On December 13, at 1pm, plumes of yellow smoke suddenly filled the air in the rear of the Lok Sabha chamber. As most MPs looked on stunned, some panicked and scurried out of the danger zone while a few stood their ground to confront the danger.
It was Parliament’s ‘shock and awe’ moment when Zero Hour proceedings were suddenly interrupted by two youths lunging down from the visitors’ gallery, smoke canisters in hand, onto the House floor. Meanwhile, there were two more just outside the Parliament complex holding yellow smoke-spewing canisters and mouthing slogans.
While the probe by Delhi Police is on, the entire episode is yet to substantially unravel. The most dominant explanation evident till now is that wrought with frustration, these jobless youth decided to “make a loud voice to make the deaf hear”—in Bhagat Singh’s own words—after he and Batukeshwar Dutt threw smoke bombs in Parliament on April 8, 1929.
Ajai Sahni, a counter-terrorism analyst who heads the New Delhi-based Institute of Conflict Management, told THE WEEK: “The intention of this group seems to be similar to Bhagat Singh’s—to make noise and create a sensation that will be heard by everyone. There is anger, there is frustration, and a sense that this government is not doing anything for them.”
“But the more important question is not why the group of youth did it but how they could do it. Other questions are only trying to take the attention away from the security breach.”
In the backdrop of an ongoing probe by the Delhi Police, the aftermath is increasingly becoming a jigsaw puzzle with no clear fit, just a bundle of hazy narratives.
December 13, 2023, began as a sinister one. Because on that very day, 22 years back, armed-to-teeth Pakistan-supported Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists had stormed into Parliament. The attack was foiled, but not before nine lives were lost besides five terrorists. Moreover, a few days before the incident, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a US-based Sikh separatist and proponent of Khalistan, in a video message had threatened to “shake the very foundation of Parliament” on December 13.
There were, therefore, very good reasons for Parliament security to be extra-vigilant that fateful day. But that argument blaming ‘frustration of youth’ is seemingly over-simplistic and there are just too many missing links.
First, on a day when Parliament security would have been much buttressed, how did two untrained youth bypass four layers of visible security and multiple layers of ‘invisible’ security to gain access to the inner recesses of Parliament, which, would be among the most secured and well-guarded complexes in India. That too, with loaded smoke canisters hidden inside their shoes.
Second, how did the group of six—all now arrested—with such disparate backgrounds get together?
Sagar Sharma is an e-rickshaw driver from Lucknow. Manoranjan D, an unemployed computer science engineer from Mysuru. Amol Shinde from Latur, educated but unemployed, and an aspirant to join the Army or the police. Neelam ‘Azad’, a double post-graduate, M.Phil, and civil services aspirant from Jind. Lalit Jha, the alleged mastermind, a soft-spoken private tutor from Kolkata but originally from Darbhanga. And finally Mahesh Kumawat from Nagaur.
Between the six—with ages varying from 25 to 37 years—they represent the range of the Hindu caste spectrum—from Brahmin, to intermediate and backward castes to scheduled caste who all hail from six different states—Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Haryana, West Bengal, and Rajasthan—all with different languages and dialects. So, how did they get together as a group in such a short period of time while being separated by long geographical distances?
Third, investigations have revealed that their planning was meticulous and that they had physically met at least a few times. Given their backgrounds, how did they finance their travels either by rail or by aeroplane, hotel stays and other logistics?
Fourth, if Bhagat Singh and his school of thought was the unifying bond, then why was the anniversary of the Parliament terror attacks chosen as the day to stage their action?
Fifth, there were three slogans that the group raised—‘Tanashahi nahi chalegi’ (Dictatorship won’t be allowed), ‘Jai Bhim’ (Victory to Baba Bhim Rao Ambedkar) and ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ (Victory to Mother India). These three slogans represent the dominant themes of a diverse range of political parties. While ‘Tanashahi nahi chalegi’ is an oft-used Leftist slogan, ‘Jai Bhim’ is Dalit articulation and ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ typically is a rightist slogan. So what is the reason for all shades of political positions to be articulated by the group?
Sixth, why did two of the youth—Shinde and the only woman Neelam Devi ‘Azad’—position themselves outside, before exploding the smoke canisters and shouting slogans only to tamely surrender to the police? It may have been so that the aim was to still be alive to tell the “story” to the police even if the other two inside Parliament (Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D) got killed by the security forces.
Seventh, the slogans that this group raised mainly pertain to issues like unemployment and the farmer’s agitation. But these issues are already finding articulation across the country. In 2021-22, thousands of unemployed students staged a vociferous protest against alleged irregularities in the Railway Recruitment Board’s examination procedure in Bihar bringing train movement through the vital corridor to a halt. The farmer’s agitation, although stalled in the national capital, is finding articulation across various platforms in the country. So what did the group of youth involved in the December 13 incidents priming to achieve and articulate?
Rankled by the Parliament breach, Opposition MPs have been vehement in demanding that Union Home Minister Amit Shah address the Parliament on the security failure. This has resulted in the disqualification of a record 141 MPs in Parliament—an unprecedented number in a single session.
Adds Sahni, “There is the role of the MP who okayed the visitors’ passes to the two youths, the role of the security agencies, the SOPs that are in place as those canisters are quite sizeable objects that they smuggled in. Another MP shares her email password with another person and gets thrown out of Parliament. But this MP allows people to get inside Parliament who throw something and no one is asking any questions as to why this MP is not being acted against.”
With no clear finality in sight, narratives and conjectures will continue to rule the public imagination for some more time to come.
