top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

What Is Driving Europe’s Unrest?

Images of destruction can overshadow the grievances that brought people onto the streets. France has seen hundreds of thousands take to the streets. While most protests have been peaceful, some groups have engaged in arson, vandalism and looting. Belgium has seen its own confrontations, while grievances over housing, education, wages, energy prices and public services are surfacing across Europe. What links these protests is the convergence of different grievances. In France, student anger...

What Is Driving Europe’s Unrest?

Images of destruction can overshadow the grievances that brought people onto the streets. France has seen hundreds of thousands take to the streets. While most protests have been peaceful, some groups have engaged in arson, vandalism and looting. Belgium has seen its own confrontations, while grievances over housing, education, wages, energy prices and public services are surfacing across Europe. What links these protests is the convergence of different grievances. In France, student anger over teacher shortages, overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating facilities helped spark protests that drew in teachers, workers and trade unions. Concerns soon widened to inflation, housing, fuel prices, pensions, declining public services and distrust of government. In Belgium, education reforms, austerity and rising higher education costs have fuelled student anger, merging with wider discontent. Across Europe, accumulated grievances are finding a common outlet in street protests. The Roots of Anger For years, Europeans counted on affordable education, reliable public services and a better future for the next generation. That confidence is fading. Rising energy bills, housing and education costs, and job insecurity are straining households, while indebted governments struggle to fund healthcare, pensions, defence and welfare. Despite their wealth, many Europeans feel insecure as the opportunities and safety nets they once took for granted weaken. Immigration and Identity The unrest cannot simply be labelled an immigrant or religious uprising, nor can all protest violence be blamed on migrants. But immigration and integration remain part of the debate. Migration, asylum, national identity and religion have long divided European opinion. Questions about how many newcomer countries can integrate, the demands placed on migrants and the sustainability of welfare systems remain contentious. Economic pressures over jobs, housing and public services can deepen these tensions. Critics of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen argue that permissive migration policies have weakened borders and strained public services. The Commission points to tighter screening, border procedures and returns under the EU’s new migration framework. The unrest could intensify calls for stricter migration policies across Europe. Who Leads the Protest? Social media can turn a local grievance into a mass protest within hours, without a political party or formal leadership. Peaceful demonstrations can be disrupted by extremists, agitators or opportunistic criminals, shifting attention from the original demands to violence and looting. Images of destruction can overshadow the grievances that brought people onto the streets. Governments then face a difficult question: who speaks for a leaderless crowd? Unlike trade unions or political movements, digitally mobilised groups may have no leaders who can negotiate or call off protests. With no clear chain of command, even a genuine attempt at dialogue may struggle to reach the people on the streets. When violence disrupts legitimate demonstrations, distinguishing democratic dissent from organised disorder becomes harder. The economic fallout can be widespread. Blocked roads disrupt transport, strikes affect supplies, and violence hurts businesses and tourism while raising policing costs. Social disruption can thus become a powerful tool of political pressure. What Happens Next? Europe faces a difficult balance. More riot police may restore order, but governments must also address the grievances behind the unrest. Legitimate grievances do not justify violence, just as public disorder should not be used to dismiss peaceful protest. That means tackling housing costs, declining public services, education and energy insecurity, while enforcing clear migration and integration policies. Governments must also address public concerns rather than dismiss them as extremism, leaving political extremes free to exploit them. Protests in France and Belgium may fade, but economic insecurity, political grievances, misinformation and online mobilisation will remain challenges. The question is not just how to stop the unrest, but why so much discontent has built up. Recent protests in Delhi, Mumbai and other Indian cities offer a limited comparison. Despite different grievances, social media has shown how quickly discontent can move from smartphones to the streets. Mobilisations around electoral roll revisions, including those backed by opposition parties, are part of democratic politics. India’s institutions have so far absorbed such episodes without major disruption. Claims of foreign interference, however, require evidence. The causes and scale of unrest differ between India and Europe, even if the methods of mobilisation share similarities. (The writer is an advocate, legal, geopolitical and public policy analyst. Views personal.)

Sacred Attire

Correspondent
Jan 29, 2025
2 min read

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page