Public protests are the lifeblood of a democracy. They remind those in power that citizens are watching, questioning, and demanding accountability. In recent weeks, demonstrations against what critics have mockingly called the "Cockroach Janata Party" (CJP), along with expressions of support for environmentalist and activist Sonam Wangchuk, have attracted considerable public attention. Like many others, I feel sympathy for those taking to the streets and, at times, even a sense of guilt for not standing beside them.
The immediate demands of the movement have largely centred on the resignation of a particular minister. Holding ministers accountable is both legitimate and necessary in a democracy. However, if the criticism extends to the broader functioning of the government, an obvious question arises: why is accountability being confined to one individual, especially if critics believe the failures are systemic?
India's parliamentary system rests on the principle of collective ministerial responsibility, enshrined in Article 75(3) of the Constitution, which states that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. Major policy failures are therefore not merely the burden of one minister but, constitutionally, of the government as a whole. If protesters genuinely believe that systemic failures originate at the highest levels, why does the political demand stop with one resignation? That inconsistency naturally invites public scrutiny.
More troubling than selective criticism is selective silence. Over the past decade, India has witnessed numerous developments that have raised concerns among constitutional scholars, civil rights organisations, retired judges, and international human rights bodies. These include the continued imprisonment of activist Umar Khalid under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act without the commencement of trial; the conviction and prolonged legal battle of former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, whom several human rights groups regard as a victim of political retaliation; repeated incidents of mob lynching documented by civil society organisations; religious processions that have, in some instances, resulted in communal violence and provocative displays outside mosques; attacks on churches and Christian institutions reported across several states; and concerns regarding restrictions on civil liberties and freedom of expression highlighted by domestic and international watchdogs.
Certainly, issues such as NEET, unemployment, inflation, education, and corruption deserve nationwide protests. But so do the lives and rights of minorities. So does due process. So do constitutional freedoms. The obvious question therefore remains: where are the sustained nationwide campaigns on these issues?
A democracy survives not merely through elections but through the consistent application of moral principles. If public outrage emerges only when issues affect one section of society while remaining muted when others suffer, it weakens the credibility of democratic movements themselves. Political philosopher Hannah Arendt warned, "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil." Her observation reminds us that indifference, selective engagement, and moral inconsistency often enable injustice more effectively than outright oppression. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr.'s enduring observation that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" leaves little room for selective solidarity.
Recent opinion surveys continue to show substantial electoral support for the ruling party despite widespread criticism from opposition groups. Lokniti-CSDS studies have repeatedly found that Prime Minister Narendra Modi continues to enjoy high personal approval ratings, often significantly exceeding those of the government as a whole. Surveys conducted by agencies such as India Today-CVoter and Axis My India have likewise suggested that many voters distinguish between dissatisfaction with specific policies and continued support for the Prime Minister. These findings point to an important political reality: if opposition movements seek genuine democratic change, focusing solely on isolated controversies may prove insufficient. Many voters evaluate governments on broader considerations, including governance, welfare delivery, leadership, and national security.
Civil society organisations have also documented concerns extending well beyond individual policy failures. Amnesty International has highlighted what it describes as shrinking civic space and restrictions on dissent. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly documented incidents involving communal violence and restrictions on civil liberties. The V-Dem Institute has classified India as an "electoral autocracy" since 2021, citing concerns regarding democratic institutions. Freedom House has downgraded India's status from "Free" to "Partly Free," while Reporters Without Borders has consistently ranked India low on the World Press Freedom Index, raising concerns about media independence. Whether one agrees entirely with these assessments or not, they indicate that debates about India's democratic health extend far beyond a single examination controversy or one ministerial resignation.
This leads to a more uncomfortable question. Some critics wonder whether narrowly focused protests inadvertently function as a safety valve, allowing enough public anger to be expressed without fundamentally challenging deeper structural issues. Such a question cannot simply be dismissed. Movements that repeatedly mobilise around politically safe issues while avoiding more contentious ones risk creating the perception that they manage public frustration rather than transform it. In politics, perception matters.
The strength of any democratic movement lies in its consistency. If justice is demanded for students, it should also be demanded for political prisoners. If accountability is sought for examination failures, it should equally be sought for communal violence. If constitutional values matter, they cannot become negotiable depending on who suffers. Selective indignation ultimately begins to resemble political partisanship more than moral conviction.
None of these questions diminish my sympathy for Sonam Wangchuk or those protesting peacefully. His long-standing advocacy for Ladakh, environmental sustainability, constitutional safeguards, and democratic participation deserves respect regardless of political affiliation. I sincerely hope his campaign succeeds. At the same time, genuinely transformative democratic movements must aspire to something larger than episodic outrage. They must become movements in which every injustice matters equally, every citizen's rights are defended with equal conviction, and silence is never reserved for politically inconvenient victims. Only then can public protest rise above politics and become a true moral force in a constitutional democracy.
If we genuinely want a stronger democracy, our outrage must become more principled, more inclusive, and more consistent. We cannot afford to defend justice only when it is convenient, popular, or politically useful. We must speak up for students, workers, minorities, prisoners, journalists, and every citizen whose rights are threatened. That means demanding accountability from all political actors, not merely one minister. It means opposing communal violence, unlawful detention, censorship, and institutional decay with the same urgency that we bring to any other public crisis. It means refusing to let selective outrage replace genuine democratic responsibility.
The real test of a democratic conscience is not whom we choose to defend when it is easy, but whether we remain committed to justice when doing so is difficult. Only then can public protest rise above politics and become the moral force that every constitutional democracy requires.
---
Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a group of digital activists working to combat disinformation on social media
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor