By Shishir Prashant 
PrashantNews
Prime Minister Narendra Modi once made a striking appeal for forgiveness when a group of young protesters used abusive language against him and his late mother.
But in Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government has approved tougher penalties in the wake of violent protests in the country.
The two episodes are different in their circumstances. Yet, taken together, they raise a question that goes beyond individual leaders: should a government’s response to protests be driven primarily by punishment, or should it also leave room for restraint, forgiveness and dialogue?
On July 31, Modi responded to the controversy surrounding abusive slogans directed at him during student protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar over alleged examination irregularities saying “let’s guide the misguided”.
Modi said he wanted to forgive the young protesters. He described them as misguided children who needed guidance rather than retribution and appealed to society to give them an opportunity to learn from their mistakes.
His message was significant because the abuse was directed at him personally.
The Italian government, meanwhile, approved a security decree on October 20 following violent unrest in Milan, where rioters looted shops, damaged property and clashed with police.
The decree creates a new offence of violent participation in a demonstration, carrying a maximum prison sentence of five years and a fine of up to €20,000 in specified circumstances. Penalties can increase when offenders conceal their faces or injure someone. The measures also make parents financially liable for certain damage caused by their minor children and extend preventive detention provisions to minors.
The decree must be converted into law by Parliament within 60 days.
Meloni has defended the measures on the grounds that violence, looting and destruction cannot be justified by political grievances or social distress. Her government’s position is that citizens and businesses have a right to protection from rioters.
That argument has force. Peaceful protest does not confer a licence to assault people, loot shops or destroy public property. Nor should shopkeepers and ordinary citizens be expected to bear the costs of criminal acts committed in the name of dissent.
But the breadth and implementation of tougher security provisions matter. Measures intended to control violence must not become instruments that deter peaceful demonstrators or give authorities excessive discretion to restrict public assemblies.
The comparison has particular relevance for India, where opposition parties and student groups have recently protested over electoral-roll revisions and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The handling of the demonstrations has also attracted international scrutiny. On October 20, UN human rights experts called for an independent investigation into reports of excessive force and mistreatment of protesters by Indian authorities.
And now, the question arises whether these same UN experts will seek a probe into the new tough laws in Italy.
A protester who criticises a prime minister, uses insulting language or demands an official’s resignation is not necessarily committing the same kind of act as someone who assaults a police officer or vandalises a shop. Each case must be assessed on its facts and under the law.
Equally, a government cannot be expected to tolerate violence simply because its perpetrators claim a political cause. The challenge is to enforce the law proportionately, protect public safety and preserve the space for peaceful dissent.
Modi’s appeal for forgiveness does not mean that every protester should escape legal consequences. Nor does Meloni’s tougher approach automatically mean that peaceful protest is being criminalised. The distinction lies in the details of the laws, the conduct of the authorities and the safeguards available to citizens.
Yet Modi’s words provide a useful standard against which the handling of protests can be examined. If young people who use abusive language can be offered an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, governments should also consider whether dialogue, restraint and proportionate action can defuse tensions before they escalate.
A window for peace and reconciliation should remain open.