From 'Har Ghar Tiranga' to 'Lehra Do Tiranga': Tricolour at centre of discourse

The Tricolour has emerged as a focal point in the debate over patriotism, dissent and the right to protest, with restrictions on the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in Delhi drawing sharp reactions from opposition leaders, activists and academics.

The controversy has brought the Centre’s ‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ campaign into the discussion, with critics questioning why the national flag could be celebrated as a symbol of patriotism at homes but become contentious during street demonstrations.

The CJP had called the march following the arrest of activists who entered the Jantar Mantar area, which had been denotified as a protest site, and raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar while carrying the national flag.

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗿𝗼𝘄

Delhi Police restricted the proposed October 16 march at Connaught Place, citing the absence of permission, prohibitory orders and the risk of a stampede. More than 20 police personnel visited CJP founder Abhijit Dipke’s Delhi residence and served him two notices hours before the scheduled demonstration.

The restrictions drew criticism from opposition leaders and supporters, who maintained that carrying the national flag during a peaceful demonstration could not be treated as an offence.

NCP (SP) spokesperson Anish Gawande accused the government of being afraid of public dissent and questioned the contrast between its promotion of ‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ and the restrictions on the march.

Actor Prakash Raj, who has supported the CJP’s demand for the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner, also criticised the restrictions, invoking constitutional protections for peaceful protest.

CPI(M) MP John Brittas questioned why protesters carrying the national flag were being prevented from demonstrating in the national capital.

𝗕𝗝𝗣 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀’ 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁

The BJP, however, accused the organisers of using the Tricolour to advance a political agenda and create disorder.

BJP president Nitin Nabin questioned whether those participating in the demonstration had displayed the national flag during Independence Day celebrations. He maintained that the Tricolour symbolised national honour and pride and should not be associated with disorder.

The Centre’s ‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ initiative, launched in 2022 as part of the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav celebrations, encouraged citizens to hoist the national flag at their homes to promote patriotism and national unity.

𝗔𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁

Economist Jayati Ghosh argued that patriotism could not be confined to officially promoted symbolic displays and that national symbols belonged equally to all citizens.

She said the flag represented the ideals of Independence and the Constitution, including the democratic right to question those in authority.

Surajit Mazumdar, former president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association, said patriotism involved commitment to the welfare and progress of the country and its people.

He contrasted the risks taken by participants in the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protests with the institutional backing provided to the government’s flag campaign.

𝗙𝗜𝗥𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀

Delhi Police maintained that Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was in force in Connaught Place and adjoining areas, empowering authorities to impose restrictions to prevent disturbances and threats to public safety.

Police said they had offered to facilitate a smaller group of protesters to wave the national flag at an alternative location.

Despite repeated announcements asking demonstrators to disperse, hundreds of CJP supporters and student activists staged flash protests across Connaught Place, demanding Kumar’s resignation.

Police sources said multiple FIRs were registered over alleged violations of prohibitory orders. Dipke, who had been arrested for allegedly violating a peace bond furnished on October 10, was subsequently granted conditional bail and directed to sign another peace bond.

𝗢𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻

The restrictions and detentions also triggered a debate on social media, with users questioning whether the national flag was being treated differently depending on the political context in which it was displayed.

Supporters of the march argued that the Tricolour belonged to every citizen and could legitimately be carried during peaceful demonstrations against constitutional authorities.

Others questioned the necessity of a separate flag march and accused the organisers of using a national symbol for political mobilisation.

The controversy has consequently widened beyond the immediate dispute over police permission, raising questions about the relationship between national symbols, political expression and the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.