Former IPS officer and ex-Tamil Nadu BJP president K Annamalai on Wednesday launched a scathing attack against the Central government on Wednesday over the detention of CJP protesters in New Delhi. The remarks triggered a sharp retort by the BJP.
The former cop-turned politician, who resigned from the BJP in the June this year, recalled in a post on X, Narendra Modi’s 2011 statement, made as Gujarat Chief Minister, slamming the midnight police crackdown on anti-corruption protesters at Ramlila Maidan.
“In 2011, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, stated that if his hands had not been tied, he would have gone to Delhi and waged a war against the Central government”, he noted.
“In my opinion, what the Hon PM said then was absolutely right, and there is nothing wrong about it”.
In 2011, then Gujarat Chief Minister Thiru @narendramodi avl said that if his hands were not tied, he would have gone to Delhi and waged war against the central government. Thiru Narendra Modi avl made this statement in response to the police crackdown on the peaceful anti-corruption campaign led at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi. In my opinion, what the Hon PM said then was absolutely right, and there is nothing wrong about it. Today, you could be jailed indefinitely; your surety bonds could be rejected; and, surprisingly, a Special Executive Magistrate will play circles around you when he/ she is empowered to deal with preventive bond cases. If you question the violation of due process of law in a democracy, you would be called names, and a barrage of attacks would follow, including being labelled a Foreign Agent. Ever since I asked the Central Government to speak with the protestors during the NEET exam protests, I have faced constant attacks, but I let them pass because I felt it was important to focus on the issues on the ground in Tamil Nadu. I also, in a way, enjoyed this as it would quickly remove the tag of me being a BJP B Team and sent to TN as a Dhurandhar š Yesterday during a press meeting, I questioned the Delhi Police’s methods of detaining protestors of CJP. Since yesterday, the attacks have resumed, as expected. For some in the BJP, let me make this categorically clear, in case you have selective amnesia: I left the BJP on June 5, 2026. As I mentioned yesterday, I might not agree with the tactics of the CJP, and I think many of theirs are misguided. But if you ask me whether they have a right to oppose/argue/protest on an issue that they think is important? I would categorically say – YES. So, I would like people to ask the questions again, even if it makes some of them uncomfortable, and I wish the Central Government would answer them instead of resorting to whataboutism. https://t.co/U1VOaaWCLM was Jantar Mantar denotified as a protest site as per a standing order of the Ministry of Home Affairs after a letter was handed over by CJP seeking permission to conduct a protest? https://t.co/Gn79sPgy7b long can we have a system that gives powers to an Asst Commissioner of Police as a Special Executive Magistrate who rules over whether to keep someone in preventive detention? The ACP of Delhi Police stands over the trial where Delhi Police is the complainant against the accused CJP. Now you know which way the wind will blow. 3.On October 19th, why did the Special Executive Magistrate, aka ACP of Delhi Police, deliberately arrive late for the bail hearing of those who were arrested from Jantar Mantar on October 13th and recuse himself, saying there is a threat to his life? Is this some kind of a joke? 4.Why were 8 sureties rejected, and why was the person who came for surety subjected to cross-examination by the Special Executive Magistrate? 5. Any action taken on pellet gun usage by the Delhi police or other actions on Delhi police who have violated the standard operating procedures against the protesters during the NEET fiasco stir? Has no BJP karyakarta in Delhi violated any bond conditions during the previous Congress and AAP governments. I trust the same Delhi police were then also when barricades were jumped and orders disobeyed? How were they dealt with then? Like this? Definitely – NO. Now I hear that the detained functionaries of CJP were released by SEM after the case reached the High Court. I also recently saw a cockroach effigy burned as part of the Dusshera celebrations. Out of curiosity, I tried to find out who is giving this free publicity at a National level. No surprises here. It was led by a BJP MLA, Ashok Goel. My question again is: is the BJP opposing the CJP or giving it free publicity? Does it want the opposition votes to split by making CJP a bigger player? At this rate, the CJP couldn’t have asked for a better PR team, even if it had paid for one! (1/2)
ā K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) October 21, 2026
“Today, you could be jailed indefinitely; your surety bonds could be rejected; and, surprisingly, a Special Executive Magistrate will play circles around you when he/ she is empowered to deal with preventive bond cases”, he said referring to the arrest of CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, who were finally released on Wednesday after seven days in custody.
“If you question the violation of due process of law in a democracy, you would be called names, and a barrage of attacks would follow, including being labelled a Foreign Agent,” Annamalai said in his post.
Noting that he does not agree with many of the CJP’s actions, Annamalai maintained that they have a right to protest.
Read |Ā ‘No More Jantar Mantar Protest Calls’: Vow By CJP’s Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka In Court
“I might not agree with the tactics of the CJP, and I think many of theirs are misguided. But if you ask me whether they have a right to oppose/argue/protest on an issue that they think is important, I would categorically say – YES,” he asserted.
