“The right to protest is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. Citizens must have the freedom to voice their concerns, challenge governments and demand accountability. Throughout India’s history, protests have played a vital role in shaping public policy and correcting political excesses. Many of the rights and freedoms enjoyed today are the result of citizens taking to the streets and making their voices heard.
However, democracy also demands responsibility. A protest loses its moral authority when violence enters the picture. Public property belongs to taxpayers, not governments. Attacks on police personnel, destruction of infrastructure and disorder on the streets do not strengthen a cause.”
The scenes witnessed in New Delhi during the CJP protest on Monday should concern every citizen who values democracy. What began as a demonstration by thousands of young people ended in confrontation, allegations of police excesses, reports of violence, injuries and chaos on the streets of the national capital.
As expected, political narratives have quickly taken over. One side blames the protesters for turning aggressive. The other accuses the authorities of suppressing democratic dissent. Yet beyond the blame game lies a deeper and more uncomfortable question: what does this episode say about the state of Indian democracy?
The right to protest is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. Citizens must have the freedom to voice their concerns, challenge governments and demand accountability. Throughout India’s history, protests have played a vital role in shaping public policy and correcting political excesses. Many of the rights and freedoms enjoyed today are the result of citizens taking to the streets and making their voices heard.
However, democracy also demands responsibility. A protest loses its moral authority when violence enters the picture. Public property belongs to taxpayers, not governments. Attacks on police personnel, destruction of infrastructure and disorder on the streets do not strengthen a cause. They distract attention from the issues being raised and allow the focus to shift from public grievances to law and order.
At the same time, governments must understand that public anger cannot be managed solely through barricades, restrictions and force. When large numbers of people gather to express frustration, the response should not be limited to crowd control. The real challenge is addressing the reasons why people are angry in the first place.
What makes the CJP protest significant is not merely the violence that followed. It is the sentiment behind the mobilisation. Across the country, many young people are expressing concerns about employment opportunities, examination systems, rising competition and their future prospects. Whether these concerns are fully justified or not, they are real in the minds of those expressing them.
Democracies become vulnerable when governments dismiss public dissatisfaction as mere politics. Citizens may tolerate hardship, but they rarely tolerate the feeling that they are not being heard.
This is where comparisons with countries like Nepal and Sri Lanka inevitably emerge.
India is fundamentally different from both nations. Its economy is larger, its institutions are more established and its democratic traditions are deeper. There is no immediate reason to suggest that India is heading towards the kind of political upheaval witnessed in those countries.
Yet history teaches an important lesson. Political instability rarely appears overnight. It often begins with growing public frustration, widening trust deficits and a perception that those in power are disconnected from the concerns of ordinary citizens.
The danger is not that India will suddenly become another Nepal or Sri Lanka. The danger lies in assuming that public discontent can be ignored indefinitely.
Governments often measure success through economic indicators, infrastructure projects and electoral victories. Citizens, however, measure success through their daily experiences. They judge governments based on opportunities, fairness, transparency and hope for the future.
When that hope begins to weaken, protests become more frequent. When concerns remain unaddressed, anger becomes more organised. And when communication between the rulers and the ruled breaks down, confrontation becomes inevitable.
The events in Delhi should therefore be viewed as a warning, not merely a law and order incident. They should prompt introspection among both the government and protest organisers.
The government must recognise that listening is often more effective than policing. Protesters must recognise that peaceful demonstrations are more powerful than violent confrontations. Democracy requires both sides to exercise restraint.
India’s strength has always been its ability to accommodate disagreement without descending into chaos. That strength must not be taken for granted.
The real test of democracy is not how it functions when everyone agrees. It is how it responds when people are angry.
Monday’s events should remind us that public anger can be controlled temporarily, but it can only be resolved through dialogue, accountability and trust. Without those ingredients, even the strongest democracies can find themselves facing questions they never expected to answer.
Sorry, there was a YouTube error.
