The March Is Cancelled. The Government Has Won

The government did not defeat the September 5 march with barricades, batons or mass arrests. It did something far more effective: it made the march unnecessary. That is why the cancellation of the proposed march by Saurav Das and his colleagues is not merely a tactical withdrawal. Politically, it is a clear victory for the government — and a defeat for those who had promised to take the fight to the streets.

Saurav Das wanted a confrontation at India Gate. The government took the battle to the Supreme Court.

That was the turning point.

Once the issue reached the Supreme Court, the grand political theatre surrounding the proposed march was reduced to three rather unglamorous words: law and order. The question was no longer who could mobilise the bigger crowd or produce the louder slogan. It was whether the protesters could hold the march at a particular place and whether they were prepared to abide by the law.

The answer came today.

The march has been withdrawn.

That is the scoreboard.

And the government's strategy deserves recognition because it avoided precisely the trap that street movements often set for governments. Had the authorities forcibly stopped the march, Saurav Das and his supporters could have presented themselves as victims of state repression. Police action would have produced photographs, headlines and perhaps new sympathy for the movement.

The government did not give them that opportunity.

Instead, Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the government was prepared to withdraw FIRs against students. On compensation for families of those who died by suicide, the government also indicated its willingness to consider the demand, subject to deciding the modalities.

This was not surrender.

It was political disarming.

The government effectively said: We will address legitimate grievances, but we will not allow the street to dictate the terms of law and order.

That left Saurav Das with a difficult choice.

Continue with the march and risk confrontation, or withdraw it.

He withdrew it.

And that is where the rhetoric of a powerful movement meets the reality of political arithmetic.

The proposed march was supposed to demonstrate strength. Instead, its cancellation demonstrated the government's ability to neutralise the confrontation without a confrontation.

The same applies to the dispute over the 2,873 individuals identified by the Delhi Police. The government has drawn a line between students facing protest-related cases and individuals whom investigators say may have separate criminal liabilities.

That distinction is important. Criminal allegations must be tested through evidence and due process; nobody should be convicted by television commentary or political speeches. But the government has successfully prevented the student issue from becoming a blanket shield for everyone associated with the agitation.

This is where Saurav Das and the campaign around him have lost political ground.

They wanted to dictate the tempo.

The government dictated the venue of the argument.

They wanted India Gate.

They got the Supreme Court.

They wanted a street confrontation.

They got a legal proceeding.

They wanted a show of strength on September 5.

They now have a cancelled march.

That is not a draw. It is a defeat.

The government, meanwhile, has emerged without having to deploy overwhelming force, without allowing the proposed demonstration to become a national spectacle and without completely shutting the door on the protesters' legitimate demands.

That is a considerably cleaner victory than a government could have hoped for.

But victory also brings responsibility. The government must now honour what it told the Supreme Court. Student cases that are to be withdrawn must actually be withdrawn. Compensation must be dealt with transparently. And any criminal prosecution must rest on evidence rather than political labelling.

If it does that, the government's victory will be more than tactical.

It will establish a useful principle: a government does not have to defeat every protest by force. Sometimes the smartest victory is to remove the confrontation from the street, take it into an institution, concede what is reasonable and stand firm on what is lawful.

Saurav Das and his supporters set out to demonstrate that the government could be pushed into a corner.

Instead, they found themselves in one.

The march is cancelled. The government remains standing. Saurav Das has stepped back.

In politics, there are moments when the verdict does not require much interpretation.

This is one of them.