Peaceful protest has always been central to India's democratic tradition. From the freedom struggle onwards, non-violent demonstrations, hunger strikes, writing, theatre and satire have been used to question injustice and hold governments accountable. Every government has, at different times, tried to control dissent, but the space for peaceful protest has narrowed considerably in recent years.
Today, those who question the government often face personal attacks and are labelled anti-national, foreign agents or politically motivated. Public debate is increasingly replaced by attempts to discredit individuals rather than address the issues they raise. This has created an atmosphere in which many people are reluctant to participate even in peaceful protests.
The experience of recent movements reflects this reality. Apart from the farmers' movement, most major protests over the past decade have either failed to achieve their demands or faced a strong state response. The prolonged imprisonment of activists such as Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam after the CAA protests has also contributed to the fear surrounding public protest.
It was in this environment that a group of young people launched the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The name itself was a satirical response to remarks that had described the country's youth as "cockroaches." What began as an online campaign soon developed into a public movement driven by frustration over India's education system, repeated examination paper leaks, and the growing number of reported student suicides.
The movement shifted from social media to the streets when CJP organised a month-long protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Their campaign soon received a major boost when education reformer, environmentalist and Ramon Magsaysay Award winner Sonam Wangchuk joined the movement and began an indefinite hunger strike on 28 June.
As Wangchuk's health deteriorated, concern grew across the country. Opposition leaders, academics, public figures and film personalities appealed to the government to open a dialogue with him. The Delhi High Court also directed the Delhi government to ensure that he received proper medical care. Despite these developments, the government remained largely silent.
For nearly a month, the movement was the subject of intense public debate. While a few newspapers and independent digital platforms supported the protest, much of the mainstream media questioned its legitimacy rather than discussing the concerns it had raised. As a result, youth participation remained lower than expected during the early weeks of the campaign.
The criticism went far beyond disagreement. Since CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke had earlier been associated with the Aam Aadmi Party, some commentators portrayed the movement as merely an extension of that party. Others dismissed it as another version of the 2011 anti-corruption movement, or argued that it was simply an online satirical campaign with no serious public support.
Many questioned why only a limited number of students directly affected by the examination irregularities had joined the protest. Others argued that demanding only the resignation of the education minister would not solve the deeper problems in India's education system. Such criticisms were part of a legitimate democratic debate.
However, many other attacks were of an entirely different kind. CJP leaders were accused of hidden political motives, foreign funding and links with anti-national forces, without any evidence. Similar allegations were directed at Sonam Wangchuk, even though earlier accusations branding him a "Chinese agent" had already been withdrawn by the government because they could not be substantiated.
Some commentators argued that hunger strikes had become an outdated tactic that no longer influenced governments, calling it a form of blackmail against the state. They suggested that Wangchuk should abandon his fast and continue contributing through his educational work instead. Whether one agreed with this argument or not, it represented an important debate about the effectiveness of non-violent protest in contemporary India.
At the same time, there were repeated attempts to disrupt the movement. Individuals allegedly entered the protest to raise provocative slogans. A woman threw ink at Abhijeet Dipke, claiming that he had insulted Lord Rama. Personal attacks and provocative statements became common. Yet the protesters remained peaceful throughout.
Rather than encouraging informed public discussion, many of these campaigns appeared designed to weaken public confidence in peaceful democratic protest itself. Similar attempts to delegitimise protest had been seen earlier during the farmers' movement.
The turning point came in mid-July. As support for Wangchuk's hunger strike grew, Delhi Police removed him from the protest site and shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital ahead of the planned "Sansad Chalo" march on 20 July. Instead of weakening the movement, the action attracted greater public attention.
Young people and social activists from different parts of the country began arriving at Jantar Mantar. Abhijeet Dipke also started an indefinite fast, while students who had already joined the protest continued theirs. Solidarity demonstrations were organised in several states, including Karnataka.
On the day of the march, police imposed restrictions under Section 163 of the BNSS, denied permission for the rally, and disrupted both internet connectivity and Delhi Metro services to prevent crowds from gathering. Thousands of protesters nevertheless gathered in Delhi. Many were confined within the protest area for several hours while others continued to arrive from across the country.
When protesters attempted to march towards Parliament, police used lathi charges and tear gas. Many were injured, yet the protesters remained peaceful and did not retaliate. Even those who had been beaten could be heard chanting, "Delhi Police, we love you." The protest demonstrated that non-violence remained its defining principle despite repeated provocation and the violence against protesters.
As the crowds continued to grow, the government finally agreed to hold talks with CJP leaders. They presented three demands: the immediate release of Sonam Wangchuk from hospital so that he could address the youth, the resignation or removal of the Union Education Minister, and compensation of Rs 1 crore to the families of students who had died by suicide following the NEET examination irregularities.
Although Union Minister J.P. Nadda appealed to the protesters to end the agitation, the government had not responded to these demands, and the protest continued.
Beyond its immediate demands, the Cockroach Movement highlighted something much larger than examination paper leaks. It reminded the country that peaceful protest remains an essential part of democracy. At a time when dissent is increasingly viewed with suspicion, thousands of young people demonstrated that non-violence is still a powerful way to seek accountability and justice. More importantly, they showed that people need not fear exercising their democratic right to peaceful protest.
The movement also drew attention to the deeper crisis in India's education system. Paper leaks are only one symptom of structural problems that have built up over many years and worsened in recent times. Addressing these challenges requires more than replacing a minister. It calls for comprehensive reforms to improve transparency, fairness, and the overall quality of education.
---
The author has earlier worked with the NGO Myrada, fostering self-help groups among the Devadasis of North Karnataka. She continues to engage with issues that concern women and youth. This article was earlier published in Kannada on the website Edeena.com on 21 July 2026
Future lies in very high standards education and students
ReplyDelete