At Delhi’s Tiranga March, a woman asks why protest policing is so visible while everyday safety remains uncertain

At a Tiranga March in Delhi’s Connaught Place on 16 October 2026, a woman identified by PEEK TV as Sanjana looked at the security presence around the protest and raised a question about policing far beyond the demonstration: why does the state appear able to mobilise so many officers for a protest when women still feel unsafe in streets, colleges and other public spaces?

She spoke about her own experience of sexual harassment, including during her student years at Delhi University, and said she had brought pepper spray to the protest. Her criticism was not limited to the march’s demand for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign. She said women’s safety was among the reasons ordinary citizens had joined. These are her experiences, views and allegations; the interview does not independently establish every broader claim she makes.

Why the police deployment stood out

The comparison arose during an unusually large security operation. Ahead of the 16 October march, the Indian Express reported that more than 25,000 police and paramilitary personnel had been put on duty across Delhi security arrangements, alongside CCTV surveillance, restrictions at Central Park and prohibitory orders. A separate account of the day referred to more than 6,000 police personnel around the protest operation. The two figures have different reported scopes; neither is a verified count of officers visible in this particular interview.

The police’s stated security rationale mattered too. Authorities had warned against the Connaught Place gathering and cited public-order restrictions. Traders in the area also expressed worry about disruption during the festive period. The right to peaceful assembly does not rule out proportionate arrangements to prevent violence, protect businesses or manage traffic. But restrictions and detention must have a real basis, remain necessary and be no wider than the risk requires. A large deployment does not settle whether those tests were met.

What her comparison shows—and what it cannot prove

Sanjana’s strongest point is about visible public priorities: a government’s ability to organise extensive policing for a time-limited political event invites scrutiny of what support people receive against routine harassment and violence. Her words express frustration at the gap between a highly visible police presence and her everyday sense of insecurity.

But it would be misleading to interpret her wish for “even 1%” as a calculated policing recommendation. Officers deployed to crowd control, transport security and emergency duties cannot necessarily be transferred one-for-one to daily patrols or investigations. Preventing sexual violence also needs prompt complaint registration, trained investigators, safe transport and public spaces, survivor support and accountability—not simply more uniforms on the street.

Delhi Police does maintain women-focused services, including the women-in-distress helpline 1091 and the 24-hour emergency number 112. It also lists specialised units for women and children. Those services are relevant counter-evidence to a literal claim that the government does nothing. Their existence, however, does not establish whether response times, victim treatment, prevention or case outcomes are adequate. That requires service and outcome records, not a promotional list.

Why women’s safety entered an electoral protest

The Tiranga March formed part of wider protests over the Election Commission and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Protest groups alleged unfair treatment of voters and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Those allegations should not be treated as established findings merely because people were protesting. Reuters reported detentions and a security buildup around the 16 October demonstration.

For Sanjana, the event was an opening to make a wider democratic argument. She referred to protests following the 2012 Nirbhaya case, described her family’s military service and linked her participation to citizenship and the Constitution. Her family history was presented as personal testimony, not independently verified biography. The emphasis of her comments was that a protest organised around one institutional demand could also carry the grievances of people who felt their day-to-day safety had been neglected.

What accountability would look like

There are two questions for public authorities, and neither cancels the other. Were the restrictions, detentions and large police presence at this particular peaceful-assembly event supported by specific risks and adequate safeguards? And are women who report harassment receiving accessible, effective protection and justice in ordinary life? Evaluating the first calls for orders, incident logs and grounds for individual police actions; evaluating the second calls for complaint, response, investigation and outcome data, together with survivors’ experiences.

It is justified to challenge any excessive use of police powers against peaceful protest. It is equally justified to demand effective protection from sexual harassment. On the evidence available here, the march was heavily policed and Sanjana voiced a specific, powerful criticism of priorities. The footage and reported headcounts alone do not prove a deliberate government decision to withhold women’s protection. Her question remains important precisely because it can be tested against how police time, public resources and legal safeguards are actually used.