By Arun Srivastava
Democratic protest has lost its constitutional relevance and moral values in India and the various democratic institutions have been facing the threat of extinction, is clearly manifest in reluctance of the centre to talk to CJP protestors and especially Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on indefinite hunger strike for last 17 days in the support of CJP demands. Wangchuk has not resorted to hunger strike for some personal gain. He has been the voice of the 22 lakh students who have been the victims of the NEET paper leak.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintains a passive silence as climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s indefinite hunger strike reaches its 17th day at Jantar Mantar. Fasting in support of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), Wangchuk is demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over national examination irregularities. The CJP-led protests demand the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET paper leak controversy and alleged on-screen marking irregularities. Protesters are also asking for ₹1 crore in compensation for the families of students who died by suicide.
Demonstrators have scheduled a march to Parliament for July 20, 2026, which coincides with the opening day of the Monsoon Session. The CJP released an open letter urging Modi to break his silence. But Modi has refused to be engaged. The protest has also gained backing from opposition leaders, including Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray, AAP, CPI, CPM and C PI(ML). Student protests at Jantar Mantar demanding accountability for alleged examination irregularities have intensified.
Addressing the protesters, Wangchuk stressed the need for accountability; “If we are forcefully removed, it would be a blot on India internationally that peaceful protesters were removed”. The CJP also released an open letter to Modi, urging him to break what it called his ‘resounding silence’ over the agitation and hold Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan accountable for alleged examination paper leaks and student suicides. The letter said Wangchuk’s hunger strike was intended to exert ‘moral pressure’ on the government and questioned why there had been no response despite 15 days of protests.
Fascism is widely defined as a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology. The defining characteristics of fascist regimes and movements typically include: The belief that individual interests are entirely subordinate to the good of the state or race; Reliance on dictatorial power, strongman leaders, and the suppression of political opposition; The glorification of violence, warfare, and aggressive suppression of dissent to achieve political and social goals and A belief in natural selection and social hierarchy, which often justifies the dehumanization or elimination of minority groups and political opponents.
NDA government, especially the PM is playing with the fire. He is not willing to lend his ears to the ground and listen to the vibration. He ought to realise that the CJP is not an organized party or movement, but is a spontaneous “undercurrent” and “moment” that captures the deep-seated frustration and despair among India’s youth regarding unemployment and governance. Modi would be committing hara-kiri by dismissing CJP’s protest as a social media fad. It may not be an political alternative, but like the Gen Z protests in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh it has the viability to trigger a protracted struggle. PM and the Home Minister Amit Shah must not measure CJP’s impact using conventional political analysis. Modi must find a way to react to the CJP, away from the usual political cynicism or strategic distancing.
Wangchuk has been practitioner of Gandhian ideology. Since he represents the cause of the students, there was no reason for PM not to listen to him. In all fairness Modi should have approached Wangchuk and offered an assurance to look into his demand. Nevertheless his unwillingness reflects his arrogance and deep apathy and hatred PM nurses for the democratic protest and rights. Often an autocratic political establishment perceives pro humane stance as sign of weakness. Rightist fascist forces view it as compromise– on political goals or backtracking on major policies—which demonstrates a lack of authority.
During his 12 year rule Modi has cultivated a “strongman” image, any concession or pivot to negotiations can be easily perceived by the public as a political capitulation. For Modi the personal image is of more political importance than talking to Wangchuk in national interest. While citizens still possess the fundamental right to protest under Article 19 of the Constitution, the NDA led administration utilises rigorous policing, internet shutdowns, and preventive detentions to manage and suppress dissent. International watchdogs and civil liberties organizations have frequently expressed concern that the space for civil society and dissent is shrinking, occasionally characterizing India’s political system as an “electoral autocracy”.
But PM is unmoved of Wangchuk’s moral and political protest. This is the trait of the rightist forces. Something similar has happened in Bengal. Saffron rightist government had taken away the Constitutional right of the people to protest and defend themselves by enacting two “anti-goonda” bills; the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, and the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2026, on June 29. The chief minister of Bengal justifying enactment of the two Acts said “it was needed to rein in the “communist harmads from the 34 years of Left rule and the Trinamool goons from the 15 Mamata Banerjee years. For 15 years, there was a government of goons, and before that, there was a government of harmads,”
It is absolutely clear that democratic protests have become irrelevant in “Modi raj” and space for democratic dissent has sharply shrunk. People have been witness to the centre’s averseness to the democratic protests. Anti-CAA demonstrations, extensive farmers’ protests and CJP protest against paper leak, faced heavy-handed policing, internet shutdowns at protest sites, and the heavy use of preventive detentions. Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s prolonged hunger strike has become a flashpoint for intense debate. While these protests reflect widespread demands for regional autonomy, environmental protection, and educational accountability, these also point to total absence of democracy. Indifference toward high-profile hunger strikes is seen by many as a refusal by the ruling establishment to engage with dissenting voices, which goes against the spirit of a participatory democracy. The people cannot expect and even demand accountability.
Democratic protest in India remains a vital, constitutionally protected right, but unfortunately its effectiveness is gradually being blunted. While mass demonstrations can force government concessions, critics argue that state crackdowns, media suppression, and internet shutdowns frequently hinder the impact of street-level dissent in the modern era. Authorities frequently rely on measures like internet shutdowns, mass detentions, and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to disrupt or penalize activists, leading to concerns over democratic backsliding. (IPA Service)
