court. Scholars like Steven Wilkinson have also analysed how states encourage civilian gangs to act violently for political incentives. In recent years several instances of such violence have been reported across the country. The crackdown on the protest is certainly a symptom of electoral insecurities. What sets this apart from the instances of violence that have been normalised so far is its scope and scale. Jantar Mantar and the areas surrounding it became a site for violence to play out unfettered. The government justified the presence of thousands of troops around these areas by citing past lapses in public safety and law and order. A reasonable deduction then, is that these goons acted under the direct purview of the highest number of deployed troops New Delhi has seen since the farmer's protests of 2020.

A viral video from the 10th October protest shows four men from the Hindu Raksha Dal brutally assaulting a protester. They were arrested and granted bail just a day later. One of them stated that they had no remorse for what they had done and would repeat the violence if anyone disrespected ‘their’ Gods and abused their ideology. The goons immediately conflate political opposition to the ruling party with religious opposition. They use violence to ‘protect their God’ from protestors (many of them Hindus themselves), who are simply asserting a democratic right. These groups perceive the current government as both their political leadership and the flagbearer of their religion. Any opposition to the government then, is recast as a threat to the Hindu religion. The Hindutva ideology lies in opposition to democracy as well as the religion it claims to protect.

In Rahul Gandhi’s press conference on 14th October, one of the protesters claimed that he was detained and beaten by the Delhi police on the orders of right-wing goons. Another video allegedly exposing RSS workers dressed in police uniform, partaking in lathi-charges, was circulated on social media. This relationship between the goons and the state functionaries is a testimony to law and order’s subservience to ideology. Officials, instead of being merely complicit, act under ideological oversight. The pattern of bails is another matter of concern. While the perpetrators of violence were granted bail in a matter of hours, the protesters were detained arbitrarily and brutally. Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) spokespersons Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were sent into a 5 day judicial custody at Tihar Jail for simply entering Jantar Mantar after it was denotified as a protest site. Political prisoners have been held without trial for years. This regime has unleashed a culture of selective legitimacy. Those that fit into the ideological in-group are sponsored while those that lie outside it are served the full brunt of law enforcement.

The state chooses to share its “monopoly” over physical force with ideologically aligned elements. Weber’s legitimacy presupposes the rightness of authority. Here, the legitimacy of violence is stretched out and laid bare. There has been a departure from its dependence on lawful authority and constitutional mandates. Legitimacy instead follows from the arbitrary discretion of the dispensation. 

This sharing of monopoly has broader implications for an Indian citizen. Where is one supposed to go when the institutions that are designed to protect them are compromised? A police officer can refuse to write an FIR and the judiciary can delay trials or grant bails without much accountability. Fraternity defines the Indian polity — a sense of common belonging, mutual respect and a belief that laws and democratic values apply to all. The state is to act as a neutral guarantor of this bond. Selective legitimacy divides the nation across hard ideological lines and produces internal tension — some citizens are allowed to use force while others are at its receiving end. Faith is lost both in the state mechanisms and the constitutional tenet of fraternity. The pages of history testify that violence proliferates where power begins to slip away. A nation forged on Gandhian ideals will not sit back while those in power strangle democracy with impunity.

(Edited by Hiyaneijemmy Das and Avika Mantri)