Trains have been cancelled, metro services suspended, and announcements issued urging parents, teachers, and resident associations to exercise caution about venturing outdoors. A peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar has emerged as a major challenge for the current regime. People have witnessed such high-handedness before. The methodology is simple: foil the protest at all costs, using every possible means at the government's disposal. Intimidate students and families. Stop trains, shut down metro services, disrupt mobility, and deploy security forces in full gear, as though they were being stationed at a border. These are ways of criminalising a peaceful protest.
By the evening, the darbaris on prime-time television will have delivered their verdict on how the protest failed to attract young people. The lalas will produce new surveys demonstrating how Narendra Modi's popularity among the youth remains at its peak. The familiar narrative will be repeated, regardless of the reasons people have taken to the streets or the obstacles placed in their way.
The fact remains that democratic dissent is steadily losing space in the country. The government insists that anyone wishing to protest at Jantar Mantar or another designated venue must obtain permission well in advance, sometimes ten days before the proposed gathering. It is easy to claim that a process exists, but the real question is how that process is implemented. Administrative procedures are frequently applied selectively and systematically used to discourage dissent. Organisations aligned with the ruling establishment, including the Bajrangis, may find it easier to mobilise at Jantar Mantar than groups seeking to organise protests against the government.
We have witnessed protests led by Rahul Gandhi and other Members of Parliament belonging to the INDIA opposition bloc. They were reportedly prevented from entering the Election Commission's office on the grounds that a formal appointment was required. Their subsequent attempt to stage a sit-in at Jantar Mantar also encountered restrictions, with the requirement of ten days' advance permission cited as the reason. Eventually, opposition leaders marched to Gandhi's memorial at Rajghat after considerable difficulty.
The important question is that Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders possess certain privileges, political visibility, and institutional access. But what happens to ordinary citizens? What about students, workers, women, farmers, and other groups who do not have the resources or political connections available to established leaders? If elected representatives face such obstacles while attempting to exercise their democratic rights, one can imagine the difficulties confronting ordinary people.
The procedures for organising protests have become so complicated and intimidating that even a small, sector-specific demonstration by unknown or relatively unorganised groups can become extremely difficult to arrange. Jantar Mantar once represented a miniature India, reflecting the country's democratic vibrancy and diversity. People from different backgrounds gathered there to express their grievances, demand justice, and make their voices heard. Whether their demands were ultimately accepted was a different matter. What mattered was the feeling that they had a space where they could speak, organise marches, and express dissent.
That sense of being heard was itself an important part of democratic life. Even when a protest did not immediately achieve its objectives, people could take satisfaction in having exercised their constitutional rights. When that limited space for expression begins to disappear, the damage extends beyond the immediate concerns of any particular group. It undermines the public's confidence in the democratic system itself.
Opposition leaders have also organised a mass sit-in at Rajghat and met President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan to raise their concerns. It is encouraging that several opposition parties have come together, although some notable absences remain. Does this emerging cooperation indicate the possibility of a new political alliance? That question remains open. The opposition's efforts to approach constitutional authorities, including the Chief Justice of India, could prove significant if they lead to a wider discussion about electoral accountability and institutional independence.
However, the issue is not confined to the opposition. Union Minister Chirag Paswan's response to the emerging youth protests offers an indication of the political establishment's thinking on the matter. Equally significant are the observations and criticism associated with former BJP president Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, whose words of advice and criticism may not sit comfortably with the party's top leadership. When concerns about democratic functioning emerge even from within a party's own political tradition, they deserve serious consideration rather than dismissal.
My point is simple: in a democracy, people must be allowed to protest. It is reasonable for the police to seek advance information about the nature, location, and expected scale of a gathering so that adequate security arrangements can be made and traffic movement managed. Beyond these legitimate administrative responsibilities, however, the political executive must take responsibility for dealing with public grievances.
