Air pollution protests and Centre’s fragility

The crackdown signals insecurity, showing intolerance for dissent even from sympathetic constituencies

The conclusion of COP30, with its emphasis on ‘collective effort’, underscored the global acceptance that climate action now demands more than solemn declarations. Governments are expected to translate commitments into verifiable outcomes, expand proven solutions, and demonstrate political will in the face of mounting ecological strain. This shift from rhetoric to implementation has placed all nations under scrutiny. Against this backdrop, the Delhi Police’s crackdown on recent environmental demonstrations is not only unconstitutional and repressive, but also markedly at odds with the spirit of cooperation COP30 was meant to embody.

Since Diwali, Delhi has witnessed significant protests — rooted in concerns over the city’s hazardous air quality and the State’s failure to address it with urgency and scientific rigour. Each year, despite warnings from environmental agencies and the medical community, the festival sees a resurgence of firecrackers, with regulatory directives diluted, or selectively enforced. Firecrackers, however, are only one part of the problem; stubble burning, construction dust, vehicular emissions, industrial pollution, and unfavourable weather conditions all contribute to winter smog.

Amid these concerns, young residents gathered peacefully at well-known public spaces, demanding accountability, time-bound action plans, and transparency from the government. The response was swift and brutal. Images circulated of police personnel dragging, beating, and detaining protestors. Several were held for hours without clear charges. The scenes of students and young professionals being shoved into buses revealed an unmistakable hostility toward civic engagement. That such force was deployed against citizens raising concerns about a universally acknowledged public health crisis only intensified the dismay.

Environmental protests are far from new in India, nor is repression by governments. The Hasdeo Arand Forest Protests in Chhattisgarh remain one of the most sustained ecological movements in India. Indigenous communities have opposed extensive coal mining in the biodiverse region, alleging that gram sabhas were coerced into giving consent. Activists have faced opposition for resisting private mining interests, including those of the Adani Group. Similarly, the Save Aarey Movement in Maharashtra, led by Adivasi activist Prakash Bhoir alongside local tribal communities and urban allies, sought to protect the Aarey forest from the Metro 3 car shed project. Despite years of peaceful mobilisation, protestors were met with detentions, lathi-charges, and accusations of obstructing development.

These movements represent a long tradition of ecological resistance, particularly among Adivasi communities whose lives are tied to land and forest. Yet they rarely capture the national imagination. Media structures remain biased towards urban-centric narratives, and issues affecting marginalised groups are frequently sidelined or invisibilised.

The protests in Delhi differ from these earlier movements in ways that pose a unique political challenge for the Centre.

The first source of complexity stems from the identity of the protestors. The participants were overwhelmingly young, urban, upper-caste, and middle-class — demographics that have historically formed the Bharatiya Janata Party’s core support base. The worldview prevalent in this constituency has often treated ecological concerns raised by remote or indigenous communities as peripheral or parochial. That characterisation collapses when dissent arises from within its own ranks, among those typically aligned with the Centre’s development narrative. Their mobilisation signals a widening gap between middle-class expectations and governmental performance, particularly on issues that affect public health and quality of life.

Second, the standard political strategy of neutralising dissent through delegitimisation becomes harder to deploy. Protest movements have repeatedly been labelled ‘anti-national’, ‘urban Naxal’, or ‘secessionist’. The case of Disha Ravi remains emblematic: a young climate activist charged with sedition and criminal conspiracy for editing a protest toolkit during the farmers’ movement. In the current situation, such accusations lose potency. Air pollution in Delhi is measurable, visible, and experienced by all residents, albeit with uneven severity. The grievance cannot be dismissed as manufactured or conspiratorial. The lived reality of toxic smog, cutting across class and ideology, undermines attempts to portray protestors as enemies of the State.

The third reason the protests represent a distinctive challenge lies in their political economy implications. The Centre’s economic approach — marked by concentrated benefits for corporate actors, extensive privatisation, and elite-led growth — has been accompanied by significant inequality and persistent joblessness. Until now, discontent has been diluted by targeted cash transfers, tax cuts, and diversion through emotive identity politics. Environmental degradation in the capital, however, cannot be managed through spectacle or rhetorical diversion. It represents a fundamental threshold for governance, where public patience wears thin and daily discomfort turns into anger. These protests reveal the limits of a model that sidesteps structural issues in favour of symbolic politics.

The heavy-handed response, therefore, is indicative of insecurity. A ruling establishment assured of its legitimacy would have engaged with citizens and demonstrated a willingness to act. Instead, the crackdown suggests an intolerance for dissent, even when it arises from sympathetic constituencies and centres on urgent, fact-based concerns.

In a moment when global forums call for shared responsibility and robust action on climate change, it is troubling that the State should choose coercion over cooperation with its own citizens. The protests in Delhi have highlighted a simple truth: ecological crises are not peripheral, and those who speak up are not adversaries. Suppressing them undermines democratic norms and disregards the collective well-being the government is duty-bound to protect.

The Centre may succeed in dispersing protestors today, but frustration over unbreathable air will only return with greater force. A State that refuses to listen risks isolating itself and deepening the resentments it seeks to suppress. At a time when the world urges collective effort, genuine leadership must begin with respecting the voices at home.

(The writer is assistant professor, Department of Professional Studies, Christ University, Bengaluru)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.