The ability to question authority is one of the defining characteristics of a free people. It is what gives democracy its strength. A vibrant democracy does not fear dissent; it welcomes it. Today, that principle is more important than ever because the challenges we face are increasingly complex and the forces that seek to influence public opinion are more sophisticated than ever before.
July, often seen as the month of renewal when the monsoon brings relief from the scorching summer, witnessed a different kind of heat at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Thousands of students gathered to protest against alleged irregularities in the NEET examination and demanded accountability from the government, including the resignation of the Education Minister.
In a democracy such as ours, protests are neither unusual nor undesirable. Throughout our history, individuals and groups have taken to the streets whenever they believed a cause demanded public attention. Whether one agrees with the cause or not, peaceful protest remains a legitimate democratic tool through which citizens seek accountability.
The effectiveness of any protest, however, depends not only on the legitimacy of its cause but also on the number of people it inspires, the credibility of its leadership, and the manner in which its message resonates with the public. Political parties often join such movements when they see ideological or electoral value in doing so. That is an established feature of democratic politics across the world.
The recent protests witnessed participation from students, activists, civil society members and opposition political parties. Their scale ensured that the controversy remained in the national spotlight. Whatever one’s political preferences, the protests succeeded in keeping public attention focused on concerns surrounding the examination process and accountability.
That, in itself, is something we should celebrate.
A democracy where citizens raise questions and governments are compelled to respond is healthier than one where silence prevails. Elections every five years are not the only means through which citizens participate in governance. Public engagement between elections is equally important.
Yet, while I am proud of the democratic spirit that encourages citizens to question authority, I am deeply uncomfortable with certain aspects of the conduct displayed by sections of the protesters.
How we protest is just as important as why we protest.
Our history is filled with passionate demonstrations. Some unfortunately turned violent, but many also displayed remarkable discipline, dignity and moral conviction. Protest is not merely about opposing authority; it is also about reflecting the values of the society one seeks to improve.
It is here that I believe we must introspect.
When Virality Becomes More Important Than the Cause
In the age of social media, visibility often appears to matter more than substance. For some participants, creating content seemed almost as important as participating in the movement itself. Whether every individual fully understood the issue they were protesting became secondary to being seen at the protest.
A movement loses credibility when performance begins to overshadow purpose.
When the Camera Determines Conduct
Social media has created incentives to reward the loudest voice rather than the strongest argument. Some protesters appeared to compete in displaying aggression, using abusive language or dramatic gestures because they make for viral videos.
Disagreement is an essential democratic right. Abuse is not a measure of conviction.
The language we use while expressing dissent says as much about us as the cause we support.
Confidence Should Not Become Arrogance
Every generation develops its own style of communication. Confidence is welcome. Arrogance is not.
Strong arguments do not require hostility. A thoughtful speaker often persuades more effectively than the loudest one.
Unfortunately, in many instances, modesty seemed to have given way to performative outrage.
”The Fairer Sex is Not So Fair?”
Equality means equal opportunity, equal dignity and equal respect. It does not mean imitating bad behaviour.
If abusive conduct has traditionally been associated with some men, replicating that behaviour should not be viewed as empowerment. Civility should not become gender-specific; it should remain a universal virtue.
The language and abuses hurled by some protesters—particularly some young women—should concern us. I do not suggest for a moment that similar behaviour by young men is any less objectionable. Vulgarity deserves condemnation irrespective of gender.
However, I have always believed that women play a defining role in shaping the moral and cultural fabric of society. Across civilizations, women have often been the custodians of values, restraint and civility within families and communities. That influence has, in many ways, tempered the excesses of men and helped preserve social balance.
If both men and women abandon those standards of civility in the name of appearing bold or fashionable, society as a whole stands to lose.
One is not all and all is not one!
Public discourse today often paints all politicians with the same brush. While criticism of elected representatives is both legitimate and necessary, condemning an entire political class because of the misconduct of a few is intellectually unfair.
If we choose to judge an entire political class by the conduct of one or two politicians, then by the same logic we would also have to judge an entire generation by the actions of a few young men and women. Widely reported criminal cases—whether the case of Siya Goyal or other such incidents that have dominated the headlines—cannot become the basis for branding an entire generation as misguided or morally bankrupt. A few individuals, however reprehensible their actions, can never define millions. Consistency demands that we reject collective judgments, regardless of whom they are directed against.
Democracy Requires Both Freedom and Responsibility
I remain optimistic about India’s youth. My concern is not that they protest. On the contrary, I hope they continue questioning authority and demanding accountability. My concern is that social media, performative outrage and political manipulation should not replace informed conviction and civil discourse.
Every large public movement inevitably attracts groups seeking political advantage. That makes it even more important for genuine protesters to remain disciplined and focused on their original cause.
The NEET controversy demonstrated both the strengths and weaknesses of our democracy. It showed that citizens can mobilise around issues that matter and compel governments to respond. It also reminded us that the manner in which we express dissent shapes public perception of the cause itself.
I remain proud that India is a democracy where citizens are free to question those in power.
I am particularly proud of the government of the day for responding to public concern and acknowledging the seriousness of the issue. I view this not as a sign of weakness or capitulation, but as an example of democratic accountability. Governments earn public trust not only by taking decisions, but also by correcting course when circumstances demand it. Instead of portraying the government’s response as a sign of weakness, the Opposition must remember that not too long ago it faced a similar situation that originated from the very same venue. The manner in which that agitation was handled ultimately led to the ouster of the incumbent government. Democratic accountability should not be mistaken for political weakness; it is, in fact, one of democracy’s greatest strengths.
I hope that future protests reflect not only courage but character; not only passion but dignity; not only anger but responsibility.
For democracy is strengthened not merely by the right to protest, but by the values with which that right is exercised.
SAFFRON on TOP 