The crisis in India is that political executives want to enjoy the fruits of power and take far-reaching decisions without accepting responsibility for their failures. The government wants to claim credit for every small success but frequently shows little willingness to acknowledge mistakes or confront public dissatisfaction. Political accountability cannot function in this manner.
It is not the responsibility of the police to decide which political affiliations protesters should have or which causes deserve to be heard. Their duty is to maintain public order, protect citizens, and facilitate peaceful assemblies within the framework of the Constitution. The police must not become an instrument for suppressing political opposition or discouraging citizens from exercising their fundamental rights.
There is wider discontent across the country, and the restrictions imposed on public protest are part of a larger pattern of concern about civil liberties. India is among the countries where internet access has repeatedly been suspended by the authorities. The frequency of these shutdowns raises serious questions about the government's approach to freedom of expression, access to information, and public communication. Such restrictions affect not only political activists but also students, workers, businesses, journalists, and ordinary citizens.
A democracy cannot claim to be confident in its institutions while repeatedly restricting the channels through which citizens communicate their grievances. The irony of Indian democracy is that it can bring to power leaders who have benefited enormously from democratic mobilisation but appear increasingly uncomfortable with the freedoms that make such mobilisation possible. Electoral mandates are important, but they do not confer unlimited authority. A large majority does not absolve a government of its constitutional responsibilities.
The growing controversy surrounding the Chief Election Commissioner has added another dimension to the crisis. Demands for accountability and calls for resignation have intensified political tensions. Any such demand must be considered within the applicable constitutional and legal framework, but the underlying concerns about the credibility of the Election Commission cannot simply be ignored. Continued uncertainty and the absence of a satisfactory response risk deepening the crisis of public confidence.
The BJP, in particular, should understand the political significance of mass movements. The party's own rise was shaped by popular mobilisation, especially the campaign surrounding Ayodhya, which drew upon religious sentiment and helped transform India's political landscape. The party cannot invoke the rule of law selectively while overlooking the contentious questions surrounding the conduct of movements that contributed to its rise.
The BJP's political growth was also facilitated by the failure of the Congress to understand and respond adequately to popular discontent. The ruling party now faces a challenge with certain parallels to the crisis experienced by the Congress in the aftermath of the Anna Hazare movement and the protests following the Nirbhaya case. Those episodes demonstrated how public anger, particularly when channelled through youth mobilisation, can alter the political landscape and undermine the credibility of an established government.
There are important differences between these political moments. The Congress's political managers failed to respond effectively to the emerging public mood, contributing to the party's decline. The BJP, by contrast, remains politically organised, retains considerable resources, and continues to fight to preserve its position. It has not given up. Nevertheless, no party can assume that its political dominance will protect it indefinitely from public dissatisfaction. The failure to recognise changing public expectations can become a serious political liability, regardless of electoral strength.
Whatever the eventual outcome of the present controversy, the credibility of the Election Commission and India's electoral system has been shaken. This is a serious matter that demands a meaningful response. The Election Commission must take the initiative to engage with the concerns being raised and provide credible answers. Restoring public confidence requires transparency, accountability, and a demonstrated commitment to institutional independence.
India's democracy and its constitutional institutions face a significant challenge. Will these institutions uphold their historic responsibilities, or will they continue with business as usual? Will they assert their autonomy when it matters most, or will they allow political expediency to determine their conduct?
These are consequential times for Indian democracy. Institutions must rise to the occasion, defend their independence, and act in the best interests of the nation and its Constitution. The right to peaceful protest is not a concession granted by those in power; it is an essential component of democratic citizenship. Governments may disagree with protesters, political parties may challenge their demands, and public opinion may remain divided. None of this justifies turning peaceful dissent into a problem of law and order.
The strength of a democracy lies not merely in its ability to conduct elections, but in its willingness to protect those who question the exercise of power. The real test of India's democratic institutions is whether they can uphold this principle even when doing so becomes politically inconvenient.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments