A protest for a genuine cause or problem earns public sympathy by appealing to the nation’s conscience. It begins to lose it the moment its members indiscriminately start abusing the nation’s institutions. That is where the CJP agitation now stands. It has outlived its purpose. The movement began with a legitimate grievance against the NEET paper leak and demanded some systemic education reforms. Millions of students deserve an examination system that is transparent, secure and immune to manipulation. The government has acknowledged that imperative. Activists Sonam Wangchuk has ended his fast after receiving assurances that the Centre is prepared to engage. The issue has dominated headlines for weeks. But success in a democracy is not merely forcing the government to listen, it is also knowing when to stop shouting. The CJP agitation has disturbingly drifted into something altogether different. What started as a student movement has resembled a full-blown political mobilisation with students as its public face. For nearly three weeks the protests remained largely peaceful. The escalation coincided with Parliament’s session and the arrival of political parties eager to turn a campus issue into a national confrontation. Equally disturbing was the descent in public discourse. Protesters were heard using obscene and deeply offensive abuse against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In any democracy, citizens are free to criticise their elected leaders in the strongest political terms. But vulgar personal abuse is not dissent. The inevitable question now is whether this remains a movement of students or one increasingly directed by professional agitators and political interests. How many of those leading confrontations are candidates anxious about competitive examinations? How many are seasoned protesters who migrate from one agitation to another, regardless of the issue? Those are legitimate questions that deserve answers. The law must distinguish carefully between peaceful dissent and criminal violence. Students marching peacefully deserve protection. Those who assaulted police personnel, vandalised public property or incited violence deserve prosecution. Organisers who encouraged lawlessness should face accountability irrespective of their political affiliations. Governments, too, have obligations. They must deliver credible examination reforms, prosecute those responsible for paper leaks and restore confidence in institutions that determine the futures of millions of young Indians. But the protesters have an obligation as well. A movement that has secured national attention, compelled governmental engagement and placed its concerns firmly on the public agenda has achieved its strategic objective. Persisting with confrontation serves diminishing public interest and growing political opportunism. Every successful protest reaches a moment when continuing becomes counterproductive. The CJP agitation has reached that moment. It should end before history remembers it not for the students who began it, but for the disorder that consumed it.
Comments