In an alarming incident of security breach, the Indian Parliament witnessed a disturbing scene today, 13 December, in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament. Two men, in a bold and unsettling act, jumped into the well of the Lok Sabha from the visitors’ gallery. This shocking event occurred during the active proceedings of the house, making it a significant breach of parliamentary security. What added to the intensity of the situation was the release of yellow-coloured smoke from canisters by these individuals, creating a scene of chaos and confusion within the historically significant chamber.

This intrusion is notably significant as it coincided with the anniversary of the 2001 parliament attack, a day remembered for its grave implications for national security. The echo of that past attack and the symbolism of this breach on the same day are hard to ignore, bringing into sharp focus the concerns around the security of one of the nation's most critical institutions.

Outside the parliament, the security forces detained two more individuals who were found carrying smoke cans. This suggests that the act might have been a coordinated effort involving more than just the two individuals who managed to enter the Lok Sabha chamber.

The timing of the incident was also notable. It occurred at 1 PM, during the zero hour in the Lok Sabha, a time typically allocated for the discussion of various pressing matters before the house breaks for lunch. The session was proceeding as usual, with Khagen Murmu, a BJP MP from West Bengal, addressing the house regarding issues pertinent to his constituency. However, the normalcy of the parliamentary proceedings was abruptly disrupted as sounds of commotion echoed in the background. This commotion was brought to the immediate attention of the entire nation as Sansad TV, broadcasting the session, switched to a wider view of the hall. Viewers witnessed the startling sight of a man who had just jumped from the gallery and was now amidst the benches of the parliament.

Following the initial shock of the security breach in the Lok Sabha, the situation escalated rapidly. The man who had jumped into the well of the house proceeded to move towards the front of the hall, hopping from bench to bench in a manner that suggested urgency and perhaps even a lack of clear planning. This unusual and alarming behavior caused a stir among those present in the Lok Sabha. The air was filled with shouts of 'pakdo, pakdo' (catch him), a spontaneous reaction from the members as they witnessed this unprecedented intrusion.

In response to this chaotic situation, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha took immediate action. Recognizing the gravity of the breach and the need to ensure the safety of the members, the Speaker hurriedly adjourned the house. This was a necessary measure to bring order back to the chamber and assess the security situation. Following this, the live stream of the parliamentary proceedings, which provided a window to the outside world, was abruptly cut off, leaving viewers in suspense about the unfolding events inside.

Adding to the complexity of the incident, media reports indicated that another man was involved in the breach. Both intruders reportedly carried canisters from which they sprayed a yellow-coloured substance. There was uncertainty about the nature of this substance – while some reports suggested it was a gas, others described it as smoke. The critical question of whether this substance was poisonous or harmful in any way remained unanswered at the time, adding to the concern and anxiety of the situation.

The intruder, described as wearing a blue jacket, was also seen removing his shoes, an action that might have been an attempt to move more stealthily or indicate some symbolic gesture. His actions following this – looking around, possibly for an exit or assessing the situation – were interrupted as members of Parliament began to surround him. This move by the MPs indicated their intent to contain the situation and prevent any further escalation.

In the aftermath of the intruders jumping into the Lok Sabha, the situation inside the hall became even more tense as yellow smoke began to emanate and fill the space. This development added a layer of confusion and potential danger to the already chaotic scene. Reports indicated that the two accused individuals, responsible for this security breach, were actively chanting slogans during their intrusion. The slogans included “Kala kanoon wapis lo” (Repeal the black law) and “Tanashahi nahin chalegi” (Dictatorship will not be tolerated). These chants suggest that the act was more than just a breach of security; it was also a form of protest.

Before they were eventually detained by security personnel, the intruders were reportedly shouting additional slogans. The nature of these slogans, though not specified in the reports, points towards a planned demonstration or expression of dissent, albeit carried out in a highly unconventional and illegal manner.

