In the era of viral protests and hyper-connected citizenry, governments worldwide face unprecedented challenges. OP Singh, Indian Police Service officer and author of the forthcoming book ‘Crowd Engineering: The New Science of Collective Behavior in the Age of Smartphonians, shares insights on how states can navigate a world transformed by what he terms ‘Smartphonians’—digitally empowered crowds—and what it means for places like Nepal.
Q: Mr. Singh, your upcoming book introduces three core concepts crucial to understanding modern crowd dynamics: crowd control, crowd design, and crowd engineering. Could you briefly explain how these differ and why they matter?
OP Singh: Absolutely. Traditional crowd control is the oldest, most familiar notion—a reactive strategy rooted in suppression and containment. It's what governments have deployed for centuries, often inherited from colonial regimes. The reflex is to view crowds as chaotic threats that must be dispersed, typically through force or intimidation.
Crowd design, by contrast, is a breakthrough mindset. Instead of seeing crowds as problems to suppress, it treats them as phenomena to be deliberately shaped. It acknowledges that crowds have emotional and social rhythms that can be understood and guided—not crushed. This is where authorities intentionally curate space, posture, and interaction to foster cooperation and dignity, often diffusing potential conflict before it escalates.
Finally, crowd engineering is the comprehensive, institutionalized discipline—akin to public health or disaster management—that synthesizes sociology, urbanism, psychology, communication, and technology. It provides governments with the frameworks, tools, and training to design and manage crowds in the complex, rapid-fire environment of the 21st century.
Q: How has the rise of ‘Smartphonians’ altered the landscape for governments?
OP Singh: The term ‘Smartphonians’ denotes the emergent, digitally savvy citizenry armed with smartphones, social media, and instantaneous global connectivity. They’re young, impatient, networked, and capable of synchronizing massive gatherings with little traditional leadership.
As I write in the book, “Smartphonians don’t wait for permission; they move on momentum fueled by collective emotion and digital alerts. They choreograph their presence in physical and virtual realms simultaneously.”
This shifts power. Governments that cling to reflexive control find themselves perpetually outpaced, reacting to protests after they’ve gone viral, often fueling further unrest.
Q: We’ve seen recent unrest in Nepal. How does your analysis of Smartphonians versus what you call ‘Controllants’—the enforcers of traditional control—apply there?
OP Singh: Nepal’s recent protests vividly illustrate the tension between these forces. The *Smartphonians* flood streets and timelines alike, their narratives and grievances amplified worldwide in seconds. Meanwhile, Controllants —security forces trained to contain and disperse—struggle to respond to the crowd’s velocity and legitimacy.
This clash means that heavy-handed crowd control often backfires. It confirms protesters’ suspicions, hardens resolve, and damages the state’s credibility. On the other hand, when authorities adopt calibrated posture, engage early, and create meaningful channels for expression, they tap into crowd design principles that calm tensions.
Q: Are there historical examples of regimes that survived or fell based on these dynamics?
OP Singh: Certainly. The Arab Spring presented a crucible where regimes relying solely on crowd control —forceful dispersals and censorship—largely failed, succumbing to the unstoppable momentum of social media–fueled smart crowds.
Conversely, governments that integrated elements of crowd design and what I call crowd engineering —engaging civil society, opening dialogue platforms, supporting ritualized public events—have shown greater resilience. Their ability to manage the emotional and symbolic layers of protests often makes the difference between collapse and containment.
Nepal’s historic political shifts resonate with this pattern. The lesson is clear: governing smart crowds requires more than batons; it demands engineering of social space, emotion, and meaning.
Q: How should governments adapt institutional structures to meet these challenges?
OP Singh: Governments must commit to crowd engineering as a bona fide discipline, demanding investment in infrastructure, human capacity, and technology.
Like public health, which marshals science and training to save lives, or disaster management, which anticipates chaos and orchestrates response, crowd engineering requires dedicated units trained in:
Emotional intelligence and behavioural science;
Digital monitoring and rapid analysis of crowd signals;
Urban design that facilitates safe public gathering;
Communication strategies that foster trust and legitimacy.
Neglecting this shift risks governments being outmaneuvered by their own citizens’ networks, displaced by movements they fail to understand.
Q: You mention ‘coolants’—could you clarify their role?
OP Singh:Coolants are the agents within the state—police officers, administrators, civic leaders—who operationalize crowd design principles. Rather than reacting with fear or force, these actors embody calm, strategic presence.
They use posture, tone, timing, and spatial awareness to de-escalate tensions. They recognize the crowd’s emotional infrastructure—the unspoken rhythms, narratives, and aspirations—and choreograph interaction.
Training and empowering coolants is essential to transform governance from confrontation to co-creation.
Q: For a digitally hyper-connected planet, what risks lie ahead if governments ignore these changes?
OP Singh: The consequences are stark. Governments relying solely on crowd control risk losing legitimacy overnight—their heavy-handedness recorded, broadcast, and debated globally.
Smartphonians operate on a speed unfathomable to traditional bureaucracies. Without embracing crowd engineering governments will find themselves outpaced, outflanked, and ultimately overwhelmed.
The metaphor is clear: just as states built public health systems to combat pandemics before they became unmanageable, they must build crowd engineering systems now—or face the prospect of being swept aside by the next viral protest wave.
Q: In closing, what urgent advice would you offer to policymakers worldwide, including those in Nepal?
OP Singh: Recognize that crowds are no longer just physical masses; they are living, thinking organisms shaped by emotion, technology, and culture.
Invest seriously in crowd engineering—a new body of knowledge and practice that transcends policing, integrating sociology, urbanism, psychology, communication, and technology.
Train coolants who see the crowd not as an enemy but as an interlocutor.
Build public spaces and digital platforms that facilitate dialogue, ritual, and peaceful expression.
Fail to do this, and one day soon, a crowd of Smartphonians may overwhelm you—not just on streets but in the very narrative of your legitimacy. The choice is to adapt or be undone.
As I say in the book Crowd Engineering: “The future belongs to those who design their crowds, not those who try merely to control them.”
(OP Singh, DGP, is the author of the forthcoming book ‘Crowd Engineering: The New Science of Collective Behaviour in the Age of Smartphonians’)