Why governments need smarter protest strategies, not bans

AT the recent National Security Strategies Conference 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah directed the Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) to prevent large-scale protests in future.The BPR&D has been tasked with studying mass agitations since 1974, examining their causes, financial backing and the key actors involved. Financial agencies like the Enforcement Directorate are expected to trace the monetary flows that fuel unrest. The aim is to develop a coherent strategy to counter "mass agitations by vested interests."States often warn of "toolkits" prepared by hostile actors or deep networks to spread discontent, violence and anarchy. Yet, they rarely acknowledge the need to create their own counter-toolkit, a structured, transparent and systematic strategy that goes beyond SOPs.While SOPs offer procedures, a counter-toolkit provides vision: a holistic framework combining data analytics, narrative shaping, financial tracking, rapid-response communication, community engagement and partnerships with digital platforms. This is essential if states wish to contain protests and also prevent their descent into chaos exploited by opportunistic and sinister designs.Nepal's recent experience illustrates the perils of miscalculation. What began as public frustration over corruption, nepotism and unemployment turned into a national crisis after the government abruptly banned dozens of social media platforms. Within days, protests spread across the capital, leaving many dead and hundreds injured.The government had hoped that blocking these platforms would snuff out dissent. Instead, it achieved the opposite: a connected generation, already restless, found in the ban a unifying symbol of state overreach. The story of Nepal is a textbook example of how banning social media, far from restoring order, often becomes the spark for greater disorder.Social media today is simultaneously a town square, a protest banner and a rumour mill. At its best, it exposes corruption, connects citizens and coordinates relief. At its worst, it amplifies rage and accelerates mob violence.Instant reach, emotional amplification and decentralised coordination make platforms powerful tools for mobilisation. A single viral video can summon thousands, a hashtag can turn grievances into national causes and live streams can synchronise scattered anger.For governments, this speed is daunting. But bans are blunt instruments: history and Nepal show they often inflame rather than quell unrest.Three dynamics explain this. First, bans create grievance. They disrupt daily life and hand citizens a new reason for anger. In Nepal, the ban itself became the rallying cry that filled the streets.Second, bans fuel rumours. When mainstream platforms are blocked, people move to VPNs and apps where fact-checking is weaker and conspiracy theories spread faster.Third, bans blind the state. Social media is an intelligence tool; shutting it down deprives governments of visibility into crowd planning, narrative shifts and points of escalation. Nepal cut itself off from information that could have helped it manage protests better.Though the anger of Gen Z or digital natives stems from genuine frustrations, torching institutions built with collective effort is reckless. They embody decades of work and billions in public wealth.The Arab Spring offered an earlier caution. In 2011, Egyptian authorities shut down the Internet to halt mass protests. Instead, the blackout became proof of tyranny and strengthened international sympathy for demonstrators.Likewise, Turkey's attempt to criminalise social media during the Gezi Park protests backfired, as citizens found alternative apps and VPNs and the ban became a badge of defiance.For India, the lesson is clear. Law and order cannot be maintained by bans alone. The alternative to bans is intelligent, accountable engagement. Governments should work with platforms to remove posts that incite violence or spread false claims while protecting the space for legitimate dissent.The police need specialised teams to track trends and anticipate escalation, but with safeguards and independent oversight. States should invest in counter-messaging, digital literacy and timely official communication since disinformation thrives in the vacuum left by silence.Most crucially, as the Home Minister's initiative implies, there is a need to build a genuine counter-toolkit. It would combine financial scrutiny, operational SOPs, digital monitoring, rapid-response narratives and civic trust-building into a single framework.Built on transparency and precision, it would not only blunt adversarial "toolkits" but also strengthen democratic resilience, protect law and order and reinforce institutional legitimacy.The case of Nepal underlines another sobering truth: escalation into mob violence is often triggered not by social media but by disproportionate state response. Training officers in negotiation, de-escalation and evidence-based crowd management is more effective than treating every protest as an insurgency.When an 11-year-old girl was struck by a minister's car in Nepal and the incident treated as a hit-and-run by the police, the PM's dismissive remark that it was "just an accident" became a symbol of elite impunity, amplifying anger.For law enforcement, the message is stark: social media is not mere entertainment but civic infrastructure. Blocking it is like shutting off electricity to stop crime — symbolic, disruptive and counterproductive. Instead, the police must integrate digital signals into operational planning, liaise with platform safety teams and prepare proportionate responses. The goal is to prevent dissent from spiralling into violence.Ultimately, trust, not bans, underpins stability. Citizens accept restrictions only when they believe institutions are fair and legitimate. In India, where democracy — apart from a few hiccups — rests on strong institutional rules, the emphasis must be on reinforcing trust through engagement rather than disruption.Sharad S Chauhan is DGP and MD, Punjab Police Housing Corporation.

Why governments need smarter protest strategies, not bans

Sharad S Chauhan

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article