“So, I would like people to ask the questions again, even if it makes some of them uncomfortable, and I wish the Central Government would answer them instead of resorting to whataboutism,” he argued.
The former BJP leader also slammed the tendency to label any protesters “anti-India” and “foreign agents”, calling it a “tiring and boring” narrative.Ā
“Lastly, enough of this anti-national thing. FCRA is controlled by MHA. All agencies don’t report to the opposition parties in the country. All the embassies outside are equipped with enough people to track any Indian national in hand in glove with foreign enemies. It’s honestly very tiring and boring to see all protests and statements against the central government being called as anti-national and funded by forces outside. I have a feeling the central government forgets it’s been in power in Delhi for 12 plus years and still manufactures an enemy at all times to keep itself relevant. Sadly, that’s a pity!”
Reacting to the attacks from a former colleague, Tamil Nadu BJP leader Vinod Selvam posted a point by point rebuttal of Annamalai’s allegations.
Mr Annamalai, you have asked the Central Government several questions. Let us also examine the facts your post leaves out. The Modi government has a responsibility to maintain public order. It cannot suspend that responsibility whenever those facing action happen to oppose BJP Peaceful protest deserves protection. Alleged violations deserve examination. Neither political affiliation nor social-media popularity provides exemption from the law You served in the IPS. You know the distinction 1. On invoking Narendra Modi’s statement from 2011 Modi criticised the crackdown at Ramlila Maidan in 2011. That statement is on record. But a quotation from 2011 cannot determine the legality of every police action in 2026 The present case involves allegations of entering a barricaded site and breaching previously furnished peace bonds. Address those allegations instead of presenting the entire episode as punishment merely for asking questions. Our position is consistent: citizens can oppose the government; authorities can enforce lawful restrictions. Disagreement with the first does not establish abuse of the second. 2. On Jantar Mantar: the dates matter Here is the reported chronology: ā¢ October 9: The Supreme Court discussed identifying suitable alternative protest sites with facilities. ā¢ October 11: The revised Delhi Police standing order was issued. ā¢ October 12: The change was announced; CJP says its representatives approached the police for permission that day. Three alternative venues were designated: Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground. You suggest that the authorities changed the arrangement in response to CJP’s application. How do you establish that when the reported order predates the application? The government’s stated approach included providing alternative venues. That is a material fact when discussing whether the object was to regulate protests or extinguish them. You can challenge the location decision. But your preferred interpretation of its motive is not an established fact. 3. On Special Executive Magistrates Your post expresses alarm about a mechanism that existed long before the Modi government. Section 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, already provided for Special Executive Magistrates. This was not an institution invented overnight to handle CJP. If you seek reform, specify the reform. If you question an appointment, identify the legal defect. If you challenge an order, explain which provision was violated. But portraying an established legal mechanism as evidence of a uniquely sinister government conspiracy is no substitute for making that case. Your experience in uniform should bring precision to this discussion 4. On questioning and rejecting sureties You ask why proposed sureties were questioned, as though scrutiny itself establishes harassment Section 140 of the BNSS expressly permits rejection of an unfit surety, subject to procedural safeguards, including an inquiry and recorded reasons. Reporting on the October 19 order identifies concerns including an alleged mismatch with an identity-document photograph and another proposed surety’s inability to provide basic details about the person concerned Those reasons can be challenged. But the number of sureties offered does not establish that each was legally acceptable or that every rejection was arbitrary. Publish the orders. Address the reasons. Identify the procedural violation. āEight suretiesā is a headline. It is not, by itself, a legal argument. 5. On the magistrate’s recusal You refer to a threat and a recusal, then ask whether this is a joke. Where is the recorded order? What precisely was stated? What evidence establishes your suggestion that the process was deliberately manipulated? A former police officer should understand the seriousness of a reported threat. If you believe it was used as a pretext, substantiate that accusation. The public deserves the record, not an invitation to assume the worst
ā Vinoj P Selvam (@VinojBJP) October 21, 2026
“The Modi government has a responsibility to maintain public order. It cannot suspend that responsibility whenever those facing action happen to oppose BJP.Ā Peaceful protest deserves protection. Alleged violations deserve examination. Neither political affiliation nor social-media popularity provides exemption from the law,” Selvam stated.
On Annamalai quoting PM’s 2011 statement, Selvam said: “Modi criticised the crackdown at Ramlila Maidan in 2011. That statement is on record. But a quotation from 2011 cannot determine the legality of every police action in 2026”.
He also rejected Annamalai’s assertion on BJP trying to manufacture enemies despite being in power for 12 years.
“Twelve years in office increases responsibility. It does not remove the government’s obligation to maintain order.
The Modi government is responsible to citizens who protest and citizens who need public spaces, transport and daily life to function.”