The timing of this security breach is particularly noteworthy. It occurred on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, a grave and significant event in India's history, when armed terrorists stormed the Parliament building. This coincidence, whether intentional or not, adds a layer of gravity to the breach, evoking memories of that dark day and the sacrifices made to protect the nation's democratic institutions.

In the aftermath of the incident, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, the Leader of Congress in the Lok Sabha, provided a statement to reporters outside Parliament. He recounted, “Two young men jumped from the gallery and something was hurled by them from which gas was emitting. They were caught by MPs, they were brought out by security personnel. The House was adjourned till 2 pm. This is certainly a security breach because today we observed the death anniversary of people who sacrificed their lives in 2001.” Chowdhury's statement underscores the seriousness of the incident, highlighting both the physical breach of security and its symbolic impact on a day of remembrance for those who lost their lives in the 2001 attack.

This incident, therefore, represents not just a failure of security protocols but also brings into focus the issues of how protests are managed and addressed in democratic spaces, especially in highly secured areas like the Parliament. The breach, the use of smoke, and the slogans chanted by the intruders point towards a planned act of defiance, prompting discussions about security measures, freedom of expression, and the sanctity of democratic institutions.

Congress MP Karti Chidambaram provided a detailed account of the startling incident that unfolded in the Lok Sabha. He described how “Suddenly two young men around 20 years old jumped into the House from the visitor’s gallery and had canisters in their hand. These canisters were emitting yellow smoke. One of them was attempting to run towards the Speaker’s chair. They were shouting some slogans. The smoke could have been poisonous. This is a serious breach of security especially on 13th December, the day when Parliament was attacked in 2001.” This statement from Chidambaram emphasizes the abrupt and unexpected nature of the breach, with the intruders being young men, estimated to be in their 20s, equipped with canisters that released yellow smoke. The fact that one of them tried to approach the Speaker's chair indicates a specific target or message they intended to convey. The potential toxicity of the smoke added an element of danger to the situation.

Chidambaram also noted the attire of the intruders, pointing out that they were dressed in jeans, a detail that could give insight into their backgrounds or intentions. Following the breach, the arrested men were taken to the Parliament Street Police Station, signaling the start of a thorough investigation into the incident.

Furthermore, outside the Parliament, near Transport Bhawan, two other individuals were detained. These persons were also in possession of colored smoke canisters, similar to those used in the Lok Sabha breach. The canisters carried by them exploded, releasing red and yellow smoke. This occurrence outside the Parliament complex suggests that the incident inside the Lok Sabha was part of a larger, coordinated effort involving multiple individuals.

This recent breach in the Parliament gains an additional layer of significance considering the threats made by Khalistani separatist and Sikhs for Justice leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. He had specifically targeted the Indian Parliament with a threat of attack on or before 13th December. In a message released the previous week, Pannun claimed that there was an attempt by Indian authorities to assassinate him, which he said was unsuccessful. He ominously warned of a retaliatory action, stating that by no later than 13 December, he would launch an assault on the Indian Parliament to "shake its foundation." This threat, made publicly, casts a shadow over the security breach and raises questions about whether there is any connection between the two incidents.

Simultaneously, a similar situation was unfolding outside the Parliament. Two protestors, a woman and a man, were engaged in a demonstration that mirrored the actions inside the Parliament. They were releasing yellow and pink smoke from cans, adding to the chaos and tension of the day. This outside demonstration suggests a possible coordinated effort, as both the incidents inside and outside the Parliament involved the use of colored smoke and occurred concurrently.

The woman protester participating in the demonstration outside Parliament was particularly vocal, as reported. She was heard shouting various slogans including “Tanashahi nahin chalega” (Dictatorship will not be tolerated), “Manipur ko insaaf do” (Justice for Manipur), “Samvidhaan bachao” (Save the constitution), “Mahilayon par atyachar nahin chalega” (No oppression of women will be tolerated), “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” (Victory to Mother India), “Tanashahi band karo” (Stop dictatorship), “Jai Bheem Jai Bharat” (Hail Bheem, Hail India), and “Vande Mataram” (I praise thee, Mother). These slogans covered a range of issues, from regional justice and constitutional rights to nationalistic sentiments and social justice, indicating a broad spectrum of grievances or messages the protestors aimed to convey.

