What is nevertheless clear is that as chief minister with the home portfolio, Mr Kejriwal, did have several other options open to him. The easiest of course would have been for him to pick up the phone and speak to the home minister or the LG and apprise them of the complaints he had received. He could have discussed with them the action he deemed suitable and waited for a day or two to see their reaction. He could also have called for reports from independent observers or groups he could have constituted before demanding any action. He or his partymen could have also gone to the court to complain against police inaction and demand appropriate action. A friendly media would then have mounted sufficient pressure for action to follow. The demand that five policemen be suspended or transferred pending inquiry, was, however, patently unreasonable. Because if you start suspending policemen every time a crime takes place, it would become impossible to govern. If four miscreants abduct a tourist to a deserted park and rape her, the redressal cannot lie in suspending or transferring the SHO and that too without any inquiry. I am not aware of any country in the world, where crime or rapes are followed by judicial inquiries and suspension of policemen. Such suspension can only be justified if there is a gross dereliction of duty and there is sufficient evidence that the policeman’s acts of omission or commission led to the crime. No government can unilaterally take such action without following procedures and without giving the accused a chance to explain his conduct. In the event, two of the five policemen were asked to proceed on leave or extend their leave, allowing Mr Kejriwal to withdraw his indefinite dharna and claim a victory.