A Protest Needs an Outcome

The protests at Jantar Mantar have brought together students, activists and political leaders over the NEET paper leak. Actors and filmmakers have offered support, the latest being Salman Khan (the actor, not the educator). The anger is understandable. An examination on which millions stake years of preparation cannot become a commodity available to those with money, influence or access.

But what, precisely, must the protest achieve? “Improve education” cannot be its demand. It is a worthy aspiration, but too vast to negotiate. Education encompasses teachers, curricula, examinations, infrastructure, regulation, funding and access. No government can say when it has “improved education” enough and no protester can establish when that promise has been fulfilled.

Even India’s Independence movement, despite its enormous moral canvas, had an unambiguous objective: freedom from British rule. The movements within that struggle were more specific. The Salt March challenged the salt laws. Non-Cooperation sought withdrawal from institutions sustaining colonial authority.

Restoring Integrity

The larger cause at Jantar Mantar may be the state of Indian education. But the subject of this protest is the integrity of public examinations. The state invited students to compete and promised that their performance - and not money or privileged access - would determine the result. A paper leak breaches that promise. The immediate demand must therefore be an examination system whose integrity can be independently established.

The government’s defence is that it acted by arresting the alleged perpetrators and holding a re-examination. But these necessary actions hardly indicate that the system has changed.

Every paper leak follows a familiar script of outrage, arrests, investigations, re-examinations and solemn assurances. But accountability seldom travels beyond the immediate culprits to those who designed, supervised and were entrusted with safeguarding the examination system.

Arrests merely acknowledge that the crime has already been committed. Re-examinations compel honest students to pay a second time with their time, money and mental anguish for the state’s failure.

The consequences extend beyond examination security. A leak tells students that effort may not produce opportunity. It tells parents that years of sacrifice can be defeated by money and access. For students without wealth, connections or a private route into higher education, a fair examination may be the only counterweight to inherited privilege.

This is why the relative absence of educators from the public conversation is striking. Students, activists, politicians and celebrities are visible. But where are the collective voices of teachers, principals, educators, university leaders and educational institutions?

Perhaps they are speaking and are not being reported. That is revealing in itself: a celebrity’s support is considered news while an educator’s judgement is not. But if educators are largely silent, their absence is more troubling.

Teachers ask students to believe that preparation matters. Principals defend the credibility of the institutions they lead. Universities admit students on the assurance that examinations distinguish merit fairly. When that assurance collapses, educators cannot remain sympathetic spectators. Celebrities can amplify anger and politicians can convert it into pressure. Educators must explain what has been broken and help define the repair. Silence is not neutrality when the credibility of one’s profession is being contested.

Restoring Confidence

Identifying those responsible for the leak is only one part of the state’s response. Restoring confidence in the examination system is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. It must bring students, teachers, principals, assessment experts, universities and parents into a structured dialogue - not merely to record their grievances, but to define the safeguards and accountability required before the next national examination. That process must be led by the person at the helm of education. An Education Minister must see a breach of the social contract between the state and the student.

Political will is visible not only in policies and budgets, but also in whom a government chooses to lead a department. External Affairs, Home, Defence and Finance are led by figures whose political weight is evident. We may disagree with them, but we do not doubt the importance assigned to their portfolios.

India’s history with education presents a different pattern. Most education ministers since Independence have come from political, legal or administrative careers; only a handful possessed substantial experience in education or academic policy. This does not mean that only educationists can lead the ministry. It means education has too often been treated as a department to administer rather than a complex system requiring domain-informed leadership and sustained political ownership.

The question is therefore larger than whether Dharmendra Pradhan resigns. If he understands the leak as an institutional failure, he must demonstrate it through public ownership and measurable reform. If he sees it merely as a crime for investigators to solve, the demand for his removal becomes a demand for someone capable of recognising what has actually been broken.

A resignation may establish that failure carries a political cost. It cannot be the only outcome. Changing the minister without changing the system would be one more transaction.

The government need not create another institution or promise to transform education overnight. It must take two immediate actions. First, commission an independent, time-bound audit of the examination chain and publish where it failed, who was responsible and what action followed.

Second, require the Education Ministry to place an examination-integrity framework before Parliament ahead of the next national examination, followed by a public report after every major examination detailing breaches, complaints, action taken and vulnerabilities that remain. One establishes the truth about what happened. The other prevents accountability from disappearing when the protest ends.

The students at Jantar Mantar have already transformed private anxiety into organised pressure. Their protest cannot transform Indian education in its entirety. But it can compel the state to restore one foundational promise: when it asks a student to compete, it will guarantee an honest competition.

That is specific enough to win and significant enough to begin changing everything around it.

(The writer is a learning and development professional. Views personal)