The recent incidents at the Indian Parliament, involving both a security breach and a demonstration outside, have raised serious concerns about the rule of law and the appropriate means of expressing dissent in a democracy. The individuals involved, identified as Neelam Kaur, Amol Shinde, and one reportedly named Sagar, engaged in actions that not only violated legal boundaries but also compromised the sanctity and safety of a key democratic institution.

During the incident, one of the protestors, a man, was heard chanting “Bharat Mata ki Jai” while the demonstration outside involved the release of colored smoke. The use of such patriotic slogans in the context of unlawful activities is problematic. It conflates genuine patriotic sentiment with acts that undermine the very democratic principles and institutions that uphold the nation.

Neelam Kaur, in a video while being detained, voiced her frustrations, stating, “Our Indian government and the atrocities being committed against us…when we talk about our rights…we are lathicharged and jailed and tortured. So we did not have any other way.” While her statement reflects a sense of grievance against the government, it is critical to acknowledge that the method of protest chosen by her and her associates was both illegal and dangerous. Resorting to such dramatic and unlawful measures in a high-security area like the Parliament is not a justifiable form of protest in a democratic society.

When asked about their organizational affiliations, Neelam Kaur asserted, “We are not from any organisation, we are common people... They try to suppress our voice but this tyranny will not be tolerated.” While her claim of representing ordinary citizens highlights a perception of being marginalized and unheard, it does not excuse the reckless and illegal nature of their actions. Expressing dissent through channels that endanger public safety and disrupt key state functions is not a valid or acceptable form of protest.

The actions of these individuals reflect a troubling disregard for the law and democratic processes. Their choice to engage in such extreme forms of protest on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack further adds to the gravity of their actions. It is important for democratic societies to have avenues for legitimate dissent and for grievances to be heard, but this must be balanced with respect for the law and public safety. The incident at the Indian Parliament serves as a reminder of the need for this balance and the dangers of when it is lost.

Gaurav Pradhan Analysis

Gaurav Pradhan, an IT professional turned entrepreneur known for his political predictions, recently addressed the serious issue of the Parliament breach on his Telegram channel, which boasts 73,000 followers. He emphasized the severity of the incident, stating, "Today the breach of parliament is very serious issue and the agencies have swing into action, Rest assured we will not go in roots but the seeds of the problem where the roots originated."

Pradhan brought attention to a specific detail about the incident – the use of yellow smoke canisters. He pointed out that "No Indian security force use yellow smoke canisters even in training. They use normal or red smoke screen. The yellow color is generated by Phosphorus which create blisters on skin." This observation raises questions about the origin and purpose of the canisters, suggesting that they were not standard equipment and could potentially cause harm.

He also highlighted another critical aspect of the breach – the means of entry of the perpetrators into the Parliament. "How they enter with canisters is another big issue and how they use a BJP MP pass for it," he noted, implying that there might have been an inside aid or serious lapses in security protocols.

Pradhan urged caution against sensationalism, advising, "So my request is not to jump on TV drama, they know nothing. We ensure that these people life will rot in jail for rest of life." He expressed confidence in the authorities' ability to handle the situation and ensure severe consequences for those responsible.

Furthermore, Pradhan speculated on the possible motivation behind the incident, linking it to political maneuvering. "My first impression by looking at videos and congress jumping indicated that they are behind the motivation by Using Pratap shoulder to fire gun." This statement suggests his belief that the Congress party might have had a role in instigating the breach, using it as a political tool.

Pradhan's comments add a layer of political analysis and conjecture to the breach incident, inviting consideration of not just the act itself but the broader context of security practices, political dynamics, and media portrayal in India.