“Today, many young protesters confuse aggression with activism. Social media has amplified this trend. The louder the abuse, the greater the attention. The more offensive the statement, the more viral the clip. But viral fame is not the same as meaningful political engagement.
Criticising the Prime Minister is every citizen’s democratic right. In fact, democracy demands that those in power face constant questioning and criticism. Government policies must be debated, challenged and even condemned where necessary. But criticism is entirely different from personal abuse.
Zero FIR Was Avoidable. So Was the Student’s Conduct
The registration of a Zero FIR against a student protester for allegedly using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sparked a predictable political divide. One side sees it as an attack on free speech. The other justifies it as necessary to uphold the dignity of public office. Lost in this shouting match is a simple truth: the entire controversy could have been avoided had the student exercised basic restraint and responsibility.
The young protester did not become the centre of national attention because she raised an important issue. She became the headline because of the language she allegedly used. That is a lesson every student activist should remember.
Students have historically been the conscience of society. They have challenged governments, fought injustice and influenced national policy. Their strength has never come from abusing political leaders. It has come from the power of their ideas. From the freedom movement to protests against corruption and educational reforms, successful student movements earned public respect because they combined courage with discipline.
Unfortunately, that standard appears to be slipping.
Today, many young protesters confuse aggression with activism. Social media has amplified this trend. The louder the abuse, the greater the attention. The more offensive the statement, the more viral the clip. But viral fame is not the same as meaningful political engagement.
Criticising the Prime Minister is every citizen’s democratic right. In fact, democracy demands that those in power face constant questioning and criticism. Government policies must be debated, challenged and even condemned where necessary. But criticism is entirely different from personal abuse.
Once a protest crosses that line, it loses its moral authority.
Instead of discussing the concerns that brought students onto the streets, the nation ends up debating one individual’s offensive remarks. The original cause suffers while opponents find an opportunity to dismiss the entire movement. The student, therefore, does not merely damage her own credibility. She weakens the credibility of every genuine protester standing beside her.
This is precisely what appears to have happened in the present case.
The registration of a Zero FIR has now become the bigger story than the students’ demands. Whether one agrees with the legal action or not, it was the protester’s conduct that handed authorities the opportunity to shift the conversation from public issues to criminal proceedings.
That is why responsibility matters.
Freedom of speech is one of India’s greatest constitutional guarantees. But it is not a licence for vulgarity. Every right carries corresponding responsibilities. Students, who aspire to shape the country’s future, should be held to an even higher standard than ordinary political workers. They are expected to persuade society through facts, logic and conviction, not through insults.
The student should have realised that the Prime Minister is not merely an individual politician but the holder of the country’s highest elected office. Disagreeing with the office holder is legitimate. Humiliating the office through abusive language lowers the quality of democratic debate.
Educational institutions also have a role to play. Colleges must encourage critical thinking while also teaching constitutional values, civility and respectful disagreement. Student politics should produce future lawmakers and administrators, not social media influencers chasing viral outrage.
Political parties, too, deserve criticism when they celebrate abusive rhetoric simply because it targets their rivals. Decency cannot be selective. If abusive language is condemned against one leader, it must be condemned against every leader, regardless of political affiliation.
The police action will continue to be debated in courts and television studios. Legal experts will argue whether a Zero FIR was appropriate in these circumstances. But that discussion should not distract from the more fundamental issue.
The student herself crossed a line.
Had she expressed her anger firmly but respectfully, her message may have received widespread sympathy. Instead, abusive language transformed a political protest into a law and order issue. That is a loss not only for her but for the larger cause she claimed to represent.
Student activism remains one of democracy’s greatest strengths. But activism demands maturity as much as passion. Young protesters must understand that words carry consequences. They can inspire change, but they can also destroy credibility in an instant.
The Zero FIR may now become a legal matter. The student’s conduct, however, remains a lesson in how not to protest. In a democracy, the strongest voice is not the one that abuses the loudest. It is the one that argues with dignity and leaves the government with no excuse to change the subject.
