By Sara Nazir

The protest at India Gate on November 24, 2025 began as a straightforward demand for action on Delhi’s toxic air. Citizens gathered because breathing in the capital has become a daily health hazard. Yet the demonstration quickly turned into a security event when police intervened with force, detained protesters, and filed charges of conspiracy and obstruction.

A public health issue was reinterpreted as an internal security challenge, revealing a deeper shift in how the Indian state responds to environmental dissent.

The turning point came when a small group of protesters raised slogans for Madvi Hidma, a Maoist commander killed in a disputed encounter. Posters placed him alongside historic Adivasi leaders, linking his death to a broader legacy of tribal resistance and environmental struggle. Many saw this as an attempt to highlight repeated violence against defenders of forests and land. Security agencies, however, viewed these symbols as evidence of ideological influence. A protest about air pollution suddenly appeared to contain elements associated with insurgent narratives, altering the state’s threat perception.

Once framed in this way, the response followed a predictable pattern. Police used force, filed two FIRs, and added national integration charges. This reflects an ongoing trend where environmental and tribal issues are folded into the logic of counterinsurgency. Movements that touch on land rights, mining, or forest conservation are often labelled disruptive or suspicious. Instead of being treated as civic engagement, they are handled as challenges to authority. The result is a pattern in which environmental activism is routinely securitized.

Lost in this escalation was the very problem that brought people to the streets. Delhi’s air remains one of the most dangerous in the world, affecting millions and shortening lives every year. Yet once the protest was cast as a security issue, the environmental emergency fell out of focus. The health crisis did not disappear, but its urgency was overshadowed by debates over slogans and policing. This shift shows how easily environmental threats are pushed aside when the state prioritizes control over conversation.
The situation also highlights why environmental defenders are so vulnerable in India. Those who oppose illegal mining, destructive infrastructure, or land grabs often face violence, intimidation, or criminal charges. Many operate in regions where powerful interests profit from environmental harm. When the state reinforces the idea that environmental activism may carry ideological risks, defenders become even more exposed. Instead of being recognised for protecting public resources, they are treated as sources of potential unrest.

The central issue raised by the India Gate protest is the meaning of security itself. If the right to clean air, the right to forests, and the right to protest are treated as threats, then the state’s security framework has become disconnected from the realities that threaten citizens most. True security requires safe air, functioning ecosystems, and democratic channels to challenge harmful decisions. These are foundational conditions for stability, yet they are often neglected when environmental politics is seen through the lens of national security.

India needs a shift in perspective. Pollution, climate impacts, and the erosion of forests represent far more serious long-term dangers than a peaceful demonstration. A human security approach would recognise environmental defenders as contributors to national resilience rather than as adversaries. It would allow environmental protest to function as a safeguard rather than a trigger for police action. Without such a shift, misinterpretations will continue, and ecological decline will advance unchecked.

The events at India Gate serve as a warning. They show how quickly legitimate environmental concerns can be overshadowed by fears of ideological infiltration. If this pattern continues, India risks silencing the very citizens who call attention to the country’s most pressing environmental dangers. Protecting environmental defenders is not only a matter of justice. It is essential to the long-term security and health of the nation.